LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR 2009 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida, Chair 

BARBARA LEE, California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

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

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

RAY LAHOOD, Illinois 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

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

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

TOM FORHAN, Staff Assistant 

PART 2 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

41–290 WASHINGTON : 2008 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
2 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

ROBERT E. ‘‘BUD’’ CRAMER, JR., Alabama 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

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

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

RALPH REGULA, Ohio 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JAMES T. WALSH, New York 

DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio 

JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, 

New Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania 

VIRGIL H. GOODE, JR., Virginia 

RAY LAHOOD, Illinois 

DAVE WELDON, Florida 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

ROB NABORS, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2009 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2008. 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER 

WITNESSES 

STEPHEN T. AYERS, AIA, ACTING ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

BERNARD UNGAR, CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER PROJECT EXECUTIVE, 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

TERRIE S. ROUSE, CEO FOR VISITOR SERVICES FOR THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

TERRELL DORN, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

CHAIR OPENING REMARKS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would like to call this hearing to 

order for the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch of the Committee on Appropriations. It is a pleasure to be here with everybody this morning. This is our eighth oversight hearing on the Capitol Visitor Center. It has been just about a year since we started 

these monthly oversight hearings, and I have been really proud of 

the progress that we have made. We have been able to get this 

project back on track and headed towards a landing on time so to 

speak, at least the definition of ‘‘on time’’ that we established about 

a year ago, and we have been able to stick to the number of $621 

million that was settled on by GAO and the CVC team and the Architect of the Capitol. 

But, of course, now is not the time for us to be complacent. We 

need to continue to be diligent and focus hard on making sure that 

we can open the CVC for the November target that we have been 

talking about for quite some time now. 

I am really pleased to welcome our new ranking member, Mr. 

Latham of Iowa. It will be a pleasure to work with you. I know that 

you have a lot of experience on the Appropriations Committee and 

look forward to having your input and advice and continue the 

wonderful working relationship I had with Mr. Wamp, who we will 

miss, who did an amazing job on this committee helping me keep 

an eye on the CVC and also be a good steward of the facilities that 

we are responsible for in the Capitol complex and the Legislative 

Branch agencies. 

So that having been said, Mr. Latham, your opening remarks. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
2 

OPENING REMARKS—CONGRESSMAN LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and it is 

a pleasure and honor to be on this committee that I served on 

when I first came to the Appropriations Committee about 12 years 

ago, I served on the legislative branch and I want to continue the 

bipartisan efforts that I felt at that time because it was a great experience to learn so much about the workings of our environment 

here, and I look forward to working with you. I appreciate your 

kindness yesterday with the chocolate cake and everything, I had 

a chance to sit down, visit and get better acquainted. I really look 

forward to it. 

I would like to introduce Doug Bobbitt back here who actually 

did this bill about 25 years ago. I look forward to working with you 

and the staff. I cannot be here and not thank Zach Wamp for his 

help and the information that he’s given me, and I look forward to 

following in that tradition of working together, because this is extraordinarily important for the operations and obviously the safety 

of our campus here and everything that we do. 

Mr. Ayers, I appreciate the tour yesterday. It looks like we are 

making tremendous progress and you should be commended for 

what has happened in the last year. I think that the subcommittee 

has played a large role in that also, as far as keeping everyone’s 

feet to the fire. I look forward it, the progress that is being made 

there and really appreciate the chance to be a part of this, thank 

you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome, we look forward to 

working with you. 

I also would be remiss if I didn’t thank Congressman Virgil 

Goode for his service on the subcommittee. He has also moved and 

is now on the Subcommittee for Financial Services. It was a pleasure to work with him, however briefly, and I am glad to have Mr. 

LaHood here as well, who is our veteran member of the subcommittee. 

We have had a really wonderful tradition on this subcommittee 

of bipartisan cooperation and that has been the case with the CVC, 

and I know it will be the case as we move through the budget hearings that will be coming up over the next several weeks. 

With that, I would like to welcome the witnesses that are here 

today who at this point probably need no introduction: Stephen 

Ayers, the Acting Architect of the Capitol; Bernie Ungar, the CVC 

Project Executive; Terry Dorn, the Director of Physical Infrastructure issues at GAO; and Terrie Rouse, the CEO of Visitor Services 

at the CVC. 

The witnesses’ statements will be in the record and we will proceed under the 5-minute rule. If you can summarize your statements we would appreciate it, and then I look forward to taking 

questions from the members. Mr. Ayers. 

OPENING STATEMENT—STEPHEN AYERS

Mr. AYERS. Good morning, and thank you, Madam Chair, Congressman Latham, and members of the subcommittee. It was one 

year ago that I began serving as Acting Architect and nearly a year 

ago that I first testified before this subcommittee. I am pleased to 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
3 

say that much has changed over the past year, and much progress 

has been made. I would like to thank the subcommittee for their 

support and guidance on this project over the course of that past 

year. 

I, too, would like to welcome Congressman Latham to the subcommittee, and look forward to working with you, sir. I would like 

also to offer my thanks to Congressman Wamp for his exceptional 

and unparalleled knowledge of the history of the Capitol building, 

his clear professionalism and bipartisan spirit. He’s played a very 

important role on this committee as well as on this project. His 

work is very much appreciated. 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OVER THE PAST YEAR

In the past year, we have worked with GAO and reached agreement on an estimated cost to complete figure of $621 million and 

an opening date of November 2008, on which both agencies fully 

agree. We also established and met a November 15th, 2007 substantial completion date, effectively stemming project delays and 

associated delay costs which assured that the complex fire and lifesafety testing process could begin on schedule on November 16th. 

FIRE ALARM ACCEPTANCE TESTING

We are making good progress on this final Fire Alarm Acceptance Testing, and since our last hearing, we have completed or are 

well under way with the testing of a number of systems and devices, including emergency generators, fire pumps, fire dampers, 

sprinkler systems, FM 200 suppression systems, kitchen hoods, the 

pollution control system, elevators and escalators. 

These are very complex and sophisticated tests and the systems 

are performing well. We are pleased with the overall project and 

we remain on schedule. As expected, minor progress with the Fire 

Alarm and Control System have arisen but have been quickly corrected by the contractor. 

We are currently addressing a short-circuit test and analysis 

where a portion of the fire alarm system is not responding as we 

would have expected. We don’t expect this to affect our completion 

date and are poised to address it and future issues as they arise. 

MINOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

There are five remaining areas of the CVC where Minor Construction activities continue. These include the Library of Congress 

Tunnel, the House Hearing Room, the East Front, the exterior 

grounds, and the House and Senate atria stairs. All other construction activities are complete, have been inspected, and the contractor is working on punch list activity. As you know, none of 

these will affect our testing and acceptance program and none of 

them will affect our completion date. 

In the stairwell atriums, masons have completed stone work and 

are making minor adjustments to the precast terrazzo stair treads 

and handrails. In the East Front, crews completed the gallery level 

ceiling plaster work and masons have completed the stone insulation around the rotunda door and are making good progress on the 

floor stone installation on the gallery level. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
4 

Outside construction trailers are being removed from the south 

egg so landscaping can begin there in the near future. Paver installation is ongoing on the east side of the site and repair work to the 

pavers closer to the Capitol Building, where they were damaged, 

will begin this spring. 

While fire alarm testing is ongoing, we have been completing 

construction activities in these five remaining areas. While some 

schedule slippages have occurred in these areas, we expect all of 

this basic interior work to be done by the end of May 2008 and it 

will not affect our ability to open the CVC in November 2008 nor 

will it affect our cost to complete figure of $621 million. 

PUNCH LIST ITEMS

Crews are working to complete punch list items such as mill 

work, wall stone, floor stone and ceiling panels. A further indication that we are successfully transitioning from a construction 

project to a visitor services operation is that audio visual technicians are now on site, adjusting the projection systems and projection screens in the Orientation Theaters. All of the exhibit cabinetry and components are in place in the exhibition hall, and restaurant furniture has been received and is in storage awaiting installation. 

We are pleased with the overall progress, and at this time, believe we are on schedule to receive a temporary certificate of occupancy on July 31st, as planned. Between November and January 

30th, 70 Change Orders have been settled. Since our last hearing, 

the magnitude of Change Order proposals being received has continued to diminish, with most of the proposals coming in at below 

$10,000. 

CVC OPERATIONS

Madam Chair, we have also been working with our oversight 

committees and congressional leadership on plans for the CVC’s 

visitor services operation. While I’ll let Ms. Rouse discuss the details of the work she has done, I would like to note that I believe 

she has made tremendous progress and has built strong relationships and coalitions in her efforts to address the numerous open 

issues. 

I have enjoyed working with this subcommittee and look forward 

to our continued work together to prepare for the official opening 

of the CVC. This project will undoubtedly enhance the visitor experience and provide the necessary amenities to the millions of people 

that visit each year. It is designed to match the Capitol in quality 

and endurance, and generations of Americans will continue to benefit from all it has to offer. That concludes my statement, I will be 

happy to answer any questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Ayers follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
5 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 41290A.001
6 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 41290A.002
7 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 41290A.003
8 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 41290A.004
9 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. Mr. Ungar, do you have 

anything to add? 

Mr. UNGAR. No, ma’am. I will respond to questions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Ms. Rouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT—TERRIE ROUSE

Ms. ROUSE. Good morning, Madam Chair, Congressman Latham, 

members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here to update 

you on the progress we have made to stand up the organization 

that will become the AOC’s Offices of Visitor Services for the CVC. 

I echo Mr. Ayers remarks concerning Congressman Wamp and 

his dedication to the success of the CVC, and welcome Congressman Latham. I look forward to our continued work on this amazing 

project as we prepare to open the CVC. Since testifying before the 

subcommittee in November and in the 5 months since I arrived in 

Washington, I have been building upon the operations plan framework that was developed by the AOC, Congressional Leadeship, 

and Oversight Committees. Essentially, we have built a new organization from the ground up that will be responsible for improving 

visitor orientation and enhancing the educational experience of 

visitors to the U.S. Capitol. 

CVC ADMINISTRATION

My first priority was to create a hiring plan and recruit a team 

of experienced professionals. This month, the first six members of 

my staff reported for duty and have hit the ground running. In addition, as Mr. Ayers reported to the subcommittee in November, 

three contracts have been awarded over the past several months. 

The first was to provide food service in the CVC restaurant, another was awarded to a small business to develop an Advanced 

Reservation System, and a third was awarded to a woman-owned 

small business for designing the CVC Web site. 

We are now developing the necessary tools to assist the public 

in finding the information they need to plan their trip to the Capitol, as well as to learn more about Congress, the legislative process, the Capitol, and the CVC. 

ADVANCED RESERVATION SYSTEM

Specifically, Members offices can more easily facilitate constituent tours by making real-time reservations for guests in the 

Orientation Theaters in order to start the new visitor experience 

with the viewing of the orientation film. The Advanced Reservations System will also assist us in reducing crowds in the Capitol 

during peak tourist season by optimizing the number of opportunities that people will have to visit the Capitol, as well as further ensure the safety of those in the building by not exceeding the maximum capacity for the Capitol. 

CVC WEBSITE

The new Web site will not only be an introduction to the CVC, 

it will serve as the primary tool in our comprehensive public education campaign to let people know about the CVC, as well as how 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
10 

to arrange a visit to the Capitol and their Members’ offices, and 

how Congress works. 

Most importantly, with millions of visitors anticipated in the 

CVC’s first year of operation, the Web site will help manage expectations by helping the visiting public become well prepared and 

well informed by providing clear, accurate and up-to-date information. 

COMMUNICATION PLAN

We are also developing a communication plan which complements the goals of the Advanced Reservation System and Web 

site by executing an effective public education campaign about the 

CVC and all it has to offer. Our communications efforts will be 

multi-faceted and will reach a variety of diverse audiences from 

Capitol Hill residents to international travelers, to Members’ offices, visitors’ bureaus, tour bus operators, to public school children. 

CAPITOL TOUR ACTION PLAN

To prepare for this influx of visitors once the CVC opens, we 

have been working with the Oversight Committees on a Capitol 

Tour Action Plan to ensure a positive visitor experience. Included 

in this plan is the introduction of a new program, the Congressional Historical Interpretive Training Program, or ‘‘CHIP’’. CHIP 

training is being designed to facilitate the Congressional need to 

have all staff giving tours appropriately trained to conduct constituent tours of the historic Capitol Building and the CVC exhibits; provide for the safety needs of constituents; and ensure that information provided is correctly and accurately portrayed and interpreted. 

After receiving CHIP training, congressional staff will be properly equipped to lead constituent tours while providing the personal touch and including local flavor on tours that is preferred by 

Members of Congress. 

PROGRAMS AND EVENTS

Madam Chair, along with these exciting initiatives we have been 

developing a series of first year programs and events which we 

would launch on opening day of the CVC. These programs would 

reflect the important impact of the Constitution, Congress, and our 

legislative process on the growth and evolution of our Nation and 

the Federal Government. By orchestrating these special events and 

programs, we will be able to better pace the use of the building and 

fully test our processes and procedures prior to the arrival of busloads of cherry blossom tourists and eighth graders on class trips. 

This is the standard practice when opening a major museum or 

tourist attraction, so we intend to pattern our inaugural year 

events in accordance with the industry’s best practices. 

CVC TO-DO LIST

Although we have made tremendous progress, we still have a ToDo list before the CVC’s official opening date is set. Most notably, 

Congress must pass legislation to formally establish the Office of 

the Capitol Visitor Center within the AOC. I look forward to conVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:24 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 041290 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\41290P2.XXX 41290P2

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
11 

tinuing to work with our Oversight Committees to ensure a seamless transition into the new visitor services organization. I want to, 

again, thank the Subcommittee, our Oversight Committees, Congressional Leaders and my new staff for their support and commitment to ensuring the succesful opening operation of the CVC. This 

concludes my statement, I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Ms. Rouse. 

[The statement of Ms. Rouse follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
12 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 41290A.005
13 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 41290A.006
14 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 41290A.007
15 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 41290A.008
16 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Dorn. 

OPENING STATEMENT—TERRELL DORN

Mr. DORN. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Latham, members of 

the subcommittee. I would like to start off this morning by noting 

our team is losing two of its starters this month, those that have 

been on the engagement since before construction began and survived over 20 CVC hearings. 

First I would like to recognize Mr. Bradley James, a GAO assistant director and civil engineer who is sitting here next to the Fire 

Marshal. Brad is leaving the government after over 30 years of 

Federal service with the Corps of Engineers and GAO. His insight 

on project management and suggestions for the CVC over the past 

4 years has been invaluable. 

This is also the last hearing for Mr. David Merrill, a senior analyst with our financial managment team who has been involved 

with the CVC since 2001 and has dealt with the almost monthly 

accounting and reconciliation of appropriations and obligation 

plans and estimates to make sure that there are no surprises in 

these areas. We will miss them both very much. 

PUNCH LIST ITEMS

Meanwhile work on punch list items, minor construction items 

and fire alarm testing continues. Gilbane reports that the project 

is now 99 percent complete. The punch list, however, continues to 

grow. As of yesterday, it listed over 14,000 items to be corrected. 

In fact, the punch list has more than doubled since the last hearing, and if printed out would yield a book that is about 400 pages 

long. 

Not all items on the punch list are created equally, of course, but 

as the list continues to grow, the challenge the AOC faces to complete all by November 2008 increases. For example, if the list 

stopped growing yesterday, which is highly unlikely, the AOC and 

its contractors would need to complete and reinspect over 50 punch 

list items every day of the week between now and November. 

AOC and Gilbane deserve credit for thoroughly inspecting the 

contractor’s work and creating the punch list. And if the list goes 

to 20,000 items so be it. My point is in this late stage of the project, 

99 percent complete, much remains to be done before opening. Correcting the punch list items may slow or even undo some of the 

cleaning and preparations for the opening. Continued attention in 

this area is still needed. 

NEAR-CRITICAL PATH FOCUS

Since the last hearing, work on most of the near-critical paths 

such as the East Front, exhibit gallery, and House hearing room 

have slipped and bear watching. AOC and Gilbane still expect that 

the work in these areas will be complete before the fire alarm testing is completed. 

For example, work on the East Front has slipped by another 4 

weeks, but is still scheduled to be finished more than 3 months before the Fire Marshal is scheduled to issue his temporary certificate of occupancy. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
17 

FIRE ALARM TESTING

Fire alarm testing remains the most critical activity for achieving 

the project’s certificate of occupancy making the CVC available to 

open some time in November of 2008. As AOC mentioned this 

morning, testing is ongoing. As expected, a few hiccups have occurred conducting the testing, and the CVC is working to addresss 

issues with programming and wiring. Additional cost to the project, 

if any, is still unknown. The effect on the project since the last 

hearing has been to push several activities beyond the scheduled 

date to receive a temporary certificate of occupancy from the Fire 

Marshal and has reduced the available scheduled contingency or 

float. 

Future impact to the schedule will depend on AOC’s ability to 

concurrently make changes to the fire alarm system and continue 

acceptance testing. While the AOC does maintain a schedule of fire 

alarm testing, with the amount of retesting required in some areas 

and other schedule changes, it is unclear what percent complete 

that testing actually is. AOC may want to consider developing a 

metric to reflect the level of effort remaining to get the job done. 

Ongoing discussions between AOC and the Fire Marshal and the 

Office of Compliance may find ways to reduce the amount of acceptance testing required so preparations for operations may begin 

earlier, and mitigate the cost and schedule impact of system 

changes that may continue to arise. 

OPEN CHANGE ORDERS

Almost 3 months after the AOC declared the CVC project to be 

substantially complete, over 25 percent of the PCOs open for sequence 2 are still open, along with the associated budget risk. The 

number of PCOs that are still open remains in the 400 range, but 

as Mr. Ayers said, the magnitude of each one of these changes has 

dropped. I agree. This is about the same number in total as it was 

in November of ’07. In other words, new ones have continued to 

come in at about the same rate that the CVC has been able to resolve them. 

Since the last hearing, AOC issued two unilateral contracting 

modifications to address delay issues lingering because of sequence 

1, that they were unable to resolve bilaterally with the contractors. 

It is unfortunate that the two sides were unable to come to an 

agreement, but AOC’s action is consistent with the earlier GAO 

recommendations about unresolved disputes in general. 

CVC CONSTRUCTION COST

The CVC’s estimated cost remains unchanged at $621 million, 

which includes contingency amounts for delays, change orders and 

remaining uncertainties related to the project’s fire alarm testing. 

About $566 million has been approved for CVC construction. AOC 

has $16.2 million in FY 2008 appropriations that it plans to use for 

construction after it obtains congressional approval to obligate the 

funds. 

In the budget discussions with AOC next week you may want to 

consider that AOC has estimated it will need an additional $5.9 

million in this fiscal year to fund construction. In addition, in the 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
18 

’09 budget AOC has requested $31.1 million for construction and 

this will leave them $2 million short of the $621 million estimate. 

That concludes my statement this morning, and I am prepared 

to answer any other questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Dorn follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
19 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 41290A.009
20 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 41290A.010
21 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 41290A.011
22 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 41290A.012
23 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 41290A.013
24 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 41290A.014
25 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 41290A.015
26 

STAFFING CHANGES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much, Mr. Dorn. Before 

we move into questions, Mr. Latham, with your indulgence, I do 

want to mention that we have had a staff change on your side as 

well. Jeff Shockey, who was the Deputy Staff Director of the minority side of the staff and has been lead minority staff for this subcommittee since I have been the Chair, has now moved on to be 

the minority Staff Director for the full committee. Liz Dawson, 

after a number of years of service to the committee, is now the lead 

minority staff for the subcommittee. We welcome the opportunity 

to work with you once again and continue to work with you in your 

new capacity. 

Mr. LATHAM. As well. 

STAFF-LED TOUR PROGRESS REPORT

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank you. Ms. Rouse, I want to 

start with you. We spent the bulk of the last hearing talking about 

the staff-led tour issue. As you know, the omnibus appropriations 

Act that was signed into law by the President included language 

that made sure that staff-led tours would not be eliminated, and 

that was the result of language that this committee inserted into 

the bill. 

I want to hear about the progress that you have made in planning for staff-led tours and tours in general, but I want to tailor 

my question a little more specifically. One of the main things that 

Members are concerned about and one of the main services we are 

able to provide to our constituents when they come to the Capitol 

is scheduling the Capitol tour and providing that tailored service. 

And I know that the feedback that I get and that many Members 

get from constituents, even people that I didn’t see when they were 

in the Capitol while taking their tour, they stop and thank me on 

the ball fields and in the supermarkets for the wonderful experience that my staff gave them and that was the thing that was most 

memorable for them of their time in Washington, D.C. That is obviously something we don’t want to lose or to die on the vine for lack 

of attention. So the devil is in the details in terms of how you are 

going to implement it. 

ADVANCE RESERVATION SYSTEM

I know that you issued a contract for an advance reservation system, and the design of that reservation system and how it directs 

people to sign up for tours is going to be incredibly important in 

terms of whether or not they actually get connected to their Member. I think it would be a travesty if we fail to preserve that connection. I know we had over 140 Members sign a Dear Colleague, 

along with about half of the Senate, on the importance of staff-led 

tours. 

So how do you plan to make sure that when a constituent goes 

onto the advance reservation system that they can be connected 

with their Member? When we spoke the other day you indicated 

that there would be an option on the screen to either go through 

a guide-led tour or a tour scheduled by their Member’s office, but 

I am concerned that it would be—I want to make sure that the 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
27 

screen is set up so that they most likely will go through their Member. 

Ms. ROUSE. Thank you. After our conversation, I spent a couple 

of hours with my team so I could get a clear understanding. I will 

explain to you what I understand it to be. 

There will be multiple screens. In about 6 to 8 weeks we will 

have a prototype that we will be able to beta test. As described to 

me, when someone goes to our Web site a screen will come up. In 

that screen you will have the option to go and book your own tour. 

In addition, a screen will come up that says find your House Member, find your Senator. You would then be directed to your Representative’s or Senator’s Web site, and then if someone wanted to 

book a tour, they would link into your Web site, which allows either your staff person or the individual to go ahead and book the 

tour. 

Now if your staff person is booking a tour for an individual, they 

have the option of either sending them back an e-mail confirmation 

to say they have been booked on a tour, or they can attach whatever they want to that link, whether it is support information or 

whatever it is about the office that might be worthwhile. 

If someone has called that doesn’t have Internet service, and 

they want a hard copy, then your office will have the option to 

package it any way they want. A screen will come up giving people 

options. The public can go right in if they want to, an international 

visitor, because this Web portal of course makes it so they’re able 

to book, so that individuals will be able to do that or they can find 

their Senate or House offices. 

MEMBER OF CONGRESS REPRESENTATION

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If I can just interrupt you for a second. On the Capitol guide button, so to speak, that someone would 

click on to go through a Capitol guide tour as opposed to going 

through their Member’s office, one of the things that I think is very 

important and I know other Members do too is that every visitor 

to the Capitol that is an American citizen and has a Member of 

Congress representing them or a legal resident that has a Member 

of Congress representing them, needs to be able to find out and be 

told through that reservation system who their Member is. So if 

you can—I think you very much should be focused on making sure 

that even if the person goes through the Capitol Guide Service reservation system that they are told somewhere in that system who 

their Member is and where our office is, so that they can have an 

opportunity to connect with us, even if they choose not to have a 

tour from their Member. 

Ms. ROUSE. That is a very good question. I probed on that yesterday. There may be a way to harvest zip code numbers. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You just have to ask them to put it 

in. 

Ms. ROUSE. Yes, we have to ask them to put it in. From that, 

they will be able to know who the Representatives are of their 

State. Depending upon how much more detail you get, you can 

then get them linked directly. Most importantly, they can always 

find their Representatives through the various links. We can provide this information back to the individual office about the people 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
28 

who are coming from their district. So I think that that will be 

helpful. It helps you plan, it helps us plan. Our goal is to have 

enough information to know exactly what we are doing, the Capitol 

police will know in advance; we are all tied together in knowing 

what our capacities or what our vacancies are at any given time. 

VISITOR-MEMBER CONNECTIONS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My time has expired and I don’t want 

to go over too much, but I do want to express the importance, if 

it hasn’t been clear already, that I think it is incredibly important 

that an individual, even if they choose not to go through the tour 

from their Member, that they are told and connected to their Member in some way through that other button. There is an easy way 

to do it. In terms of constituent correspondence, in order to communicate with a Member you have to put your address in, and our 

system is set up that way already. So I feel quite certain that the 

advance reservation system could be set up that way as well. 

You also talked about printing a keepsake certificate. That keepsake certificate will hopefully also tell the person who their Member is. 

Ms. ROUSE. Exactly, each Member office can control that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But even through the Capitol Guide 

Service, it is every single person—— 

Ms. ROUSE. With the zip code. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What I am saying is the system 

should automatically have the person put in, in order to keep going 

through the steps, put in their zip code or their address because 

zip codes don’t always do it, so that they can be told through the 

process who their Member of Congress is. 

Ms. ROUSE. We will, we will. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. A zip code, that is nine digits, right? 

Ms. ROUSE. Correct. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. We are up here thinking zip codes one way and 

it may be different; I don’t know my 9-digit zip code. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I don’t know mine either. It will probably be the address, because I can tell you that in the zip codes 

that almost all of us represent there is overlap in our districts, so 

it really needs to be the address—but there is a system that pulls 

up your congressional districts very easily. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You’re welcome. 

Mr. HONDA. It should link through the Post Office. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If we can go through the Chair, every 

Member will have an opportunity, and I want to give Mr. Latham 

his. Thank you. 

BUDGET SHORTFALL

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I share your concern 

about the tours and having the staff involved. Mr. Ayers, Mr. Dorn 

just mentioned that there is going to be a shortfall as far as your 

budget this year, $5.9 million. Can you just go through so the public knows about how you plan on addressing the shortfall this year 

and what needs to be done? 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
29 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir, I’d be happy to do that. I think, as we testified several hearings ago, to complete this project we require an additional $39 million. We thought that some of that $39 million may 

be required in fiscal year 2008. So as we prepared our quarterly 

spending plan and analysis in October we felt that about 8 million 

of that might be needed in fiscal year 2008 and the remaining 31 

million would be needed in 2009. That 8 million that we potentially 

needed in 2008, over and above what we had requested, would be 

for delay claims that we would get from a contractor, but that was 

October. 

As we have progressed through the year those delay claims 

aren’t coming, so our need for additional money in 2008, we are 

projecting, now has been reduced to about 6 million. The 39 million 

stays the same so our ’09 request would be from 31 to 33 million. 

So as of today, our projections still say we’ll need a little less than 

6 million. This is what we will need in ’08. We won’t need any of 

that, we believe, until the fourth quarter of 2008. 

So what we have done to date is we have submitted a reprogram- ming request to the committee to fence about $3.2 million of that 

6 million, taking that out of completed projects and other funds in 

our budget that are available, and we will hold that until the 

fourth quarter. I know Mr. Ungar and I expect that this 6 million 

will continue to decrease in 2008 and we may need a little less 

than that. We have reprogrammed and outlined a method by which 

we will fund a portion of that money and as we go through the 

course of the fiscal year, if we think we will need all of it, we will 

find those resources from within our budget from completed 

projects and other kinds of efforts to fund that in 2008. But the 

overall number doesn’t change, $621 million doesn’t change. 

ANTICIPATED SHORTCOMINGS

Mr. LATHAM. On another note, I would really like to thank you 

for finding the money elsewhere for the two nurses that are going 

to be required for the CVC. Apparently this fell through the cracks 

last year in conference, but do you anticipate any other shortcomings like this that are going beyond the 5.9 million and any 

other items out there right now that will need reprogramming? 

Mr. AYERS. On the construction of the CVC I don’t anticipate 

any. Ms. Rouse can talk about on the operations side. I am not 

aware of any. 

Ms. ROUSE. On the operations side I don’t anticipate any. We 

have been able to address our most crucial need, which is training, 

in our existing ’08 budget. 

Mr. LATHAM. All right. 

TRAINING AND STAFFING

Ms. ROUSE. We have been able to address our pressing need and 

concern, which is training, and been able to deal with that. Our 

concern is ramping up time; we will bring on 226 additional staff. 

In general I think we are on track. 

Mr. LATHAM. I am not sure how this effects the CVC, but we 

have just become aware that there is going to be a reprogramming 

request that is imminent, apparently, for a new initiative—the metering in the Capitol, in the office buildings. From my underVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:24 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 041290 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\41290P2.XXX 41290P2

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
30 

standing Mr. Boehner is not aware of it on the committee that is 

supposed to have oversight. I was just curious where that is going 

to come from or what you are proposing as far as this metering. 

Are there any other initiatives out there that we don’t know about? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Latham, that issue is unrelated 

to the CVC. We will deal with it when the AOC has their budget 

hearing next week. 

Mr. LATHAM. It won’t? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No. 

Mr. LATHAM. I will respond when I come back to another round. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ms. Lee. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Let me also welcome Mr. Latham to this committee, and I say to you I look forward to working with you but also that we are neighbors right 

across the hall. And this is going to be, I think, a committee that 

is looking forward to working with you, but also it is a committee 

that we have worked together under our Chair’s leadership in a bipartisan fashion, and we will miss Mr. Wamp and I know that your 

leadership will continue in these efforts. 

I was very pleased to hear from Mr. Ayers and Ms. Rouse, especially learning of this temporary certificate of occupancy by July 

31st. I want to thank all of you and I have to commend our Chair, 

because when I heard this and you said that, I said if it hadn’t 

been for your prodding and your diligence—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Ms. LEE [continuing]. And your focus, I didn’t know if we would 

be there, but I thank you very much for that. It has really been 

remarkable to see how far we have come in such little time. 

60 DAY POLICY LETTER

Let me thank the entire committee and all of you for support in 

our efforts that we have a real renewed commitment to minority 

owned and small businesses. 

I wanted to ask Mr. Ayers, first of all, a couple of questions with 

regard to the letter or the policy that should be developed, I think 

it was within 60 days. I want to see how we are coming on that, 

and the implementation of this policy. And when do you think we 

will be able to see what the 60-day requirement entailed. I am not 

sure if we passed the 60 days yet or not, I think we still have some 

time. I want to get a progress report on that. 

And to Ms. Rouse, I will just ask you about the contracts that 

you mentioned, food service, advanced reservation and the CVC 

Web site. You mentioned, I am glad to hear, small business is one. 

I don’t know if food service is a small business. 

And CVC Web site, women-owned business. Do we have any minority-owned businesses involved at this point? 

Let me start with Mr. Ayers first and then go to Ms. Rouse. 

MINORITY-OWNED AND SMALL BUSINESS INITIATIVES

Mr. AYERS. Thank you, Congresswoman Lee. As you know and 

we have testified previously, we are working two initiatives on this 

program. First is to create a set-aside in our construction contracts, 

those construction contracts that are over a million dollars. We 

have set some goals for ourselves to ensure those contractors are 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
31 

subcontracting to small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, small women-owned businesses and the like. Those goals 

have been set up in writing and they are in place and being followed by our procurement staff. We implemented that, I believe, in 

August of 2007. 

Ms. LEE. Do we know how we are doing yet or is it too soon? 

Mr. AYERS. I don’t have a statistical analysis. I can give you 

some good examples of projects I do have with me. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. AYERS. I thought that question may be coming. 

A couple of good examples, small, disadvantaged, minority- owned, black contractor, $3 million project, recently awarded for 

the Library of Congress lighting upgrades in the stacks there. 

Lawn mowing and snow removing services for the Botanic Garden 

awarded to a small, disadvantaged, minority-owned black company. 

Shuttle bus service awarded to a small, disadvantaged, minorityowned black company. Sidewalk repairs and janitorial services, 

over $2 million, to a small business, minority-owned Hispanic company, as well as several others, but I can give you a full accounting. 

Ms. LEE. I would like to see that, and the dollar amount. 

Mr. AYERS. I will be happy to do that. 

[The information follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
32 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 41290A.016
33 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 41290A.017
34 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 41290A.018
35 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 41290A.019
36 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 41290A.020
37 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 41290A.021
38 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 41290A.022
39 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 56 41290A.023
40 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 41290A.024
41 

The second initiative is working to create a set-aside for small 

businesses, of all categories, for all of our contracts between $5,000 

and $100,000. This will take some considerable effort, and we are 

working with the Small Business Administration to develop an 

MOU whereby they will help us develop that program. They will 

also help us adjudicate issues that come up under such a program. 

We have also reached out to the Department of Transportation 

and the USDA to meet with them. Those two organizations are 

ranked ‘‘Green’’ on the President’s Quarterly PMA Scorecard under 

their small business goals so we thought they would be good organizations to meet with and learn from. So this particular set-aside 

will take us a little time to fully implement. I know our staff is diligently working on it. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much. I would like to talk to you further maybe about the 100,000 limit, because as you know, I think 

that is much too low. 

Mr. AYERS. That is in statute. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Your time has expired. 

Ms. LEE. I am sorry, we will come back. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We will come back. 

Mr. LaHood. 

OPENING CEREMONY PLANS

Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Ayers, what is planned for the opening of the 

visitor center? 

Mr. AYERS. In terms of ceremonies? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Right. 

Mr. AYERS. Ms. Rouse is planning those activities. She may be 

the best one to answer that question. 

Ms. ROUSE. We are still at the talking stage on planning, but 

what we are trying to do is use some best practices from the field 

that deals with museums and visitor services and plan a series of 

celebrations over 18 months in honor of the opening of this historic 

facility. We are still putting things on paper, and vetting it with 

leadership and oversight. We intend to have our first round of 

meetings towards the end of February, and hopefully some time in 

March we will have some ideas. But, I must add, we are still trying 

to gather our ideas, we have gotten a lot of feedback from the Sergeant at Arms on the House and the Senate sides and we are also 

looking to historians to note what has been done in the past. 

CVC GOVERNANCE

Mr. LAHOOD. Can you tell us, Mr. Ayers, about the governance 

of the CVC and what has been put in place or what is happening 

with that? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. In April of 2007, I received a letter from the 

four leaders of the Congress assigning the responsibility for the 

day-to-day operation of the visitor center to the Architect of the 

Capitol. So the Architect is responsible for the day-to-day operation. We then went out and recruited Terrie Rouse, our Chief Executive Officer for Visitor Services, to run that business element for 

us. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
42 

CVC OVERSIGHT

Mr. LAHOOD. In terms of oversight, who will have responsibility 

for the CVC, legislatively, either on the House or Senate side? 

Mr. AYERS. I believe that will be the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. 

Mr. LAHOOD. So there really is no overarching organization 

made up of leadership; it will be primarily the committees of the 

House and Senate under House Administration and whatever the 

counterpart is in the Senate? 

Mr. AYERS. For the day-to-day operation of the visitors center, 

yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And for oversight, just general oversight, I assume 

that the House Administration and the Senate counterpart will 

have that jurisdiction? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And this subcommittee as well, since 

we are going to appropriate the funds. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Since they didn’t say it, I wondered if that is the 

case. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They can’t operate without the money 

we appropriate. So there will be oversight coming from us, too. 

Mr. LAHOOD. There will be? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. As long as I am the Chair of the subcommittee there will be. 

CVC COST ESTIMATES

Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Dorn, do you think they will stay within the 

amount of money that Mr. Ayers gave today? We have gone from 

the beginning of this project estimated at 230 million to over 600 

million. Do you think they are going to stay within that figure? 

Mr. DORN. The 621? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DORN. Yes, sir, at this point we do. We have some delays 

that have occurred, internal delays that have not affected the completion date of the project. Some hiccups have happened, some 

other things have come in at less cost than what AOC had anticipated earlier. But considering that we have a contingency built into 

the 621 estimate, we are still comfortable that’s a good number. 

Mr. LAHOOD. On the day that the CVC opens officially in the fall 

of this year, you believe that the final figure for the construction 

and opening will be the figure that is in Mr. Ayers’ testimony 

today? 

Mr. DORN. The 621 is the best estimate we have at this point. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Based on what you experienced and what you 

know, do you think that will hold? 

Mr. DORN. At this late stage of the job and knowing the contingency amounts we put in, I feel comfortable with that, and I hope 

Bernie feels comfortable with that. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Do you, Mr. Ungar? 

Mr. UNGAR. At this point I do. I am always nervous, but at this 

point we are on track for that 621. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
43 

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

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Madam Chair, and also let me add my 

welcome to Mr. Latham. A couple of quick ones so I won’t waste 

a lot of time. In our next meeting, Ms. Rouse, would you mind reporting back on the exact process by which a constituent can tell 

who their congressional representative is? There seems to be a little bit of confusion here. 

Ms. ROUSE. I will. 

CVC GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

Mr. HONDA. In terms of governance, I would like to get back to 

the clarity of that since it was not mentioned. Is it in writing, the 

governance structure of the CVC, so that when people ask the 

question again, it is under the subcommittee, and not because the 

Chair took the responsibility. Is it in some form where people understand that it is under the subcommittee? 

Mr. AYERS. Mr. Honda, I am not aware that that is in writing 

anywhere. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If I can just help to clarify the answer 

to that question. Mr. Brady and Mr. Ehlers, who chair and are the 

ranking member of the House Administration Committee, have introduced legislation on how the CVC would operate and the whole 

way that process would unfold. It is a very detailed piece of legislation. The governance per se is not laid out in that legislation, but 

House Administration and this subcommittee will be responsible 

for oversight just like we were responsible for the oversight of the 

construction process as well. 

Mr. HONDA. For the future, it just seems like things will change, 

people will change, their potential will change, and I think that 

somehow that clarity has to be some place in written form so there 

is no mistake or assumptions made. If we will be ultimately responsible, it seems that area should be there, but we can continue 

to discuss that. 

DESIGN PROGRAM CONCEPTS

On the historian issue, you mentioned, Ms. Rouse, that historians will be involved in designing the programs for the next few 

months, and in the process are you as comprehensive as possible 

where you not only include the African American, Latinos, but the 

Asian American communities in this country, and how will you 

know that the list that you have is validated? 

Ms. ROUSE. A very good question. In our programming thinking 

we are trying to look to partnerships with groups who are experts 

at putting together programming concepts. So we are still at the 

point of putting names down, putting concepts together for how we 

would do programming and then we’ll begin to vet that. We would 

recommend and take any suggestions people have for possible programs. The way we’d like to address it at this point is seminars, 

talks, family days, and activities for young people, particularly inspiring young people to want to be their fullest range of citizen. 

Encouraging them to vote is a key cornerstone of what we are trying to engage in. So any suggestions that would be available, we 

are willing to do it. We want to make sure our partnerships with 

people are thorough and that there is a voice for everyone. That is 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
44 

a key piece of what we would like to do. We do have that voice in 

the exhibition in many ways, but there is always room for improvement. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Honda, you still have some time. 

MINORITY RECRUITING

Mr. HONDA. Oh, okay. I guess the other one would be the presence of people of color in the upper echelons of our organizations, 

not only represented in the workforce but in the leadership. Are 

there any plans that you have in looking at ways to fill slots in the 

future with minorities? 

Ms. ROUSE. We have been aggressively working to make sure 

that our job postings—we have 246 more positions to search for. 

Many of them are in place, but we are also placing our ads in 

places, in medium which are non-traditional, so people aren’t just 

going to USA JOBS. We are reaching out to various minority communities and professionals to gather in candidates, because that 

will be important for us. 

We have been talking aggressively about doing a job fair, actually, to fill the visitor assistant positions, what will become the gift 

shop positions. So we have presence of people. My gift shop staff 

has even expressed interest in making sure that we have people 

who speak different languages to be able to address the new audiences that will come into the CVC. Between the CVC and the Library of Congress, we will probably have 4 million people introduced to the Hill here in the next year, so we need to be able to 

welcome everyone. 

Mr. HONDA. Last question, Madam Chair. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sure. 

Mr. HONDA. You mention language and I think that is going to 

be critical in getting the information out and having the community feel comfortable that they have a shot at a contract and have 

a way into being part of that process. And so I would be interested 

in how the language component would be utilized, because the possibility of many other communities being involved in what we have 

to offer is out there. I am not going to say I don’t have any confidence in the Library of Congress, but I think there are issues that 

they have also. 

Ms. ROUSE. Right, Library of Congress, in terms of communicating. 

I will respond for the record on that issue. 

[The information follows:] 

Question. Provide details on contract language to ensure minority competition. 

Response. The provisions and clauses that follow are currently incorporated into 

the AOC’s solicitations and contracts. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
45 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 here 41290A.025
46 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 here 41290A.026
47 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 here 41290A.027
48 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 here 41290A.028
49 

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

Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Madam Chair, and look forward to 

getting to know you better, Mr. Latham. 

I would be in big trouble with my grandmother who is watching 

from above, if we didn’t mention the first Americans as well as all 

the communities that represent the vast diversity of the United 

States. 

CHANGE ORDER—PUNCH LIST

I would like to talk to Mr. Dorn and Mr. Ayers and Mr. Ungar, 

maybe then the three of you could just have a conversation. 

Change orders and the punch list: 55 per day from now to opening. 

Hmm, sounds like a problem. And the fact that as you are clearing 

change orders, more change orders come in. What is the plan here, 

guys, to get this—I don’t want to say under control, because you 

have. If you are keeping your change orders even you have a semblance of control, but you are really not on top of it. You have managed to keep the problem from getting worse, but you haven’t been 

able to clear up the problem. 

What do you need from us to help you be successful at this? Are 

you having problems with contractors fulfilling their obligation to 

meet things in a timely fashion or to do the job right in the first 

place? This concerns me. This seems to be a problem all over, including with our embassies. We are doing a little better than with 

the embassy work being done around here, but what is your plan? 

Mr. AYERS. If I could just offer one clarification on punch list and 

maybe, Bernie, you could talk about the plan to remediate those. 

In terms of a punch list, I think Mr. Dorn may have mentioned 

that the objective is to complete that punch list by November. That 

is not necessarily the way a construction contract is done. A punch 

list could be simply a touch of paint on 2 square inches of wall 

or—— 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Ayers, I understand all of that. 

Mr. AYERS. But there are many things on a punch list that won’t 

be done in November 2008 is my point. So we are not driving to 

a November date to complete a punch list. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Ayers, I think you know I am not worried 

about touch-up paint. There are big things on that punch list. What 

are you doing to clear them up? 

Mr. AYERS. Bernie. 

Mr. UNGAR. Let me clarify one thing. Terry is right, the list is 

14,000, but not all of those are open, a number of those have been 

closed. I don’t have the exact count, I will get that for you. 

[The information follows]: 

PUNCH LIST CLOSED ITEMS

Question. Provide a count of the number of punch list items that have been closed. 

Response. As of February 7, 2008, approximately 1,170 items have been closed. 

Further, work for many other items has been completed, but the work has not yet 

been inspected. The number of items on the punch list will go up and down over 

the next few months as work in the East Front and a few other areas is finished. 

Further, we are constantly reviewing the list and going through it with the construction manager to make sure that any items that could hold up opening are addressed in sufficient time. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
50 

The process we have set up with our construction and management contractor, Gilbane, is to basically systematically ask the construction contractor to notify us when an area is ready to recheck 

and then go and recheck the areas. We have been doing that for 

some time now on our House and Senate expansion spaces. We just 

recently started with our main CVC to do that and that is in process. As you indicated, some of the items are bigger than others, 

some aren’t major items, but we are in process and we probably 

will not be done by November. We certainly will have all the major 

items that are necessary for opening done well before then. 

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE

The contractor is performing well in this area. I need to clarify 

that we have instructed our contractor to give first and top priority 

to supporting the acceptance testing that is going on, because that 

is what is going to drive the opening day for the CVC, and they 

have been doing very well at that. We have not asked them to ignore the punch list to do that, but that is the second priority right 

now. But we are working on it and we are making progress. 

CHANGE ORDERS

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Change orders? 

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, on change orders, as Mr. Dorn said, we use a 

slightly different number. We are looking at the numbers that have 

not been settled, and that has been about 340, give or take. These 

are open ones that have not been settled, but just not yet concluded 

for some time. I expect that number to remain about the same 

until some time in March when—maybe mid to late March-when 

the basic construction is going to be winding down. We will still get 

some, but right now both our construction management contractor 

and our Sequence 2 Contractor are focusing first on the high priority change orders by mutual agreement, and we are working on 

the others as we can. Once we start to have a smaller number 

come in, they will be able to work this off. It will take some time, 

but the change orders right now that we have that haven’t been 

processed are not slowing up construction. We have a mechanism 

by which we can still authorize the work and get the work done. 

Mr. UNGAR. I don’t think that number is going to drop very significantly until probably summertime. We will be working toward 

a resolution of those. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Mr. 

Latham. 

CR IMPACT ON THE CVC

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You know, if we 

have learned anything from history around here, and I share Mr. 

LaHood’s concerns about costs and things like that, but one thing 

that certainly has plagued both parties in control of this place is 

we have not been able to get our work done on time. I am very, 

very concerned about the impact of a CR on the CVC, because I 

would hate to have us go through the estimated $621 million, have 

everything in place, go to all this work, and the day of opening we 

do not have any funds to operate the place. I just pledge to the 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
51 

chairwoman that I will do everything on my part to make sure we 

get this done on time and make sure we get a bill signed. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Me, too. 

Mr. LATHAM. Please describe the operational impacts and tell us 

any contingency plans, and what the effects would be on the CVC 

if we did not have our bill done on time? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. It is best to categorize that analysis in three 

areas. First on the construction project, then our maintenance of 

the building, then on the operations side. From a construction contract standpoint, it is not going to have a significant effect on us. 

We may have to delay payment on a delay claim. If that is the 

case, our costs may increase a little because of that. 

On the facilities maintenance portion, the day-to-day operation, 

the nuts and bolts of the building, a CR is not going to have a significant impact because I think our base is at a level now where 

we can sustain that into 2009. 

CR IMPACT ON CVC OPERATIONS

It will have a pretty extensive impact on the operations side. Ms. 

Rouse can speak to this as well, but I know that under the CR 

guidance it is going to be based on the amount of money we have 

in 2008. The amount of money we have in 2008 is not sufficient to 

meet our monthly payroll requirements starting in October, the 

next fiscal year. So I know she is going to have serious issues if 

there is a continuing resolution. 

Ms. ROUSE. That is an understatement. We have 252 people we 

know need to be deployed to deal with the maximum numbers of 

capacity. If things bear fruit, as you well know, when a new destination opens in Washington, D.C., the residents flood in before 

the tourists flood in. So in March, we can expect, eighth graders 

from all over the world, eighth graders from the United States, and 

in the fall it will be residents. So if we are not able to deal with 

that capacity, we will try to work towards a management structure 

to do what we can, but we will not be at our best. I think what 

I would like, and I am sure what the Members of Congress would 

like, would be for us to be at our best. 

Mr. LATHAM. How about the education programs? There is going 

to be, you know, public programs that you have in place. How 

about—— 

Ms. ROUSE. They would suffer. The historians and curators who 

are on staff, who are volunteering their time to help us do programs, because it is a good chance to show off what they can do 

and have been doing for decades, we can probably institute them. 

Anything that was a partnership activity we would have to delay 

doing because it would require some other activities. So it would 

have an impact. Hopefully, we would know far enough in advance 

that we could come up with some alternatives, and we would work 

toward those alternatives, but it would have an impact. 

CVC CONTINGENCY PLANS

Mr. LATHAM. Is there any contingency plan, any thought—since 

this is obviously not out of the realm of possibilities. It has happened the last 2 years under both parties’ control around here. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
52 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We didn’t have a year-long CR this 

time. 

Mr. LATHAM. I have heard the rumor that there is probably not 

going to be a lot of bills sent up to the White House this year until 

after the elections. 

Mr. AYERS. Congressman Latham, we have not addressed contingency plans yet, and I think it is also important to think broader 

than the Architect of the Capitol. Certainly in terms of the CVC 

it could affect Police operations, the Senate and House Sergeants 

at Arms, the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, all of 

whom have a stake in the successful opening of the CVC. So it 

would be good to consult with them as well. It is early in our fiscal 

year. Quite frankly, we have not addressed contingency plans for 

fiscal year 2009 yet. 

Mr. LATHAM. I would just hate to see us have this big opening 

and then have the place not operational. Thank you very much. 

CVC—MEETING ITS NEEDS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let me just say that I am not concerned about whether we end up in a CR. We got through this last 

fiscal year. Moving from the minority to the majority, we had a 

continuing resolution in 2007, and in 2008 we had an omnibus act 

where we made sure that the needs were met. And I feel quite certain that we will make sure that needs are met in this fiscal year 

as well. 

Obviously, there always needs to be contingency plans. This is a 

very nimble subcommittee. The Appropriations Committee is nimble. We have the ability to move money around to make sure that 

the operations that we need to continue will do so. So I feel quite 

confident that we will be able to make sure that we manage regardless. But we should all be committed to working diligently to 

make sure we do not have a CR, and that we get our bills passed 

and sent to the President and do the work of the American people 

that we were sent here to do. 

FIRE ALARM ACCEPTANCE TESTING

I have a number of questions about the fire alarm acceptance 

testing. I noted in Mr. Dorn’s statement that we have made good 

progress. I want to compliment the Architect and the Fire Marshal 

and all the team of people that are working together to try to make 

sure that this massive, massive project is going along at a good 

clip. And I can see that we have made economies and probably doubled up on testing and things that we could do simultaneously. 

That having been said, I know there have been consultants that 

have advised that perhaps the process that has been laid out does 

not have to be as lengthy as it is. And Mr. Dorn, you noted in your 

statement that the fire alarm testing is largely on schedule. But 

obviously that is the biggest pitfall that we are facing potentially 

if a wrench gets thrown into the works. So any economies that we 

can make that obviously do not jeopardize safety we should be 

making. 

The recommendations that came from consultants, so far those 

have not been accepted by the Fire Marshal. Can you talk about 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
53 

that, Mr. Dorn, and talk about perhaps what the differences are 

and the concerns and how we might resolve that? 

Mr. DORN. I can talk about just some generalities, but they are 

certainly closer to the details than I am. My understanding is, 

again, there are a number of consultants, and also the internal fire 

protection engineers from AOC, who recommended that not quite 

as much testing of the smoke detectors, in particular, would be 

needed. We would not have to take every one of them down to test 

it. The Fire Marshal disagrees for his reasons. And there may be 

some other testing that also could possibly be shortened. AOC has 

been looking into this, and they—I believe they brought in the Office of Compliance to try to see what their opinions are. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Their recommendations are forthcoming on the economies that might be able to be made? 

Mr. AYERS. I have them now. They were delivered yesterday. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You have them now? Okay. Bernie? 

Mr. UNGAR. I might be able to summarize for you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Mr. UNGAR [continuing]. The suggestions we have gotten and 

where we stand with the acceptance testing plan. We had some advice from the General Services Administration and from some other 

fire protection engineers. There were three areas that they identified where we might be able to economize to some extent. One was 

the number of tests we did on each smoke detector. Another was 

the extent to which we test subsystems every time we do the smoke 

detector tests. Thirdly, how much we test what has been referred 

to as the CONOP, the different sequences. Basically, there are different professional opinions on whether or not we should do all the 

testing on each smoke detector, the three separate tests. The Office 

of Compliance, we just got their report yesterday, they believe that 

we should do the testing that the Fire Marshal has suggested, 

where the other consultants believed we do not need to do all three 

tests. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I see. 

Mr. UNGAR. I believe Mr. Ayers is going to go ahead and do what 

the current plan calls for. The other items would not be quite as 

much savings, but there is still some potential there. I do not know 

that any decision has been made on whether we might be able to 

do less subsystems testing and use some technology to help out 

there or not. There are two other suggestions that the Office of 

Compliance made. One was that we might be able to do, in effect, 

some probability sampling of this CONOP. I do not know that the 

Fire Marshal has actually made a decision on that yet. But another 

recommendation that was made could be very helpful to us in 

meeting the time frame. And that is a suggestion that we should 

consider allowing the operations staff to begin preparing for operations prior to the time that we have a temporary certificate of occupancy, assuming the testing is done in such a way as the building would be safe to do that. That could be a very helpful suggestion if it is adopted. 

Mr. AYERS. Madam Chair, if I may? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, Mr. Ayers. My time has expired. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
54 

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE REPORT

Mr. AYERS. I did read the report from the Office of Compliance 

this morning. I would just like to commend Mr. Eveleth and 

Charles Tetro who wrote the 16-page report. It is an absolutely outstanding analysis of the issues. It is very well written. And it takes 

a very sophisticated and complicated issue and boils it down to 

something that is very readable and easily understood. So I would 

encourage all of you to read it. And I will give you two sentences: 

The Architect of the Capitol’s Life Safety Acceptance Plan for the 

CVC represents a reasonable and reliable means to confirm the 

function and performance of the CVC’s complicated Life Safety System. Accordingly, we agree with the determination of the Architect 

of the Capitol to proceed with the acceptance testing as set forth 

in the plan. So I think we are doing the right thing. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. 

My time has expired. 

Ms. Lee. 

CVC HIRING AND STAFFING DIVERSITY

Mr. LEE. Well, just following up on my previous questions, I just 

want to ask Ms. Rouse, first of all, let me commend you for your 

efforts at ensuring that the hiring process and the staffing reflect 

the diversity of the millions of Americans who should be reflected 

in the staffing of the center. A couple of things with regard to some 

of the openings. As you do your job fairs, it would be helpful if you 

would send information to of course the Hispanic Caucus, Asian 

Pacific Caucus, and the Congressional Black Caucus in terms of 

postings, because we may be able to help you just in your outreach 

efforts. And secondly, I would like to get an understanding of the 

process of how you select suppliers, and the difference between that 

process and the contracting process, or is it all centralized, or how 

does this work? 

Ms. ROUSE. And I will try to do my best, and I will provide any 

additional information for the record. What we will be using moving forward with the CVC is an initiative to reach out to minorityowned businesses and small businesses. A lot of the highly craft objects that will go into the gift shop, for example, will probably come 

from small vendors. So we have been gathering names. We have 

also put an initiative out in the community, and our new gift shop 

manager is very familiar with that assortment of artisans. So we 

want to make sure that they are represented, and also make sure 

that they understand our process, and are not overwhelmed by 

what looks like government. So there will be a little bit of hand 

holding. 

We did hire someone in the procurement department who can be 

helpful in answering questions that often come from someone who 

is not familiar with the system. 

TRAINING INITIATIVES

We have some other initiatives regarding training. We are also 

trying to gather names of various types of training organizations 

who could be responsive to our RFP about training for what is 

going to become our CHIP program and then our staff program. It 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
55 

is a particular passion of mine that we be able to have people be 

well prepared on the floors, not only just on simple questions, but 

if they are also doing guided service. Also as we train staff, that 

we are providing them with the best possible opportunity. So it is 

gathering people in. It is a combination of us having some initiatives and making sure people know about them and it is a procurement process, larger procurement or RFP. 

Mr. LEE. Is this national? Is it a national search that you engage 

in or is it primarily regional, local? 

Ms. ROUSE. The gift shop, to my understanding, is national. It 

is knowing who is out there, if you will, and then the more people 

know, they seek us out. I guess with the general RFP, that would 

go as far as we possibly could. 

Mr. LEE. Okay. Mr. Ayers, in terms of the contracting process 

with regard to say the construction, the big contracts, is this centralized? 

Mr. AYERS. The way we run our procurement function is we actually have a decentralized procurement office. We have a central 

procurement office with our contracting officer and contract specialists, and then, as you know, we operate with 10 separate appropriations and what we sometimes call jurisdictions, the House, the 

Senate, the Supreme Court, Library of Congress, Capitol Building. 

Each of those respective offices or business units have procurement 

professionals in them as well. 

Mr. LEE. I see, okay. 

Mr. AYERS. So in that regard we run a decentralized procurement operation. Typically, we compete construction contracts 

through the standard Federal procurement guidelines, and we advertise, and people nationally can bid on those things. They typically are won by more regional companies, because they can obviously do it cheaper. 

Mr. LEE. So all of the branches, the 10 branches understand 

what the new requirements are—— 

Mr. AYERS. Absolutely. 

Mr. LEE [continuing]. As it relates to small businesses, minority, 

women-owned businesses? 

Mr. AYERS. Right. 

Mr. LEE. Thank you very much. 

RECRUITMENT EFFORTS

Mr. AYERS. If I could just further embellish and compliment 

Terrie on her recruitment efforts, I know that she has advertised 

all of those jobs to the Federal Asian Pacific Council, the Blacks 

in Government, the American Association of African American Museums, the Society of American Indian Government Employees, 

and the list goes on and on. She has really done a great job of casting a wide net to recruit the talent to run the CVC. 

Mr. LEE. Great. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Ms. Lee. 

And Mr. LaHood, I apologize for skipping you. Mr. LaHood. 

GOVERNANCE AND LEGISLATION

Mr. LAHOOD. Not at all. I want to go back to this governance 

thing, because I think it is going to be a serious problem. Unless 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
56 

you are intimately involved in the legislation, or our subcommittee 

is, things change very quickly around here, vis-a-vis Mr. Latham 

assuming the ranking member position. And, you know, I know 

that while you are Chair of this subcommittee you will pay attention to this. But I assume that if an opportunity is provided for you 

to move to another subcommittee and chair it, you would take advantage of that. And I am just saying this, when this project was 

started it was started under Republican leadership. It was started 

by people who are no longer in the Congress. And we need to have 

some say in whatever legislation is developed. If we do not, we are 

going to be sitting on the sidelines, and when complaints come in 

about who is running things and who is responsible, we are not 

going to be at the table. So if the House Administration Committee 

is developing the legislation, I hope we are going to be in the room 

when it is developed. 

And I hope our subcommittee is going to have some role to play. 

And I would even ask, if Mr. Dorn can play a role here by looking 

at the legislation that is being developed, because eventually if this 

thing is not working right, your office is going to be called in to find 

out and figure out what the problems are. And I do not know if you 

can play that kind of a role, Mr. Dorn, but we need to make sure 

that all the people that are going to have some say over this are 

at the table and in the room when the legislation is developed so 

that on day one, when the facility is opened, people around here 

know who is running this place and who has ultimate responsibility. So I will make that point. 

STAFF TOURS

The other point I want to make is on these tours, I have a Web 

site like most Members, probably like all the 434 Members of the 

House, and I assume all 100 Senators do, I have a Web site where 

people can click in and order a flag, request a tour, but the vast 

majority of people call my office. You need to be sure that there is 

in place an opportunity for all 435 offices and 100 Senators’ offices, 

there has to be clear lines of understanding here or you are going 

to have a huge mess on your hands when individual Members want 

their staffs to give staff tours. 

That has become, I think, one of the services that our offices 

have provided that people have really appreciated. And I agree 

with what the chairwoman has said about this. People care more 

about a staff tour than they do about any bill that is ever passed 

around here. And if you do not get it right, you are going to be in 

for you know what around here by Members. 

This is as important as any piece of legislation that has ever 

passed. This is critical. And you know, the idea in your description 

of how people can click in and all that sort of stuff, a lot of people 

around this country do not have computers and do not have the 

ability to click onto a Web site, but they do have a telephone. Everybody in this country has a cell phone, and they know how to call 

their Congressperson in order to get a tour. And listen, we do not 

want to mess this up. I want you to get it right from the beginning, 

because if you do not, there is going to be you know what to pay 

around here. 

That is my admonition on that. Thank you. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
57 

CVC OPERATIONS—APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE INVOLVEMENT

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No, thank you. I agree with you 100 

percent. And let me just add that the legislation, as I understand 

it, I have not read it yet, but the legislation that has been introduced by Mr. Brady and Mr. Ehlers related to the CVC operation 

includes the Appropriation Committee’s involvement, our signoff on 

the various processes that they will go through. As I review it, I 

will make sure that we have the appropriate amount of involvement, if we do not already. 

Mr. Latham, I would ask your assistance in that, because obviously we are going to be expected to appropriate whatever funds 

are needed to operate the CVC. And let me just remind all the witnesses that you made reference to your oversight committees. 

Those are not limited to just the Senate Rules Committee and the 

House Administration Committee. This committee is an equivalent 

when it comes to oversight. And we would expect that you would 

include us and keep us apprised and involved, not just told, but involved in the process as you go forward with your plans to begin 

opening and operating the CVC. Thank you, Mr. LaHood. 

FIRE ALARM ACCEPTANCE TESTING PROGRESS

Obviously the fire alarm acceptance testing plan is really significant. It could potentially be the biggest factor in whether or not we 

get thrown off track. And through our oversight hearings, we will 

continue to keep close tabs on the progress of that. I have really 

been pleased with the progress we have been making. The margins 

are very close, we do not have a lot of wiggle room, so we have to 

make sure that we are vigilant, that you get what you need from 

us, and that you are paying very close attention to it. And the 

homework that I have is related to that as well. 

ELECTRICAL VAULT CONCERNS

I want to jump to the electrical vault issue, because that is also 

another problem that potentially could result in throwing the 

schedule off. I know that you have been working hard to resolve 

the three existing electrical vaults that were inhibiting the paving 

portion of the plaza. They were put in the wrong place, and that 

that is in the process of being worked through. I have been reading 

the weekly reports. Can you give us, Mr. Ungar, a status update 

on where we are with that? 

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, Madam Chair. Actually, as we speak our architectural consultant is surveying the area. By the end of this month 

we would hope to have a design from them as to how to do the construction. Then our Sequence 2 Contractor is ready to roll. We also 

have to have a contractor that has been approved by Pepco to do 

a major portion of this work. We will need to get Pepco’s signoff 

on our design. They have agreed to give us expedited service in reviewing that once we get the design done. So we hope to start the 

first part of March. Then it will take several months to do that. I 

do not suspect it will adversely affect the opening, because we hope 

to have that work done by the end of August or early September 

at the latest. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What about the 621 number? 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
58 

Mr. UNGAR. It is going to be more than we anticipated, but we 

do have contingency funds available. So I do not believe at this 

point in time that it is going to affect that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In the spirit of making sure that 

something like this does not happen again, how is it that this happened? 

Mr. UNGAR. The best I can determine, and we will look more into 

this, Madam Chair, apparently a while ago, when the firm that 

was doing the initial survey work for us did it, it apparently did 

not do thorough enough research on the depth of these manholes 

and the Pepco requirements. It was not until recently that we 

learned that we were not going to have enough distance to meet 

Pepco’s requirements. So that is what threw us off. Once we 

learned we had the problem, we obviously got right on it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Well, I know you are monitoring it very closely, and the reports that we get give us very specific detail on the progress. So I appreciate that. When were those 

installed? I know we realized it fairly recently, but at what point 

in the process were those installed? 

Mr. UNGAR. I do not know that they are new. I believe there are 

two existing ones. The problem is that we do not have enough distance between those manholes and the electric vaults with the 

cable. We have to add a third one. Of course, we will have the distance requirements for that. 

CHANGE ORDER MONITORING

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. On the issue of change orders, 

I watch the change order section of the report every week. There 

are some weeks that you have come in where you have resolved 

more change orders than you have had come in. The last couple 

weeks we have had more change orders come in than you have resolved. And they are starting to drop in terms of the amount that 

they cost, but it is a little disturbing that we are not changing the 

number. Mr. Dorn referenced that that could eventually—I mean 

months ago he referenced that the change orders issue could eventually become a problem in terms of the critical path. 

Mr. Dorn, do you still have that concern or do you think that the 

progress that has been made has been made steadily enough that 

they will not affect the opening? 

Mr. DORN. As far as schedule, the AOC has been able to work 

around these change orders by giving the contractor permission to 

start on some of them with a not-to-exceed number, so he has been 

able to mitigate most of the schedule impacts so far. What you 

have I think more than schedule impact is just an unknown cost. 

We have got estimates put together to give a range of where we 

think those costs are going to be, but it is still an uncertainty. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. When do we anticipate the number of 

change orders coming in will begin to slow? Because that would be 

nice. 

Mr. UNGAR. We hope that will take place in March, Madam 

Chair. We have only a few areas of the CVC for which construction 

is not complete. The East Front, the House Hearing Room, the 

Tunnels and exterior landscaping. We are still, unfortunately, running into some structural issues and some conflicts in the East 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
59 

Front. I suspect we will have a few more of those. I hope not, but 

I suspect so. I think they are dying down in the Hearing Room. I 

suspect we will have a few more come in. We also are beginning 

to do what we have termed some auxiliary projects. We may get 

a few on those. For example, congressional leadership would like 

to have us install information desks in the CVC. We have intentionally held off on doing that until after substantial completion so 

we can get the acceptance testing done. There are a few projects 

like that that we have held off on. My suspicion is we may get a 

few changes. They will not be significant. But in terms of count, I 

mean the numbers, the dollar amount will not be high, but the 

count will be there. But I think in reality the only way to do this 

any quicker would be to ask our construction manager to bring on 

more staff to process these quicker. But if we were to do that, the 

Sequence 2 Contractor and subcontractor would also have to add 

staff. At this point, I think everybody has concluded that it is not 

a major problem. We would certainly like to get them reconciled, 

but it is not a major problem. 

PUNCH LIST ITEMS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. As long as you are still anticipating 

it is not a major problem. On the punch list items, we recognize 

that you can open the CVC with punch list items left. I mean 50 

a day is not a number that scares me that much. But of the significant punch list items that need to be dealt with before, do you have 

any concern about dealing with those and getting those put aside? 

And then obviously the little touch-up paint issues and smaller 

ones could continue after the opening. Do you have any concern 

about not getting those accomplished by the time we open? 

Mr. UNGAR. At this point we do not, Madam Chair. We are going 

to sit down shortly and go through these. I just might add that the 

punch list right now is going to go up and down because we have 

not finished work in the East Front yet and a few other areas. We 

are going to be obviously reviewing those and adding to the list at 

the same time it is going to be going down. We are going to be 

going through that with our construction manager, and we are 

going to make sure and work with our contractor to make sure that 

anything that possibly could hold up opening is addressed in sufficient time. Our contractor has been very good about working with 

us in areas like that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In the change order section, or wherever you think it is appropriate on the weekly report, if you could 

add a progress report on how we are doing on—— 

Mr. UNGAR. Punch list? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. punch list items, that would be great. 

Mr. UNGAR. Sure. 

CVC TRAINING PROGRAM

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let me just flip back to the staff-led 

tour issue, and we can close it out on that. Ms. Rouse, we have all 

stressed how important it is that accurate information be relayed 

by Capitol guides and by our staff when they are giving a tour. And 

I know you are developing that CHIP training program. I am a little bit concerned about whether or not a 12-hour training program, 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
60 

which is more than 2 days in terms of a workday, is necessary. 

Why is 12 hours a magic number? I mean 6 hours out of 2 different 

days for any staff person that you want to get fully trained seems 

a little excessive. We do not want to love the training program to 

death so that it is difficult to get our staff members trained. 

Ms. ROUSE. Well, we can always look at the hours. The 12 hours, 

I think, works well. We worked with the training department. Because it is not only just the historical information, it is safety 

issues, it is trying to get them comfortable with this process, integrated into what has to be done, giving voice to the Senate and the 

House side in terms of the type of information that is there and 

their comfort level. Also it is a way for us to have staff who are 

short-term as well as long-term really become embodied with the 

services of the Capitol Visitor Center, to have them become part of 

us and part of Congress. So that is the reason for the 12 hours. 

I would also like to be able to, as we develop our volunteer policy, 

some of these staffers may want to become part of our volunteer 

corps as that is improved. So it is really a way to get people engaged. So that is the notion of the 12 hours. We were hoping, and 

we had talked to some of the Representatives’ offices, that in those 

first series of classes, to use the congressional auditorium so we 

can do 400 at a time, so within a couple of weeks we could have 

almost one thousand people trained. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. How often are you planning on running those? Because I saw that your proposal was monthly, once 

a month. That may not be enough. 

Ms. ROUSE. That is true. When we first start we are going to try 

to backload and get as many done as we possibly can. Then we will 

be able to test the waters and see how it is all going. But initially, 

it will be to do as many as the demand supplies. Of course, we will 

be scheduling around other events in the Congressional Auditorium. We are also going to explore, if necessary, a space that is not 

directly on the Hill, or across the street or someplace in the event 

that, we get bumped out of the Congressional Auditorium. 

TRAINING PROGRAM OUTLINE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you have an outline of the proposed training program? If you could submit that for the record I 

would appreciate that. 

Ms. ROUSE. Sure. 

[The information follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
61 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 41290A.029
62 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 41290A.030
63 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So we can see what process you are 

taking that through for training. And then my last question before 

we wrap up and I give you the monthly homework is I am a little 

bit concerned about your communication plan, because we do not 

really have a sense of just how many visitors are going to come 

through right at the beginning. Like you said, you have D.C. Residents that will come in initially, and we expect a big influx in the 

spring, and obviously with any opening you have kinks that you 

are going to have to iron out, which is why you are going through 

that first annual series of activities. I would strongly suggest you 

not implement a marketing and outreach and communication plan 

until after the kinks are ironed out. You are not planning on inviting the world at the point that we open, are you? 

Ms. ROUSE. We are in the reverse problem. I think everybody 

will know that we are opening. Our goal is to make sure that everyone who comes to the Hill is properly prepared. That is our 

whole public awareness approach, that people know they should 

not bring bottles of water, they should not bring their backpacks. 

We often run into the fact that people do not know how to access 

the people’s House. So there is a lot of confusion in the tourism 

publications. So we want to get the word out so it is correct, so people are prepared from that standpoint. That is how we see it is not 

marketing proactively, it is marketing to inform. So that is our 

public awareness approach. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. As far as the proactive marketing, 

though, because eventually I assume you will market and encourage people to come. That is down the road? Good. 

CHAIR CLOSING REMARKS

Okay. Again I want to welcome Mr. Latham. I am truly looking 

forward to working with you, and appreciate all the input that we 

have had from Members over time. I also want to thank the whole 

CVC team and the Architect of the Capitol for the progress that we 

have made. We have a long way to go, but we have come really far 

in the last year. But what has become clear to me from this hearing and over the last number of months is the fire alarm acceptance testing is really going to be the key to whether the project 

stays on schedule. All these other things, they are sort of an annoyance, they are an irritant, but they are not what makes my heart 

pound at night. I never thought fire alarm acceptance testing 

would make my heart pound at night, but it does. 

CHAIR’S ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT

Mr. Dorn, you testified about the consultants having different advice and different opinions. And I know you have chosen at this 

point to go with the Fire Marshal’s recommendations according to 

the existing plan. But we need a clear understanding. If you can 

give us each recommendation that has been made with regards to 

the testing plan, which consultant or agency made each recommendation, what the potential impact of each recommendation 

would be on the CVC’s project cost and schedule, and what has 

been done to implement each recommendation or the reasons why 

a particular recommendation has not been pursued. And if you 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
64 

could prepare that in a summary paper no later than noon, next 

Friday, February 15th, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. Latham, you have anything else to add? 

Mr. LATHAM. No. I just appreciate the panel, say thank you very 

much for the great job you are doing, and quite honestly, I hope 

I do not get to the point where my heart pounds—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I hope not either. 

Mr. LATHAM [continuing]. Over fire testing. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. With that, the subcommittee stands 

in recess, subject to the call of the Chair. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
65 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 41290A.031

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
(67) 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2008. 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

WITNESS 

STEPHEN T. AYERS, AIA, ACTING ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

CHAIR OPENING REMARKS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good morning. I am pleased to call to 

order this hearing of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the 

House Committee on Appropriations. 

This is our first in a series of hearings on the Legislative Branch 

agencies. Collectively, the agencies have asked for an approximately 19 percent increase. Given that in the last two cycles we 

have had either a 2 or a 3 percent increase in the Legislative 

Branch overall, I think that we are going to need to pare down expectations and inject some realism into what is likely to happen 

versus what I think most of us would like to happen. 

I certainly am committed to making sure that we do as much as 

we can and, like we did in the 2008 cycle, deal with the ‘‘must 

haves,’’ the ‘‘got to haves’’ and the essentials as opposed to the, 

‘‘gee, it would be nices.’’ We are going to be considering a $3.7 billion request from the Legislative Branch, a $587 million increase 

over FY 2008. If you add the Senate items, we end up going over 

$4.7 billion. 

That having been said, I know the Acting Architect of the Capitol, Mr. Ayers, has put together a proposal. Based on the longterm hearings that we had last year, you got a pretty clear indication of what my priority is in terms of making sure that we look 

forward towards what the needs are as far as shoring up the Capitol complex and in making sure that we address the facilities’ 

needs and the infrastructure’s needs. I know, in your proposal, you 

have done that. You have definitely indicated all of the needs that 

you have and have laid them all out there. So I appreciate that. 

It helps in terms of understanding the magnitude of the problem 

that we are facing. 

So I do not want you to take my expression of realism to be a 

criticism of your request, because I completely understand why you 

have laid it all out there and have expressed to us just exactly 

what we are facing in terms of needs. 

Our job as the Legislative Branch Subcommittee is to be the 

stewards of these facilities, the financial stewards of these facilities. House Administration oversees the day-to-day operations, but 

we are the ones who fund the infrastructure. If something is crumbling, it is our responsibility to make sure it gets taken care of. 

I know that your budget proposal this year looks toward making 

sure that we are fiscally responsible by trying to focus on paying 

for today what we can get done so that it is not more expensive 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
68 

tomorrow. And I think that is a really responsible way to approach 

it. But we are still going to have some very tough choices, just like 

we always do. 

I am looking forward to hearing your remarks. 

Mr. Latham, welcome to your first budget hearing on the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. 

CONGRESSMAN LATHAM’S OPENING REMARKS

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much. 

I look forward to the testimony today and to hearing your request. 

I have a particular concern about all of the deferred construction 

and all of the pending problems that we have out there. Hopefully, 

we can target our funding to things that are really needed. I look 

forward to hearing your testimony but also to asking you a few 

questions. So thank you. 

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

Mr. Ayers, your statement has been received and will be entered 

into the record at this time. If you could proceed with a short summary of your statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT—STEPHEN AYERS

Mr. AYERS. Thank you, Madam Chair and Congressman Latham. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding our fiscal 

year 2009 budget request. 

It was a little over a year ago that I began serving as Acting Architect and nearly a year ago that I first testified before this subcommittee on our budget operations and accomplishments. 

This budget represents change for the AOC. It represents a 

change in leadership and a change in direction. It represents 

change from a reactive organization, one that has often been 

caught flatfooted and faced with significant problems, to one that 

looks forward, plans and takes action to anticipate problems and 

to prevent a crisis. 

This has also been a year of growth for the AOC. Specifically, we 

have seen our scope of responsibility grow from 15 million square 

feet to nearly 16.5 million square feet and from 370 acres of land 

to more than 450 acres today. With that additional responsibility 

comes added cost for maintenance, staff, utilities and physical security. 

At the same time, the historic buildings and other physical infrastructure in our care continue to age. In addition, as fire and lifesafety standards have become more stringent since these buildings 

were constructed, we face significant requirements to abate Office 

of Compliance citations and improve fire safety conditions throughout the Capitol complex. We are committed to ensuring that these 

deficiencies are corrected and that significant resources are put toward these issues. 

UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS

We have a backlog of more than $600 million in deferred maintenance and $800 million in capital renewal projects. As the AOC 

continues to be unable to fund these projects, this ‘‘bow wave’’ of 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
69 

unfunded requirements continues to grow. We have developed this 

budget through a deliberate planning process, and it reflects only 

the highest-priority initiatives for funding our core activities. We 

have already made some difficult choices and have not requested 

funding for a long list of projects, additional staffing, and several 

operational initiatives. 

We also recognize that this is a significant request in a time of 

fiscal restraint. We believe that, without this important investment 

in facilities, they will continue to deteriorate. We believe it is fiscally responsible to request the funding needed now instead of 

waiting until facilities are in a crisis and beyond repair, thereby 

costing millions more to restore, renovate and renew. 

If not addressed, facility requirements will only continue to grow 

more serious and more expensive. Therefore, we are requesting 

$642.7 million for fiscal year 2009. Our 2009 annual operating budget request of $384.4 million provides funding for operations and for maintaining the infrastructure 

that supports the Congress as well as AOC’s internal infrastructure 

systems. This increase of $48.1 million is driven primarily by the 

upfront investment requirement to meet legislated energy usage 

decreases as well as to fund the initial full-year operations of the 

Capitol Visitor Center. 

The second component of our budget request is $258.2 million for 

capital projects. Chief among our responsibilities is maintaining, 

preserving and upgrading the national treasures entrusted to our 

care. Determining which work is done first and where our limited 

resources are best used involves a deliberate approach and multiyear project planning. Our primary focus is on ensuring that fire 

and life safety deficiencies are corrected first. 

AOC ACHIEVEMENTS

Madam Chair, as I noted earlier, the past year has been one of 

significant achievement for the AOC. In addition to meeting the 

substantial completion date for the Capitol Visitor Center, some of 

our other accomplishments include adding the Library of 

Congress’s new National Audio Visual Conservation Center to our 

inventory; signing into effect a collective bargaining agreement 

with AFSCME Local 626; completing office moves for the 110th 

Congress, including 181 House offices, 20 House committees, 21 

Senate offices, and nearly 840 Senate staffers. Additionally, we 

have closed out 65 of 98 items or citations from the Office of Compliance. We also have closed out 54 of 72 GAO recommendations 

aimed at improving the organization. And we have received our 

fifth consecutive clean financial audit opinion from our independent 

auditors. 

Internally, we continue to foster a results-oriented workplace and 

encourage communication and teamwork throughout the organization. I am pleased to report that a direct result of our efforts is a 

decrease in our injury and illness rate for the eighth year in a row. 

We greatly appreciate this subcommittee’s support and the investment that Congress has made in our facilities and infrastructure in recent years. However, as these buildings continue to age, 

they will require significant repairs and renovation, and this will 

require significant investment. We are committed to working with 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
70 

the Congress to address this backlog of maintenance and repair 

projects. 

Over the past year, the AOC has accomplished much and has experienced several successes. These achievements can be directly attributed to the dedicated and professional individuals that make up 

our team. In my role as Acting Architect, it is a great privilege and 

an honor for me to work alongside them every day. 

Thank you once again for the opportunity to present our FY2009 

budget, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[Mr. Ayers’ statement follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
71 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 here 41290A.032
72 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 here 41290A.033
73 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 here 41290A.034
74 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 116 here 41290A.035
75 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 117 here 41290A.036
76 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 118 here 41290A.037
77 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 here 41290A.038
78 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 here 41290A.039
79 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 121 here 41290A.040
80 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 122 here 41290A.041
81 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 123 here 41290A.042
82 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 124 here 41290A.043
83 

FDA BUILDING PROJECT

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Ayers. I 

appreciate your testimony, and I also appreciate that you are focusing on life-safety and security issues. We did have a big security 

focus last fiscal year, and we continue to have one. 

I note that you have the list of recommended construction 

projects versus deferred construction projects. I am going to want 

to ask you about that at some point during the hearing. 

Because I know it will come up, I would like to ask you to touch 

on the FDA building for a couple of minutes. We made an investment in security enhancements for the FDA building last year of 

$16 million so that it could be used as swing space and so that we 

could work toward getting that ready for our plans to begin renovating and addressing the life-safety issues in the Cannon building. That is around 2012, from what I understand. So, in order to 

be able to use that space, we have to get it ready. That decision 

was the result of bipartisan approval in the 108th Congress, and 

it was signed off on by the House leadership at the time. 

This fiscal year you have requested $15 million, which, to my understanding, begins the reconfiguration of the interior of the FDA 

building. Can you briefly describe what the whole project entails, 

why it is important to the future of the Capitol complex, and just 

describe the current state of the 100-year-old Cannon building and 

the 75-year-old Longworth building for us, please? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, ma’am. 

The Cannon building is celebrating its 100th anniversary this 

year. It has never had a top-to-bottom major renovation, and we do 

have some significant infrastructure problems there. It is one of the 

buildings that is in the worst condition throughout the Capitol 

complex. So, as you noted, it is in deteriorating condition. We have 

several HVAC issues. We have numerous life-safety issues. We 

have egress problems, electrical problems and the like. That building does need a top-to-bottom renovation, and we do hope to be 

able to do that in accordance with our Capitol Complex Master 

Plan in 2012 or 2013. That is a major investment. 

So, to enable that to happen, of course as building managers we 

would love for that building to be vacant. That is the most expeditious way to do it and, of course, the least expensive way to do it. 

That is simply not a reality here in the Capitol complex, so we 

have to go out and find space in a phased way to go about that 

Cannon renovation. 

FOB–8 is, we think, the best alternative to do that. As you noted, 

we were directed by the Congress to acquire that space in 2003. In 

that building, we plan to lease, approximately 200,000 square feet 

of space so that we can renovate the Cannon building one floor at 

a time. So to do that, first, we have to acquire some leased space 

and renovate that leased space to accommodate staff. Our position 

is we cannot move Members to FOB–8, so we are going to have to 

reconfigure Longworth and reconfigure Rayburn suites to be able 

to move Members, floor by floor, out of Cannon and then move staff 

and other committees and the like to FOB–8. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
84 

BEST ALTERNATIVE FOR SWING SPACE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let me interrupt you for a quick second and ask, I know that there were different options considered 

for how to deal with the swing space. Why is leasing space in the 

FDA building the best alternative to get the swing space that we 

need? There were other options that were looked at. Why was this 

settled on as the best one? 

Mr. AYERS. It was the least expensive. 

Two of the other options that we looked at, one of them was to 

add an addition to the Rayburn building. If you look at the west 

front of the Rayburn building, that end of the building is open, and 

there is a plaza there that faces west. So we could fill that end of 

the Rayburn building in and do that construction and use that as 

swing space. That was significantly more expensive than leasing 

space. 

Similarly, we looked at new construction and what that would 

cost, and that was also more expensive than leasing space. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would like to, at this time, enter 

into the record a letter that was signed by former Speaker Hastert, 

former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and former Minority Leader 

Nancy Pelosi, dated June 4th, 2003, which requests the approval 

to move forward with the renovation of the FDA building and obligates the House to move forward. 

[The information follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
85 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 129 41290A.044
86 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 130 41290A.045
87 

My time has just about expired, so I will move on to Mr. Latham. 

LONG-TERM COSTS

Mr. LATHAM. Yes, I just want to maybe follow up on that. 

Long-term, what is going to be the cost to renovate Cannon, and 

the cost of the FDA building? What are we looking at and how 

long? 

Mr. AYERS. The FDA building, we have invested approximately 

$19 million in that to date. We think the total security upgrades 

and fit-out of that space to accommodate the swing space would be 

about $45 million to $50 million. On top of that, our annual lease 

costs are estimated by GSA at $10 million to $15 million per year 

for that 200,000 square feet. So that is the FDA building, or FOB– 

8. 

CANNON RENOVATION

In terms of the Cannon renovation, our parametric estimates 

now are about $450 million for that top-to-bottom, phased renovation. 

In terms of schedule, we believe that the FOB–8 building will be 

finished around 2012. We could, through 2012, begin moving people 

into that building, leading to the potential to start on Cannon in 

late 2012 or 2013. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. And you are saying that you are not going 

to move Members over there? You are going to move committee 

staff, other staff in the Cannon building over there? So it will be 

disruptive, obviously. How are you going to do it? Floor by floor? 

Mr. AYERS. We still need to go through all of those planning assumptions, but, certainly, our going-in position and, I think, the 

Committee on House Administration’s going-in position is that 

moving Members to FOB–8 just won’t work. So we are going to 

have to do that through staff moves and committee moves and support function moves. 

At this time, we do think that the best way to do Cannon is floor 

by floor. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. How many suites on each floor are you talking about? 

Mr. AYERS. I think there are 40 or 41. 

Mr. TISCIONE. The maximum is 41. 

HOUSE METERING PROJECT

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. On the metering issue, I brought it up in the 

last hearing on the CVC, I think it does relate to the CVC. The reprogramming request for the metering project—and it is a little 

frustrating to me that this, apparently, was—a request or a directive was given at a time when we were under a CR, and negotiating with the Senate. We underfunded the Members’ representational accounts, yet we are still, at the same time, asking for about 

$4.2 million to be put in the metering. 

Can you tell me what all this entails? What actually are you trying to do? Is $4.2 million enough in the scope of this project? 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
88 

Mr. AYERS. The metering effort is focused on the House side of 

the Capitol complex, so we intend to meter all utilities. That would 

be water, steam, chilled water, and electricity at the power plant. 

So that would entail the installation of about 130 meters 

throughout the House side. Most of our buildings are configured 

where we have multiple feeds for electricity, steam and chilled 

water for redundancy issues and maintenance purposes. So each of 

those feeds to every building will need a meter so that we can get 

accurate metering. 

So, to do that, we will install all of those meters. They need to 

be tied back through wiring and infrastructure, back to a central 

computer station; then, from that computer, wired back out to each 

facility. Part of the scope of this effort is to provide a display in 

the lobby, in some cases multiple displays in each of the House 

buildings, which will show real-time the energy usage for that particular building. 

We do think $4.3 million is the right amount of money. We have 

engaged a third-party cost-estimating consultant to prepare that 

cost estimate for us, and we have had a long-term relationship with 

that company. They do very good work. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. I think my time has expired. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. 

Mr. LaHood. 

CVC GOVERNANCE LEGISLATION

Mr. LAHOOD. Madam Chair, I just want to note for the record 

that the House Administration Committee has passed a bill designating the House Administration Committee and the appropriate 

Senate committee to have jurisdiction, or governance, over the 

CVC. There is no mention of any other committees. It would be my 

intention—and, I would hope you would support this—that either 

you or this subcommittee would go to the Chair of the House Administration Committee and see if there is a possibility of amending the bill to include other committees that are going to have responsibility for funding. Otherwise, I think we ought to consider 

amending the bill on the floor. 

So I will just state that for the record, because we had quite a 

discussion about who is going to have governance over the CVC. 

You made it pretty clear that you thought our committee or at 

least a committee of Appropriations should have some say in who 

is going to have governance, and that is not apparent at all in the 

bill that was passed out of the committee. So that is just for the 

record. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman would yield—— 

Mr. LAHOOD. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I completely agree with you. My understanding was that we were referenced in that legislation. If we 

are not referenced adequately, then I would support an amendment 

at any point in the process to ensure that we are. And I would go 

to the House leadership and ask Mr. Latham to go to his leadership to ensure that the appropriators are part of that process. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Absolutely. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
89 

JACKSONVILLE BANDSTAND

Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Ayers, as you might recall, I gave you a note 

about a very parochial issue that I have been working on for a 

number of years as a member of this subcommittee having to do 

with the moving of the so-called ‘‘Jacksonville bandstand’’ to the 

Capitol complex. I do not want to take the time of the subcommittee, but if you could provide a written response to me as to 

what direction I should go to make that happen, I would appreciate 

that. 

CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR CRITICAL NEEDS

You know, this idea of renovating buildings and your budget submission here are probably—well, it is overwhelming to me, as one 

committee member, because I think it is very difficult for this subcommittee to get our arms around that and to really fully understand the importance of it, which leads me to ask you: 

What happens if the subcommittee and the full committee do not 

allocate the amount of money that you are requesting? Do you have 

contingency plans for staging some of these things and for alerting 

us to what are the most urgent? I mean, are all of these things urgent and of high importance, or are there ways that you can alert 

us to the ones that are most important? 

You know, a $48 million increase is quite extraordinary. You 

know as well as I do the kind of fiscal constraints that we are facing around here. I have no idea what we are going to do, but I wonder if you have given thought to the idea that you may not get all 

of the money that you are requesting. 

How do you come up with a plan to accommodate what you feel 

are critical needs around here for aging buildings? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. Of course, I did receive your note, and we 

have been in contact with your Chief of Staff on the Jacksonville 

bandstand, and I will provide a written response to you on that as 

well. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Mr. AYERS. I am happy to do that. 

In terms of the contingency plans, this organization, I think, has 

really grown in recent years, and we now have the tools at our disposal so that we can look forward and make predictions as to what 

is our worst building and why. We have this computer program 

that can predict what investments need to be made and how they 

will affect the condition of a particular building. That is called the 

‘‘Facility Condition Index.’’ It is a standard tool from the Federal 

Facilities Council that we have been using for about 2 years now. 

So I think we have the tools in place to help predict when we 

need to make certain investments. So that tool, combined with the 

Capitol Complex Master Plan, helps us phase over time everything 

that needs to be done in all 33 buildings in the Capitol complex. 

They are important tools that enable us to inform you effectively 

of what needs to be done and when it needs to be done. 

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION PROCESS

Secondly, our project prioritization process that we have described in past hearings and in our budget book, we do classify 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
90 

every project that is on this list as immediate, meaning it needs to 

be done now, and that is what we have included in our budget request; high urgency, which needs to be done in the next 2 to 4 

years; and then medium and low urgency. 

So we have mapped out what we think needs to be done right 

now, what needs to be done in the next 2 to 4 years, and what can 

really be pushed out for several years. We have those tools at our 

disposal, and we will continue to work with the committee using 

those tools to evaluate various funding scenarios. 

PROJECT BACKLOG

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I want to follow up on the question that Mr. LaHood asked because, really, we have a resources-versus-demands concern with 

your agency. 

We held a hearing last year on your long-term needs. You noted 

a large backlog of projects that exist. We had some back-and-forth 

last year on where your program put the projects, above the line 

or below the line, and we moved some projects in this committee 

from below the line to above the line, which I would not be surprised if we did again. 

As I get a better understanding of what is on the list above and 

below your line, we will ask you specific questions about how those 

things fell out. You know, we tried to fund what we could, and we 

tried to help you prioritize, and you did a good job prioritizing. 

Can you give us a sense of how high your annual appropriation 

would need to be sustained for the foreseeable future to really address your infrastructure needs and demands? 

Then the other issue is I know you are doing things internally 

to address the backlog because, obviously, you are not going to get 

everything that you have requested. So what tools and funds are 

you using that are available to you to address the needs that we 

cannot provide directly for you? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, ma’am. In our budget binder, we worked to map 

out on that chart, graphically, ultimately, what is in front of us, 

and I am sure you have taken a look at that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. 

REINVESTMENT IN FACILITIES

Mr. AYERS. One of the important parts of that chart is this gray 

bar, which represents the reinvestment in facilities. Typically, the 

Federal Facilities Council and other agencies recommend a 2 to 4 

percent reinvestment in your facilities based upon your plant 

value. Our plant value is about $8.9 billion, which would lead us 

to an approximate $180 million reinvestment in deferred maintenance and capital renewal projects. You will see that we have 

mapped that out on this chart at the 2 percent level, and are escalating that for inflation over the next 20 years. That kind of an investment over the long haul is what is necessary to prevent this 

kind of backlog from recurring. That’s item A. 

Item B reflects that we need to make some investments now to 

abate the backlog so that we can get to sustaining those deferred 

maintenance and capital renewal projects at a flat rate versus sort 

of spiking up and down every fiscal year. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
91 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Are you able to move money around? 

Have you been doing that to address the backlog? I know we approve your reprogramming requests from time to time. What kinds 

of things internally are you doing to address the need to maximize 

your efficiency? 

APPROPRIATION BUDGET INITIATIVES

Mr. AYERS. One of the important initiatives that I wanted to take 

as I became Acting Architect was to get one budget view of the 

AOC. We have often used our 10 separate appropriations in a parochial way, that only money from that particular appropriation can 

be used, for example that only House money can be used in the 

House. Well, I think the responsible thing to do is to take a much 

broader look at all 10 appropriations and move money around to 

address the most important needs. 

So, over the course of the past year, we have done that and have 

taken money from one appropriation to place it on a more important need. So we have that ability now. We have been using that 

for the past year. 

I think our minor construction funds that the committee provides 

annually in the House and Senate and Library of Congress also 

help us to take care of a backlog of maintenance and deferred 

maintenance and capital renewal projects on an ongoing basis. 

LONG-TERM APPROPRIATION CONCERNS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can you describe in the next 5 years, 

if your appropriation does not rise significantly, what is likely to 

happen? I mean, what are some of your key concerns? 

Mr. AYERS. Certainly. We are going to have electrical problems 

and temperature and humidity control problems in many of our 

buildings. Of course, we will work to abate those by taking money 

from everything else that is in our budget so that we work to abate 

those problems, because that is the core mission. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But you are robbing Peter to pay 

Paul. 

Mr. AYERS. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul, but our core mission is to ensure that Congress can do their business. You need 

electricity, you need water, you need heating and cooling and electricity to do that. So we will take away from every other project 

we have to focus on those mission-critical areas. 

PRIORITY PROJECTS NOT IN REQUEST

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Before my time expires, do you have 

any immediate priority projects that were not included in your request? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You do. What were they and why? 

Mr. AYERS. The reason we did not include them in our request 

is because the first stab we took is to take all immediate priority 

projects. Then we looked at those and said, does each one of those 

make sense? 

Some of them did not make sense. For example, the Dirksen infrastructure renovation project, we just received the money to fund 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
92 

phase one of that, so phase one is going to take us this entire fiscal 

year, so it makes no sense to ask for phase two money now. 

There were probably five or six of those kinds of phasing decisions that we made because, if you appropriated the money, we 

really could not use it right now. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So you had other projects that were 

more ready than—even though those were an immediate priority, 

you had other things that were more ready than an immediate priority? 

Mr. AYERS. We could not physically execute them, that is the 

key. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I understand. 

My time has expired. Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

MINOR CONSTRUCTION REPROGRAMMING CONCERNS

I think you are making the point of my concern in this re- programming request. I think $2.4 million is proposed to be reprogrammed for minor construction. Can you give us some examples 

of what that is? Are there any life-safety-type projects that are 

being deferred because of this? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. Well, several of our appropriations have a minor construction account. In the House, it is, I believe, $5 million 

a year. In the Senate, it is probably comparable. It is $1 million 

or $2 million at the Library of Congress. I think it is $3 million 

or $4 million at the Capitol Power Plant. That money is used for 

emerging requirements in any given fiscal year. 

For example, this year in the House, we are using that money 

to take care of a new egress point for the Longworth building. We 

have some pretty significant egress concerns in the Longworth that 

were brought to our attention by the Police and the House Sergeant at Arms, so we are using much of that money this year to 

fund that project. 

On an ongoing basis, we will use that money for life-safety 

projects that come up. We use it for emerging congressional items. 

For example, I recall that the Committee on Homeland Security, if 

that is right, Frank, was developed— 

Mr. LATHAM. My point here is you are taking half of that money 

for this reprogramming request from these emergencies that you 

are talking about, which would tie your hands if you did have, you 

know, other emergencies. You know, looking at the—— 

Mr. AYERS. That is true. 

DEFERRED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Mr. LATHAM [continuing]. Request, you have two full pages of deferred construction projects here that are not being done. You 

know, where I come from, if you have a hole in the roof, you do 

not go out and buy a new electrical meter to find out how much 

energy is going up through the hole in the roof. You fix the roof. 

I am just very concerned. You have over $800,000 in reprogramming that is going to stop the backup connections as far as the 

data center from Ford. I mean, there are a lot of very important 

things that are not going to happen because we are doing this 

thing that unfortunately no one knew about. I mean, even the 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
93 

House Building Committee, there was no consultation, no talk 

about it. 

My concern, really, is that we are spending money on things that 

maybe sound good, but we have real needs here that are not going 

to be met because we are diverting resources to things like this. I 

don’t know if you have any comment. 

Mr. AYERS. Your point of minor construction money being there 

for emergencies and emerging requirements, that is exactly what 

it is for. If those come up, our ability to use that account for those 

emergencies would be diminished. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. 

HOUSE METERING AND ENERGY REDUCTION

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just to follow up on Mr. Latham’s 

question and comment, it is important to note that the AOC is required by statute to reduce its energy use by 30 percent by 2014, 

and the estimated cost of that is $300 million. 

So, Mr. Latham, with all due respect, the House metering project 

did not come out of the clear blue sky. It is part of the ongoing effort, including the Greening of the Capitol Initiative, but the statutory requirements on the part of the AOC to reduce its energy use 

by 30 percent. And the specific funding that is being used for the 

House metering project is something that will—the analogy that I 

know that has been used by some of the staff in the Architect of 

the Capitol’s Office is that, if you are dieting, you do not know how 

much you need to lose unless you have a scale that you can stand 

on. Knowing that, the energy use of the House office buildings is 

going to be important for us to know how far we have to reach our 

goals. 

So, with all due respect, this is not funding that came out of the 

clear blue sky, and it is not a requirement that was just made up. 

It is a statutory requirement that we have to work toward. 

Mr. LATHAM. Will the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. LATHAM. Was there any discussion between the Speaker, the 

Majority Leader and the Minority Leader who sit on the House 

Building Committee about this? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I cannot specifically answer that question, but there is a statutory requirement that the AOC reduce its 

energy use by 30 percent, and there are a variety of ways of doing 

that. And this is one in which we can move the ball down the field 

significantly in order to accomplish that goal. 

I am hoping, Mr. Latham, that we are not going to quibble about 

this House metering project. It is an incredibly important project. 

We need to make sure—I mean, it is $4.5 million that was able to 

be moved around internally by the Architect of the Capitol. We absolutely need to know the energy usage that we have in order to 

make sure that we can reduce our energy usage, which is important. I was someone who pushed, since the beginning of the time 

that I took over this committee, to ensure that the most important 

fire and life-safety and security projects are funded and have held 

the Architect’s feet to the fire to ensure that. 

So we have a combination of priorities. We are certainly not 

going to be jeopardizing the security or the safety of the people who 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
94 

work here and who visit here. We are going to make sure that we 

get the things that we need to done. 

CR PLANS FOR THE CVC

I want to ask you about the issue that came up last week related 

to the potential for a continuing resolution, because I do not want 

there to be the perception left that we would somehow not be able 

to operate the CVC in the event of a CR. 

So what are your plans, Mr. Ayers, for mitigating any impacts 

on the CVC if there is a continuing resolution for part of fiscal year 

2009? What help would you need from this committee? 

Mr. AYERS. Well, I think the most important thing that we 

talked about at the CVC hearing was the operations of the Visitor 

Center. We think we are going to be okay on the construction side. 

On the facility maintenance side, we think we will be okay. But 

there will be significant issues on the operations side, as we will 

have to fund our full-year contingent of employees, and we will not 

be able to make our monthly payroll. 

I think, in order to do that, first we would need some flexibilities 

in the CR language from this committee, allowing us to adjust the 

percentages there. I think that would really be helpful for us. 

Secondly, we would simply need to—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is that how you have managed under 

past CRs? 

Mr. AYERS. We did receive flexibilities specifically for the Visitor 

Center in 2007 that enabled us to continue the construction and 

operations portion. So similar language, I think, would be helpful 

and would help us to avert a crisis in early 2009. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good. 

Mr. AYERS. Similarly, we would work to reprogram funds from 

other sources if we needed to. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My time has expired. 

Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. To that point, what does that do to other projects? 

I mean, just in Roll Call this morning—the House, I know, has the 

best intentions of getting its work done. The Senate, apparently, 

from the story—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Apparently. 

Mr. LATHAM [continuing]. Has thrown it off already, so we could 

be looking toward at least—you know, last year, it was 3 months 

under CR. This next year, it could be easily from October 1st to 

March, 6 months. 

What does that do to your operations—I mean, you are moving 

funds around, but we have a lot of maintenance projects and a lot 

of other things that are going to be real problems. And I do not 

want to see the CVC open up and then have to close the next day 

because we cannot pay staff or because we cannot, you know, operate the facility. I mean, that would not be a good start for us. 

CVC REPROGRAMMING—FUNDING SOURCES

Where do you see the money coming from? What effect is that 

going to have on the maintenance? 

Mr. AYERS. Certainly, with any continuing resolution, we lose 

buying power. We cannot start any new construction projects that 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
95 

we would typically start in October or November. If we are not 

going to start those until January, February or March, we lose 

some buying power through that process, of course, with inflation 

of construction materials. So there is clearly that concern. 

There is no doubt that with the money in our budget that we 

would reprogram that something else would not get done because 

of that. We have not specifically identified which projects they 

would be at this point, but we would develop that list and work 

with the committee on those priorities to determine what projects 

we would put on hold or would delay or cancel to move funds 

around. 

GREENING OF THE CAPITOL INITIATIVE

Mr. LATHAM. One of the parts of the Greening of the Capitol Initiative is that it requires you to purchase 100 percent renewable 

electricity and only natural gas for the House portion of the Capitol 

plant. Are there additional costs to that, or how much more is this 

costing us to fill that requirement? 

Mr. AYERS. There are several requirements. One is the purchase 

of natural gas, and we did receive money this year to do that. It 

is $2.7 million to purchase natural gas for the House’s portion of 

our gas usage. 

Mr. LATHAM. Is that additional from what the normal costs 

would be? 

Mr. AYERS. Additional, correct. That is exactly right. 

In addition, to purchase renewable electricity, we have estimated that to be about $512,000, and that is in addition to our normal 

electricity costs, and that money was provided this year. We are 

working to implement both of those right now. 

ONGOING INITIATIVES—CAPITOL POWER PLANT

Mr. LATHAM. Are there any other ways that we could look at 

redoing the power plant, or any other suggestions out there to 

maybe modernize the generation plant here with fuel cells or energy cells, anything like that? Have you looked at what that would 

cost to actually do something to make the facility efficient? 

Mr. AYERS. We have several ongoing initiatives to increase the 

efficiency of the power plant as well as to reduce its carbon output. 

One of them is a cogeneration facility. We have completed a feasibility study for installing a cogeneration plant. That will increase 

efficiency significantly, but it requires a very significant upfront investment of $150 million to $200 million, so we have not put that 

forth at this point. 

We have not looked at fuel cells to date, but we are looking at 

some options currently, mapping out a feasibility study for a carbon 

sequestration project. We have completed a study to convert from 

our general fuel oil to an environmentally friendly fuel, and that 

looks like it is going to be feasible for us. We are working through 

the permitting process now to see if it has any effect on our environmental permit. 

Mr. LATHAM. Being from Iowa, I think you ought to use ethanol 

or soybeans. 

I will be right back. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Udall, are you ready? 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
96 

Mr. UDALL. Yes, I am ready. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. You are up. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

CAPITOL POWER PLANT OPERATIONS

I am very interested in what the power plant is running on right 

now. I think one of the facts that has not been pointed out to everybody is that the folks living right in the shadow of the power plant 

are the House pages. If it is running on coal, then we are putting 

out all of the pollutants that you get from that. 

So what is the power plant running on now, Mr. Ayers? Is it running on gas rather than coal? 

Mr. AYERS. We use three fuels at the power plant: coal, natural 

gas and fuel oil. 

Mr. UDALL. What is the mix right now? What percentages are 

coal and natural gas? 

Mr. AYERS. I do not know those off the top of my head. I will respond for the record, unless my staff knows. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately fifty percent coal, 45 percent gas 

and 5 percent fuel. But that is from an annual perspective. 

Mr. AYERS. Approximately at 50 percent coal, 45 percent gas, and 

the remainder is fuel oil today. 

Mr. UDALL. Has anybody ever looked at the impact on the area 

in terms of the emissions that are put out? 

Mr. AYERS. Certainly, as to the emissions that come out of the 

power plant, we are in compliance with our permit from EPA and 

the District of Columbia. As part of that permitting process, certainly they look at those critical local areas as well as the broader 

community in issuing those permits. 

Mr. UDALL. Has the power plant always met all of the EPA 

standards and laws and regulations? Has it ever been in violation 

in terms of its permit? 

Mr. AYERS. There are occasions where their emissions will spike, 

and it requires us to report those to the District of Columbia, and 

we do that. So we had one of those. In my recollection of many 

years at the AOC, I recall one. That, quite frankly, happened about 

4 or 5 months ago, and this was a duration—— 

Mr. UDALL. What was the spike, or what was the violation there? 

Mr. AYERS. We were burning fuel oil and had a fuel oil valve failure, so that caused the fuel mixture to be incorrect. So the opacity 

of the product coming out of the stacks went over our opacity limits 

for 3 or 4 minutes. 

So anything like that we are required to report, and we do that. 

Mr. UDALL. Talking about CO2 now, if you are burning coal 50 

percent of the time, if you are emitting coal 50 percent of the time 

in that power plant and there are the CO2 emissions from that, all 

of the other work that we are doing on Capitol Hill to reduce our 

carbon footprint would be dwarfed by what you do in that coal 

plant. So I would just encourage you to try as much as possible to 

shift over to natural gas and to look like you are doing a cogeneration in other kinds of areas where you can make a real difference 

in terms of CO2 and the pollution. 

Yes, go ahead. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You voted, didn’t you? 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
97 

Mr. UDALL. Yes. Yes. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

ETHANOL 85 FUEL PUMP

Mr. UDALL. My understanding is that the AOC has installed an 

ethanol 85 fuel pump. Is that right? 

Mr. AYERS. No, sir, it is not installed yet. 

Mr. UDALL. But you are planning to do that? 

Mr. AYERS. We did receive direction and funding to do that, so 

we will move out to do that. 

Mr. UDALL. When do you think that will be complete? 

Mr. AYERS. That is probably 6 months, approximately 6 months 

from now. 

Mr. UDALL. How many vehicles do you have that would be able 

to utilize that in your fleet right now? 

Mr. AYERS. Our vehicle fleet is about 120 vehicles, and today we 

have, I would estimate, 10, maybe less than 10, vehicles that are 

capable of that. 

So once we have that product, we will begin to renew our fleet 

and to renew our leases with E85-compatible vehicles. Not only do 

we fuel AOC vehicles, but we fuel many other vehicles on the Capitol complex as well. 

Mr. UDALL. So as soon as you get that pump up and running, 

your push is going to be to move your fleet so that many more of 

your vehicles can do that, I hope, can utilize the pump. 

Mr. AYERS. Correct. Yes. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome. 

UTILITY TUNNELS REMEDIATION UPDATE

I want to shift the focus to the utility tunnels remediation. We 

had an entirely separate hearing on this issue last year, and I want 

to get a sense of where we are in terms of the progress on this 

project. We have allocated $50 million in supplemental funds to 

begin making those tunnels a safe working environment for your 

employees. Now, this year, you have requested another $127 million for fiscal year 2009. There is a 5-year timeline. 

So if you can give me a status update, including what has been 

accomplished to date. Are we still on schedule and on budget? Specifically and most importantly, are we doing everything we can to 

guard the health and safety of the tunnel workers? I know that we 

have been, and I want to make sure that we are continuing to do 

so. 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, ma’am, we are continuing to do that. We don’t 

have any concerns with health and safety issues at the moment. 

We don’t believe the Office of Compliance does either. We are on 

schedule; we are on budget to finish the utility tunnel reconstruction at the end of 5 years, which I think is June 2012. It does require significant investment, obviously. 

To date, we are working extensively in the Y tunnel, doing some 

asbestos abatement and debris and dust cleanup in that tunnel. We 

have under construction two new egress points in the Y tunnel at 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
98 

this point. We have done some major electrical upgrades, some significant fan upgrades. 

So we are comfortable with where we are. I believe the Office of 

Compliance is comfortable with where we are. They have reviewed 

our 2009 budget request as well and are in agreement with where 

we are going. 

PROJECT BUDGET REQUEST

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The total cost of this project is approximately $300 million, and you have requested almost half of 

that amount in this fiscal year. Why so significant a chunk of the 

project in 1 year? 

Mr. AYERS. Well, most importantly, our tunnel work needs to get 

started this summer, it needs to continue. If we do not continue 

that on an ongoing basis, we are going to face, I think, increased 

costs by not doing that. 

Our team has mapped out how we are going to fix that project 

by the end of that year. You can see, in any typical construction 

project, you ramp up and then you ramp down. So we are in this 

year now, which is really the most significant budget request. I 

think, next year, we will be in the $80 million range, and you will 

continue to see that go down until we finish that job in 2012. So 

this year is the most expensive year on that project. 

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE CITATIONS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. On the Office of Compliance citations, 

can you talk about where those citations—how you prioritize those 

and where those are? How many of the requested funded projects 

are Office of Compliance citations? What is the total dollar value 

of all of your existing citations, and how do you prioritize those 

generally? 

Mr. AYERS. Well, our prioritization process generally will move 

all of those citation projects to the top of the list. So as to the first 

10 projects that are on that priority list, all 10 of them have citations against them. So the prioritization system worked, and that 

totals $148 million, so it is the first 10 that take care of that. 

In terms of citations, since 1998 when the Office of Compliance 

really became effective at reviewing facilities, they have issued 39 

citations comprising 98 items. Of those 98 items, we have closed 

out 65. Much of the work you see here will continue to help us 

abate those. You will notice, if you look at—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. How are you doing in avoiding having 

more citations? Is your number of citations going down? 

Mr. AYERS. Absolutely. We have not received any new citations 

since the utility tunnels, and prior to that, it was sometime well 

before that. So there is nothing new out there. We have a pretty 

aggressive safety and health program that we use to prevent those 

things from happening. 

You will note in the project list that our prioritization process 

does not focus on House or Senate or Capitol or anywhere else. You 

will see that the Library of Congress has nine open citations and 

that our budget is filled mostly with Library of Congress money. 

So that prioritization seems to work. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
99 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You will note that the Senate does not 

even have any items on the list, so you are right; apparently, you 

do not favor one or the other. 

My time has expired. Mr. Latham. 

MEETING ENERGY REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

You are under the energy-efficient mandate as far as the 30 percent reduction. Additionally, the Greening of the Capitol, the 50 

percent reduction. 

Can you just, for my benefit, being new on the committee, give 

us an idea of the specific projects you are doing to meet the mandates and what it is going to cost and how long—by 2015, as to the 

reductions, the 30 percent mandate reduction? What exactly are we 

going to do, and what is it going to cost to get there? 

Mr. AYERS. Your numbers are correct, that the Energy Policy Act 

of 2008 does require a 30 percent energy reduction per year over 

10 years. This is over a 2003 baseline. 

So, to do that, the most important thing we think we need to do 

to achieve those reductions is to conduct formal energy audits of 

our buildings. You will see some budget requests in our project list 

to conduct those energy audits. That is the most important thing, 

that we get those professional energy surveyors in to look at those 

projects and to scope those and to do the life-cycle cost analysis 

that tells us, ‘‘Don’t waste your money here, but invest it here, 

here, here, and here. This is where you are going to get the most 

savings.’’ So we need to do that first and foremost. 

Secondly, our estimate of the 30 percent reduction is nearly a 

$300 million investment to get that over 10 years. We recognize 

that that is going to be very, very difficult to do. We are working 

now and have been for several months on using the flexibilities of 

energy savings performance contracts, which are pretty extensively 

used in the executive branch, sponsored by the Department of Energy, where companies will come in, review your facility and say, 

‘‘I will replace all of your lighting systems, and I will replace these 

17 motors, and I will make the investment of $50 million,’’ and it 

does not cost you any money up front. You repay that company 

over the course of many years through the savings generated in 

your electricity bill. 

So we think that, really, to achieve the 30 percent and the 50 

percent, we are going to have to make extensive use of these energy savings performance contracts. We are close to being able to 

kick that off in the Capitol Power Plant, the House office buildings 

and the Senate office buildings now. 

ENERGY REDUCTION PROJECTS

Mr. LATHAM. The audits that you are asking funding for, have 

they specifically noted the types of projects? Or is it just changing 

light bulbs? Are we talking insulation? Are we talking refurbishing. 

Mr. AYERS. In terms of what is in our energy savings performance contracts, the contractor that reviewed the House has recommended extensive lighting upgrades throughout all buildings, 

and has recommended fairly extensive HVAC upgrades. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
100 

I think those are the big ones, lighting upgrades and HVAC upgrades and control of all of that mechanical equipment. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

LIFE-SAFETY SECURITY PROJECTS

You know, we focus in this committee on life-safety and security 

projects with your agency, and this year is going to be no exception. 

You have requested about $24 million worth of life-safety and security projects for fiscal year 2009, and that is excluding the utility 

tunnels. 

What are some of the most significant life-safety and security 

projects? How critical is it that we fund those in 2009? And like 

I said, if you can more specifically tell the projects that were not 

included that were high priority. 

Mr. AYERS. Certainly, the most important life-safety ones are 

those first 10 that are on the list. So I think we really need to fund 

those first. 

If we look at 11 and 12, you will see two really important security projects that I know are important to the Sergeant at Arms 

and to the Capitol Police. So focusing on those first I think is very, 

very important. 

In terms of what we did not put on the list, there are a couple 

of important concerns, immediate requirements that we didn’t put 

on the list, but I think those are genuinely not executable for us, 

so I wouldn’t recommend we do anything about those: Adams 

Building exterior doors, egress studies—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So they weren’t ripe yet? The ones 

that we need to do as a high priority aren’t ripe to do yet? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is basically why they didn’t 

make it to the fund-this-year list. 

Mr. AYERS. They are ready to be executed. If you funded them, 

we could execute them. The designs are complete and ready to go. 

But we don’t think it makes sense. Like the Dirksen project, we 

can’t do phase two before we do phase one. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. 

Mr. AYERS. We just started phase one because of funding issues. 

So it doesn’t make sense. Even though it needs to be done now, we 

simply can’t do it. 

POWER PLANT OUTSOURCING

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right, okay. 

Shifting to power plant outsourcing, there are a lot of Members 

in the past that have talked about outsourcing the operations of 

the Capitol Power Plant. And GAO recently reported that the AOC 

doesn’t have the information that you need to make a decision on 

that, and they recommended that you collect information so that 

you can do that. 

What are you doing to act on GAO’s recommendation? Because 

the power plant has been a significant issue and will continue to 

be a significant issue for this committee and for other Members 

and for this community. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
101 

Mr. AYERS. Madam Chair, GAO got it right this time. Their recommendations were right on the money. You can’t make staffing 

projections of going from 85 to 46 or 57 or all of those without the 

real data in front of you. So to get that data, we have to go through 

every piece of equipment that is in the plant, develop a preventive 

maintenance and operating plan for each of those pieces of equipment, map those out into the number of work hours required to 

care for each piece of equipment and to operate it. You map all of 

those hours out, then you add them up and determine what your 

real staffing needs are. 

We are engaged in that process now and have been for 4 to 5 

months. I think it is going to be towards the end of this fiscal year 

before we have that data in our hands. So I think we are really 

not going to be in a position to make decisions until then. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. And it is this fiscal year? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. That concludes the questions 

that I have. 

Mr. Latham, do you have anything else? 

Mr. LATHAM. I do not. 

CHAIRS CLOSING REMARKS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t issue some 

homework. You have really laid out well this year what the Architect of the Capitol office is facing in terms of our infrastructure 

needs, and I am happy about that. Chairman Obey has asked each 

subcommittee to look toward the future and think beyond fiscal 

year to fiscal year. Although we are a little bit of a weird duck 

when compared to other subcommittees, we need to try to do that 

as well. 

It is obvious that without significantly higher appropriations over 

time you will struggle to properly maintain our facilities and the 

grounds, and that is going to begin to exponentially increase the 

costs the later and later we put them off. 

So what I would like you to do is submit a report to us by next 

Friday, February 22nd, with information on the total value of the 

Capitol complex, the amounts now available to maintain and renew 

it, industry best practices on what percentage of the facility’s value 

should be spent on maintenance and renewal, and given these factors, the level of appropriations you need in fiscal year 2009 and 

beyond to address infrastructure demands. 

I want to start to lay out the next several years and to begin to 

plan how we are going to do this and be able to help you and work 

in partnership. It will also help me figure allocations. 

We sometimes are the stepchild of the appropriations process, 

but we have to make sure that these facilities remain intact, not 

just structurally but also historically for future generations. So if 

you would submit that information to us. 

With that, the subcommittee stands in recess, subject to the call 

of the Chair. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
102 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 166 41290A.046
103 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 167 41290A.047
104 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 168 41290A.048
105 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 169 41290A.049
106 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 170 41290A.050
107 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 171 41290A.051
108 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 172/200 41290A.052
(109) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2008. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS BUDGET 

WITNESSES 

JAMES H. BILLINGTON, THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS 

JO ANN C. JENKINS, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER 

DEANNA MARCUM, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR LIBRARY SERVICES 

JAMES GALLAGHER, ACTING ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR STRATEGIC 

INITIATIVES 

RUBENS MEDINA, LAW LIBRARIAN 

MARYBETH PETERS, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS 

DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH 

SERVICE 

JEFFREY PAGE, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good morning. I would like to call this 

hearing of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations to order. Welcome, Dr. Billington, Ms. 

Jenkins. 

Today we are going to proceed with the budget hearing on the 

Library of Congress’ appropriations request. 

We have a number of items that we need to go through. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the Library’s request today, and 

I appreciate very much, Dr. Billington, that you have put together 

a very reasonable and sound budget proposal that recognizes the 

really extreme and unfortunate budget difficulties that we find ourselves in, some of which are reflective of the economy, but a lot of 

which are reflective of the fact that we are and have been hemmed 

in by an administration that has limited the number, the top line 

number, that we are able to work with. So it is not through lack 

of trying that we have been unable to provide you with the resources that I know you very much need. 

I can assure you that we will continue to fight to get you the resources that you need. And I think it is pretty unpredictable what 

the outcome will be in terms of the appropriation process in this 

fiscal year, but I know that I am committed as the Chair of the 

subcommittee to make sure that we not cut beneath the bone and 

start to really damage and harm your agency. I am absolutely committed to making sure we don’t do that. 

Before I proceed, I would like to welcome Mr. Bonner to the subcommittee. Mr. Bonner is the newest member of the Appropriations 

Committee and the newest member of our subcommittee, and when 

he gets here, today will be his first hearing. 

The Library has made a $606 million request for fiscal year 

2009. That is a 7.7 percent increase. As I said, it has no new initiatives in it. There are only $12 million worth of program increases. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
110 

There are only two legislative branch agencies of all the agencies 

that we will be hearing from that have asked for less than a double-digit increase. So I appreciate the effort that you have made, 

because I know it is a very difficult circumstance and situation. 

I appreciate that you have asked for only $12.5 million for the 

Digital Talking Book program. We obviously want to make sure 

that we proceed in a timely way to accomplish that, recognizing the 

letter that you sent to our committee last year that you would be 

able to manage with the $12.5 million over a 6-year time period 

and, importantly, only have about a 10-percent drop in the amount 

of players available. I am glad that we are able to operate within 

those parameters. 

That having been said, we are still going to be in a very tight 

budget environment, and we are going to do our best to provide you 

with the resources that you need, but it is still going to be hard. 

And with that, I would like to turn to Mr. Latham for any opening remarks he has. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome to the 

folks in the Library of Congress, which I consider to be a national 

treasure, and Dr. Billington a national treasure also; and share 

your affection, I think, for the people of Russia; my interest goes 

back many years ago. I just welcome you and look forward to hearing your testimony. 

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

Mr. LaHood, do you have any remarks you want to make at this 

time? 

Mr. LAHOOD. No, ma’am. 

WELCOME WITNESSES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Great. 

Well, I would like to welcome our witnesses this morning. We 

have received your statements. Each of the statements will be entered into the record. We have Dr. James Billington, the Librarian 

of Congress, and Ms. Jo Ann Jenkins, the Library’s Chief Operating Officer. There are also a cadre of Library staff that I recognize in the audience. 

And I do have to say, Dr. Billington, it has been an absolute 

pleasure to work with you and your staff over the last year. We 

have been able to spend quite a bit of time on a variety of issues 

and a variety of programs, and I am privileged to have been included in some of the rollouts of your programs and really want to 

commend you on the tremendous leadership that you show as the 

steward of the Library. 

I know you often talk about the Congress being the largest and 

most important patron of the Library, but your stewardship of the 

Library is second to none. And the Library is the beacon that it is 

in the world because of your leadership. 

So if you would proceed with a summary of your statement, we 

welcome you to the committee. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
111 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE LIBRARIAN

Dr. BILLINGTON. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Mr. 

Latham, Mr. LaHood and members of the subcommittee. It is an 

honor to be here to present the Library of Congress’ fiscal year 

2009 budget along with our Chief Operating Officer, Ms. Jo Ann 

Jenkins, to my right, and behind me other members of the Executive Committee. 

I want to thank you, first of all, Madam Chair, for your continued interest in the vision and goals of the Library demonstrated by 

your participation in our Veterans History Project, in your eloquent 

opening of our Kislak exhibit, and for your support on many other 

fronts. 

And, Mr. Latham, I also want to welcome you back to the subcommittee. I enjoyed being on your ‘‘Congressional Report’’ to Iowa 

show several years ago and look forward to working with you and 

with all the members of the subcommittee. And Mr. LaHood, we 

are working with him on the Lincoln project and he is a great 

friend of the Library’s as well. 

We have submitted a very modest budget request for fiscal 2009 

based on fiscal 2008 operating levels, levels that were achieved 

with some painful cuts in the Library’s budget. We limited ourselves to requesting funding only to meet mandatory pay raises 

and unavoidable price level increases—that is a great majority of 

the increase—and also just to sustain basic current services, and 

to rescue from the brink of collapse the unique program that the 

Congress mandated and funded in 2001 for preserving the growing 

volume of important information and knowledge that is needed to 

serve Congress, but is produced only in impermanent digital form. 

NDIIPP RESCISSION

The fiscal 2007 rescission of $47 million from the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program, NDIIPP, 

resulted in a total loss to the program of $84 million. We have requested $6 million in fiscal 2009 and have provided a 5-year plan 

for keeping this program alive. Collecting and preserving ephemeral digital content is increasingly important for serving information needs of the Congress and for validating our new network way 

of doing business by sharing ongoing costs and expertise with a 

trusted network of vetted partners in states like Florida, Iowa, 

California, Minnesota and many others. 

DIGITAL TALKING BOOK PROGRAM

We have had to accept that our long-planned rollout of the transition to a digital format for talking books and playback machines 

will be prolonged from 4 to 6 years with difficulties for the blind 

community that I explained in my longer statement. We understand that in order to provide even this reduced level of annual 

funding for this critical program, Congress reduced funding levels 

in several of the Library’s other accounts, including a $10 million 

reduction to the Copyright Office’s no-year funding balance, a $4 

million general pay reduction, and over $5 million in reductions to 

our Library Services program. In addition to these direct cuts, the 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
112 

Library has also had to absorb roughly $16 million in mandated 

cost-of-living increases in fiscal 2007 and 2008. 

LIBRARY MISSION AND RESOURCES

Madam Chair, as you have already said, and as I repeat and always will with a certain awe and appreciation, deep appreciation, 

the Congress of the United States has been the greatest single patron of a Library in the history of the world. I think Congress can 

be proud of the record of acquiring and preserving, even in difficult 

financial periods, the largest and most varied collection anywhere 

in human history of the world’s knowledge and of this nation’s creativity. We respect the Congress’ understandable desire for austerity in this year’s budget request, and its authority to limit and 

redirect funds within the Library’s appropriations, but I feel obligated to say that if we are stretched much further, we may soon 

reach a breaking point. 

We now have more than 1,000 fewer staff to do far more work 

than was done 20 years ago when I became Librarian, and that 

was before we began the Herculean task of superimposing a digital 

library and services on top of a traditional analog library. We have 

already cut back on vital core missions and are stretching out the 

useful life of the technological infrastructure of the Library, but we 

cannot and should not put in jeopardy the important role that the 

Library plays in the information infrastructure of America, particularly in this information age. 

Despite the many challenges, this is a time of great promise for 

the Library, as we continue using digital technology to transform 

the way we do our work and deliver our services to Congress and 

the Nation in all divisions of the Library. Relying largely on private philanthropy and in-kind donations, our outstanding, dedicated staff will in the year ahead transform the public spaces of the 

Jefferson Building into an interactive learning center for the increased number of visitors who will be coming to the Library when 

the Capitol Visitors Center opens. We will also bring into full operation the magnificent new National Audio-Visual Conservation 

Center in Culpeper with the support and funding of the Congress 

and of the unprecedented gift of more than $150 million plus expert guidance from the Packard Humanities Institute. And we will 

begin putting on line, with the support of UNESCO and a number 

of other national libraries, a World Digital Library of primary cultural documents in seven languages. 

Madam Chair, we recognize that difficult choices will continue to 

have to be made during this time of extraordinary budget constraints, but the Library is an essential part of our knowledgebased democracy. The Library collects, preserves and makes accessible free of charge, both here on Capitol Hill and everywhere else 

on the Internet, important materials in languages and formats that 

no one else does. We are in many ways the Nation’s strategic information reserve. This Library has never been more important for 

the economic security and civic health of America than now in the 

midst of the transforming digital revolution. So I ask for your support for our modest funding request for fiscal 2009, and we look 

forward to working with this committee to craft a budget for fiscal 

2010 that will be able to ensure for the future the Library’s historic 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
113 

mission of serving the Congress and the Nation in very challenging 

and changing times. 

Thank you. I would be glad to answer any questions. 

[Dr. Billington and the Library’s other prepared statements follow:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
114 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 41290B.001
115 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 41290B.002
116 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 41290B.003
117 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 41290B.004
118 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 41290B.005
119 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 41290B.006
120 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 41290B.007
121 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 41290B.008
122 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 41290B.009
123 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 41290B.010
124 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 41290B.011
125 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 41290B.012
126 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 41290B.013
127 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 41290B.014
128 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 41290B.015
129 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 41290B.016
130 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 41290B.017
131 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 41290B.018
132 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 41290B.019
133 

DIFFICULT FUNDING CHOICES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much, Dr. Billington. I 

do have to tell you that I look forward to presiding over the subcommittee in times when we are more flush so that I can craft a 

bill that is not as disappointing as I know our bill in the last cycle 

was. We have been in a ‘‘do the best we can’’ situation. The Speaker always talks about how the budget is a reflection of our values, 

and certainly we are in a little bit of a battle right now over which 

expression of values we should be making. And so that struggle 

will continue, I think, for a number of months until it is finally resolved one way or the other. 

I do have a number of questions. I am sure Mr. Latham and Mr. 

LaHood do as well. I want to just focus on some of the more difficult things that we have facing us. 

The choices that this subcommittee has to make are between the 

wonderful programs that exist in the Library of Congress and the 

crumbling infrastructure that we have in terms of our facilities 

here; the life safety and security issues that we have to address, 

both short-term and long-term needs. And all of that is in the same 

bill, and it is a very small pie. And it is juxtaposed with the other 

appropriations subcommittees whose programs affect individual 

people’s lives. So we are not just competing against ourselves, but 

we are competing against the other subcommittees who have significant needs. And so our allocation is always the most difficult 

thing, because once we get the allocation, where we go from there 

is what we have to work with. 

DIGITAL TALKING BOOK PROGRAM

So I want to get right into the Digital Talking Book issue because we provided about $67 million for Books for the Blind and 

the Physically Handicapped in the 2008 omnibus, and that was almost a 25 percent increase over fiscal year 2007. And you noted in 

your statement that part of that increase was the $12.5 million 

that we gave the Library so it could move forward with the Digital 

Talking Book program. We also gave you transfer authority so that 

you could move additional resources into that effort if available, 

and we felt that was important because we wanted to make sure 

that if you had the ability to move some money around and provide 

additional resources, that that would be possible. 

The Digital Talking Book program is extremely important, and 

we want to be able to provide you with enough funding in 2009 to 

keep it on track. You sent us a letter last year affirming that you 

could get through a 6-year rollout of this program with $12.5 million, and begin the additional work that GAO outlined, and address 

some of the concerns that they rolled out. So I would like to know 

what progress you have made to date. When do you plan to start 

distributing the first Digital Talking Book players? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, maybe I should ask the Associate Librarian for Library Services, Dr. Deanna Marcum, to address it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If you want to step to the table. 

Dr. MARCUM. We have done a lot of work with the existing funds. 

The contract has been let for the production of the playback units. 

Work is under way to convert books to the new format. We realize 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
134 

that with the smaller amount, the difficulty we are going to have 

this year is that we won’t be able to convert to digital form as 

many of the retrospective titles as we had planned. But the work 

is moving forward. I think Mr. Cylke and his staff have done a very 

good job of making the best use of the money available. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is good to hear. And I want you 

to know that it is a priority for me to make sure that we go this 

far and no farther with this program, because your original request 

last year of $19 million was just too large a nut for the proportion 

of the bill that we were crafting from last year. And I really appreciate the effort that you made in working with us to try to find the 

sort of bottom-line number, which I know we are at now, that could 

make sure the program moved forward and we didn’t lose the opportunity. 

The worst thing that would happen is if we had the technology 

that is in use now become completely obsolete, the players go out 

of existence or lose their useful life, and not have players to replace 

them. We can debate about whether or not you should be going into 

the private sector for commercial players or should we be developing one on your own, and I know we had that discussion last 

year. But for the most part, I think we are on track now, and I 

hope Mr. Latham is willing to work with me to make sure that we 

proceed over the next 5 remaining fiscal years to make sure we 

don’t go below the $12.5 million. 

And my time has expired. 

Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Bonner apparently has a Budget Committee—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just wanted to make sure people 

knew he was welcome. 

NDIIPP FUNDING REQUIREMENTS

Mr. LATHAM. And we welcome him to the subcommittee. 

Dr. Billington, to what extent have the Library’s long-term digital transformation plans been disrupted by the rescission? You 

talked $47 million in the rescission. If you could just speak to that, 

what effect that has had. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, with the NDIIPP program, we lost not 

only the $47 million that had been appropriated long before, but 

we also lost $37 million in matching money that had been pledged. 

Mr. LATHAM. Who pledged that; private donors outside? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. No, no. Collaborative partners. We have a whole 

bunch of collaborative partners. We have an enormous number of 

people who are involved. And it took a long time to negotiate these 

arrangements. Of the original appropriation of $100 million, $75 

million of that was for matching funds to enlist partners, because 

the mandate from the Congress was to plan and begin implementing a national program to archive what is important to retain 

from the Internet. So we have already done a fair amount of 

matching, but for a lot of these arrangements you have to get the 

approval of State legislatures and all kinds of trustees of private 

repositories, and do all kinds of legal work. 

So there was still a fair amount of unspent money for which we 

already had pledges. It was already committed, but not spent, and 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
135 

in the rescission, all of this was picked up. So we have now reconfigured in view of the rescission, and therefore we come in with a 

request for $6 million to keep this program alive and to keep the 

network principle alive so that everything doesn’t fall to Federal 

appropriations. 

NDIIPP ACCOMPLISHMENTS

I think a lot of that good work will go on because people realize 

how important it is. And there have been a lot of meetings, a lot 

of work in setting metadata standards, the electronic equivalent of 

cataloguing, and establishing a whole lot of procedures, looking into 

the whole question of how we maximize access as well as preservation. 

This information found on the Internet is very impermanent. It 

changes a lot. A lot of it has been lost already. We already have 

data in the system, in addition to developing the standards and the 

architecture that can be ramped up even with the certain fact that 

the technologies are going to change—you don’t want to have to 

redo the system each time. That has taken a long time; a lot of 

progress has been made. We already have 66 terabytes of stored information in the system in various repositories. We have developed 

a 5-year plan based on this very much-reduced level of $6 million 

a year that will increase stored information 10 times over to 650 

terabytes. A terabyte equals about the content of 1 million books. 

So you are talking about the equivalent content of 650 million 

books. It is an awful lot of information. 

We estimate roughly that we lost 75 percent of the content in 

that rescission, but that we can recapture a great deal of it with 

this program. And so we have here a very detailed 5-year plan with 

rollouts and figures and statistics which we will give the committee 

to indicate what can be saved. 

A good deal has been lost. A good deal was lost before we began 

this program, but NDIIPP is still the major program for enlisting 

and involving partners. It is a good thing because a lot of institutions have been thinking only of their own, what they want to save 

for their own faculties or for their own research purposes. Now 

they have to think in terms of the national need, and they are 

going to make—even though it may be stored in another institution—it available to the Congress at all times so that we can get 

instant access as if we physically had the materials ourselves. 

Mr. LATHAM. How are we doing on time? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. A couple more seconds. We will give 

you a little leeway. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. So, in essence, what the rescission costs in 

outside money, $84 million, can we recover some of that outside 

with the $6 million a year that you are talking about? Are we going 

to be able to get these people to come back into the fold with the 

$37 million that was lost? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. We would hope so. I mean, we have a lot of 

them already in the fold. In fact, the major point of this is to maximize partnerships. We may not have as much money to give them, 

but we want to keep as many of those partners as we can. In the 

5-year plan, we have—I forget the exact number, but we can give 

you the rollout—something like 130 partners we project to get back 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
136 

into the system. Many of them are already here. They never left 

us. 

This program has already had a great impact because it has 

alerted a wide variety of institutions. There was a beautiful article, 

an op-ed piece, in the Washington Post by Francine Berman, who 

heads the San Diego Supercomputer Center; and James Barksdale, 

the founder of Netscape, who is one of our principal guides on the 

technology side. They wrote that, if we were to stop and not be able 

to continue to archive the Internet, it would be like destroying the 

Library in Alexandria because more and more things are available 

only in digital form. This country invented this technology, and we 

still have the world’s greatest intellectual industry doing all kinds 

of interesting studies, and more and more of which is only in digital form. 

This is the business of superimposing acquisitions, digital knowledge and information. This is of enormous value to the United 

States, which invented the technology, and so many ideas, but if 

we don’t archive these acquisitions and keep them, we aren’t going 

to be able to answer questions that will only be answerable from 

digital content, increasingly from Congress, and also for the support of the government and our economy in general. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

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

Mr. LaHood. 

THANKS TO THE LIBRARIAN

Mr. LAHOOD. Dr. Billington, thank you for being here. 

I agree with what has been said earlier. I think the Library is 

the jewel in Washington, D.C. I think that the actual building is 

one of the most beautiful buildings in Washington. I tell people to 

be sure and come into the building and see the beauty of it. I also 

think that under your leadership and your team, the Library has 

really moved into the 21st century in ways that probably most 

Members of Congress have no way of knowing. 

I also want to thank you on two counts: One, for accepting our 

suggestions to find ways to get more Members of Congress to come 

to the library. I know you are working on that very hard and have 

come up with some creative ways to do that, to get Members to use 

the Members room, and to come to the Library and see the great 

exhibits that you have. And I also want to thank you and your staff 

for all of the work that you have done to make the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission successful by allowing the staff of 

the Commission to work in your facilities and to use many of the 

resources that are available in the Library. 

DIGITAL TALKING BOOKS FUNDING REQUIREMENTS

I know that this budget request for the Books for the Blind and 

the Physically Handicapped is very troubling to you. 

And I will just tell you this, Madam Chair, I am going to be one 

member of this subcommittee that is going to try to find a way to 

find the money. Look, budgets are about priorities. Our priority 

ought to be a way to not extend our ability to move books into the 

digital world by extending it 2 years, but to try to find the money 

to do it in 4 years. Budgets are about priorities, and one of our priVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:24 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 041290 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\41290P2.XXX 41290P2

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
137 

orities on this subcommittee should be to find the money to do this. 

And so we haven’t been given our allocation. The Congress hasn’t 

even adopted a budget yet. 

And so I want you to know, and I want the Librarian to know, 

and I want the blind community to know this is one Member that 

is going to try and find the money so that we can do these digital 

books in 4 years, which is the commitment which we made to these 

people, the commitment that Congress made to them. To extend it 

out 2 years means that a lot of these people are not going to have 

the ability to have access to these books because they are going to 

be sitting on shelves. And I think it is incumbent upon the Congress to say to the handicapped community, we care enough and 

think enough about your ability to read important literature and 

books to give you the ability to do that. That ought to be one of 

the priorities of Congress, and it ought to be one of the priorities 

of the subcommittee. 

So I am going to do everything I can to find the money, to offer 

amendments if we can’t find the money as a subcommittee to offset 

our ability to fund this. I think it is one of the most critical things 

we can do for the blind community and to send a message that 

reading is important, that having access to these books is important, and that because you are handicapped, it shouldn’t delay your 

ability to read books. And—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Of course. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Because I would also ask that you 

speak to the President of the United States when you have an opportunity and encourage him to be willing to compromise on what 

the overall top-line number is that we have to work with, because 

it is programs like this one that end up suffering when we have 

an austere and incredibly difficult number to work with. 

We have talked about the nice-to-haves and the got-to-haves in 

this bill. This Committee is one of the committees that suffers the 

most as a result of the allocation decisions that have to be made, 

because when they are choosing—when either your leadership or 

our leadership is forced to choose between Labor-HHS programs, 

and infrastructure needs, and transportation and energy and water 

projects, there is no way that we will be made a priority, and you 

have programs like this one that end up suffering because they are 

housed within the allocation that is given to this committee. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Look, Madam Chair, I am not going to lay the 

blame on the President, I am going to blame the Congress. We are 

the one that passed the rescission, we are the one that cut these 

programs, we are the one that made the decision. We are on this 

subcommittee as freely elected Members of Congress to make priorities. We are going to set our own budget. 

Do you know what I told some folks back home? The President 

proposes his budget, which he has done on February 5th, and we 

dispose. We are going to have our own budget. It is going to be on 

the House floor here one of these days. And as members of this 

subcommittee, we have an obligation to fund programs that we 

think are a high priority. And I happen to think this one is a very 

high priority, and I am going to fight like hell to make sure we can 

find the money somewhere within our allocation to speed up the 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
138 

digitizing of these books from 6 years to 4 years. We owe it to these 

folks to do that. That ought to be our priority. 

You know, the President can propose his own budget. We have 

our obligation and our responsibility. That is why we are elected. 

That is why we are on this subcommittee. That is why we have 

these hearings, to set our priorities. This ought to be our top priority this year. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. I hope that yours and 

your colleagues on your side of the aisle’s votes reflect both priorities as well when it comes to the needs that we have in this subcommittee as well as others, because there are many competing 

needs in this subcommittee. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, look, Madam Chair, I will work very hard on 

my side of the aisle. When our Legislative Branch Subcommittee 

comes to the full committee and comes to the House floor, this 

Member will be out front working very hard to make sure that this 

program is a priority for the Congress. I think it sends a good message across the country. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is my responsibility, and I will 

mention that your time has now expired, but it is my responsibility 

to make sure that all of the competing priorities in this committee, 

of which there are many, and the Talking Books for the Blind and 

the blind program is only one of them, and not one that I can say 

is the most important—there are many competing priorities in this 

subcommittee. This a program that received $67 million in the last 

fiscal year, $67 million and a 25 percent increase, one of the largest 

increases in our entire bill. So there should not be an impression 

left that this is a community that has been forgotten or left out in 

the cold or ignored. 

This particular program most likely will have to be stretched out 

over a longer period of time, and there is only going to be a 10 percent reduction in the amount of players available. So let us make 

sure that we provide the resources and not politicize an issue unnecessarily. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, look, I want to respond to that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, Mr. LaHood. 

Mr. LAHOOD. It is also my responsibility as a member of the 

committee, too. I know you are the Chair, but I am an equal member of this committee. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You certainly are. 

Mr. LAHOOD. If you don’t see this as a priority, I am putting you 

on notice, Madam Chair—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am reclaiming my time, Mr. 

LaHood. 

Mr. LAHOOD. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. LaHood. 

Mr. LAHOOD. If you want to do it that way, I will do it that way. 

I yielded to you when you asked to be yielded to on my time. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And I have let you speak for 8 minutes. So if we are going to have a give and take, then we can have 

a give and take. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, you don’t want to give me a give and take, 

so I will come back a second round. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Thank you. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
139 

Mr. LAHOOD. If you can’t have it your way, then you don’t want 

it anybody’s way. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. LaHood, with all due respect, I 

gave you an opportunity, a lengthy opportunity, to speak. And if we 

are going to have a give and take, I am happy to have one. I didn’t 

interrupt you. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Then let us have a give and take. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, let us just proceed under regular order, and that way we can make sure that we are not arguing. 

Ms. Lee, welcome to the committee. 

Ms. LEE. I am welcome to be here. At the right time, I think. I 

apologize for being late. I had three things going on at one time. 

But thank you, Madam Chair, for this hearing, and good to see you 

both. 

CONTRACTING WITH MINORITY AND WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESSES

Let me just ask you a couple of things with regard to the minority and women-owned business contracting initiative that we began 

last year. We are, I guess, waiting to see some draft language as 

it relates to the involvement and utilization of minority and 

women-owned business. Can you kind of tell us where you are on 

that and what the status is; and the type of contracting that you 

actually do in terms of procurements; and if you know whether or 

not what the numbers are at this point? 

Ms. JENKINS. I can’t give you the exact numbers right now, but 

we have submitted to the committee the appropriate language that 

you asked for in the past bill to capture data and design a program 

for minority contracting. 

I will tell you that roughly 50 percent of our contracts already 

go to small businesses with the exception of some few technology 

contracts. Almost all of our contracts are small-dollar contracts. I 

started my career being a competition advocate in the Small Business Administration, so I know a lot about this area, and it is 

something that we are putting in place to try to capture that data. 

I don’t have the exact percentage of the number of minority businesses, but we have just gotten the authority to also do 8(a) contracting, and so we are moving forward with putting that program 

in place as well. 

LITTLE SCHOLARS CHILD CARE CENTER

Ms. LEE. I look forward to reviewing that. 

Let me ask you also about the child care center, the status of the 

child care center, and also this issue about the low-income assistance for the child care center, and also an update. Do you have any 

renovation plans at this point, and where? Again, based on our initial conversations, do we know yet where children will be housed 

during the interim? 

Ms. JENKINS. I will answer the question first about the subsidy. 

Right now we do not have a direct subsidy from the Congress to 

subsidize the child care center tuition cost. We have a very active 

fundraising committee with the Little Scholars program and we do 

a number of employee fundraising events. I myself contribute to 

the Little Scholars Child Care Center. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
140 

But I know that the House employees have an authorization 

from Congress to subsidize tuition. We don’t have that at the Library, so we do not currently subsidize the tuition. We have about 

27 employees at the Library of Congress and about 21 Members of 

the House have kids who are at the Little Scholars Child Care 

Center. 

Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, sooner or later I would like to really look 

at that, because I think the employees should have that available 

at the Library of Congress. 

Ms. JENKINS. And then you were also asking about St. Cecelia’s 

and the renovation? 

ST. CECELIA’S RENOVATION

Dr. BILLINGTON. When this was originally purchased for the Library through the Architect of the Capitol by Congress at a reasonable price, the first priority was to establish a daycare center, 

which was much needed, and so we did that right away. The understanding was that the Congress, having purchased this property, would turn to the Library to convert it into low-cost housing 

for people who come to the District to use the immense scholarly 

and cultural resources in Washington. These are mostly young and 

international people who really can’t afford Washington-area 

prices. That need has become all the more urgent since the cost of 

hotels and living space in Washington has skyrocketed. Most people are on expense accounts; journalists, lobbyists and others. 

I had consulted with the French and German Governments on 

setting up something similar to this. Frankly, Paris and Berlin 

have plenty of low-cost housing; they don’t really need it. Washington is probably the world’s greatest repository of underused 

scholarly material for a host of reasons. The Library of Congress 

first and foremost, but also the National Archives and many government libraries, are huge resources in this city that are 

underused because it is too expensive for younger scholars to do research work here. We are trying privately to raise the necessary 

funds. 

We have been encouraged by local foundations to come up with 

a plan, and we have privately raised about half the amount of 

money that would be needed to renovate the building. We have to 

pay something to sustain the whole complex. The basic building is 

very solid. We have worked out plans, which we have discussed 

over the years with the community. I think it would be a real addition to Washington and a tremendous help to people who really 

want to use the research facilities, but just can’t afford to come 

here. It would accommodate between 35 and 40 people at a time 

for a couple of weeks of intensive work. 

We hope to complete the private fundraising and have it run professionally. 

Ms. LEE. So the children who will be displaced as a result of the 

renovation? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. The private fundraising involves funds for the 

temporary displacement of the child care center, but that will continue to run. We won’t go ahead with the renovation project unless 

we are sure that the child care center is provided for. 

Ms. LEE. The Board hasn’t decided where the children will go? 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
141 

Ms. JENKINS. The Board has a couple of options that we are looking at, but it would be within a 3-month period of time once we 

secure all the funding. 

[The information follows:] 

CENTER FOR VISITING SCHOLARS

Question. What is the current plan for renovating the St. Cecelia’s facility, including accommodating the childcare operation while the facility is closed for renovation? 

Answer. 

• Under the current plan, the facility at 601 East Capitol Street, SE., would be 

renovated to house the Library of Congress Center for Visiting Scholars along with 

the childcare facility. Funds needed for renovation would come from donations (no 

appropriated funding for construction would be requested by the Library). 

• The AOC has conducted condition assessments and the LOC, using a contract 

architecture and engineering firm, has determined the extend and cost of renovation 

required. The AOC is working with the LOC and its contract architecture and engineering to explore design options that will accommodate the programmatic and technical requirements in the most economical fashion. 

• Accommodation of the existing Little Scholars Child Development Center is a 

major consideration. Under the current plan, the Center would be relocated during 

renovation to modular buildings in Page School Park. The earliest that relocation 

would occur is Summer 2009, but the project plan is still evolving and may be impacted by AOC utility tunnel work on Second Street between North Carolina Avenue and the Senate buildings. 

• The Library is working closely with the AOC and the Child Development Center’s Board of Directors and Center Director to coordinate utility tunnel work with 

all aspects of the temporary childcare operation; including planning, schedule, accessibility, environmental impact, security and safety compliance. 

• Because of utility tunnel work and to reduce costs, other temporary childcare 

options are also being explored. Other options may include relocation to modular facilities on Library grounds, accommodation on the existing site, and temporary use 

of local school and daycare facilities during summer months. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. And I absolutely agree 

and look forward to working with you on the child care center. 

5-YEAR PLAN FOR NDIIPP

I want to follow up on some of the things that Mr. Latham talked 

about in the NDIIPP program. I do want to commend you for developing the 5-year plan, and I realize we have, again, a difficult 

budget situation. You are choosing between your children when you 

put together this budget proposal. But with the 5-year plan and the 

$6 million that you have requested, it appears, and correct me if 

I am wrong, that you have made some good progress in terms of 

making adjustments to ensure that you could continue to progress 

down the path that has been laid out to accomplish your goals. Is 

that a fair assessment? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes. 

Ms. JENKINS. Yes. 

[The information follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
142 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 41290B.020
143 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 41290B.021
144 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 41290B.022
145 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 41290B.023
146 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 41290B.024
147 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 41290B.025
148 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 41290B.026
149 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 41290B.027
150 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 41290B.028
151 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 41290B.029
152 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So I just want to make sure, obviously, again with this program as well that we can’t get any worse. 

I mean, the $47 million rescission that occurred, which occurred in 

the fiscal 2007 cycle as a result of that year’s budget not being accomplished, and with us having to first do a CR and then focus on 

the 2008 fiscal year, really caused us a significant problem. I know 

that NDIIPP is a high priority for the Library. And I think it is 

important to point out that these are materials that if we don’t 

make sure that we continue down the path of preserving them, 

that they could be—well, many will be lost; is that right? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Absolutely. It is impermanent in two senses. It 

is impermanent because it is very short-lived material that is very 

perishable. The systems for decoding have changed. A lot of early 

digitized material can’t be read anywhere, so it is impermanent in 

that sense. 

It is also impermanent in the sense that a great deal of valueadded material is lost; for instance, venture capitalists all over the 

place are coming up with new services. A lot of scientific work is 

on line, but if nobody subscribes to the service that somebody is 

providing, it just vanishes. It is not as if it is printed and there are 

only a few copies; it just simply vanishes. Nobody maintains the 

source, and a lot of things have vanished that way. 

PRESERVING LIBRARY COLLECTIONS

This is an attempt to preserve and add to the Library’s 

artifactual collections and have digital materials and to integrate 

it so you can have one-stop shopping. It is really a program that, 

for every year it is deferred, you lose. You don’t even know exactly 

what you have been losing. 

Perhaps the least understood and underappreciated thing that 

the Library of Congress does is simply preservation. Everything on 

which creativity, intellectual advances, scientific studies are recorded since 1850 has been on perishable paper or perishable magnetic tape. This is the price, and it is a price worth paying, of a 

democratic society. Everybody gets access to things. But information is on high-acid paper, on acetate or nitrate film, on any of a 

variety of impermanent media. 

We have all the audio-visual heritage consolidated at last in one 

place in Culpeper, Virginia. We have a better chance of preserving 

that. The Library of Congress produces three-quarters of all the 

film preservation of archival quality ever done in this country. Our 

role in preservation of the Nation’s cultural creativity and intellectual production is absolutely central in our throw-away society. The 

Congress itself recognizes the importance of this preservation by 

creating boards for film preservation and for sound preservation. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My time is going to expire. I want to 

be respectful of the other Members. 

CAPITAL SECURITY COST-SHARING

The payments to the State Department to provide security to 

your field offices, that is, I know, a frustration for you, and it is 

becoming an increasing frustration for me. I really think it is significant to note, again in the category of competing priorities, it is 

clearly critical that you have overseas field offices. I know that that 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
153 

is related to your ability to collect international collections, and 

there is a lot of important work that is being done by those offices. 

But 32, almost 33 percent of your entire request goes to funding 

the security that is provided to you by the Department of State. Is 

this the last increase that you have coming down the pike, or is 

there more in the future? 

Ms. JENKINS. For costs of security? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. For the assessment. 

Ms. JENKINS. No. In fact, they have told us that next year’s request will be $5.4 million as part of our shared costs. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. This is very high overhead, about 49 percent 

overhead on direct program cost. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My understanding, and I sort of asked 

a question that I already know the answer to, but at some point 

doesn’t the security cost actually eclipse the cost of the program? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Not quite, but it is—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is close, isn’t it? 

Dr. BILLINGTON [continuing]. Getting there. 

Ms. JENKINS. We are not sure whether or not the State Department is going to continue this indefinitely. Part of this was a result 

of 9/11, and they had to enhance security in all of the embassies, 

and they fair-shared it. We are hoping that it is not indefinite. 

[Staff Note: The Library is required to make payments for this 

program through 2018.] 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I think it is something that we really 

need to address, and I will ask the subcommittee members for their 

help when that time comes. 

Mr. Latham. 

DIGITAL TALKING BOOKS AMENDMENT

Mr. LATHAM. First of all, I want to associate myself with Mr. 

LaHood as far as the digital book program. The subcommittee last 

year, going to full committee, only had $7.5 million in the appropriations bill. Mr. Kingston and I had an amendment in full committee to raise that; we compromised $12.5 million, which was successful, but it kind of robbed Peter to pay Paul in the entire budget. But this is an absolutely critical need as far as I am concerned. 

I very much agree with Mr. LaHood that we have got to do something about it. 

IMPACT OF A CR AND UNFUNDED CRITICAL NEEDS

There are a couple of concerns I have. One, as far as the Senate, 

I know we are going to do our work in the House. The Senate has 

said they are probably not going to do any appropriations bills this 

year, so we are going to be in the CR. What effect is that going 

to have? 

Also, in your statement you talked about $52 million you did not 

request for critical needs. If you could kind of give us an idea of 

maybe the most significant part of the critical needs that are not 

in your request, that would be very, very helpful to me. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I am glad to do that. First of all, almost half of 

our critical needs are technological infrastructure. We are world 

leaders in providing high-quality, dependable, educational things K 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
154 

through 12 for a very, very large audience. We get over 5 billion 

electronic transactions every year. 

We have about 100 million repeat users. 

I can get you the exact figures, but it is straining our technological capacity. 

Library Services has been eroded a great deal. They have taken 

about 70 percent of the substantial erosion of staff since 1992. I 

have statistics on that I can give you as well. 

There is a whole list I can give you of all those divisions. It is nearly $52 million that we identified as important needs. 

We didn’t go forward. We also didn’t go forward with a very 

much needed logistics center, which we have been proposing for 

several years. We didn’t even put that in this budget. Added together, you are getting close to $100 million in infrastructure 

needs. 

[The information follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
155 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 270 here 41290B.030
156 

Mr. LATHAM. Did you request, if I may interrupt—— 

Dr. BILLINGTON. We did not. 

Mr. LATHAM. You didn’t request OMB? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. LATHAM. Did you make in your request submission—did 

OMB cut this, or did you—— 

Ms. JENKINS. We don’t go through OMB. We decide—— 

Dr. BILLINGTON. This is our decision. 

Mr. LATHAM. We have a mutual disadmiration for OMB. 

Ms. JENKINS. This is actually our internal process. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. This is our internal process for establishing critical resource requirements. This isn’t just a vague wish list; these 

are things in our process. We have identified infrastructure needs 

that are pretty crucial, particularly the information technology infrastructure. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Well, that is—I appreciate it. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Also some requests from CRS. 

RETIREMENTS IN CRS

Mr. LATHAM. That is where I was going next. I just wanted to 

ask Dan one question. 

Going back to when I was first on the subcommittee, about 12 

years ago, CRS had a real problem with retirements. 

The institutional knowledge that we are going to be losing is significant. I just wondered if, for the record, you would talk about 

that and where you are today with the problem. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Thank you very much. 

Over a decade ago, back in 1996, we identified the problem that 

50 percent of the CRS staff were eligible to retire by 2006. We went 

to the Congress and said we need to have knowledge transfer. For 

example, as new agricultural economists come in, they need to be 

working with the agricultural economist who has been here for six 

farm bills. So we asked the committee, and the committee was able 

to give us additional funding for 2 years in a row to be able to assist us in this succession plan. 

And so every year we have asked CRS staff, when do you anticipate retiring, knowing plans change. So if six experts in natural resources are here and three of the six may retire, then that would 

be our top priority. 

Over the years what we have done with our staff’s cooperation 

is to determine when they plan to retire; and then we are able to 

place the highest priorities on competencies facing a total loss of 

expertise, like we have one geneticist, we have one gerontologist. 

You need those competencies to be able to maintain the complete 

faculty of experts available to you. We have been successful with 

the CRS staff working together on this. 

And if you recall, the reason for these concerns is that we expanded our staff by over 21⁄2 times as a result of the Legislative 

Reorganization Act of 1970, and these people are now retiring. We 

are now undertaking this same effort for our senior levels as well, 

with succession planning utilizing new management positions because our leadership is also able to retire. 

And in the last 5 years we now have 41.8 percent new staff on 

CRS. And our planning is working, and I think it is a good model. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
157 

It is my understanding some elsewhere in the House may be looking at what we did. It shows that all the staff in CRS were committed to making this work. 

Mr. LATHAM. It is a real success story. I know the Government 

Printing Office has a similar problem. Maybe they could talk to you 

about how to do this. 

AGING LIBRARY WORKFORCE

Dr. BILLINGTON. I might add that about a quarter of the entire 

staff of the Library of Congress could retire right now, including 

expert curators. We have collected items that nobody else would 

have. Who would have thought 10 years ago that places like 

Kosovo, Chechnya, Burundi, Darfur—for that matter, even Afghanistan—10 or 15 years ago would be in the headlines. Not to mention Iran; we have tripled our exchanges with Iran. 

We are collecting all these great works from overseas. We don’t 

just collect where the overseas offices are, in Islamabad for example, but also all through Central Asia and Afghanistan. They acquired on their regular collection routes a mimeographed copy of 

the autobiography of Osama bin Laden. 

There is a tremendous amount of expertise that we are in danger 

of losing, and we didn’t even put that on the critical, critical list. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. So this is the—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I know. That is my concern, that 

there are items here that aren’t even on the critical list, and we 

still have to keep priorities. 

Ms. McCollum, my apologies for skipping you. I didn’t see you 

when you came in. 

PRESERVING MUSIC IN DIGITAL LIBRARY

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I want to talk about some of the future projects 

and resources, especially the issue for preserving things in the digital library. My question is: I am working with public television in 

Minnesota, and they are trying to preserve things like Newton’s 

Apple and some of the other kinds of science programs and educational programs that they have before they disappear. 

And I think the way that you described it is absolutely fantastic. 

It does just literally disappear if it isn’t recorded into a readable 

format. 

Where are you on having the music collection being available 

digitally? Because I know we have focused on books, but there is 

also the issue of music which is enjoyed by everyone. And even 

some in the deaf community, depending upon what they can do to 

speakers and amplifiers in the privacy of their own home, can have 

a sensory delight that they might not have been able to enjoy several years ago. 

And I am sure, you know, people who listen to Talking Books 

also listen to great music. So where are we in preserving and moving forward with the music collection? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. The music collection is one of the glories of the 

Library. In our American Memory program, we have digitized numerous items of American history and culture, and have put online 

the papers of Washington, Lincoln, Madison, Jefferson and so forth. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
158 

We are also now putting on more and more of the cultural materials, particularly in musical notation. We, in fact, had—and you 

were kind enough to welcome him—Tom Hampson, the great 

American baritone, singing songs of the Library’s music collection 

in ten cities across America. We have a lot of his recordings, the 

songs that were popular throughout American history, online. 

We have two recording labs in the new Packard Center, the new 

Packard Campus, for preserving music. We have a lot of new 

equipment. We are both preserving it and putting it online to make 

it accessible. All of this stuff is free online. 

We are adding the cultural materials, particularly musical materials. We already have quite a few. The next stage of our American 

Memory digitization is to develop an online encyclopedia of American music. 

There is even a certain amount in the process that includes producers, and distributors. It is probably the best, most comprehensive music collection in the world. 

ACCESSIBILITY OF MUSIC COLLECTIONS TO THE BLIND AND DEAF

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I understand that. But my question is, how are 

you coming along with it? 

You are underfunded in that particular category and you are underfunded in other categories—as was discussed earlier—and while 

the Chair is working to move the Talking Books forward, access to 

the music collection also has an impact on many in our diverse 

communities. 

Let me give you a concrete example. I am a former history teacher. One of the best ways to engage and really understand the Civil 

War is the music of the era. Much of this music reflects the experience of the immigrant communities that were torn apart after coming here and finding themselves in war, which many of them came 

here to escape. Recordings also demonstrate how one of the most 

famous songs, Amazing Grace, went back and forth between the 

North and the South. 

So if I am a studious reader of Civil War history, and historians 

refer to Civil War songs quite a bit; and I want to round out that 

educational experience, and I have been, let’s say, using Talking 

Books, what kind of funding do we need to get the music that 

would go with that? If I read the history—if I listen to or read the 

history books, I should also have the opportunity to truly understand what that historian was telling me about by experiencing the 

music myself. 

Ms. JENKINS. Great. And we can provide that for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

DIGITIZING SOUND RECORDINGS

Question. What music has been digitized and made available online? What are 

your plans for future digitizing and making accessible recorded sound material from 

the Library’s collections? 

Response. Sound recordings are tied up by copyright term restrictions for a period 

of time, longer than for any other creative works. Because audio recordings did not 

come under federal copyright protection until 1972, all recordings released before 

that date, even those dating back to the 1890s, are still protected by state and common law. Without rights holder permissions, the Library would not be able to place 

the first 80-plus years of our music recording heritage online until the year 2067. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
159 

The only exception to this are recordings made by the Edison Company, many of 

which the Library has made available on the American Memory website. 

Licensing recordings for internet usage is a complex and specialized function that 

the Library has been unable to undertake on a large scale. Last year we obtained 

permission from several record labels to stream about thirty commercial recordings 

in their entirety on the Library’s ‘‘Amazing Grace’’ website. While modest in scope, 

this agreement was precedent setting. On a much larger scale, the Library is actively pursuing an agreement with Sony/BMG Music that will allow us to stream 

audio on the web from the pre-1926 acoustic-era recordings in their catalog, which 

includes all Columbia and Victor recordings. This website, which we are calling the 

National Jukebox, will make thousands of long out-of-print recordings available for 

instantaneous listening. 

In 2003 the Library began the transition from analog to digital audio preservation. Since that time, approximately eight terabytes of digital audio have been created from a number of significant collections, including thousands of live concerts 

recorded by the Voice of America, jazz pianist Billy Taylor’s collection, the Ann 

Sneed collection of live jazz performances, and the Charles Mingus Collection. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. There is a fair amount online, and there is 

much more, including lesson plans, that the teachers we have 

trained have developed. In fact, seven congressional districts have 

established programs for training teachers in how to use these online lesson plans. 

The idea of getting music back into the curriculum was an important part of the Song of America tour that we did with Tom 

Hampson; he conducted Master classes. We hope to repeat the tour. 

Invading the audiovisual world with things of quality takes you 

to where kids are living and gets them back into reading, gets 

them to ask questions, gets them inspired as well as excited. 

The correlation between music and math is very, very strong. 

Ms. JENKINS. Deanna. 

Dr. MARCUM. I do want to note, we have a plan in the Music Division for putting pre-1923 music, the public domain music, online 

in the Performing Arts Encyclopedia; and we will be happy to send 

you the list of the collections that have already been digitized, 

along with those that are scheduled to be digitized. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Madam Chair, just a little follow-up, because I 

am thinking ahead. 

If we have got the music online, what kind of bridging are we 

putting in for those with visual impairments who are using online 

to access the music? Are we planning our technology far enough 

ahead so we can adapt? 

Are we working with the deaf community and the blind community to find out how they access the Internet, so that we make sure 

that we don’t start setting up these parallel systems, which are expensive to run, but at some point we are running one efficient system that serves all Americans? 

You can get back to me on that. 

Ms. JENKINS. Okay. Because everything we put up online is Section 508 compliant, and we are very much including access for the 

blind community in our thinking. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The gentlelady’s time has expired so 

I would appreciate it if you would get back to her. 

[The information follows:] 

PROVIDING DIGITAL SOUND RECORDINGS TO THE BLIND AND DEAF COMMUNITIES

Question. How are you addressing the needs of the blind and deaf communities 

with the digital collections? 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
160 

Response. Audio digitization at the Packard Campus includes the production of 

a preservation quality sound file and a browse quality access file. We have just initiated a digital audio playback service from Culpeper to researchers in the Recorded 

Sound Reference Center on Capitol Hill via a secure closed network. We will soon 

bring online a streaming server that will hold access copies of all our digitized 

audio. The content in this server will grow at an increasingly high rate as the preservation capabilities of the Packard Campus develop. This growing digital content 

will be available to the public for instantaneous listening and playback-on-demand 

in the reference center. 

There are more than 10,000 patrons on the music rolls of the National Library 

Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS). Each year NLS serves approximately 1,400 patrons with braille and large print sheet music, and also recorded materials that include general music appreciation as well as self-instruction 

on various instruments and/or songs on certain instruments. The special format 

music collection grows each year with the addition of hundreds of new music titles, 

recorded and sheet music. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. LaHood. 

DIGITAL TALKING BOOKS FUNDING

Mr. LAHOOD. Dr. Billington and Ms. Jenkins, could you provide 

for the record the amount of money it will take to speed up 

digitizing the books from 6 years to 5 years and from 6 years to 

4 years? I think the distinction here for digitizing books is that the 

Library is the sole source of these materials. People can’t go in 

their own communities, they can’t go to other places in the country 

to get these books. You are the source of—you are the sole source 

of it. 

And, again, to slow down this process, I think is a real unfairness. And so if we have these figures, then we will know precisely 

what we need to do to find the dollars to make this one of the priorities of this subcommittee, of the Appropriations Committee and 

of the Congress. 

Ms. JENKINS. Yes, sir. 

[The information follows:] 

DIGITAL TALKING BOOK PROGRAM COST OF FOUR AND FIVE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION

Total program implementation cost is $76.4 million. $12.5 million was appropriated in fiscal 2008. Annual costs of a four year implementation would be: $12.5 

million in fiscal 2008 and $21.3 million (or additional funding of $8.8 million) in fiscal 2009, 2010, and 2011. Annual costs of a five year implementation would be: 

$12.5 million in fiscal 2008 and $15.975 (or additional funding of $3.475) in fiscal 

2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. 

THANKS TO LIBRARY STAFF

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you again for being here. Thank you for the 

services that you and your team provide not only to the Members 

of Congress—Dan and his team do a great job. 

Dan, I know that over the years you and your folks have done 

a great job in making all of us look very good in the way that we 

write bills and the way that we submit bills and the way that we 

gather information and make sure the bills we do introduce make 

sense, based on good research. 

So again, we are grateful to all of you for what you do. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Could I just say one more brief word? Because 

I have talked about a lot of things and services; we haven’t talked 

about the staff and the people. We have many people who are doing 

incredible work. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
161 

The country can be proud of the Library staff. You are talking 

to me and Jo Ann and others; but the fact of the matter is that 

everything the Library accomplishes depends on the quality of the 

staff, and we haven’t even discussed our needs in that area. 

We have one regular training budget. We aren’t able yet to have 

the kind of succession planning that was present in CRS with such 

positive results. We have a lot of training to do. We are going to 

have to replace a lot of people who are retiring. 

There is a dedication and there is a quality in the staff. That is 

why actually most of our requests this year are really just to make 

sure we get the mandated pay raises and don’t have to squeeze 

other programs further. 

I just did want to make it clear. I have been here a fairly long 

time, and I really do feel that there is a tremendous amount of 

work that is hardly noticed. It is really a tribute to the public service and dedication and the idealism of the Library’s staff. When we 

are talking about these other things that we are going to do, we 

are only able to do them because of the staff. For instance, in cataloguing, it is a basic service the Library provides to the country. 

With many, many less people, Dr. Marcum’s people are cataloguing 

more. They have steadily increased the amount of output. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. A big number? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I mean, to a very significant degree. 363,000 

print items in fiscal 2007 versus 270,000 in fiscal 2003. 

We talked about infrastructure. The real infrastructure is the 

people that bring all of this static material to life and make it 

interactive, abroad or nationally. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are absolutely right. That is the 

factor that always is underrepresented and ‘‘underrecognized,’’ if 

that is a word or an appropriate word. 

FUND-RAISING COORDINATION

I want to focus on some of the other parts of your request. We 

have the Audiovisual Center that has now been completed. There 

has been a grand opening, and you have a $2 million request to fill 

22 positions at the Audio Visual Conservation Center. We talked 

about this before. 

The center is a wonderful addition to the facilities that we have, 

and it will obviously go a long way towards advancing the goal, 

preserving these collections. But when we—when you are in the 

process of seeking private funds, it does result in a difficulty if you 

have not sought and received all of the private funds necessary to 

both build and operate a facility like this. Your successful collection 

of the donation results in an additional obligation on the Congress 

to fund the needs of the center that you have raised money for. 

So I cautioned you in our conversation in my office, and I will 

do so publicly, that—I really want to encourage, when you are 

doing that fund-raising, which I encourage you to do—we all do it, 

because obviously we clearly need some relief on the public resources that we can provide—that you raise all of your needs, at 

least get yourself as much of the way there as possible, and coordinate with us a little bit more closely on how we can make sure we 

know what is coming down the pike for our planning purposes. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
162 

STAFFING REQUEST-AUDIO VISUAL CONSERVATION CENTER

But what are some of the examples of the work that the Library 

will be able to do if you fill those positions that you can’t do now? 

And what will happen if we can’t fund those positions? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, the center is simply not fully operational. 

This isn’t a new request, but restoring money that was taken out 

in last year’s budget, the last year of 5 years on the program. 

Frankly, the success of the enormous private donations by the 

Packard Humanities Institute was dependent on Congressional assurances of support. Funding for the staff was reduced by $2.374 million. Because of 

building delays, staff were not hired, creating a surplus in no-year 

funds for the program. Congress reduced the funding for staff, taking annual funding rather than no-year funding, which resulted in 

a shortfall for fiscal year 2009. 

So what we are requesting now is $1.781 million to be restored 

for 23 positions. The Packard Campus now is only about half operational in terms of what it will be able to do. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What will we be able to do if they are 

funded, and what will we not be able to do if they are not funded? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. If they are not funded—I can give you the exact 

amount of what we won’t be able to preserve. 

This moving image and recorded sound material has now been, 

for the first time, pulled together in one place. A lot of it has been 

in caves, in storage, and in various warehouses. We really need to 

move full steam ahead. 

The fundamental business of preservation is cut in half on this. 

This is not a new request. We have funding to continue for 1 year, 

but we are not able to attract people to Culpeper, Virginia, if they 

only are being offered a 1-year assignment. 

This is essential if we are going to develop that, if we are going 

to honor what was the understanding under which we were able 

to get this enormous donation. In reality, it is much more than 

$150 million because there was a lot of in-kind support—I mean, 

David Packard is one of the world’s great experts on the technical 

side of film preservation. We have the benefit of his expertise as 

well as his money and his architectural skills, hopefully, with the 

landscape. 

It is a great credit to the Congress, but we will only be able to 

do about half as much as we could with full funding. I can’t tell 

you how many films, but I can tell you that our audiovisual heritage, which has not been well preserved by those who generated it, 

is in a very perilous state. The Culpeper facility is by far, technologically, the best and largest in the country—I think in the world, 

really. 

I can give you, if you want estimates of what this means more 

precisely than that—— 

Ms. JENKINS. We will provide it for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

IMPACT OF NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CULPEPER STAFF

Currently, Library Services’ staffing and production levels in the areas of acquisition, processing, and preservation are lower than they were prior to the transition 

to Culpeper. Without the requested Packard Campus staffing, the Library: 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
163 

• Will not be able to take advantage of the dramatic increase in the capacities 

and capabilities of the Packard Campus for preserving and providing access to the 

collections. 

• Will not be able to bring online new preservation programs built into the campus, including color film preservation. Digital video reformatting will be limited to 

the simpler formats. 

• Will not be able to administer and maintain the facility’s complex systems, 

equipment, and software. 

• Will not be able to acquire as many new collections and make them available 

for researchers. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. This is to close out the agreed basis on which 

we proceeded to raise the private money. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is in the spirit of making fully informed decisions about the tradeoffs that we will have to make. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I want to assure you that next year we will deliver to you all that will be needed if we privately fundraise for 

something; and we will also let you know what we may be able to 

reduce with your help and the help of the staff. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Latham. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS OF OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Mr. LATHAM. Dr. Billington, is your inspector general here today? 

I have a couple questions. 

Mr. Schornagel, the question relates to the law enforcement authority that apparently you have or believe. I just ask what statutory authority do you have to perform law enforcement functions 

like carrying a firearm, making arrests and executing warrants? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Like most inspectors general in the Federal 

Government—and there are over 60, and they all have criminal investigators and some have statutory law enforcement, the larger 

ones. The rest of us get our law enforcement authority through 

deputation from the U.S. Marshals Service, and we need that to obtain and execute search warrants and make arrests. 

Mr. LATHAM. The legislation basically granting independent IG 

authority to Library of Congress, Capitol Police, Architect of the 

Capitol inspectors general specifically excludes law enforcement authority. Is this something you think Congress intended to have for 

the inspector general? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Well, none of the statutory language for the 

non-Presidentially appointed IGs specifically address law enforcement authority. So our language is similar to everybody else’s, including the Government Printing Office. That office exercises law 

enforcement authority. 

So we are really no different than other agencies such as the National Archives or the Smithsonian. 

Mr. LATHAM. Are there other people deputized also under the 

Marshals Service? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Yes. As a matter of fact, probably about 30- 

some inspector general offices are. 

Mr. LATHAM. No, under your Library. 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Just our criminal investigators. 

Mr. LATHAM. How many? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. There is one full-time and two part-time. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
164 

Mr. LATHAM. The request to be deputized from the Marshal’s office has to come from the entity, and in this case, the Library of 

Congress. Who submitted the request for you? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. I did. 

Mr. LATHAM. You did? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Yes. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. The agency is actually supposed to do that. 

I am curious. It says basically you are deputized in the Department of Justice. 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Correct. 

Mr. LATHAM. What kind of authority do you have? And specifically, have you had any ability to do intercepts or wiretaps? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. No. 

Mr. LATHAM. You do not. Okay. 

Do you have a memo of understanding from the Department of 

Justice? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Yes, we do. Correct. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Where does the liability lie? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. The liability for what specifically— 

Mr. LATHAM. If, in fact, something happened, is it the Justice Department, is it the Library? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. It is the Justice Department. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. I have a real concern here that we basically 

have—a separation of powers issue where we are funding the position that is supposed to work for the legislative branch. It is deputized under DOJ. 

Who is your authority as far as any kind of enforcement authority? Is it the Attorney General? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Well, he is the one who we are required to 

refer criminal cases to. It is the same organization, whether it is 

a leg branch IG or the executive branch. 

For example, the Government Printing Office has been exercising 

the exact same law enforcement authority that I do ever since they 

have been statutory, for like 15 years. 

Mr. LATHAM. Can you cite the statutory permission? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Well, the Inspector General Act of 1978 is a 

law that is referred to in my act; it has the same language in the 

IG Act for the Government Printing Office. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. From my understanding, it is excluding—— 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. It is implied rather than explicit, the law enforcement authority, and it is common operation that all statutory, 

non-Presidentially appointed IGs get their law enforcement authority through deputization from the U.S. Marshals Service. 

We are considered by the Federal Government a law enforcement 

organization. And we cannot rely on police organizations to help us 

fulfill our mission. We found police organizations unreliable, and I 

have also experienced delays when we have had to rely on these 

organizations. 

Mr. LATHAM. Well, my concern is you are basically under the 

control of the administration—the executive branch, Madam 

Chair—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
165 

Mr. LATHAM [continuing]. You know, I don’t care what administration it is—but being paid through the legislative branch; and 

there is a real concern I have here with the separation of powers. 

The Government Printing Office has specific authority, and from 

my understanding, you are specifically excluded from having law 

enforcement authority. 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. No, I don’t believe that that is true. As a matter of fact, this whole thing came up on the Senate side last year, 

and we went through the same types of issues. It was referred by 

Senate Appropriations to the GAO for a legal opinion, and it confirmed my position. There are no legal barriers from our exercising 

law enforcement authority just like all the other IG offices do. 

Mr. LATHAM. Would you provide a copy of the GAO opinion? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Sure. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If you could do that for the record, we 

would appreciate that. 

[The information follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
166 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 298 here 41290B.031
167 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 299 here 41290B.032
168 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Latham, if you could begin to 

wrap up. 

Mr. LATHAM. Just on the issue of the firearms, who issued the 

guns to you and your staff? And who certified the qualification for 

the firearms? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. We buy the guns ourselves and we certify the 

same facilities—— 

Mr. LATHAM. You personally buy them? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Yes. We borrowed them for quite some time 

from the Library’s police force. We certify under the same procedures and the same facilities as the Library of Congress and Capitol Police and the other inspectors general. 

Mr. LATHAM. So you personally bought the guns, but you did borrow them for a while? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Correct. And that is common practice in the 

inspector general community. 

Mr. LATHAM. I have nothing further for now. I just have real concerns about separation. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am going to follow up right now. 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Well, I would like to clarify one thing. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Latham’s time has expired, and 

I want to continue this conversation, because my understanding is, 

your general counsel suggested that you did not have the authority 

to carry firearms. 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. That is what brought this issue up a little over 

a year ago. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Excuse me. If your general counsel 

suggested that you do not have the authority to carry firearms, 

why did you hire a different attorney to write you a different opinion that you liked better? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Because inspectors general—in fact, specifically in legislation that is in both the House and Senate now, 

changes to the Inspector General Act of 1978 recognize that an 

agency’s general counsel does not have the best interest of the inspector general in rendering opinions. And that is why one of the 

requirements in this legislation is that IGs have their own counsel 

and not rely on the opinions of the agency’s General Counsel. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My understanding is that statutory 

authority was very limited and that you were not included in that. 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. I don’t believe that is correct. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, according to the general counsel 

who was the one that you hired to give you advice—— 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. I disagree with our general counsel. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. But we don’t go around hiring 

attorneys until we get the opinion we want. 

I appreciate your bringing this issue up, Mr. Latham. And we’d 

appreciate the information that we requested for the record. 

Mr. LATHAM. GAO statement, if I may. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No. Go ahead. 

Mr. LATHAM. I want to see the opinion from the GAO noting the 

authority to do this. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sure. 

Dr. Billington, if you could provide that information for the 

record, we would appreciate that. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
169 

And I can assure you, Mr. Latham, that we will spend some time 

on this, because it is a matter of concern. I appreciate your raising 

it. 

I am sorry. Mr. LaHood. 

Mr. LAHOOD. I am fine. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are all done. 

FOOD SERVICE PROVIDER AND CAFETERIA STAFF

All right, there has been some concern about the Library’s cafeteria union and your interim food service provider IL Creations, 

which I know has taken over for a 3-month period. Their interim 

contract is expiring, and I guess there is an opportunity to extend 

that contract for a period of months, but I am concerned about the 

benefits issue that exists right now. 

On the one hand, IL Creations appears to have said that it 

doesn’t make sense for them to negotiate with the union because 

they are only a temporary replacement for the former contractor; 

but at the same time they feel confident enough that they rewrote 

benefits packages for at least some, if not all, of the employees. It 

sounds like, to me, the company is trying to not negotiate with the 

employees because they are only a 3-month contractor, but change 

their benefits without negotiations. 

So it seems to me there is a problem going on here. Can you address that, please? 

Ms. JENKINS. Absolutely. 

Let me first state that we have a procurement out to find a new 

vendor for the cafeteria services. We did that because of the large 

number of complaints that we had received. 

We have gone through the bid process twice, trying to get other 

vendors to come in and bid on this. But there are some limitations 

because of the small time window in which they can sell food to the 

general public—unlike here in the Capitol, where there are thousands of people. So we actually went out under my direction to find 

a vendor. 

We found IL Creations, which has a number of other government 

contracts providing similar services. They have now a short-term 

contract, but the intent is for them to operate under a bridge contract for a 20-month period, which is the processing time that it 

takes for us to put the bid back out. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My understanding is that they are 

now considering, if they haven’t already, applying for the actual 

full contract. 

Ms. JENKINS. We haven’t put it back on the street. Our intent 

would be that they would be open to bid on it, just like anybody 

else would. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They will continue past the 3-month 

period? 

Ms. JENKINS. The intent is they would have a 20-month bridge 

contract. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Why wouldn’t they be subject to negotiating a collective bargaining agreement with the union if they are 

going to be here for 20 months? That is almost 2 years. That is ridiculous. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
170 

Ms. JENKINS. They are, in fact, negotiating with the unions right 

now, with IL Creations. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. According to the information I have, 

they have been refusing to negotiate with the union and, at the 

same time, changing benefits indiscriminately without negotiating. 

Can you specifically address the benefits issue? 

Ms. JENKINS. Sure. It is absolutely untrue that they are not negotiating. They have had several negotiating sessions. The contractor has discussed the possibility of providing full costs for all 

the employees for health benefits. 

There is one employee who would not have full coverage for her 

children, and that was the issue. So it is not—85, 90 percent of the 

employees—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Twenty-eight workers, total. 

Ms. JENKINS. Twenty-eight workers, but for 27, the contractor 

would be paying the full cost. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But that is just because 27 of the 28 

of them don’t need family coverage; they are single-coverage employees. 

So we are talking about—that is the purpose of negotiation in 

collective bargaining, that you make sure that you can bargain for 

all of the workers and not just say, Well, it is only one, no big deal; 

we will take care of the 27 out of 28. 

Ms. JENKINS. Absolutely, I agree. They are in the middle of bargaining; and I think that what we have here is the communication 

between the employees and the union and the contractor. 

We spoke to them as late as yesterday to make sure they had 

set up additional bargaining sessions to try to resolve this before 

we even entered into the 20-month contract. I had been assured by 

the existing contractor that he has reached out not only to the 

union, but also to the employees. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is he specifically negotiating the benefits—the health care benefits? 

Ms. JENKINS. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. He is? What I have been told— 

Ms. JENKINS. Those are preliminary discussions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is not a final decision? 

Ms. JENKINS. No. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If you could, keep us apprised on the 

negotiations. 

Ms. JENKINS. Yes. 

[The information follows:] 

I.L. CREATIONS AND CAFETERIA EMPLOYEES

• The Library’s contract with Sodexho Inc. for the provision of food services at 

Library facilities expired on December 21, 2007. The Library awarded a 90-day contract on December 31, 2007 and signed an 18-month ‘‘bridge’’ contract with the I.L. 

Creations on Friday, March 7, 2008. During this period, the Library will issue a request for proposals and vendors, including I.L. Creations, will have an opportunity 

to bid for the Library’s food service business. • In accordance with District of Columbia law, I.L. Creations retained the former 

Sodexho employees during the initial 90-day period and provided training on their 

system and procedures. The Library, as far as the law allows, has encouraged I.L. 

Creations to communicate and negotiate in good faith with its employees. 

• John Boardman, executive secretary-treasurer of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Unitehere, Local 25, which represents the cafeteria workers at the Library, 

and I.L. Creations are scheduled to meet on Friday, March 14, at 2 p.m. to begin 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
171 

negotiating a new bargaining agreement. A new contract will include terms for benefits. These issues are central to the current dispute between I.L. Creations and its 

new employees. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I realize those workers are not direct 

Library employees; but I have experience in my own congressional 

district with a similar issue, and it is not something that I would 

like to see happen again the way it happened in my own district. 

We are going to have a vote coming up, and I don’t want to bring 

the members back. 

Mr. Latham, do you have anything? 

Mr. LATHAM. I may have one or two for the record, but we will 

have votes soon. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I have a couple others, so I am just 

going to continue. 

OFFICE OF WORKPLACE DIVERSITY

The Office of Workplace Diversity. It has been brought to my attention that the Library has plans to just completely shut it down 

and eliminate the employees. And you are shaking your head, so 

apparently that might not be the case. 

But the information that I have is that the Office of Workplace 

Diversity staff is being subject to a reduction in force. They have 

16 people. The overall staffing of that office is about 8 percent minority and 56 percent female. 

What is going on with the Office of Workplace Diversity? If you 

are subjecting all the employees to a reduction in force, then what 

are your plans to make sure that there continues to be an Office 

of Workplace Diversity. 

Ms. JENKINS. There will absolutely be an Office of Workplace Diversity. 

It is no secret that we have had a number of performance issues 

in the office. I asked earlier this year for the IG to come in and 

do a management review. He completed that assessment, I believe 

about 3 or 4 months ago, and made a number of recommendations, 

many of which address the issues of the performance in the office 

as well as the high number of people working in that office compared to other leg branch agencies. 

I have to say that I came to the Library 14 years ago to deal with 

workforce diversity issues, so it is something that is very near and 

dear to me. Of those 16 people in there, about 85 percent are eligible to retire. 

What we are doing now is trying to address the inspector general’s recommendations to us about how to create the Office of 

Workplace Diversity that the Library is going to need in the future 

so that it is able to focus on recruiting underrepresented populations, like Hispanics and the disabled. 

We have briefed the staff. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Are you reducing the entire force, all 

16? Because the EEOCO has not been subjected to the same comparative criticism as the rest of the office. So there were concerns. 

Ms. JENKINS. No. What we are doing is, we are going through a 

process in which we have met with each individual staff member. 

They have been allowed to submit recommendations or changes 

concerning areas in that office that need improvement. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
172 

We will probably come back to the Congress to ask for authority 

to offer early-out retirement. 

We will be putting in place a structure of what the office needs 

to look like, and those people will be placed appropriately according 

to their skills within that office. But it is not our intent to put anyone on the street, and I don’t think anyone mentioned the words 

‘‘reduction in force.’’ 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Does that mean you do not have plans 

for there to be a gap between whatever plans you have to change 

the Office of Workplace Diversity and your reinvention of it, to 

where there won’t be a period of time—— 

Ms. JENKINS. There won’t be gaps in service. Absolutely not. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am concerned about it in light of the 

issues you have had recently in terms of hiring and diversity specifically and want to make sure you don’t leave a gap that would 

result in more problems than what you already have. 

CLOSING REMARKS AND ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT

That concludes the questions that I have. 

I do want to reiterate and stress my appreciation for the Library’s really significant and successful effort in giving us a budget 

that is realistic and that we can use to try and make sure that we 

limit the pain that we have had in the last couple of years. 

I want to ask you for your assistance with some of these issues, 

specifically as it relates to the Office of Workplace Diversity. If you 

can by next Friday, March 14, give us a report that has an explanation of what exactly you are proposing to do with the Office of 

Workplace Diversity and when your plans are to do that; an explanation of why you have decided to pursue such a broad course of 

action and why you think it is the best option available, and how 

you will continuously maintain the functions of the office regardless of how you decide to proceed from here. 

I would also like you to give us some information about the Department of State security payments and any suggestions as to how 

we might address it differently. 

It is untenable to have a program that is eclipsed by its security 

needs; given that we have a number of competing priorities, we 

have got to try to stem the tide on that situation. 

With that, the subcommittee stands in recess until tomorrow 

morning at 10 a.m. when we will hear from the Public Printer on 

GPO’s FY 2009 request. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
173 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 313 41290B.033
174 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 314 41290B.034
175 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 315 41290B.035
176 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 316 41290B.036
177 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 317 41290B.037
178 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 318 41290B.038
179 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 319 41290B.039
180 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 320 41290B.040
181 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 321 41290B.041
182 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 322 41290B.042
183 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 323 41290B.043
184 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 324 41290B.044
185 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 325 41290B.045
186 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 326 41290B.046
187 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 327 41290B.047
188 

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 328 41290B.048
189 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 329 41290B.049
190 

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 330 41290B.050
191 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 331 41290B.051
192 

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING


Insert graphic folio 332 41290B.052
193 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 333 41290B.053
194 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 334 41290B.054
195 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 335 41290B.055
196 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 336 41290B.056
197 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 337 41290B.057
198 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 338 41290B.058
199 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 339 41290B.059
200 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 340 41290B.060
201 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 341 41290B.061
202 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 342 41290B.062
203 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 343 41290B.063
204 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 344 41290B.064
205 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 345 41290B.065
206 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 346 41290B.066
207 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 347 41290B.067
208 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 348 41290B.068
209 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 349 41290B.069
210 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 350 41290B.070
211 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 351 41290B.071
212 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 352 41290B.072
213 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 353 41290B.073
214 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 354 41290B.074
215 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 355 41290B.075
216 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 356 41290B.076
217 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 357 41290B.077
218 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 358 41290B.078
219 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 359 41290B.079
220 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 360 41290B.080
221 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 361 41290B.081
222 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 362 41290B.082
223 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 363 41290B.083
224 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 364 41290B.084
225 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 365 41290B.085
226 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 366 41290B.086
227 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 367 41290B.087
228 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 368 41290B.088
229 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 369 41290B.089
230 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 370 41290B.090
231 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 371 41290B.091
232 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 372 41290B.092
233 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 373 41290B.093
234 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 374 41290B.094
235 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 375 41290B.095
236 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 376 41290B.096
237 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 377 41290B.097
238 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 378 41290B.098
239 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 379 41290B.099
240 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 380 41290B.100
241 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 381 41290B.101
242 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 382 41290B.102
243 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 383 41290B.103
244 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 384 41290B.104
245 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 385 41290B.105
246 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 386 41290B.106
247 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 387 41290B.107
248 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 388 41290B.108
249 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 389 41290B.109
250 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 390 41290B.110
251 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 391 41290B.111
252 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 392 41290B.112
253 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 393 41290B.113
254 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 394 41290B.114
255 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 395 41290B.115
256 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 396 41290B.116
(257) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2008. 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BUDGET 

WITNESSES 

ROBERT C. TAPELLA, PUBLIC PRINTER OF THE UNITED STATES 

NADINE ELZY, DIRECTOR OF EEO 

OPENING REMARKS BY THE CHAIR

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good morning. I would like to call the 

Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch of the Committee on Appropriations to order. 

Today, we are going to hear from Robert Tapella, the new official 

Public Printer of the United States, confirmed by the Senate and 

sworn in, I assume, by the President, correct? Is that who actually 

swears you in? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Well, in this particular case, it was the back office 

clerk of the Hotel Michelangelo in New York City, who happened 

to be the notary public right after the President signed the commission. The President did sign the commission. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good. We are looking forward to hearing from you. 

The focus of the hearing will be the fiscal year 2009 request from 

GPO, which is $174 million, not quite the single-digit increase that 

we had from yesterday but a 40 percent increase over fiscal year 

2008. That is a large request, but it is important to note that GPO 

has sustained very minimal increases over the last 2 fiscal years. 

There are shortfalls in the congressional printing account that we 

have to cover. We have to address building maintenance. Really, if 

there is an example of an agency that has crumbling infrastructure 

and needs help, it is GPO. And then a lot of the rest of the increase 

is for the FDsys system, which is the new digital repository for all 

Federal documents. 

The key things that are part of the request, which I know the Printer will outline, are $8 million to cover accumulated congressional printing shortfalls, which we might have a way to address; 

$21 million to continue developing the FDsys system; and $17.5 

million to maintain and repair GPO’s aging buildings, which we’d 

like to hear more about what your ideas are for not having to continue to prop up your buildings. 

I know there are a lot subcommittee members that have competing hearings within the Appropriations Committee this morning, so they will be coming in and out, and we will just proceed and 

recognize them as they get here. 

Again, we are operating in a very tight budget environment. 

Things are not getting any better for us in the legislative branch, 

and we are going to try to make sure we fight for at least adequate 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
258 

funding for the absolute things that we have to have for each of 

the legislative branch agencies, and you are no exception. 

So, with that, Mr. Latham. 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. I just want to say this is probably the 

nicest printing job I have seen as testimony, as I would expect. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Really. 

Mr. LATHAM. I just want to welcome you. 

I know you have got several concerns. I look forward to hearing 

the testimony on those, particularly about retained earnings and 

investments and technology. Since the Federal Government is probably not going to get much smaller in the next few years, I would 

be really interested in hearing what you think we need to do to be 

of assistance for you. 

With that, thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome. 

Mr. Tapella, we welcome you to your first hearing in your official 

role as the Public Printer. Your full statement will be entered into 

the record, and you can proceed with a 5-minute summary. 

OPENING STATEMENT FROM THE PUBLIC PRINTER

Mr. TAPELLA. Terrific. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, Representative Latham, this is my first appropriations hearing as Public Printer, although I have been part of 

GPO’s management team for over 5 years. During that time, GPO 

has been transformed into a modern, efficient and effective partner 

to all three branches of Government, providing a broad range of 

products beyond just printing. 

Our original objective in transforming GPO was to ensure it 

would survive. Through the hard work of our dedicated employees 

we achieved that goal and more, and now GPO is beginning to 

thrive. 

I am pleased to report that we recorded net income for the fourth 

consecutive year. We increased overall revenue to levels that have 

not been experienced at GPO for more than a decade, primarily as 

a result of the production of electronic passports, as well as other 

in-plant operations. Efforts to economize and increase efficiency 

also contributed measurably to our financial results. 

For fiscal year 2009, we are requesting a total of $174,354,000, 

which will enable GPO to meet projected requirements for GPO’s 

congressional printing and binding and information dissemination 

operations during fiscal year 2009; recover the shortfall in congressional printing and binding appropriations accumulated in fiscal 

year 2007 and projected for fiscal year 2008; provide investment 

funds for necessary information dissemination projects in the Federal Depository Library Program; complete the initial release of 

FDsys; and perform essential maintenance and repairs to our aging 

buildings. 

In short, the increase requested by GPO asks Congress to pay its 

bill for past congressional printing and to make investments in 

GPO’s future, which will help us continue to reduce the real dollar 

costs of congressional printing in the future. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
259 

Playing a numbers game, we are asking for nearly 50 million additional dollars. As a percentage of our prior appropriations, it 

seems like a big percentage; and GPO loses in that comparison and 

so does the taxpayer. In real economic terms, the technology investments that Congress has made at GPO over the past few decades 

have significantly reduced the cost of congressional printing. Were 

it not for the foresight of your predecessors in making these technology investments at GPO, our basic costs for congressional printing would be about $300 million a year. GPO’s approved funding for fiscal year 2008 is under $90 million, 

a reduction of more than 70 percent in real economic terms. The 

savings have come from productivity improvements and staffing reductions made possible through the use of improved technology. 

Now, in my official remarks, I have how a bill becomes a law. 

There are basically 24 steps in the legislative process. GPO is involved in 12 of them. Over 500 GPO employees gave direct support 

to Congress last fiscal year. 

Technology is at the center of GPO’s operations today. GPO’s 

Federal Digital System is the backbone. Of the total funding investments requested by GPO, nearly half are directly related to the 

establishment and operation of GPO’s Federal Digital System. This 

includes modernizing congressional publishing, replacing production workflow systems, and digitizing the FDLP legacy collection. 

For the salaries and expenses appropriation of the Superintendent of Documents, the increases for fiscal year 2009 are required to cover mandatory pay and price level increases, as well as 

projects that are all directly linked to FDsys. The projects are 

geared to ensure the broadest access possible to Federal Government information and the highest level of service to the American 

public. 

GPO needs a modern and efficient facility. I would like it to have 

green building certification. I have begun working with our oversight committees on a plan, a plan that would require no direct appropriations, allow us to remain on our current site, maintain current employee head counts, provide additional space for legislative 

branch use, and not face an untenable CBO score. 

I believe we could have legislation passed this year to make the 

new building a reality. In the meantime, however, we have a number of deferred maintenance items that we must address, and so 

in our appropriations request we are asking for some help. 

I would like to address the success of our security and intelligent 

documents business. It is profitable. Some are suggesting too profitable. I am not certain yet. Because of the unprecedented demand 

for passports last year and the prudent increases in passport inventory so far this year, GPO is experiencing accelerated revenue recognition, not necessarily excess profits. 

GPO is unlike most other Federal agencies in that all GPO activities are financed through a business-like revolving fund. The revolving fund functions as GPO’s checking account with the U.S. 

Treasury. The fund is used to pay all of GPO’s costs, and the fund 

is reimbursed by our agency customers when they pay GPO invoices. 

The price we charge the State Department for blank passports is 

negotiated with the State Department. It is based on our estimated 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
260 

production costs, plus reserves for capital projects apportioned out 

over an estimated quantity of books produced. 

There are 66 different line items used to price the passports, and 

we periodically review the pricing structure with the State Department. We bill the State Department for actual passports produced 

on at least a monthly basis. However, not all of the expenses included in the price we charge the State Department for passports 

are booked at the same time as the revenue. Because of our business type accrual accounting, the expenses are not recognized until 

the investment has been placed into service. There is a timing difference: revenue first, then expenses, and not necessarily in the 

same year. 

As you may have noticed, in last year’s annual report in our financial results table we show net income from operations. We then 

show planned uses of net income. This clearly identifies the impact 

of the accounting rules on our recognition of revenue and expenses. 

We have established formal committees with the State Department to discuss and formalize long-term capital investments. These 

investments will be recognized this year in our financial results 

table as planned uses of net income. 

Finally, the real question that needs to be answered is what is 

the appropriate level of profit for GPO under Title 44? Is it 2 percent? 5 percent? 10 percent? 20 percent? Or should it be measured 

by unencumbered cash on hand? As Public Printer, I must confess 

too much profit is a much better problem to deal with than whether or not we can meet payroll. 

Madam Chairman, Representative Latham, we look forward to 

working with you. With your support, we can continue GPO’s 

record of achievement. 

This concludes my remarks, and I would be happy to answer any 

questions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Tapella. 

[Mr. Tapella’s statement follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
261 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 407 here 41290B.117
262 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 408 here 41290B.118
263 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 409 here 41290B.119
264 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 410 here 41290B.120
265 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 411 here 41290B.121
266 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 412 here 41290B.122
267 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 413 here 41290B.123
268 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 414 here 41290B.124
269 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 415 here 41290B.125
270 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 416 here 41290B.126
271 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 417 here 41290B.127
272 

WELCOME MR. BONNER

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Before we move into questions, I now 

want to officially recognize and welcome Mr. Bonner of Alabama to 

the Appropriations Committee and to the Legislative Branch Subcommittee and to your first meeting. And you are absolutely forgiven for your absence yesterday since the committee schedules us 

with way too many competing priorities. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

THE FUTURE OF GPO

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is a pleasure to have you on the 

committee, and we will proceed under the 5-minute rule. 

Mr. Tapella, you talked a little bit about your vision for the future, but can you give us a sense of where you want to take the 

GPO over the next 5 years? GPO began as a normal printer; and 

now it appears there has been some significant evolution. 

Mr. TAPELLA. GPO was founded originally as Congress’s printer 

in 1861, through legislation in 1860. In 1895, all Government 

printing was put under the Government Printing Office. In addition, the Superintendent of Documents operation was also put 

under the Public Printer. Everything worked fine until about 1993, 

and then the Internet happened, and it was explosive technology. 

As Public Printer I have a responsibility to make certain that the 

documents of our democracy are made widely available and kept in 

perpetuity. That responsibility falls to our Superintendent of Documents operation. Today, less than half of all Government documents are printed first and then distributed. They are born digital, 

and they are made available to the public through Web access and 

other sources. So the job of the Public Printer, I believe, and our 

primary mission, is keeping America informed. 

It just so happens that the method that was used prior to the invention of the Internet was the printing press. But in 1993 Congress gave us authority to operate a Web site; and, in fact, we are 

one of the few Web sites that is actually congressionally mandated, 

which is our GPO Access site. 

So when we look at GPO we are really in the communications 

business. We always have been. And we are in the Government information business. It just so happens that today printing is not 

the only widespread communications medium. Now, looking at 

GPO, we have a couple of different things. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Be mindful that I only have 5 minutes. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Okay. Then I will stop. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No, you can answer the question. Just 

be mindful that I only have 5 minutes. 

Mr. TAPELLA. In terms of printing, what we are doing in house, 

we are focusing on security and intelligent documents, and we are 

focusing on the official journals of Government. All other Government printing, for the most part, is being jobbed to the private sector. We procured 98,000 jobs last year from the private sector. We 

are going to continue that. We are looking at new and innovative 

ways of dealing with that, for example, our partnership with FedEx 

Kinko’s, where any Federal Government agency can go to any 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
273 

FedEx Kinko’s and get convenience printing done. We are doing 

term contracts. We are doing small purchase agreements. 

When we look at what we are doing in plant, we are focusing on 

the work of Congress, the Federal Register, and then the business 

of security and intelligent documents, which includes the passports. 

It also includes, because we have won the contract so far, the Department of Homeland Security’s Trusted Traveler program card. 

And so our business is expanding. It is printing, but it is also the 

injection of technology and integrated circuits into something we 

print. 

PASSPORT FACILITY SECURITY

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

I have a number of other questions, but last year we put language both in our bill as well as in the report related to passport 

facility security. GPO had previously been staffing the passport facility with just security guards—I know you have a different term 

for them—but nonsworn officers; and given the homeland security 

concerns that exist with a situation like that, the committee felt 

strongly that it should be sworn officers that protect that building. 

Can you talk to us about what you have done since that language 

was included in the bill? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Yes. In fact, now our passport facility only has 

sworn officers. Understanding, though, that the majority of the 

work that is done there in terms of the security need is in the area 

of access control. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. 

Mr. TAPELLA. We have placed security officers at access control 

points, and they are now doing that. We are in the process of hiring 

additional officers, sworn officers that will be working in the rest 

of our facility for response to incidents; and we are still using contract officers for access control elsewhere at GPO. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can you talk about the GAO report? 

Mr. Brady and I just signed a letter asking—— 

Mr. TAPELLA. Correct. We have not yet had our initial conference 

with GAO regarding it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Mr. TAPELLA. We look forward to it. Our Inspector General has 

conducted several reviews. The Capitol Police have conducted reviews. All of our security to date has been following the advice we 

received from both the Inspector General as well as the Capitol Police in previous reviews, and we are looking forward to the outcome 

of the GAO review to see how we could better protect our facilities. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And that would be a more comprehensive look at security around GPO? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Correct. At the end of the day, though, the real 

way to get security is to get us into a proper facility that is designed with security in mind and not something that was built in 

1940 for which there were no security concerns. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are a good advocate for your 

agency, and my time has expired. Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much; I, too, want to welcome Mr. 

Bonner to the committee; I look forward to working with you. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
274 

PASSPORT PRODUCTION LEVELS

Mr. LATHAM. You said in your opening statement that you are 

thriving and, financially, performing well; part of that is because 

of the dramatic increase in the number of passports, obviously, 

with people going to Mexico and Canada and having to have passports now. Where is the cliff on that? I mean, I think we are going 

to pretty well fill the need here shortly and your revenues maybe 

are going to go the other way. 

Mr. TAPELLA. I share your concern. What we are looking at is a 

situation where we had peak demand last year. 

Mr. LATHAM. Right. 

Mr. TAPELLA. We are building reserves right now. We are getting 

forecasts from the State Department for what the passport demand 

will be for this year. And, quite honestly, I have no idea. I wish 

I had that crystal ball that would tell us. What we are trying to 

do is be prudent about it. 

Now what you also have is a situation where it is not just the 

passport. There is now going to be the Western Hemisphere travel 

card, the WHTI card. We also have the Trusted Traveler Program, 

which is DHS’s version. Now GPO is in the process of designing 

and producing the DHS travel card. 

So, in terms of our business, we have got the DHS side of it. In 

terms of the pass card, we are not involved in that. What impact 

those will have on passports I do not know. A lot will have to do 

with prices. 

Mr. LATHAM. Are those going to be fee-based? 

Mr. TAPELLA. I believe so, yes. The State Department charges approximately a hundred dollars for a passport. My understanding is 

the pass card is going to be about half that price. That may drive 

business that way. And I personally do not know what the DHS 

Trusted Traveler card is going to cost. 

WORKFORCE REPLACEMENT

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. I know in our conversation in my office—you 

expressed real concern, as many agencies and the Library of Congress have, about the workforce and the kind of bubble that you 

are under. You have got an aging workforce. You are trying to 

transform technology. Talk about that. 

Mr. TAPELLA. GPO has been very fortunate over the years in that 

we have a highly skilled workforce. We also have a workforce that 

is aging. This past Tuesday was GPO’s birthday, 147 years; and we 

recognized employees who had 62 years of service, 50 years of service, 49 years of service. And when we were looking at those with 

35-plus years of service it was a very large quantity of employees. 

And it certainly is a concern of mine, and that is why we are looking at technology moving forward. We need to have the technology 

in place so that, as our workforce retires, we do not necessarily 

have to replace them to do old technology work. 

For example, Microcomp replacement, which is our composition 

system that we use for Congress, we started using that in 1973. 

And we talked about this in your office. That was back when eighttrack tapes were the way that you got music. Today, it is MP3s and 

video MP4s. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
275 

Mr. LATHAM. I was a little offended you thought that was old 

technology. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You really want to go there? 

Mr. TAPELLA. But the question is, as we are doing the work for 

Congress, we need to have a modern composition system. Now one 

of the problems we face, as people retire that know Microcomp— 

and we have really skilled employees that know that system—as 

they retire, we do not have replacement employees; and the learning curve on that system is incredible. What we would like to do 

is retire that system and make certain that we have the funding 

for it. For example, it is in this year’s funding request, and we will 

need funding in the outyears so that we do not run into a crisis. 

We are not yet in a crisis. We are planning ahead. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. How are we doing? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You have a minute. 

TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Tell me about the investment that you are 

talking about in technology. Are you going to be able to completely 

transform? What kind of needs are you talking about? Can you 

kind of expand on what—— 

Mr. TAPELLA. Included in the printed testimony is the information technology projects of GPO. Our backbone is the FDsys. We 

have the Microcomp replacement, which directly affects Congress. 

It also affects how we create some other documents. We have our 

manufacturing workflow system, which is primarily for Congress, 

because it is all the printing that we do for Congress as well as the 

Federal Register. 

We then have what is in Superintendent of Documents, which is 

the digitization of the legacy collection. Those are the documents 

that we want to make available to the public electronically that are 

currently only in paper form. 

And then we have Oracle, which is kind of our backbone system. 

We are at this point funding Oracle completely out of our retained 

earnings. 

We have not asked Congress for any investment capital. We are, 

however, asking Congress to invest in the composition system that 

does Congress’s work. We are asking for investment in the manufacturing workflow system which does Congress’s work. And we are 

asking for investment in digitizing the legacy collection, which is 

under the S&E appropriation. 

You know, technology is where we are going. The costs are going 

to be great. What we are asking for is the initial investment so we 

can continue to make the change. 

Every year, the costs go up; and so the question is you either pay 

now or you pay later. And if you pay later, you are paying a much 

greater expense. 

Plus we run into the issue—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We are going to have votes in about 

15 minutes—— 

Mr. TAPELLA. Okay. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing]. So I truly appreciate your 

answer. I do not mean to cut you off. 

Mr. TAPELLA. That is okay. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
276 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I really want you to be able to fully 

answer the question. Thanks. We are going to come back. 

Thanks. I appreciate it, Mr. Latham. 

Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome. 

Mr. BONNER. And, again, it is good to be with you all. 

I will note that my name plate is taped on. So I do not know who 

I am covering over, but I hope it is someone who is not in jail or 

deceased, either one. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is not a message about your permanence or lack thereof. 

Mr. BONNER. And just for the sake of full disclosure, this room 

has a lot of memories for me. I was the chief of staff to my predecessor, who was the chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, and we met in this room. And so to all of our staff, one 

day you may be sitting here too, because that is where I used to 

sit; and I was very proud to be there. 

Mr. Tapella, just a couple of questions. 

If you are 147 years old—— 

Mr. TAPELLA. Correct. 

Mr. BONNER [continuing]. You do not look it. 

PASSPORT AVAILABILITY

The distinguished chairwoman and ranking member both raised 

questions about passports. You mentioned it in your testimony. 

Few issues cause more concern to our constituents than when they 

cannot get a passport. They wake up on Friday and realize they 

are leaving on Saturday, and they do not have one, and they look 

to their Member of Congress to make magic occur. 

So I know your process in it is somewhat limited, and I am certainly not laying the blame for those delays on you, but could you 

elaborate a little bit more in terms of what your agency is doing 

to ensure a timely production of passports with regard to your 

work with the State Department? 

Mr. TAPELLA. First of all, during last year’s peak demand, our 

customer is the State Department. The State Department’s customer is essentially the American public. At no time did GPO fail 

to meet the requirements of the State Department in getting them 

the blank passports, which they then process and personalize. So 

throughout the entire process GPO always met its commitment to 

the State Department, and they had other issues with adjudication 

and whatnot that were not under our control. 

Last year, we were running literally 24–7 in the manufacture of 

passports. We have also invested in a new, secure production facility that will have a second complete passport operation. It is geographically away from Washington, DC. We are on time and on 

budget on that facility; and we expect the first passport to come off 

the line in April, although we do not expect full production, obviously, until probably the summertime as we start doing the shakedown. 

We are building up reserves in passports, and we have a considerable amount of reserve to date. We have been producing for the 

State Department 550,000 passports a week; and we have been 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
277 

doing that almost nonstop since peak demand, since we had the capability of even producing that. So we are building up reserves so 

that State Department has that available. 

We will have the second passport facility on line beginning sometime after April for full production; and we always have the ability 

to run 24–7, if necessary, in the existing passport facility. 

Mr. BONNER. Madam Chair, if I could ask one more question. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You have 2 minutes. The 5 minutes 

is yours. 

Mr. BONNER. I have a lot of other questions I would like to get 

to and maybe could put some in the record to be answered. 

POTENTIAL FOR PASSPORT FRAUD

Mr. BONNER. But sticking with the passports, there has been a 

lot of concern about fraudulent drivers’ licenses, about fraudulent 

Social Security cards and other forms of identification. I am not up 

on what the issue of fraud is with passports. Is that an issue? 

Mr. TAPELLA. It is certainly of concern to us. And when we look 

at how we price a passport for the State Department, it includes 

a few pennies for technology refresh. Included in it is a relook at 

security features that can be added. And so when we look at the 

cash that we receive for today’s passports, we are putting money 

aside so that we can continue to upgrade security as we move forward. That is of great concern, and we spend a lot of time investing 

in that. 

Mr. BONNER. I was told to be on time, which I was late yesterday—I didn’t show up yesterday, and I was a few minutes late 

today because we were in Budget all night until 12:30. And I was 

also told when the Chairwoman says you have 5 minutes, you have 

5 minutes and not 4 minutes 59 and not 5.01, so I yield back my 

remaining amount of time. 

SHORTFALL IN CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Tapella, I want to focus a little bit on the congressional 

printing shortfall, because the deep vein of funding that members 

seem to like to use as a source for amendments is the printing and 

binding account. And you have requested an $8.2 million increase. 

Yet when we reduce that account we sort of say to ourselves, well, 

we will pay it back later. Your $8.2 million increase is your request 

to cover the shortfalls in that account from 2007 and 2008. But 

there is some confusion I think in exactly what that account is for, 

how it works, and what happens when you have a decrease. 

Let’s say you do not have enough money to meet the printing 

costs and we have had an exponential increase in printing needs 

that we have generated. If we cut the funding for that account, the 

members I think need to understand what that means and what 

happens. So what happens if we do not cover Congress’s portion of 

it? 

Mr. TAPELLA. If you do not cover Congress’s portion, we still 

print what Congress requests; and it goes into essentially our accounts receivable. Now what happens, we have a revolving fund; 

and it has a very limited amount of unencumbered cash. And when 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
278 

Congress does not pay its bill, it means that we cannot invest back 

at GPO in the items that we need, for example, the Oracle system. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And why is that? Why does that even 

matter? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Why does that even matter? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yeah. What is the answer to ‘‘so 

what’’? 

Mr. TAPELLA. The answer to ‘‘so what’’ is GPO would stop functioning. You know, if staff do not have computers that they can 

use, if we cannot pay our postage bill, if we cannot do the normal 

day-to-day functions that are covered by our retained earnings, 

GPO will cease to function. 

Now, essentially what we are doing is we are covering the shortfall temporarily—and I use the term ‘‘temporarily’’—out of existing 

funds. But it means if we cannot make investments, it affects us. 

Eventually, I guess someday it could affect paying employees as 

well. Back in February of 2003, GPO did not have enough available 

cash to meet payroll on the day that we were supposed to. We 

eventually found it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. When was this? 

Mr. TAPELLA. That was in February of 2003, right back when we 

joined GPO; and I do not want to be in that situation again. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yeah. I ask the question that I know 

the answer to deliberately because members often use your accounts as a slush fund, because it is difficult to find places to move 

money in this bill. And members usually move money out of your 

accounts and think that there is no pain and no impact. And while 

it is not people, it is just printing, there is a significant impact, and 

it could be people at some point. 

FACILITIES REPAIRS

In that same vein, you have a $17.5 million request next year to 

maintain and repair your really aging facilities. And I do not know, 

Mr. Latham, if you have been by. I have not been through 

GPO—— 

Mr. LATHAM. I need to. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yeah, I do, too. 

But I did drive by there; and it looks like a really exciting place 

to work environmentally. How would you characterize the condition 

of your main facilities? And, the money that you are asking for, 

what is it going to be used for in terms of addressing those needs? 

Mr. TAPELLA. In terms of our main facility, we have a seven-acre 

campus five blocks from the Capitol. We have four buildings currently on site: buildings one, two, three, and four. The newest was 

completed in 1940. The oldest was completed in 1901. We have old 

elevators. The infrastructure is weak. They were designed at a time 

when we had nearly 9,000 employees. We are now down to about 

2,000 in the metro area. 

I am sure there are some environmental issues there. We are 

doing the best we can to remediate as we identify environmental 

issues. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What kind of environmental issues? 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
279 

Mr. TAPELLA. There has been asbestos, which we mitigated. In 

fact, the last suite to be mitigated was the Public Printer suite on 

the eighth floor. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thankfully. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Thankfully. At one point, we had a smelting factory on site. Our roof leaks. 

PLANS FOR A NEW FACILITY

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So in the last 30 seconds that I have, 

you have a vision for what to do about your facilities that is not 

just the sort of spit and wax and tape that $17.5 million would use. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Correct. I would like to build a new facility on the 

back lot of GPO. I would like do it in a public-partnership so it does 

not require any direct appropriations. We would then make available the existing space to a developer to basically tear down to the 

concrete structure, remediate any of the environmental impacts, 

and make it available for lease. 

In the proposal that I mentioned in my opening statement, we 

believe that not only is there enough space for GPO, but there 

could be a considerable amount of space available for the legislative 

branch should there be a desire to use that space above what we 

are currently doing in terms of housing some of the Capitol Police 

and Architect of the Capitol functions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. Latham. 

PRINTING INK

Mr. LATHAM. Hopefully, we can wrap this up before the votes. 

But something—being from Iowa, what kind of ink do you use? 

Mr. TAPELLA. What kind of ink do we use? Predominantly soybased—— 

Mr. LATHAM. I was hoping. A good answer. 

Mr. TAPELLA [continuing]. As mandated by the Federal Government in fact. 

Mr. LATHAM. Well, because there is an environmental concern, 

too, obviously, with waste coming from other types of ink. That was 

a very good answer. 

IMPACT OF A CONTINUING RESOLUTION

The Chair gets tired of my asking this question of every witness, 

and do not think I am picking on you, but if there is a CR this 

year, how would that affect you? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Next time I will just ask the question 

for you. 

Mr. LATHAM. That is okay. I think I have asked everybody we 

have had. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just kidding. 

Mr. LATHAM. And, if nothing else, it will stimulate a lot of 

thought as to what happens in that scenario. 

Mr. TAPELLA. You know, that is a good question. And a lot has 

to do with how busy Congress is this year. Because the more work 

Congress requests, the more money we need in CP&B. If Congress 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
280 

is not particularly active, then we are not charging Congress as 

much. 

It also depends on how you structure the continuing resolution 

and what numbers you use in terms of constructing it. In the last 

continuing resolution, we were able to hold our own. But, obviously, you see there is a shortfall, or we are projecting a shortfall, 

for this fiscal year. We are going to project one for next year as 

well. And that means that we are going to have to hold off investing in a number of projects for GPO as we continue to fund that 

shortfall. 

And then the question becomes, what is our temporary funding 

and does multi-year count as temporary funding or not? And I do 

not have the answer to that question. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome. 

Mr. Bonner. 

PRINTING PAPER

Mr. BONNER. If Mr. Latham is going to ask what type of ink you 

use, I guess I should ask, since Alabama is one of the largest timber producers, tell us a little bit about the paper you use and how 

much is recycled. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Actually, in terms of actual recycling—for example, 

we print the Congressional Record on 40 percent post-consumer 

waste recycled paper. Other products have at least a minimum recycled content. 

When we look at what is actually recycled, let’s see, GPO has 

been recycling wastepaper since 1860. 

Mr. BONNER. You were a trendsetter. 

Mr. TAPELLA. We were a trendsetter. 

Last year, we recycled 1.5 million worth of corrugated materials, 

which includes, obviously, the boxes and whatnot. In 2007, GPO recycled over 5 million pounds of paper. 

Mr. BONNER. And in terms of the nonrecycled paper, do you 

know is most of it produced in this country? I recently visited a 

printer in my district, and they were telling me how much cheaper 

it is to get paper from other countries. And I do not know if that 

is a part of your budget equation or not. 

Mr. TAPELLA. I believe, and I actually have to defer—do you 

know? 

Mr. TURRI. I don’t believe we have any. 

Mr. TAPELLA. To our knowledge—our Chief Operating Officer, 

Bill Turri—to our knowledge, we are not importing paper from outside the United States. 

Mr. BONNER. I am not saying that is a bad thing. I am just curious. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Right. To my knowledge, we are not. 

Mr. BONNER. Madam Chair, thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Bonner. 

I have two questions I want to get on the record during the meeting, and then I will be finished as well. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
281 

EEO ISSUES

I want to talk about the number of discrimination lawsuits and 

complaints that you have pending now at GPO. Because there have 

been some recent news articles. I know in the weekly report that 

you submit you catalogue or indicate the ones that have been 

added each week. 

Obviously discrimination is a very serious accusation and one 

that should be taken extremely seriously; and I am hopeful that 

you do. I want to make sure that you are doing everything that you 

can to not just minimize but prevent discrimination from occurring 

at your agency. 

So, based on the number of pending lawsuits that you are facing—and I think you are at 16 right now, is that correct? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Well, there are 16 for this year, yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just for this year. And what is the 

total? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Actually, when we talk about this, it is a couple 

of different things. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Basically, I want to know how big of 

a problem do you think discriminatory behavior is at GPO and 

what are you doing to address it? 

Mr. TAPELLA. If I may, may I defer to our EEO officer I brought 

with me, Nadine Elzy? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Thank you. Nadine. 

Ms. ELZY. Good morning. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good morning. 

Ms. ELZY. First of all, I want to mention that we do take at 

GPO—I am personally committed to EEO and to equality—but we 

do take the complaints very seriously. In fact, I have an open door 

policy. So that way any employee—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can you first answer how many are 

pending? 

Ms. ELZY. We have 16; and then we have an additional 20 that 

are pending, whether they are Equal Employment—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thirty-six. 

Ms. ELZY. Right. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

and some other venue. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is over what period of time? 

Ms. ELZY. Over a period of 5 years. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Ms. ELZY. Because some of the complaints have been either in 

District Court or at EEOC for a substantial period of time. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They are in various stages of the process right now? 

Ms. ELZY. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So how big of a problem? Thirty-six 

lawsuits—— 

Ms. ELZY. They are not necessarily lawsuits, they are formal 

complaints. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thirty-six accusations of discrimination that the person felt aggrieved enough to file an actual complaint seems like a lot to me for an agency your size. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
282 

Ms. ELZY. I did some reviews last night to see how we look in 

comparison to other agencies that are similar in our particular size. 

The Broadcast Board of Governors has 1,600 employees, and they 

have 30 complaints for a comparable period of time. 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission itself for the 

same period of time had 21. 

The Small Business Administration, which is almost our size, 

had the exact number of complaints. 

So I just tried to look at other agencies in the Federal Government who use the same process who had comparable sizes and 

their complaints. 

But I do want to emphasize that a lot of our complaints are resolved even before they get into the formal process, because I do 

have an open door policy. Our Chief of Staff also allows employees 

to come to her so they do not even get into the formal process. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So the policy, beside an open door policy—I mean, what do you do in terms of the environment for your 

employees to make sure that the variety of diverse employees that 

you have have a comfort level? And also supervisors in particular 

do not feel like any type of discriminatory behavior is acceptable 

and that they realize what discriminatory behavior is? 

Ms. ELZY. We have done—last year, every manager and supervisor had to take EEO training so that that way they would become familiar with the process. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Was that new? 

Ms. ELZY. No. It was a core commitment. So everyone had to 

complete that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Ms. ELZY. That is one of the things we say as far as taking the 

issues seriously. 

One of the other things that we have done is that we have put 

out information to employees on our intranet about what the process is so they are familiar with that. 

So those are some of the things that we have done. 

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Thank you. 

The other issue I wanted to cover was the environmental steps 

that you have taken in terms of greening the GPO. I noted the percentage of recycled content in your paper. We are trying to show 

that the Capitol and the legislative branch is a model for reducing 

the environmental impact that our operations have. And I know 

you have made some headway in those areas, but what are your 

plans going forward to significantly improve that effort? Because, 

obviously, going from long ago having a smelting operation inside 

the facility to now, hopefully we have moved a long way. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Well, number one, as the chief executive, I have 

made a stand on it, that sustainable environmental stewardship is 

important at GPO. Last week, I appointed an executive to be responsible for environmental stewardship. 

We are looking at many different things in terms of how we are 

doing our internal procurements. We are looking at our buildings. 

And, quite honestly, the most important way for us on the building 

front is to get into a new, environmentally friendly building. And 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
283 

I would like it to have LEED Platinum Certification. I would like 

to reduce the plant paper waste we have for printing the Congressional Record and Federal Register, and that involves switching the 

type of equipment that we use to produce that equipment. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Now, are those things you need our 

assistance with down the road? Are you going to be asking for additional appropriations to move in that direction? 

Mr. TAPELLA. I do not anticipate that we would be asking for any 

additional appropriations for our environmental programs. I believe 

that it is good business, and I think everything that we are going 

to be going for will show a payback that will allow us to make 

those investments out of our retained earnings. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You think it will improve your bottom 

line? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Absolutely. 

ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENTS FROM THE CHAIR

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. With no other members having 

questions, just making sure that that is the case, I would like to 

ask you to do two things—— 

Mr. TAPELLA. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing]. Within the next week. 

Obviously, it is important that our legislative branch agencies do 

everything that they can to make sure that there is an environment in the workplace that is free of discrimination and intimidation and that it does not take place in their organizations regardless of whether it is comparable to other agencies of your size. So, 

with that in mind, I would like GPO to submit a report by next 

Friday, March 14th, detailing what policies and programs you have 

in place to make sure discrimination does not occur within your 

agency. You have outlined it somewhat here, but I think doing it 

in a public way—— 

Mr. TAPELLA. Absolutely. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing]. This way sends a message to employees and, in particular, supervisors that it is not a 

situation that we will tolerate. And that report should include how 

many active EEO cases there are at GPO, what those cases relate 

to, the status of those cases, how the number of cases compare to 

other agencies, and what programs and policies GPO has in place 

to make sure that discrimination does not occur within your agency. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Okay. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In addition to that, in the area of 

greening and making a more environmentally friendly environment 

at GPO, particularly because that is a key way that we can reduce 

our impact and our carbon footprint in the legislative branch—and 

I am glad to hear you have taken steps. I again asked a lot of questions I knew the answer to today, but I wanted to get your efforts 

out in the public arena that you did not necessarily include in your 

statement. 

So I would like you to submit a report by next Friday, March 

14th, on what actions you have already taken to reduce your environmental impact, what additional steps you plan to take in the 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
284 

near future, and how you funded or plan to fund those actions, and 

what you anticipate the long-term benefits of those actions to be. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. With that, the subcommittee stands 

in recess until next Wednesday, March 12th, at 10 a.m., when we 

will hear from the Directors of CBO, the Office of Compliance, and 

the Open World Leadership Center on their fiscal year 2009 budget 

requests. Thank you. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
285 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 446 here 41290B.128
286 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 447 here 41290B.129
287 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 448 here 41290B.130
288 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 449 here 41290B.131
289 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 450 here 41290B.132
290 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 451 here 41290B.133
291 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 452 here 41290B.134
292 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 453 here 41290B.135
293 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 454 here 41290B.136
294 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 455 here 41290B.137
295 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 456 here 41290B.138
296 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 457 here 41290B.139
297 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 458 here 41290B.140
298 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 459 here 41290B.141
299 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 460 here 41290B.142
300 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 461 here 41290B.143
301 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 462 here 41290B.144
302 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 463 here 41290B.145
303 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 464 here 41290B.146
304 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 465 here 41290B.147
305 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 466 here 41290B.148
306 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 467 here 41290B.149
307 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 468 here 41290B.150
308 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 469 here 41290B.151
309 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 470 here 41290B.152
310 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 471 here 41290B.153
311 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 472 here 41290B.154
312 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 473 here 41290B.155
313 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 474 here 41290B.156
314 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 475 here 41290B.157
315 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 476 here 41290B.158
316 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 477 here 41290B.159
317 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 478 here 41290B.160
318 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 479 here 41290B.161
319 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 480 here 41290B.162
320 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 481 here 41290B.163
321 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 482 here 41290B.164
322 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 483 here 41290B.165
323 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 484/600 here 41290B.166

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
(325) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008.

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET 

OFFICE, AND OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER 

WITNESSES 

TAMARA CHRISLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE 

PETER ORSZAG, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

AMBASSADOR JOHN O’KEEFE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OPEN WORLD 

LEADERSHIP CENTER 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good morning, I’m pleased to call this 

hearing of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, of the Committee 

on Appropriations to order. This morning we are going to hear from 

three legislative branch agencies, the Office of Compliance, the 

Congressional Budget Office, and the Open World Leadership Center. Each agency is looking for an increase. Unfortunately, all three 

are looking for double-digit increases. And I don’t have to tell anyone in this room that that is going to be extremely difficult if not 

impossible to accommodate in varying degrees. 

The Office of Compliance has asked for a 29 percent increase 

over what was what was appropriated last year. There are a couple 

of programs that I know you are trying to implement. And we look 

forward to working with you on trying to fund those initiatives 

within the resources that we are allocating, and I can assure you 

we will all be pushing for the most significant allocation that we 

can get. 

CBO is asking for a 15 percent increase. CBO has struggled over 

the last several years with only minimal increases, hits to your IT 

program and significant demands on the personnel resources of the 

agency. I know that I get many complaints and concerns from 

Members, not because CBO is just too slow but because the increased workload has put more demands on your limited staff. A 

lot of Members would like to see scoring occur more quickly than 

you are physically able to do right now. And also, I know we have 

a health care component that you want to add and beef up because 

of that being such a significant priority. 

And Open World, Open World is a fan favorite. We want to continue to try to work with you to be able to appropriately fund the 

program. And I am looking forward to the report that is due on 

March 31 so that we can see what your suggestions are so we don’t 

have to struggle with how we fund you every year. The program 

has a lot of Member advocates. And I am one of them. But we also 

have so many, as we found at the hearing last week, we have so 

many needs that need to be addressed, competing priorities in this 

committee that also have advocates. And I just worry that Open 

World will continue to be shrunk because of the competing priorVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:24 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 041290 PO 00000 Frm 00325 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\41290P2.XXX 41290P2

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
326 

ities. And I think it would be far more productive for us to work 

together, and I know I worked with Mr. LaHood last year in trying 

to find a way to fund you to the degree that we could and not have 

this be a consistent problem over time. 

All of your statements are available and will be entered for the 

record. And with that, I want to turn to Mr. Latham. I want to 

apologize for beginning the meeting at 10:30. However, there was 

some procedural action on the floor that was unexpected. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. It is very unfortunate, without any kind of notice, 

it was delayed when we did not have votes on the floor at 10:00. 

We could have started. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The Democratic Caucus was notified 

that we needed to be on the floor right at 10:00 as a result of the 

procedural actions initiated by the Republicans, and so I used my 

judgment and felt it was—— 

Mr. LATHAM. It was very unfortunate with the witnesses here. I 

cancelled some things this morning to be here on time. And with 

these folks here, it is very, very unfortunate. It is a bad precedent. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, speak to your leadership, and 

we won’t have to do that in the future. 

Mr. LATHAM. Well, it is not a matter of my leadership. Unfortunately, this is what it has come to around here. It is without any 

notification or anything. We would appreciate knowing about it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Me, too. 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. LaHood, I will yield to you. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. LAHOOD

Mr. LAHOOD. Madam Chair, given the fact that the Republican 

leader is going to offer a privileged resolution immediately following this vote and then, according to your precedent, because it 

is an important matter, I believe the committee should recess so 

that we can go upstairs and listen to the resolution, and there will 

be a vote on it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We are not going to recess to listen 

to a privileged resolution. We can recess for the vote. 

MOTION TO RECESS

Mr. LAHOOD. I move the committee recess while the privileged 

resolution is being considered and come back after the vote, and I 

ask for a vote on that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We will take that up at the appropriate time. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Now is the time. I made the motion to recess, so 

we can go upstairs. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The privileged resolution has not been 

offered. 

Mr. LAHOOD. It is going to be here, and as soon as it is offered, 

I believe we should have the opportunity, just as you decided that 

we were going to suspend for a half-hour, we showed up at 10:00, 

no notification that the—— 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
327 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I didn’t have any notification, Mr. 

LaHood, that there would be procedural motions. At 9:55, I was 

told. 

Mr. LAHOOD. There is a very important matter on the floor. I 

motion that we recess and go—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I will accept that on unanimous consent. But this is not how we are going to conduct this committee 

in the future. This was a result of a procedural action. I certainly 

didn’t mean to be discourteous. I didn’t—it wasn’t like I was preoccupied or doing something else. I just thought we would be jumping back and forth, and I felt it was very important that we hear 

and have undivided attention for the three agency heads that we 

would not have if we had begun at 10:00. So as a result, that was 

my judgment call, as is the prerogative of the Chair. 

I don’t think it is wise to adjourn and not be able to finish the 

hearing for these three agencies in the time we have allotted to listen to testimony that does not require us to be on the floor, Mr. 

LaHood. If you are upset that I delayed the proceedings because of 

a procedural vote, then I understand that you are upset about that. 

But if we can’t complete the hearing because we are getting into 

a tussle for no reason, then I think that would be unfortunate. 

So I am happy to adjourn for—— 

Mr. LAHOOD. I am not saying adjourn. I am saying recess. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am happy to recess for the vote. I 

would prefer to be able to complete three agencies—— 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, I will tell you this, Madam Chair, Mr. 

Latham is the ranking member. He shows up here before 10:00. I 

show up at 10:00. No courtesy was given to him to tell him—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I didn’t have any notice. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Do you want me to speak, or do you want to speak? 

No courtesy was given to him. He is told by your staff director at 

about 3 or 4 minutes after 10:00 that you have sent an e-mail over 

here saying that because there is a vote, which was not taken 

until—started until 10:16. You have the Librarian of Congress 

here. You have all these Librarian of Congress staff people sitting 

here. We have started these meetings in the past, gone upstairs 

and voted on the general vote and come back. And we have staggered it. We have done that many times. So at least you could have 

notified the ranking member. We showed up here on time. 

Now, look, if there is an important matter on the floor, you set 

the precedent. I didn’t. And if the Republican leader is going to 

offer a privileged resolution on a very important legislative vote 

that was taken last night, some of us would like to go up there and 

listen to it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is your prerogative, Mr. LaHood. 

The motion passed with unanimous consent. 

Proceed with your statement, Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. I am done. I just welcome the panel. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You can each proceed with a summary of your 5 minutes. 

Mr. LAHOOD. So you are not going to recess the meeting? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I said, if the motion is adopted by 

unanimous consent. 

Mr. LAHOOD. So are we going to recess? 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
328 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We are going to recess when the privileged resolution is on the floor. Is it on the floor now? 

Mr. LAHOOD. Yeah. They are reading it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, the committee will stand in recess until the conclusion of the reading of the privileged resolution. 

We will reconvene at the end of the remarks. 

[Recess.] 

OPENING STATEMENT—TAMARA CHRISLER

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ms. Chrisler, you can proceed. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 

Latham, distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am honored 

to appear before you as the executive director of the Office of Compliance. And I would like to, on behalf of the office, thank the subcommittee for its continued support of the office and our work. 

Because of the initiative taken by the subcommittee last year, 

our office has received access to House e-mail, which will be instrumental in reducing our costs for our publications, and our education and outreach programs. And we are grateful for the subcommittee’s support. We are grateful for the indirect and direct recognition that the subcommittee has given our work. Because of 

that recognition, we have been able to build better relations with 

agencies, specifically the Architect of the Capitol, and we have been 

engaged in productive communication. We have been able to collaborate with agencies toward the abatement of hazards. 

And we are very, very excited about the possibility of engaging 

in a new initiative, which is our Prevention and Reduction Initiative, which is the theme of our fiscal year 2009 budget request. As 

a point of clarification I would like to indicate that while my written testimony for the record emphasizes that there is a 4.9 percent 

increase over the requested fiscal year 2008 appropriations, it is a 

28.9 increase over the actual appropriated funds that the office received in fiscal year 2008. 

The new items that I would like to highlight very briefly with the 

subcommittee are the requests that we are making to support our 

Prevention and Reduction Initiative, which are two FTEs, and 

funding for those FTEs for conflict prevention and reduction of hazards, a trainer and an ombudsperson; $10,000 for a Zero Accident 

Initiative that we would like to initiate for our Safety and Health 

Program; funding for COLAs, restoring salaries and fully funding 

FTEs that were allowed for our office in fiscal year 2008. We are 

also requesting a third FTE for a fire and safety engineer. 

Of the 2007/2008 items that I would like to highlight for the subcommittee, the office is requesting $50,000 for utility tunnels expertise; $25,000 for a self-certification program for District and 

State offices; $25,000 for a health and safety plan review as a collaborative effort with employing offices; as well as $19,000 for a 

campus-wide survey, so that we have a good understanding of what 

our constituents know about their rights and responsibilities under 

the CAA, so that we can focus our education and outreach efforts. 

I thank you for allowing my testimony today and I remain available for questions. 

[Ms. Chrisler’s statement follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
329 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 612 41290c.001
330 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 613 41290c.002
331 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 614 41290c.003
332 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 615 41290c.004
333 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 616 41290c.005
334 

OPENING STATEMENT—PETER ORSZAG

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Orszag. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Thank you very much for having me here. I spent 

my first year as CBO director trying to survey what we do and 

what could possibly change, and the request that you have before 

you is a reflection of the time that I spent doing that. Just three 

points of context before I get to the specific requests. The first is 

that it has already been noted, we are very intense in people; 90 

percent of our budget is for salaries and benefits. And over the past 

4 years, the average increase in our appropriation has been under 

3 percent. That has not allowed me to compete as effectively as I 

would like to with soaring salaries for economists and other skilled 

professionals in the markets that we compete for. 

Second, the Congress is asking more from us. Just as a few reflections of that, the PAYGO rules; the Senate’s long point of order; 

the desire to have us score things not just after it moves through 

committee but at markup and during various stages of committee 

procedures is different than it was in the past. And a reflection of 

that increased activity, in calendar year 2007, we testified 38 times 

relative to 18 times in calendar year 2006. In calendar year 2007, 

we issued 771 formal cost estimates relative to the 558 in 2006. 

Across a variety of metrics, there are increased demands that are 

being placed on us that we are trying to respond to. 

And then, third, as I have tried to emphasize in other settings, 

health care costs are the key to our fiscal future. They are rising 

rapidly more than any other factor, including aging and demographics. The rate at which health care costs grow will determine 

the path the Federal Government’s spending will be on in the future. And I believe that you all are not getting enough options and 

analyses on what can help bend that curve. And CBO can play a 

role in providing that kind of analysis to you. So we are trying to 

bulk up our health staff to provide that for you. 

So, with those three things in context, the request that we have 

submitted to you totals $42.7 million. That is a $5.4 million increase over this year’s funding level. Roughly $2 million out of that 

$5-plus million would go for a very large expansion in our staff, 15 

FTEs, 15 full-time equivalents, or a 6 percent increase in our staffing level, in order to accommodate increased work on health care 

and some of the other demands on our time coming through the 

scoring process. Even with that increase, I know it would still be 

about half the size of other agencies that do similar work, like the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

And just very briefly, in conclusion, I come to you reluctantly. 

And I understand that as the head of the Budget Office, asking for 

a significant increase is a bit of an awkwardness. But I believe that 

the demands that are being put on the agency are such that in 

order to serve you effectively and efficiently, the proposal that you 

have before you is necessary. Thank you. 

[Dr. Orszag’s statement follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
335 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 620 41290c.006
336 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 621 41290c.007
337 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 622 41290c.008
338 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 623 41290c.009
339 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 624 41290c.010
340 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 625 41290c.011
341 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 626 41290c.012
342 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 627 41290c.013
343 

OPENING STATEMENT—JOHN O’KEEFE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Dr. Orszag. 

Ambassador O’Keefe. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Madam Chair, Mr. Latham, distinguished members of the subcommittee, I would like to thank you for your engagement and support of Open World and also for taking time this morning to consider our budget request for fiscal year 2009 for the Open World 

program, which is having a significant impact on the emerging 

leadership generation in states of the former Soviet Union. 

I also would like to thank our chairman, Dr. James Billington, 

for being here with us today, and a special nod to the Open World 

staff for their dedication and hard work. 

Thirteen thousand leaders have come from all political regions of 

the former Soviet Union for short but intensive stays in communities scattered throughout all 50 States. From local as well as national leaders and from all branches of government, working with 

Congress, the U.S. judiciary and executive branch departments, 

this program has created networks and produced results not 

matched by any other exchange program in the region. Ten percent 

of the newly elected Russian Duma are Open World alumni. Our 

flagship Rule of Law Program has brought to the United States 

more than 1,000 Russian and Ukrainian judges and supported 19 

sister court relationships. Alumni of Open World’s program swept 

the top 3 literary prizes in Russia in 2006. And Chief Justice Roberts of the Supreme Court devoted the first 2 pages of his 14-page 

annual report to the Federal Judiciary to write about the visit of 

Open World alumnus Justice Yuri Sidorenko. 

Ukraine sees its future in ever closer ties to Europe and the 

United States but faces challenges of reforming itself and integrating with the larger democratic community. At a recent major 

international forum on Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic future, the organizers said that, ‘‘Open World alumni were the most articulate and 

best organized group at our event.’’ Visitors from the 5 other partner states and the Caucuses in Central Asia have forged close ties 

to Members of Congress and State legislators. We are adding 

Kazakhstan in April and Turkmenistan in the fall. Taken together, 

these countries standing athwart geopolitical tides share more than 

2,000 miles of borders with Iran and Afghanistan. 

Madam Chair, members of the committee, this is a time of extraordinary possibilities for both this program and countries that 

are participating in it. Russia is entering a new phase with an uncertain power sharing agreement. The president-elect has said that 

a new program in perinatal public health set up by alumni of Open 

World should serve as a model for Russia. 

The Russian parliament is building a parallel program to Open 

World which will bring large numbers of Americans to Russia. Last 

month, we provided to the Russian foreign ministry and legislative 

branch a detailed blueprint of how we work under Congress, which 

created Open World. This new model for professional exchanges 

will serve to strengthen the legislative branch long overshadowed 

by the executive. It will help open up new avenues of cooperation 

between our legislatures and theirs in the next several years. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
344 

The chairman of the Committee on International Judicial Relations, Judge Robert Henry, will join his Russian counterpart in St. 

Petersburg to lay out ways, through the Open World program, to 

work even further and closer with the Russian judiciary as it matures as an independent branch of government. Open World’s 

placement in the legislative branch allows us to attract an unusually large and varied group of young leaders from throughout this 

region in a context one step removed from the immediate day-today preoccupations of foreign policy. In each country and region, we 

are building up a group of professionals moving into positions of influence. And they have experienced for themselves how institutions 

are made accountable to the people they serve. All the participants 

have returned home to their countries. All 13,000. More than 6,000 

Americans have hosted them and in the last year alone provided 

$1.8 million in in-kind accommodations and meals for our participants. Many Americans are both willing to be repeat hosts and to 

travel often at their own expense on return trips to cement these 

partnerships. 

And through the excellent efforts of the Open World team, we 

have slimmed down our already lean operating costs during the 

past year, saving close to a half million dollars. 

I have been heartened by the recent statement by our chairman, 

Dr. Billington, who has been involved in exchanges both as a participant and an administrator for almost 60 years. He considers 

this the most politically important program he has seen since the 

establishment of the immediate post-war programs of the late 

1940s. Reviewing the reduced 2008 budget and considering placement of Open World at its January meeting, the Open World Board 

of Trustees determined that it should remain in the legislative 

branch and that Open World management and board should explore all funding sources. 

With a full understanding of pressures on your budget, I respectfully ask for your support—the support of the committee members 

in the effort to sustain the program at a time of great promise. 

Open World touches on so many areas that it may be that its appropriation could draw from more than one account. I would welcome an opportunity to work with you, with your staff, and with 

members of the subcommittee on finding the funding solution. 

Our many participants in America and states of the former Soviet Union can then harvest from the remarkable base of collaborative efforts that Congress has brought through this unique program to the vast and strategically important heartland of Eurasia. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

[Ambassador O’Keefe’s statement follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
345 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 633 41290c.014
346 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 634 41290c.015
347 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 635 41290c.016
348 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 636 41290c.017
349 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 637 41290c.018
350 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 638 41290c.019
351 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 639 41290c.020
352 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 640 41290c.021
353 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 641 41290c.022
354 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 642 41290c.023
355 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 643 41290c.024
356 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 644 41290c.025
357 

OPEN WORLD REPORT ON ITS FUTURE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Ambassador O’Keefe. 

We will proceed with the question period. The committee last 

year directed Open World to complete a report, which I believe is 

due March 31, that required Open World leadership to explore options for the agency’s future both in terms of where you might be 

housed and how you might continue to be funded at a level that 

would allow the program to continue at the level of quality that 

you have always operated. I think we are going to struggle to fund 

you at $9 million, never mind the $14 million that you have asked 

for, which would bring you back up to your pre-fiscal year 2008 

level. What is the status of the report? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I do have a draft report that we want to get to the 

board members, of which you are one, before we submit it to Mr. 

Obey and to Senator Byrd. So we have a draft, and we have options 

that were required in the report laid out with, I think, some good 

background in there as well. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Are you familiar enough with the 

draft report to feel that it is going to offer us some suggestions on 

how we might relieve the ongoing pressure that the committee will 

face in trying to fund you? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. It is more on a question of status because that is 

what we were asked for. But it also has elements in here that I 

mentioned in my testimony of seeking more than one source of 

funding within the congressional appropriation process. 

OPEN WORLD POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. What percentage of your participants are from the judicial branch in both America and in the 

former Soviet states? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Well, cumulatively we have about 1,100 out of 

13,000. That is about 8.75 percent. This past year we have brought 

over 1,400 people, and 144 were judges and prosecutors and people 

like that. So we are running about 10 percent, and that is for all 

the countries. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And you don’t have any funds come 

from the judicial branch or any affiliated judicial entities or legal 

entities? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. No. We don’t have funds coming from the judicial 

branch, though there is funding because our objective is to form 

partnerships, and we don’t get the funding, but U.S. judges get 

funding to do the return visits. So when Judge Robert Henry goes 

to meet Sidorenko, the State Department International Speakers 

Program will pay his way over, and then we do the logistical support because we have the network and the contacts. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Has Open World pursued private 

sources of funds? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Yes, we have. Last year we received, aside from 

our appropriations, about $750,000 in private funds. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. $750,000. Isn’t there a way to improve 

upon that number? I mean, it would seem like this is a program 

that would attract some significant private financial support. And 

is there a plan in place or is that part of your—is that going to be 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
358 

part of your report? I would hope—and I have encouraged you before to begin—that you would begin an aggressive fundraising program from the private sector. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Yes. One of the things that I was hoping to do with 

the 2008 budget was to get a development person because you really do have to have someone focus on this full time. And so, yes, we 

do—we will increase our efforts. We have sought from various organizations partnering arrangements. So with the Ukrainian ambassador we were looking at ways for the Ukrainian government to 

offset the transportation costs of some of the Ukrainian participants. We have worked with organizations to partially fund programming. The House Democracy Assistance Commission is going 

to bring 20 people over, 20 parliamentarians over in autumn. So 

they will get them here and do their training, and then we put 

them on a supplemental Open World program. 

So we have, I would say, several strategies. Number one is, find 

people who are doing things that we are complementary to. And 

then find donors who are willing to give us money. And then, third, 

look toward other governments who have an interest in Open 

World to help us in offsetting some of the costs. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

My time has expired. 

Mr. Latham. 

IMPACTS OF A CONTINUING RESOLUTION

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. I have been asking every panel here the 

same question. We have a real possibility of a continuing resolution 

maybe until March next year. I just wonder how that would affect 

your operations and new initiatives if, in fact, you were in a CR 

flat-lined budget. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I will go first. Obviously, we will do what we have 

to do. But for my agency, it will be very difficult to get to where 

we want and I believe need to be for you, especially on the health 

front because the recruiting cycle is such that it would require, you 

know, if assuming post-March you did fund some expansion, a very 

rapid ramp-up. In addition, it obviously depends on exactly what 

level the CR is at. But I will just come back again, and say that 

I am doing the best I can to make CBO, as I like it put it, a cool 

place for policy wonks because that is the only thing I have got to 

compete on because the salaries at the Fed, let alone hedge funds 

and other places, are substantially higher than what we pay. And 

I am recruiting the same Ph.D. economists, and I can’t do that forever. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Our Prevention and Reduction Initiative is largely 

based upon requested FTEs. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Could you speak up a little bit, please? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Certainly. Our Prevention and Reduction Initiative is largely based on our requested FTEs. I think a continuing 

resolution would make it very problematic for us to begin that initiative, though we would seek to work with what we are given, and 

we would certainly maintain what we have and do as much as we 

can with whatever we are funded. We in the past have been fortunate enough to not have to reduce employees to be able to maintain 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
359 

our programs and to continue with the work that we do. That is 

certainly what we would continue, and hopefully we would be able 

to perhaps begin development and research of some of the initiatives—but not engage as fully as we would hope. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. It would pose some serious problems. First of all, 

as I mentioned in my testimony, as soon as I came in, I cut a couple contracts, looked at how we were doing travel, moved it from 

summer when it was expensive, to the winter to bring people over 

at a less costly time. So we have kind of grabbed a lot of the savings. And whenever you are running a program like this, when you 

have to operate at less money, you want to try to keep the heart 

of your program, which is the delegates coming over here, the 

Americans involved with them, you want to keep that up. And you 

want to cut into your overhead. Well, we have attacked that a lot. 

Probably what we would need to do, and we are already looking at 

some of the strategies, is that we could move some of the travel a 

bit later and still accomplish what we want to accomplish. But the 

fact is that we would be bringing fewer delegates. 

ADVANTAGES OF OPEN WORLD BEING IN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Mr. LATHAM. You know, the big question with Open World has 

been where you should be funded. Can you explain to us what 

would happen, from the Russian point of view, from the people that 

you are working with over there, if there was a perception that the 

program was an extension of foreign policy of the executive branch? 

What is the advantage, disadvantage to staying with the leg 

branch? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Well, I think the main advantage is, because we 

are in the legislative branch, because our chairman, obviously, is 

a distinguished scholar and widely recognized in Russia, we can attract individuals who would be reluctant to go on executive branch 

programs. And if you are looking for emerging leaders, you are 

looking for people with some ambition. They are going to be very 

careful, especially in these times, about what kinds of programs 

they get involved in. And so because in a sense we are neutral, we 

are nonpartisan, we don’t have to get into the necessary fights that 

you have every day involved with diplomacy. This helps us a lot. 

The second thing is, with 13,000 alumni, the program is known 

in the regions, and people who have moved into leadership positions are often Open World alumni. And that gives you a little bit 

of an immunity, as it were. So you move to the executive branch, 

the first thing that happens is the alumni network falls apart because executive branch programs don’t fund the alumni networks. 

And your quality of participants drops, and I just think it would 

be a real diminishment of the effectiveness, long-term effectiveness 

of the program. 

Mr. LATHAM. Would there be an official position like from Russia? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Your time has expired. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. The Russian position is that there is an existing 

law that says individuals cannot take money from another government. And we are grandfathered, so that law does not apply. If we 

change status, the Russians could reinterpret the law. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. LaHood. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
360 

SUPPORT FOR OPEN WORLD PROGRAM

Mr. LAHOOD. Ambassador O’Keefe, as you know, I have been a 

strong supporter of this program. I became acquainted with it as 

a result of a Federal judge in my hometown of Peoria who has participated in the program for well over 10 years and has traveled 

to Russia each year during the time that he has been involved in 

the program. And we have had Russian judges visit our community 

in central Illinois. The idea that emerging democracies can learn 

about our system of justice and our, you know, and other elected 

officials I think is an extraordinary opportunity. The truth is, if you 

were to put this program under the State Department or the Defense Department, it would be tainted with their policies. 

Under the Library of Congress, which has some of the best thinkers in the world, you know, there is no policy. There are lots of policies that can be and lots of things that can be studied under an 

agency of an administration. They come in to that, that program 

comes under the umbrella of the policies of that administration. 

And at that point, it doesn’t have the kind of flexibility I think that 

would be allowed as an entity under the Library of Congress where 

you do have scholars and thinkers and people who can talk about 

all kinds of different opportunities. 

So this idea that it should go somewhere else I think would be 

a huge, huge mistake. And I hope your report does not recommend 

that. Because I don’t agree with that. I have followed this program 

for many, many years. 

EXPANDING OPEN WORLD TO IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

Let me ask you this, has there been any thought given to taking 

this program into Afghanistan and Iraq? 

Mr. O’KEEFE. As I understand it, last year there were some inquiries. And I did get an inquiry actually just this past week for 

Albania. Our legislation allows us to operate anywhere provided we 

give a 90-day notice to the appropriating subcommittees after the 

approval of the board. The fact is, moving into Afghanistan, you 

need an infrastructure to make it work. Right now we have a good 

network in the former Soviet states. If that is the sense of the 

board and the sense of the Congress that we should do that, we 

could do it. I mean, we are capable of doing it. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well, I think it is something that you ought to really take a look at. And I do believe this, I believe that one of the 

ways that you could fund this is through the enormous amount of 

money that is being expended in both of those countries. Some of 

it perhaps could be set aside and shifted to Open World so that you 

could begin the process of bringing those emerging leaders, whether they be mayors in cities in Iraq or Afghanistan or whether 

they—look, Iraq is setting up a whole judicial system. And what a 

wonderful opportunity for these judges to come to America and for 

our judges to go over there, and you know, we are right at the 

starting gate on this. And as we continue to spend enormous 

amounts of money in Afghanistan and Iraq, you know, I would encourage you to talk to the administration about some funds that 

might be made available even in the next budget to begin a program either with mayors, municipal leaders or judges. You have 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
361 

got such a great track record in these emerging democracies in the 

former Soviet Union that I think it makes a lot of sense. 

So this is one Member who is going to continue to support your 

efforts and support the idea that you ought to stay within the Library of Congress so you are not tainted by the policies of any administration. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Bonner. 

SIZE OF AGENCIES AND REQUESTED INCREASES

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Since I am the newest member of this committee, could you give 

us a quick breakdown on how many employees you actually have 

in your offices and what your—again, what your budget request is 

in terms of a percent increase? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Sure. We are allocated 235 full-time equivalent staff 

members. I am requesting an increase to 250. Our increase—our 

budget, our proposal to you, our request to you is for a $45.4 million increase, which is slightly under 15 percent. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you. 

Ms. CHRISLER. We currently have 21 FTE positions. We have 20 

funded at this—well, we are able to fund 20 at this point. We are 

deferring funding for one for cost savings. We are making a request 

for three additional FTEs in this upcoming fiscal year. Our current 

budget request is $4.3 million which is a 28.9 percent increase over 

the allocated funds we have received for fiscal year 2008. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. We are authorized at this point 11 people. We have 

eight. So we can put them all on one elevator with a little room 

left over. We had a reduction in our budget of 35 percent in 2008. 

And we are seeking to restore it, which comes out to a little over 

50 percent increase because of the change in denominators. 

FURTHER DISCUSSION OF OPEN WORLD EXPANSION

Mr. BONNER. And I know that is in the record. Forgive me for 

asking you for putting it back on, but I think it is useful because, 

as the Chairwoman indicated, we are facing some difficult decisions, and everyone’s priorities are different. Yesterday on the 

House floor we voted to approve $12 million for a new greenhouse 

for the Botanical Gardens for orchids, which I don’t think anyone 

would disagree is important, and perhaps it is cheaper to build a 

new greenhouse than to continue to rent the space that we currently have. But when our own budgets reflected a 2.7 percent 

growth in our MRAs, Member Representational Accounts, that 

allow us to hire our staff, and we serve around 635,000, 650,000 

people that have put us in this position, I think we have to be able 

to ask questions so that we can go back when we are asked questions of all of our bosses, the American taxpayers, and say, well, 

this is why we should justify a 25 percent or 50 percent increase, 

even if it is warranted. 

Specifically, following up on Mr. LaHood’s question—and Mr. 

Ambassador, can you give us any report back in terms of meaningful dialogue that would ensue that would possibly allow some of the 

good work that you have done in other countries to be considered 

in Iraq and in Afghanistan? 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
362 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Sir, you would like a report—— 

Mr. BONNER. If that meets with the approval of the Chair, I just 

think it would be—I mean, we have—our Nation has focused—here 

we are coming up on the anniversary of our involvement, and it 

seems that we have focused so much of our resources, so many of 

our men and women, and many of whom have not come back, in 

those two countries. And I think it would be useful to know, going 

forward, if this is something that you are—your group could consider as part of your long-range mission, especially as you are seeking an increase in funding. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You can feel free to respond for the 

record. But I will note that because we are struggling to even fund 

them at the limited amount of funds that we were able to provide 

them with in the last fiscal year, expanding their mission beyond 

the nations that we are already covering would be next to impossible. So I think they would probably be faced with shifting resources that we are able to provide to them to Iraq and Afghanistan if that was something that they felt, that the board felt, was 

appropriate. I can tell you that the concern that I have is that this 

program perhaps has been too Russian-centric for too long and did 

not move beyond—and that they have now moved into the other 

Soviet Bloc countries. And I think it is an excellent suggestion to 

look at Iraq and Afghanistan and Mr. LaHood’s suggestion that 

perhaps the billions of dollars that we are spending in those two 

countries could be—it would be a water droplet to take some of 

that funding and try to get it put into this program. So if you can 

respond for the record but just with that note of caution. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Yes, sir. I will be pleased to give you a report by 

April 4, 2008. 

[The information follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
363 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 658 here 41290c.026
364 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 659 here 41290c.027
365 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 660 here 41290c.028
366 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 661 here 41290c.029
367 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 662 here 41290c.030
368 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 663 here 41290c.031
369 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 664 here 41290c.032
370 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. I ate up about 30 seconds 

or more of your time in answering that. 

UTILITY TUNNEL ABATEMENT EFFORTS

Mr. BONNER. I have just got one more quick question for the Office of Compliance. Could you give us an update on the asbestos in 

the tunnels? 

Ms. CHRISLER. I certainly can. As the subcommittee is well 

aware, the Office of Compliance and the Office of the Architect of 

the Capitol entered into a settlement agreement to abate the hazards in the tunnels. And pursuant to that settlement agreement, 

many things have been happening with the Office of Compliance 

and the Office of the Architect of the Capitol. Each has liaisons 

who are in direct communication with each other constantly about 

the progress that the Architect of the Capitol is making with respect to the tunnels. And specifically with respect to the asbestos 

concerns, my understanding is that everything is on track, that everything is moving forward, specifically the asbestos removal in the 

b, y and g tunnels is on track, as well as the replacement of the 

r tunnel. I have with me our general counsel, Peter Ames Eveleth, 

who can also provide additional information. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Bonner. I 

want to follow along that same line of questioning. The Architect 

has asked for $127 million to meet the terms of the settlement 

agreement. Is that the appropriate amount of money to bring it in 

for a landing? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Yes. We have actually had a conversation about 

this, as I mentioned and once again would like to recognize the 

subcommittee for the work that you have done to open the door for 

engaged communication with, specifically, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol. And because of that increased communication, 

we have been able to sit down with the Architect and discuss many 

things, among which have been their request for appropriations, 

and we are certainly very supportive. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And would you characterize the 

project as being on track? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And they are making the appropriate 

amount of progress based on the settlement agreement? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Yes. 

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE REDUCE AND PREVENT INITIATIVES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good. On your request, I have sort of 

oversimplified the categories that requests go into when talking 

about how we are prioritizing things in the subcommittee. And 

there are the things that you must have, the things that you would 

like to have, and the things, sort of the nice-to-haves and got-tohaves. And utility tunnels are obviously a must in terms of funding. Your Reduce and Prevent Initiatives I would put more in the 

it-would-be-nice categories, that would, I think, take the OOC’s 

mission beyond what you were originally created to do, which is to 

be a regulatory agency to ensure compliance and to do inspections 

and then work with offices to try to reach compliance. It would 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
371 

definitely be nice to be able to have you work with offices and have 

a trainer so that you could have offices know in advance how they 

can be compliant without running into a citation situation, but I 

just want to caution you that we are going to do the best we can, 

but I am not sure that the Reduce and Prevent Initiative is going 

to be a viable option given our limited resources. 

And the reason I am prefacing my question with that, because 

your answer to Mr. Latham on the continuing resolution was that 

you would not be able to really pursue the Reduce and Prevent Initiative. But that is not part of your mission. That is a thing you 

would like to expand to correct? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Part of the mandate that we have under the statute is, as you mentioned, safety and health. It is to run the dispute 

resolution program, and we are mandated to provide an education 

and outreach program. Part of the education and outreach program, as we see it, is to train stakeholders, to provide training, to 

provide education in any form that is well received regarding their 

rights and their responsibilities under the Act. So we see the prevention and reduction—we see the trainer, we see the ombuds position—as part of our mandate, as part of that education and outreach mandate. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Are you able to do education and outreach now? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Absolutely. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So you are meeting your mission? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Not to the extent that we would like and certainly 

not to the extent that we believe the statute mandates us. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So you would like to do more, but—— 

Ms. CHRISLER. We would like to do more. We are doing what we 

are able to do now, yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is what I wanted to get on the 

record. 

Ms. CHRISLER. If I also may? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sure. 

Ms. CHRISLER. We do believe that the Prevention and Reduction 

Initiative with the trainer, with the ombuds position, would be able 

to save money for the agencies. There are recent studies, as recent 

as 2006, in the private sector, in the government sector as well as 

in academia, that suggest that having trainers, having ombudsmen 

not only reduces litigation costs by 75 percent, but it also reduces 

the number of discrimination claims that are filed. So not only do 

we see this as part of our mandate, we see it as a cost-saving initiate for the Congress as well. 

AOC CITATIONS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you coordinate or has the Architect of the Capitol coordinated with you on which projects it would 

request in terms of the citations that it has from your office and 

what those were in priority order? 

Ms. CHRISLER. They have shared with us their site management 

plan, and we have been engaged in discussions with them on that. 

We want to continue discussions and engage in more discussions 

about how to address the hazards that have been the subject of citations as well. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
372 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is that a long way of saying sort of 

but not enough? 

Ms. CHRISLER. In a way. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Just checking. Because when 

we get their list of priorities, I sort of always wonder whether, 

based on the citations that you have issued, whether your priorities 

for relieving the citation or eliminating the citation, addressing it 

would match with their priority order. 

Ms. CHRISLER. As you know, our priority system is the RAC system, the Risk Assessment Codes. And RAC one is the most dangerous; followed by RAC two; RAC three; and RAC four. That is 

how we categorize the citations and the hazards. The Architect has 

a program. They prioritize differently. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And I would encourage and I will encourage the Architect of the Capitol as well as you to more closely 

coordinate the prioritizing of the list that they request funding for 

from us because life safety and security, addressing those hazards 

is really critical. And my time has expired. 

ACCURACY OF CBO ESTIMATES

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

Dr. Orszag, not necessarily directly budget related, but in a 

broader sense, I have been around here for a little while, and I 

have seen CBO estimates, OMB estimates. In 3 months into a fiscal year there can be a variation of projected surplus or budget deficit of $100 billion. Please tell me how you can instill confidence in 

us that any kind of projections are real. A broader question I guess 

as far as dynamics go, is how do we actually get real numbers that 

are—closer to accurate? It is not a reflection on you, because this 

has been going on a long time. 

Mr. ORSZAG. First is yes. The deficit numbers in particular will 

move around. I think we do as well as any other organization in 

those projections. So one metric is, is there anyone else doing better than we do? And I think the answer to that is no. And the reason that the numbers aren’t, you know—do move around is the deficit is the difference between two big numbers. And we are trying 

to protect both of them, and you are a little off on either one, and 

the deficit number is going to move a lot. We are continually reexamining the projection methodology. 

I will give you an example. On the revenue side, it turns out that 

when we are too high one year, we tend to be too high the next 

year. Technically, it is called serial correlation. There are projection 

efficiency gains in terms of projection methodology if we can reduce 

that, and we are exploring technically whether we can do even better than we currently are. So I guess all I can say is Paul Volcker 

once said, pick a number or a date but never both. And, unfortunately, I don’t have that luxury right now. We do the best we can. 

We are trying to do even better, and we are continually reexamining methodology. I understand your frustration. The other thing 

that we try to do though, is the process puts a lot of emphasis on 

that point estimate; it will be $27.7 billion. We are trying to provide a lot more information about the spread of uncertainty around 

those numbers. And you will see in our documents, based on those 

previous projection errors, what the 95 percent confidence integral 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
373 

is and sort of what the spread of possible outcomes are. We have 

been going beyond that now in saying—you know, there is a lot of 

emphasis, for example, on the budget outcome now for 2012—rather than just saying our projection is X, we think that is our projection, and based on our previous errors, what is the probability that 

the budget will be in deficit? So we are trying to provide more information. The world is, unfortunately, not as predictable as one 

might like. 

Mr. LATHAM. And I guess that is my point about dynamic scoring. The real-world effects of tax increases or tax cuts, revenues 

rather than just saying, we don’t take that into consideration. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yeah. Let me comment on that. We do take into account lots of behavioral response. So if you change a spending program or you change something, there will be responses that individuals undertake. So if you, expand a public health insurance program, we have, you know, our estimates suggest some people will 

switch from private insurance to the public insurance program, for 

example. So we incorporate that kind of behavior outcome. We shut 

off, though, in the formal scores any macroeconomic impact. And 

that is where the heart of that dynamic scoring comes. We have 

and we will continue to provide—for example, on March 19, I believe we are putting out a full analysis of the President’s Budget. 

In that document, we include not a dynamic score but a dynamic 

analysis of the President’s Budget including those macroeconomic 

feedback effects. The distinction between dynamic analysis and dynamic scoring, it comes back to that single point estimate. Given 

the imprecision in macroeconomic analysis, we are reluctant to just 

say, here is what the macroeconomic impact is. We use a variety 

of models, and then we can show you the range of results in an 

analysis as opposed to a score in a way that we can’t when we have 

to just pick a single number. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thirty seconds. 

SCORING THE FARM BILL

Mr. LATHAM. One question. And I honestly will get to the budget 

here in a minute. The Farm Bill that they are trying to write today 

is a 5-year Farm Bill. They are saying the direct payments will 

stay the same for 10 years, except for the 9th year, and then there 

won’t be, any direct payments. So that they can raise 4 of the 5- 

year Farm Bill about $3.4 billion because in the 9th year, they say 

that we won’t make the payments, which is crazy. We know it will 

happen. How do you do that? 

Mr. ORSZAG. How do we score it? Or how do we—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Well, that is the way you score it. 

Mr. ORSZAG. We are required in a whole variety of settings to 

score to the letter of the statute. So if the statute says that will 

happen, generally that is what is incorporated into our score. In 

many situations, outside observers or other policymakers recognize 

that what the statute literally says has a very, very low probability 

of actually occurring. 

Mr. LATHAM. Do you put a notation at the bottom saying, this 

is crazy, it will never happen? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I have noticed that that tends to happen now in the 

outside discussion regardless of what we do or don’t say. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
374 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. The time has expired. 

Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you. 

Dr. Orszag, let’s keep with you for just another minute. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can I just interrupt for a moment? 

Let me go to Ms. Lee because she hasn’t asked any questions at 

all yet. 

Mr. BONNER. Sure. 

CONTRACTING POLICY FOR WOMEN AND MINORITY-OWNED BUSINESSES

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Good morning. Forgive me for being late, but we are, again, in 

three committees at the same time. But I wanted to just ask you 

the question I ask each agency with regard to what we learned last 

year as it relates to the inclusion of minority and women-owned 

businesses in your overall subcontractor or contracting efforts. And 

we actually put forth language last year in the bill that put out a 

requirement that each agency develop a formal written policy regarding the involvement of minority and women-owned businesses, 

and the disabled. And I wanted to make sure you are familiar with 

the requirement and that we have, I think, a March deadline determining what the plan is for your agency and also the workforce. 

What is the composition? Racial/ethnic composition, gender composition of the workforce getting paid? Do you have that broken 

down by division, pay grade, job classifications? Or how do you 

keep that information? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Sure. Do you want me to go first? First, with regard 

to the contracting, I believe we have submitted our report to you. 

For our agency, this is a very tiny part of the budget. So it is not 

as large a concern as our staff, which is a significant concern. 

And I will be frank, I have struggled and we have struggled to 

improve our diversity. One of my problems is that, given the nature 

of our workforce, we draw a lot from, for example, Ph.D. economists. And last year, U.S. graduate schools, the share of Ph.D.’s 

granted to minorities who are U.S. citizens was well under 5 percent. And those people tend to be very heavily recruited, and we 

are doing the best we can. 

I will point out, actually, I am very pleased; we just recruited a 

new minority female manager in the health unit who will be joining CBO in the next month or two. So we are trying hard, and we 

are doing the best we can. We are not where I would like to be. 

We do keep the data proposed by—split out by division and split 

out by management and professional staff, support staff and what 

have you. 

We have been doing much better on females than on minorities, 

and we are trying to rectify that. In fact, at some recent briefing 

for new employees, I believe there was one male out of a group of— 

a large group. So it is just a reflection of doing better on females. 

And we need to do better on minorities. But we can categorize the 

data in any way you would like. 

Ms. LEE. We will ask you for a copy formally. 

[The information follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
375 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 678 41290c.033
376 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 679 41290c.034
377 

Ms. CHRISLER. The Office of Compliance is well aware of the requested policy, and we have developed a written policy. We have 

implemented our policy, and we actually have contractors that 

meet the criteria as set forth in the policy. We have contractors 

currently meeting the criteria. We do not keep demographics on the 

number of minorities or the number of other sectors. 

Mr. BONNER. Madam Chair, could she speak up for the record, 

please? 

Ms. CHRISLER. I am sorry. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is for the record. Is the mike on? 

He cannot hear you. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Yes. We have established a written policy. We actually have contractors that we work with who fit the criteria, and 

though we do not keep demographics of the racial or gender complement of our staff, our staff is small enough that we can provide 

that information for the record. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Great. Thanks. 

[The information follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
378 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 681 here 41290c.035
379 

Ambassador O’Keefe. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Congress may have to go vote, but if 

you can answer the question. 

Mr. O’KEEFE. I will be happy to answer the question. In terms 

of our of staff, one-third of the filled FTEs are women. One-eighth 

is minority. We do have a language requirement that individuals 

either have Russian or one of the languages of our target countries. 

I will have to take the question on contracting. We have not let 

any new contracts recently. And I will provide that answer for the 

record. I just would note that in our overall program of the 13,000 

delegates we brought over, 51 percent are women. 

[The information follows:] 

OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER FOR THE RECORD

OPEN WORLD CONTRACTORS—MINORITY AND WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESSES

As of March 27, 2008 Open World has 6 contracts: 

• 3 Non-Personal Technical or Professional Contracts • 2 are with a non-profit organization • 1 is with a small woman-owned minority business 

• 3 Non-Personal Technical or Professional Contracts with Individuals • 1 contract is with a woman unincorporated sole proprietor • 1 contract is with a woman who is not incorporated 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Wonderful. That is what we like to 

hear. 

Mr. Bonner, Mr. Ruppersberger does not have any questions. 

CBO HEALTH CARE ANALYSIS CAPABILITIES

Mr. BONNER. Okay. Just one more final question then. 

Dr. Orszag, obviously healthcare is a major issue for our country, 

and we are trying to wrap our arms around it. Some of the Presidential candidates are calling for radical change that would obviously cost more money, perhaps with greater opportunities for service. But in a National Journal article on January 5th, I saw where 

you expressed concern that your budget request, that there is an 

insufficient number of staff at CBO to handle the growing number 

of healthcare requests. I believe that was attributed to you. How 

many staffers of the 235 that you have at CBO currently are handling healthcare requests? And of the requests for additional funds 

for additional staffers, how many of that number would be dedicated to healthcare? 

Mr. ORSZAG. With regard to your first question, roughly, when I 

took office, or earlyish last year, there were roughly 30 FTE’s working on healthcare. Now there is a little bit of question about how 

you include like the person I just mentioned who is going to be 

coming on board. But we are now at about 45 or so, which actually 

is a very significant increase for a public institution in roughly a 

year with 235 people. 

The problem is, that shift is coming at the expense of all other 

things we do, Defense and Agriculture and all the other things that 

we are being called upon to do. I nonetheless felt like it was critical, given that healthcare costs are where it is at over the long 

term and that previously I think we had terrific staff, but they 

were being deluged with so many requests that some of the conVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:24 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 041290 PO 00000 Frm 00379 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\41290P2.XXX 41290P2

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
380 

cerns that had been expressed about response times and other 

things I think were particularly salient in that area, which is also 

why I shifted resources into that arena. Of the 15 FTE requests 

that we have, something like 12—I am sorry, 9 would go to health, 

and others will kind of backfill some of the shifting that I have 

been doing. 

CBO HISTORY OF SHIFTING RESOURCES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

On the healthcare analysis—— 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You have only been with the agency 

for a year, but maybe your staff can help you answer the question 

as far as the history of the agency. When Congress’s priorities 

shift, has CBO traditionally tried to beef up its staffing in the 

areas of expertise that Congress is relying on over a period of time? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. And one, actually one of them, I will just be 

forthright, one of the concerns about the shift in staff that we are 

doing is whether there is a lot of sort of drumbeats about 

healthcare, and then you all decide, oh, no, that is not that important. I have decided that is a calculated risk that I will take, at 

least for the foreseeable future, healthcare will be such a dominant 

part of the policy agenda that it is worth it to put more resources 

in there. 

Yes, there have been cycles in the past, and one of the concerns 

is that we sort of ramp everyone up in an area, and then you all 

say, no, we are not interested. And I am taking a calculated risk 

on that. I hope you will back me up on it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We are absolutely going to try to do 

as much as we can for you in that arena. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I just meant on the risk that Congress will remain 

interested. 

I am not lobbying. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I do not think our constituents will 

give us much choice about the healthcare issues, given that we 

have upwards of 15 percent increases in healthcare costs, and that 

does not appear to be waning any time soon. And regardless of 

whether we have significant proposals coming down the pike, we 

all know there are so many different ideas on how to approach 

healthcare, so I think it is a wise portion of your request. 

CBO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Can you tell me about your IT resources? I know that you have 

also asked for an increase in your information technology resources. What is important about that? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I think there are a couple things that are important 

about that. First, one of the ways we kind of skirted by over the 

past couple of years is by not doing as much in terms of replacing 

sort of the normal cycle of IT infrastructure. 

Secondly, we are very concerned about protecting our IT infrastructure and the security that surrounds both the Website and 

various entry points and what have you. We deal with proprietary 

tax information and other things that need to be very specially protected. So part of the request is to make sure that we are adeVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:24 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 041290 PO 00000 Frm 00380 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\41290P2.XXX 41290P2

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
381 

quately funding security and part of it is—IT security, that is—and 

part of it is to make up for the lag, and that has been one of the 

areas that we have been skirting by on basically. 

CVC INSPECTIONS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The last thing I wanted to cover was 

that I neglected to congratulate Ms. Chrisler on her permanent appointment as the executive director of the Office of Compliance, because last year when you were here, you were only the acting. And 

through the change in the law, we were able to make sure that we 

could remove that portion of your title. 

I did want to ask you about the CVC inspections. I know you expressed some interest, I do not know if it goes to the level of frustration, but I know there was some difficulty last year. And this 

committee has been very focused on trying to exercise oversight 

over the Capitol Visitors Center. And you were interested and concerned that you get into the CVC and do pre-inspections as soon 

as possible, and there was some resistance on the part of the AOC 

for you to do that. How is that going, and what have you found? 

Ms. CHRISLER. It is going very well. We have begun pre-inspections in February. We are slated to conduct pre-inspections in February, June and October. When we went in for the pre-inspections 

in February, we were able to inspect some of the areas that had 

been completed. We have begun weekly and biweekly teleconference calls with the Office of the Architect of the Capitol so that we 

can finally conduct pre-inspections of those areas that were not 

completed in February. And we will continue along this path so 

that our inspections are as timely as they can be. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So you can also confirm that, through 

your pre-inspections, it appears as though we are still on track to 

open towards the end of November and that we will not experience 

any significant problems or violations in your pre-inspection. 

Ms. CHRISLER. That is correct. We have not found any yet. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is what I like to hear. 

Ms. CHRISLER. This Friday we will be conducting radon testing, 

actually, so we are moving forward with the Office of the Architect 

of the Capitol. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Great. 

Mr. Latham, do you have any other additional questions? 

SELF-CERTIFICATION OF DISTRICT OFFICES

Mr. LATHAM. Just one real quick. You are requesting $25,000 for 

the pilot self-certification in House and Senate district offices. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Yes. 

Mr. LATHAM. And how do you go about choosing—I am not sure 

everybody wants you to choose them—how do you go about that, 

and how many offices do you expect to participate? 

Ms. CHRISLER. This is a new initiative—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Right. 

Ms. CHRISLER [continuing]. That we will be undertaking, so we 

have not gotten to the point where we have selected any offices. We 

are hoping this program will allow the offices to engage in self-certification so that we can ensure that we are meeting our mandate 

to offer the services to all of our congressional stakeholders, not 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
382 

only on Capitol Hill, but out in the districts and State offices. Certainly part of the funding that we are requesting would enable us 

to begin this program, and part of the beginning of that program 

would be to develop plans and to develop procedures by which we 

would initiate the checklists and the program. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. I will stop there. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I have completed my questions as 

well. 

Mr. Ruppersberger. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Yes. 

ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENTS FROM THE CHAIR

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We appreciate the opportunity to review your budget and talk to you about your priorities. I do have 

some homework for each of the agencies. You do not have to write 

it down, because I will give you a copy of what we are requesting 

from you. 

For the Office of Compliance, in last year’s House passed bill, we 

included a provision requiring legislative branch agencies to reimburse the Treasury for any payments made on their behalf for 

awards or settlements under the Congressional Accountability Act. 

And so, by next Wednesday, March 19th, if you could submit a report of the Office of Compliance’s position on this language. 

For CBO, you are asking to expand by 10 percent over the next 

2 fiscal years due to the growing demand for your services. And I 

can tell you that—Mr. Latham, if you have not found already—the 

Members that I have spoken to on both sides of the aisle are just 

really concerned about making sure of that, because obviously the 

credibility of CBO’s information is extremely helpful. I know Members that want to expand you by much more than what you have 

asked for. So if you could, by next Wednesday, March 19th, please 

submit a report on what CBO’s current work load is; how you are 

addressing it now using existing FTE’s; what specific requests are 

being turned down due to a lack of additional FTE’s; and also, how 

you are having to prioritize your requests. Please include an explanation of how you prioritize your work as well. 

And then Open World, assuming that Open World continues to 

be housed within the legislative branch, which I think it is important to note I am not opposed to, I am interested in the program 

shifting more towards expansion countries. With that in mind, by 

next Wednesday, March 19th, please submit a report on how you 

would shift your operations if we included a restriction limiting the 

use of funds for Russian participants to no more than 50 percent 

of the total program, which is in line with some of the questions 

that were asked today. Please describe how you would change your 

current operations under such a provision; what, if any, additional 

countries you would target; and how long it would take for you to 

move towards this model. And additionally, because you seem to indicate that the draft report will not include suggested alternative 

funding sources—I mean, I am hopeful that it does—but if it does 

not have suggested alternative funding sources, I would like you to 

provide some suggested funding sources, particularly in the area of 

the judicial branch. Since approximately 10 percent of your participants are from the judicial branch, then this is really an area that 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
383 

I think you are going to need to seek, to pursue as a funding 

source, because we are simply going to need to relieve the pressure 

off this bill over the long term. 

And before I close out the hearing, Ms. McCollum, do you have 

any questions? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. No, I do not, Madam Chair. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome. Thank you very 

much. 

With that, the subcommittee stands in recess until 1:30 this 

afternoon, when we will hold our next oversight hearing on the 

Capitol Visitor Center. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
384 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 694 here 41290c.036
385 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 695 here 41290c.037
386 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 696 here 41290c.038
387 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 697 here 41290c.039
388 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 698 here 41290c.040
389 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 699 here 41290c.041
390 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 700 here 41290c.042
391 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 701 here 41290c.043
392 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 702 here 41290c.044
393 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 703 here 41290c.045
394 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 704 here 41290c.046
395 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 705 here 41290c.047
396 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 706 here 41290c.048
397 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 707 here 41290c.049
398 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 708 here 41290c.050
399 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 709 here 41290c.051
400 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 710 here 41290c.052
401 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 711 here 41290c.053
402 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 712 here 41290c.054
403 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 713 here 41290c.055
404 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 714 here 41290c.056
405 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 715 here 41290c.057
406 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 716 here 41290c.058
407 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 717 here 41290c.059
408 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 718 here 41290c.060
409 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 719 here 41290c.061
410 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 720 here 41290c.062
411 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 721 here 41290c.063
412 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 722 here 41290c.064
413 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 723 here 41290c.065
414 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 724 here 41290c.066
415 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 725 here 41290c.067
416 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 726 here 41290c.068
417 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 727 here 41290c.069
418 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 728 here 41290c.070
419 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 729 here 41290c.071
420 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 730 here 41290c.072
(421) 

AFTERNOON SESSION

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008. 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER 

WITNESSES 

STEPHEN T. AYERS, AIA, ACTING ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

BERNARD UNGAR, CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER PROJECT EXECUTIVE, 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

TERRIE S. ROUSE, CEO FOR VISITOR SERVICES FOR THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

TERRELL DORN, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

CHAIR OPENING REMARKS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would like to call the Legislative 

Branch Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations to order. 

This is, I believe, our ninth CVC oversight hearing. What we are 

going to be doing is continuing the vigorous oversight that we have 

been conducting over the course of a little more than a year, reviewing the issues and concerns that have come up since the last 

hearing, and just generally getting a project update. 

It appears as though everything is still on track on the overall 

number and the overall date. We have not lost either time nor expanded the projection on the overall cost of the project, which is 

really exciting; and I think we are approaching about 6 months 

straight now where we have not had either a slip in the date or 

an expansion of the amount of the cost. So I think we all should 

be extremely proud of that. 

This afternoon, we will hear from Stephen Ayers, the Acting Architect of the Capitol; Bernie Ungar, the CVC Project Executive; 

Terry Dorn, the GAO Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues; 

and Terrie Rouse, the CEO for Visitor Services at the CVC. 

I am looking forward to hearing particularly from Ms. Rouse on 

the progress on the staff-led tours system and the Advanced Reservation System as well. We want to continue to work with you and 

make sure in particular that the system not be designed so far 

down the road that if we have concerns that develop that it cannot 

be adjusted and that there be plenty of opportunity for Member 

input since this system is obviously going to serve our constituents. 

So we are looking forward to hearing from you. Your testimony 

has been received, and it will be placed into the record. 

Mr. Latham. 

OPENING STATEMENT—CONGRESSMAN LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
422 

I also commend you for keeping everything on time since the last 

hearing in February. And it looks like you are on track for the 31st 

to get the certificate and stay within the costs, and I commend you 

for doing that. So I look forward to the testimony. 

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

Mr. Ayers, if you could proceed with a summary of your testimony for 5 minutes. Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT—STEPHEN AYERS

Mr. AYERS. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here, once again, to report on the 

progress to complete the CVC and to prepare for its opening later 

this year. 

Joining me today, as you noted, are Bernie Ungar, our Project 

Executive, and Ms. Terrie Rouse, our Chief Executive Officer for 

Visitor Services. 

FIRE ALARM AND LIFE-SAFETY TESTING

The comprehensive fire alarm and life-safety testing continues to 

be performed as planned and remains on schedule. In fact, last 

week our crews began working planned double shifts, which will 

continue for the next 6 to 9 weeks, to ensure that our testing work 

is completed as quickly as possible. 

Minor issues have arisen and are quickly being addressed by the 

contractor. Recently, we began making required fire alarm changes 

and have determined that this change and associated re-testing required can be done without adversely affecting the project’s schedule or estimated $621 million project budget. In the interim, testing 

of the system as currently configured is continuing as scheduled. 

Overall, we remain pleased with the progress being made. Specifically, as the fire alarm testing is proceeding, we are completing 

minor construction in the following areas: the Library of Congress 

tunnel, the House Hearing Room, the East Front, the exterior 

grounds, and the House and Senate atria stairs. 

With regard to this remaining work, I am pleased to report that 

masons have completed floor stone work in the Crypt area, Rotunda, and Gallery levels inside the East Front. The installation of 

stone stair treads between the Rotunda and Gallery levels has been 

completed up to the first landing, and we expect this work to be 

fully complete later this month. 

CONSTRUCTION UPDATE

Stone restoration on the Crypt level is essentially complete, and 

restoration crews have begun work at the Rotunda level. In the Exhibition Gallery, all of the glass floor panels have been installed, 

and the video screens for the virtual theatres and other exhibits 

are being installed as we speak. Professional cleaning crews are 

now cleaning most of the CVC’s public spaces, including Emancipation Hall, the Orientation Theaters, and the dining areas. Outside, the remaining two trailers on the South Egg have been relocated, which will enable the Sequence 2 contractor to continue with 

exterior landscaping work. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
423 

Activity continues in the House Hearing Room as workers install 

bronze grilles, trim, and handrails and continue to work on the 

dais. In the House atria stairs, metal workers completed installation of the bronze hand and cap rails around the spiral staircase. 

In the Library of Congress pedestrian tunnel, ceiling panel installation and terrazzo floor work is ongoing. 

Crews are working to complete punchlist items such as millwork, 

wall stone, floor stone, ceiling panels, plaster work, carpeting, 

doors, and other finishes. At the end of February, there were approximately 14,000 items remaining on the punchlist. We have satisfactorily closed nearly 2,000 items. 

To expedite the punchlist resolution, the Sequence 2 contractor 

will be calling for inspections when most of the work is done in a 

particular area, rather than waiting until he believes all of the 

work has been fully complete. 

In February, 42 change orders were fully settled. The magnitude 

of change order proposals being received continues to diminish, 

with most new proposals coming in below $10,000. Gilbane and the 

CVC project team continue to focus their efforts on settling the 

largest outstanding change orders first and as quickly as possible. 

CONSTRUCTION TRANSITION

As part of the transition from a construction site to a visitor 

services operation, the Capitol Superintendent’s Office is phasing 

in its cleaning crews into the Visitor Center. In addition, audio-visual technicians continue to make adjustments to the projection 

screens in the North and South Orientation Theaters, as well as 

the Congressional Auditorium. At this pace, Madam Chair, we continue to believe that we are on schedule to receive a temporary certificate of occupancy by July 31st, as currently scheduled. 

In anticipation of this milestone this summer, Ms. Rouse and our 

team continue to work with oversight committees and congressional leadership on plans for the CVC’s visitor services operation. 

That concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer 

any questions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

[Mr. Ayers’ statement follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
424 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 738 here 41290c.073
425 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 739 here 41290c.074
426 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 740 here 41290c.075
427 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ms. Rouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT—TERRIE ROUSE

Ms. ROUSE. Good afternoon. Madam Chair, Congressman 

Latham, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here 

today to update you on the progress we have made to stand up the 

AOC’s Office of Visitor Services for the Capitol Visitor Center. 

STAFFING AND RECRUITMENT

As I discussed last month, one of my priorities has been to recruit staff to help me achieve our mission to inform, involve, and 

inspire generations of Americans who visit the CVC. I am pleased 

to announce that our Deputy Chief Executive Officer for Visitor 

Services, Mr. Maurice Parrish, joined our team last week. 

Working in concert with our oversight committees, we recently 

advertised to hire more than 50 visitor assistants. They will play 

a very important role as they will be our front-line ambassadors 

with the visiting public. In addition, we are looking to bring on another 20 staff over the next few months, including a gift shop manager and other building staff. 

I am committed to hiring a diverse and professional staff. In that 

regard, we are planning a job fair for April and are actively reaching out to members of the congressional caucuses, including the 

Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Asian Pacific 

American Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Native American Caucus, to help inform potential candidates of job opportunities with the CVC. 

My goal for the CVC mirrors those of the AOC: to aggressively 

work to hire personnel and award contracts to individuals and companies that reflect the diversity of our country. As we seek items 

for our gift shop, we are making a special effort to reach out to 

small businesses as suppliers. We have formed an expert committee comprised of our curators and historians to verify the authenticity of merchandise and to identify items that will further 

our educational and programmatic themes. 

ADVANCED RESERVATION SYSTEM

Madam Chair, I am pleased to report that we have made significant progress on the development of the Advanced Reservation System. We have been working with a number of key stakeholders, including congressional offices, the Capitol Guide Service, AOC and 

CVC staff, and many others to develop system requirements. 

The visitor experience and our mission to inform, involve, and inspire begins when the citizen contacts his Member’s office or visits 

the CVC Website, not with the first step into the Capitol building. 

For that reason, the Advanced Reservation System and the CVC 

Website will provide people with a number of opportunities to contact their Representative or Senators. 

Based on the feedback from our stakeholders, our contractor has 

begun developing a prototype of the system. The Advanced Reservation System will include many advantages to Members’ offices 

that are not currently available, including: 

24/7 system access through the CVC Website; 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
428 

Staff access to the Advanced Reservation System from any location through the Internet allowing requests and reservations to be 

handled immediately and personally; 

‘‘Find a Member’’ links prominent throughout the CVC Website; 

Improved tour booking process providing longer advanced booking window, real-time reservations, and generating constituent reservation history reports; 

Members’ offices may send, via e-mail or regular mail, personalized confirmations to constituents; and 

Inventory management tools designed to prioritize constituent 

tours. 

Use of the Advanced Reservation System will result in improved 

visitor experiences the day of the tours. For example, inventory 

management will help reduce lines and adjust visitor volume 

throughout the day. 

CVC WEBSITE

As requested, we have provided the subcommittee with some 

graphics that illustrate what visitors will encounter online on the 

CVC Website when they plan a trip to Washington that includes 

a tour of the Capitol. Since the system is still under development, 

those graphics are not representative of the actual layout or visual 

style. However, they provide an idea of how your constituents could 

be linked to your office to book a Capitol tour. 

On every page of the CVC Website there is the opportunity to 

navigate to the home page for the House or the Senate, both of 

which have several ways to look up Members of Congress, including by ZIP Code. 

There is a prominent link on the right side of each and every 

page. Once a constituent selects the option, ‘‘visiting the Capitol’’, 

he or she is given an additional opportunity to contact their Representative or Senators. 

Madam Chair, the CVC’s programming is designed to reflect the 

important impact that the Constitution, Congress, and more than 

200 years of law have had in shaping the fabric of daily life in the 

United States. As you can see, we are making great strides to 

make the CVC a welcoming and educational environment that will 

inform, involve, and inspire all who visit here. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to update the subcommittee 

on our activities, and thank you for your continued support. 

That concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you might have. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Ms. Rouse. 

[Ms. Rouse’s statement follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
429 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 746 here 41290c.076
430 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 747 here 41290c.077
431 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 748 here 41290c.078
432 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 749 here 41290c.079
433 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Dorn. 

OPENING STATEMENT—TERRELL DORN

Mr. DORN. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Latham. 

Since the last hearing, testing of the fire alarm systems has continued, along with installation of building finishes and some minor 

construction. Although several of the project’s near-critical paths, 

such as the East Front stone work, continue their slip in schedule, 

timely completion of the fire alarm acceptance testing remains the 

biggest risk to the project’s schedule and its budget. 

CONSTRUCTION UPDATE

The CVC team is working to resolve new issues they have uncovered, such as inadequate smoke exhaust in atria stairwells, and 

older issues, such as the exhibit galleries’ FM 200 system. AOC 

does not expect these issues will affect the project’s ability to open 

in November of 2008. As long as the AOC and the fire marshal are 

able to cooperatively find workarounds to allow testing and preparation for operations to continue simultaneously and no new delays 

are encountered, we fully expect that the CVC should be available 

for opening in November. 

The AOC’s cost estimate of $621 million continues to appear reasonable. However, the full impact on the project’s contingency 

caused by recent necessary changes is still uncertain. Even with 

the project at 99 percent complete and final testing underway, it 

will be important for the CVC team to continue monitoring the 

project’s contingency balance and the final project estimate. 

Madam Chair, that concludes my prepared statement, and I am 

available to answer any questions you and the Members may have. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Dorn. 

[Mr. Dorn’s statement follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
434 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 752 here 41290c.080
435 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 753 here 41290c.081
436 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 754 here 41290c.082
437 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 755 here 41290c.083
438 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 756 here 41290c.084
439 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 757 here 41290c.085
440 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 758 here 41290c.086
441 

TESTING ISSUES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I want to start with the comment that 

you made, Mr. Ayers, that testing will be completed as quickly as 

possible. I hope you really meant completed on time, so that it does 

not affect the overall schedule. And so a little reassurance would 

be nice. 

Mr. AYERS. That is exactly what I meant. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Good. Just checking. 

One of the things that I am concerned about in reading the 

weekly reports—and I really appreciate that information, because 

it helps us in knowing what your progress is, and those reports are 

very detail oriented—I think they are mutually beneficial. This 

smoke control system and the short-circuiting problem, I think that 

is the thing that is the most worrisome as far as being able to 

reach a resolution and it not impacting the schedule. So can you 

give us a sense of where we are in solving that particular problem? 

Mr. AYERS. Certainly. Madam Chair, you mentioned two problems. One is a smoke purge system from the north and south atria 

stair, and you also mentioned a short circuit. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. I might have combined problems. 

Mr. AYERS. I will give you an update on both of them. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEM

Mr. AYERS. Certainly on the short circuit analysis, we have resolved that issue. We have come up with a resolution, and we have 

now directed the contractor to implement that. So we have worked 

out a retesting regimen that will not affect our testing timeline, nor 

do we think this will affect our $621 million estimate. So we think 

that problem is solved, and we are in the implementation phase 

now. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Mr. AYERS. On the north and south atria stair, we were not able 

to achieve the required air flow out of those atria stairs. We have 

worked some engineering solutions over the past several weeks, 

and we are in the process of implementing them now and will then 

schedule a retest. We are pretty confident that the re-work that we 

have done will correct those air flow issues in the atria stairs. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Dorn, do you care to comment? 

Mr. DORN. I think they are both technical problems that have technical solutions. I do not think it is going to touch the $621 

upper end right now, but it certainly does have an effect on the 

available contingency in the budget. AOC can address the dollar 

amounts for you better than I can, and maybe a different forum 

would be better because they are still negotiating. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Great. 

Mr. UNGAR. Madam Chair, I just wanted to mention that from 

a budgetary perspective, we have got the cost estimated for the 

atrium fix, and we do not anticipate it being a problem with respect to the 621 number at this point. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good. And what about the timing? 

Mr. UNGAR. It should not be a problem. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
442 

ADVANCED RESERVATION SYSTEM PROCESS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Excellent. 

I wanted to focus on the Advanced Reservation System and the 

progress on staff-led tours. And I have said this before, so I want 

to underscore that when our constituents go to your Website they 

need to be made aware of staff-led tours and not automatically funneled into guide-led tours. And I know that the layout that you 

gave us is not necessarily how it is going to look graphically, but 

when you go to—is this the home page? Does Mr. Latham have 

these materials, too? 

Mr. LATHAM. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If I go to the home page of the CVC, 

I think the link needs to be large enough so that you can very 

quickly find how to tour the Capitol. Because primarily that is why 

people are going to go to the CVC Website. And, right now, the way 

this looks is the only place that you know that you can get a tour 

is this little tiny word ‘‘tour’’ over here in the upper right-hand corner if you are on the home page of the CVC. I do not think that 

link is big enough or prominent enough, and I would strongly encourage you to make it much more prominent so that people could 

find it more easily. 

Ms. ROUSE. OK. Note taken. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Secondly, when you click on that link 

and go to the place where you could make a reservation, on the 

page that says home slash tour reservations, you have three buttons: contact your Senator, contact your Representative, and use 

the Advanced Reservation System. I am worried—I mean, of 

course, if you want a tour and you read those three buttons you 

are going to click on use the Advanced Reservation System, because that is what you are trying to do, is make a reservation to 

tour the Capitol. 

So I would suggest that you change the wording—instead of ‘‘contact your Senator and contact your Representative’’, it should be 

‘‘book a Capitol tour with your Representative or your Senator’’, or 

however you choose to word it so that people who want to do that 

will choose between going to the Advanced Reservation System and 

taking a guide-led tour and say, no, I really would like to do a tour 

through my Member’s office and meet my Member and their staff. 

You would not be likely to do that if it just says ‘‘contact’’. 

Ms. ROUSE. We can change the language to help people better 

understand how to navigate that, yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. That would be incredibly helpful. And my time has expired. I can continue later. 

Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

CVC TOUR OPERATIONS—TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Ayers, currently, as far as transportation and buses, the 

buses drop people off at the West Front of the Capitol and are prohibited from going around the east side. Is that going to change 

when you open up the Visitor Center? Are the buses going to be 

allowed to pull up to the entrance to the CVC? 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
443 

Mr. AYERS. Well, we do not expect tour buses to be able to use 

First Street. They are currently unable to use First Street, and 

those prohibitions will continue. On the east side, we do expect to 

encourage tour operators to drop off visitors at Union Station. 

From Union Station, we have worked closely with the District Department of Transportation to work out a bus route from Union 

Station up First Street, or down Louisiana, up Constitution and 

across First Street. 

So, ultimately, we will be able to drop people off on the east side 

of the Capitol along First Street using public transportation or 

using the other bus services that are currently able to use that 

street. The ones that do not carry luggage underneath will continue 

to be able to use First Street. 

CAPITOL HILL ACCESS

So in summary, there are two options. One, there is a bus drop 

off on the West Front and another bus drop off for tour buses at 

Union Station, and then people can either walk to the Visitor Center or they can use public transportation. 

Mr. LATHAM. I can just see a busload of 4–H’ers coming from 

Iowa having to get dropped off at Union Station and get on a Metro 

bus—I just am not sure it is totally satisfactory, in my mind, anyway. I think it is going to be very difficult. And if you drop them 

off on the west side, that is a real hike to get clear around to the 

front of the Visitor Center. 

Are there any other ideas or solutions to this? Have you talked— 

who says you cannot pull the buses up to the east side, to the entrance? 

Mr. AYERS. All of those types of vehicles are currently prohibited 

across Capitol Hill, and that is certainly from the Capitol Police 

and the Capitol Police Board. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. 

Mr. AYERS. If I could just offer one clarification, it is not—from 

Union Station up, it is not your standard Metro bus. D.C. District 

Department of Transportation has offered to establish a new 

Circulator bus route along that route. 

Mr. LATHAM. Will that be free? 

Mr. AYERS. It is my understanding that will cost $1 per person. 

CVC OPENING PLAN

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. I really wish we would maybe think about 

some other solutions, because I am just not sure how tenable that 

is for a lot of our people coming in. 

Ms. Rouse, can you explain what the planning is regarding the 

actual opening of the CVC? And will the the entire CVC open at 

one time or are you going to phase it in or have a soft opening? 

What do you foresee? 

Ms. ROUSE. We are planning, and we have been having discussions just as early as last week with our oversight committees and 

leadership, on the actual opening of the Capitol Visitor Center. 

There will be, to your point, a series of soft openings, a test-andadjust period where we will be bringing people in to kind of get a 

sense of how it will operate. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
444 

For example, people in wheelchairs or people with disabilities, we 

might reach out to the veterans’ community and just get a sense 

of how it is going to work with different types of constituents, 

school groups, for example. So there will be a series of those things. 

Of course, it will be up to Congress to determine what date we 

actually open, but we wish to be able to get people in and do a little 

dress run; get a sense of what works and what does not work, this 

will allow us to tweak our management. 

Mr. LATHAM. To my previous point, are those buses going to be 

handicap accessible from Union Station? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. 

CONTINUING RESOLUTION—POTENTIAL IMPACT

Mr. LATHAM. Do you see any impact on Capitol Police activities— 

especially if we are under a CR with the phased or soft opening? 

Mr. AYERS. Well, certainly the police have some very significant 

needs in early 2009. We have an inauguration coming up that requires significant resources. In October of 2009, they will be merging with the Library police. Starting late this summer, they will be 

providing significant security detail for the utility tunnel construction on the R tunnel in addition to the State of the Union. So they 

have got significant requirements in early 2009. 

If there is a continuing resolution, I think there will be some significant funding issues that will need to be resolved. They are certainly committed to opening the Visitor Center, and I think they 

would have to work some significant overtime to make that happen 

without an initial influx of funding in fiscal year 2009. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Latham. Your time 

has expired. 

Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

CVC SCREENING PROCESS

I would like to pick up on where Mr. Latham left off. And forgive 

me for not knowing the exact terminology, but TSA has approved 

at our airports a prescreening process for frequent flyers where you 

can enroll and they do a background check and it is determined 

whether or not they can then go to the front of the line or to an 

expedited line when you are going through to get on an airline. 

It seems to me that if you all would be willing to work with the 

Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police to come up with a more 

workable solution where the tour bus companies, there would be a 

list of companies that have been authorized and screened like we 

do some of our Nation’s ports—it just seems to me that there has 

got to be a more practical solution. 

You know, it was not that long ago—I was a staffer for 18 years 

before I was elected to Congress; and when I first came to Congress, to Capitol Hill as a staffer, there were some who wanted to 

put a fence up around the Capitol. And we went through that backand-forth period where we resisted that, because this building truly 

is a symbol of what we stand for in a free and open society. 

And while we do live in a post-9/11 era, it would just be good if 

we could see some active participation from your offices with the 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
445 

Sergeant at Arms and allow us, if this committee and others were 

of the same mind-set, to come up with a more workable solution. 

Yes, ma’am. 

ADVANCE GROUP RESERVATIONS

Ms. ROUSE. Part of that we have been working on with Mr. 

Ayers’ office, with the Advanced Reservation System is being able 

to register groups in advance. By registering them in advance, we 

can communicate with them. We will be able to track if someone 

has booked an extraordinary number of seats, because that is how 

we start our tours by registering people into a seat. Then we can 

indeed have somebody waiting for that bus as it is pulling up. So 

it will expedite the process completely. The waiting time for someone being dropped off will be very light. 

We also will have the opportunity with our little golf carts. They 

are to be able to bring people up from the West Front into the CVC 

if they need assistance because they are having difficulty walking. 

But we like to remind people that the Capitol experience is one 

of walking, and we are trying to encourage people as we are developing our Website and our public relations information that it is 

very much that experience. 

SECURITY INTERESTS

Mr. BONNER. No, and I appreciate that. But as a father—I know 

my hairline might deceive it, but I have a 10-year-old son and a 

12-year-old daughter. And a part of walking is one thing, a part of 

standing is another thing. And that is one of the reasons that we 

have appropriated funds well over the budgeted amount or projected amount for the last several years, was to create a Visitor 

Center that would welcome Americans and friends from around the 

world to see their Capitol and the U.S. Capitol in a way that it had 

never been seen before, and the restrooms and all of the other 

great additions to the Visitor Center. I just worry that we do not 

set up another barrier to invite them. 

If Disney World can come up with a way to bring in far more 

people than come to the Capitol and take security in consideration, 

it seems that we would be able to find a way that would work with 

the security interests in mind. 

CVC PREVIEW

The other thing that I wanted to real quickly get on the record 

is are there any plans for a sneak preview, if you will? Because the 

Visitor Center has gotten so much negative press over the last few 

years, if you were about to open a restaurant sometimes you have 

people come in and see what is going on and you get the local 

media to talk about it and build up an excitement about it. And 

are there plans to use our national media, and perhaps hopefully 

nonpaid, but are there ways to explore getting the American mind 

interested in what we have spent all of their tax dollars on that 

are coming up? 

Ms. ROUSE. Yes, sir. We have been planning—and we started 

talking more aggressively with oversight and leadership last 

week—for a media plan that includes the work of the AOC and 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
446 

Capitol Visitor Center, a test-and-adjust period which would include previews, various groups coming in and sort of begin to let 

people get a feel for what is going on. 

A sneak preview is a good way of looking at it. But we really 

want to immerse them in the experience. So that is very much a 

part of what we are trying to do, and I think over the next several 

months we will have a solid plan that we can begin to announce. 

Mr. BONNER. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

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

STAFF-LED TOURS

Ms. Rouse, I want to go back to the discussion of staff-led tours. 

And if you could explain to me, I am a constituent from the 20th 

District of Florida, and I want to get a tour from my Member’s office, not through the Advanced Reservation System. How right now 

do you envision that happening? 

Ms. ROUSE. Well, what we envision is that someone could do a 

couple of things. They could, as you know, use the Advanced Reservation System, or they could call their Member’s office. Their 

Member’s office could make a reservation for them. Then they have 

the option of either sending them the electronic response or creating and printing a document that they would send out to that 

person. So that would provide the person a hard copy or the electronic copy as a reservation confirmation. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will we be able to link from our 

Websites to the Advanced Reservation System? 

Ms. ROUSE. Yes, all of the offices will be able to. We are intending to license all of the offices here in Congress and all the district 

offices out across the United States. It will be a total link. In addition, people will be linked to the Senate and the House’s Websites 

so there is this constant interflow of information. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. And, again, I want to stress 

that we would like to make sure that we facilitate a constituent’s 

ability as a priority to book their tour through their Member. And 

I know I sound like a broken record on this, but we did have over 

140 House Members, and more than I think 50 Senators sign a 

similar letter, lamenting the possibility of the elimination of staffled tours and the importance of making sure that when constituents come here that they can connect with their Member’s office. 

And the best way to do that is when we can provide them with a 

tour, because that is often the only thing that they are able to do 

when they are here in the way of a tour. 

PUNCHLIST AND CHANGE ORDER UPDATE

I want to talk about the punchlist and change orders. Because 

now that we have a section of the report every week that talks 

about change orders—I am following the number rather closely and 

seeing the same couple of thousand being addressed and the number not going down. So I am just wondering how it is that we are 

in the last few weeks clearing out about 2,000 change orders—excuse me, not change orders, punchlist items and the number is still 

at 14,000. 

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, ma’am. This is the situation. The 14,000 is the 

total number of items on the list, open or closed. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
447 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. 

Mr. UNGAR. In fact, as you probably saw last week, it went up 

a little bit from the previous week. It was about 14,900. That is because we are still inspecting areas and adding things to the 

punchlist, because not the entire facility is complete yet. So that 

number is going to be going up, in the next several weeks. Eventually it will slow down and stop, but for the next several weeks the 

total number will go up. I would not be surprised if it was 16 or 

17,000 by the time it is finished. 

On the other hand, we have made significant progress in inspecting and closing out items on the punchlist. In fact, since we prepared Mr. Ayers’ testimony—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. When do you think that we will see 

a significant drop in the number? 

Mr. UNGAR. Well, the number of closed items is 4,000 now, so it 

has come down 2,000. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is 14,000. 

Mr. UNGAR. No, I am sorry, the total number of items on the list 

is 14,900. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

GILBANE’S REPORTING SYSTEM

Mr. UNGAR. We have closed out 4,000 of those, so it is now about 

11,000. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is just that the number in the report still said 14-some odd thousand. 

Mr. UNGAR. Right. That is because it is the total number of items 

cumulative on the list. 

So if you say how many items were ever on the list, it would be 

14,900. It might be 15 or 16,000 in the future. From that, we subtract the number that have been closed; and that is 4,000. Now you 

are down to the net number that are open which is about 11,000. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Mr. UNGAR. We expect that you will see a significant drop in that 

over the next 2 months. Again, though, you will see a slight increase in the total number of items on the list. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Mr. Dorn? 

Mr. DORN. We have had this discussion several times about the 

14,000. I have seen several documents that talk about 14,000. We 

are not used to counting closed ones. I mean, once it is closed, it 

seems to me it would just fall off the list. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is why I was confused. 

Mr. DORN. That is where the confusion I think is coming from, 

but it is Gilbane’s system. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What I do not understand—and I am 

not great at math—but if you have 14,893 items and you close 

2,000 of them, then the number should then be 12,893 items. 

Mr. UNGAR. Right. That be would the number. 12,000 would be 

the number that was open until the most recent update. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. But that is the only number 

that we are interested in, is how many are open. 

Mr. UNGAR. Well, we can report solely the number that are open. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I mean, if you want to make it seem 

like you are not making any progress at all, then I would suggest 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
448 

you continue to report it this way. The better suggestion would be 

to report open and closed, and then we have a better sense of your 

progress. 

Mr. UNGAR. Okay. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just a suggestion. 

My time has expired. Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS TUNNEL

With the tunnel between the Library of Congress and the CVC, 

is there any coordination going on with the Library of Congress for 

both experiences? 

Ms. ROUSE. Yes. Actually, we are very enthusiastic about our relationship with the Library of Congress because it will allow people 

to again have that Hill experience. They can come to the CVC and 

cross over and be able to, by going through the tunnel or crossing 

the street, see what is going on at the Library of Congress. There 

is also the potential for us to do joint programming as time goes 

on, maybe share speakers back and forth and films. That might be 

on the weekend. So there is a tremendous amount of opportunity 

there. 

Mr. LATHAM. Maybe the tour bus could stop at the back of the 

Library of Congress and dump people. 

Ms. ROUSE. We have already started hearing how people are 

going to work around issues, so, yes, that is a possibility. 

Mr. LATHAM. Always thinking, yes. 

THE CAPITOL GUIDE SERVICE

The Capitol Guide Service has been in existence since 1876, is 

that right? Whatever. And their employees provide a real excellent 

service to all of our offices and constituents. What do you expect 

to do with the Guide Service employees? Will they be integrated 

into the CVC or what is going to happen? 

Ms. ROUSE. The plan is for the Guide Service to be incorporated 

into the CVC, and we have actually started a collaborative relationship already. The AOC’s Office of Human Resources is helping to 

recruit new Visitor Assistants. There will be 105 of them, ultimately, but there are about 50 to 60 positions already out on the 

street. We are working with H.R. so the Senate side can still hire 

them. This is because we are still waiting for the legislation to be 

finalized between the House and the Senate for the CVC. So they 

are coming over. Their numbers will grow because not only will we 

have Visitor Assistants, we will have guides. 

We are also putting a supervisory level engagement with that 

and also drastically extending the type of training that we will be 

doing and reinforcement. 

So it is coming over now. It is going to be a change from what 

has been done. So it is very important for us to be able to communicate with everyone. The biggest change is we are paying everybody more money. So there is a little adjustment that is going on. 

Basically, that is the plan. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
449 

GUIDE SERVICE FUNDING

Mr. LATHAM. Is there any impact as far as where the money is 

appropriated? I am not totally sure where the funding for the 

Guide Service is now. 

Ms. ROUSE. The Guide Service funds are managed by the Senate 

side at the moment. So that is why we are doing the H.R. Work 

on the AOC side to help their process. They are short of staff. And 

Mr. Ayers is a member of the Guide Board and has been guiding 

us through this process. 

Mr. LATHAM. Is that good training, to guide? 

Just one last question. Is there any concern or has there been 

any discussion about if you had a new restaurant down there, 500 

seats, that you are going to be attracting people like off the street 

that do not really care about tours and just the experience down 

there eating lunch? Is there any impact expected there? 

Ms. ROUSE. I do think the Capitol Visitor Center is going to be 

a destination, and we will have people coming just to enjoy the facility. In terms of the volume of impact, I do not think we totally 

know. We know the 3 million visitors that we are anticipating include not only people taking tours but official business and what 

is going to be destination traffic. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome. 

Mr. Bonner. 

CVC STATUES—LOCATIONS

Mr. BONNER. Madam Chair, I think I have got three or four more 

quick questions. 

When I was on a tour 6 weeks, 2 months ago—and it is beautiful, 

I want to go on record as saying—one of the points of prominence, 

they told me where one of the statues had already been reserved, 

and I do not remember which one it was. But there was something 

about it that no one could be above him for religious or traditional 

reasons. So my question is, Alabama is about to get the newest 

statue, Helen Keller, which our people are very proud of. Have all 

the spots been reserved? Or how will that decision be made in 

terms of where the statues will go in the new Visitor Center? I assume some will be coming from the Capitol. 

Mr. AYERS. You are correct, sir. I think the Joint Committee on 

the Library has jurisdiction over that matter. We have drafted a 

proposed relocation plan for all of the statues that we think should 

be moved and an approach to which of them should be moved; and, 

ultimately, we need to present that to the Joint Committee on the 

Library for their approval. 

Mr. BONNER. And would that recommendation come to this committee just for our eyes or for our thoughts, or is that appropriate? 

Mr. AYERS. I think, from my understanding, the Joint Committee 

on the Library has oversight over that matter. 

CVC GIFT SHOP PROCEEDS

Mr. BONNER. Okay. Another question is the proceeds from the 

gift shop currently go where? Profits? 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
450 

Mr. AYERS. The Architect of the Capitol currently does not operate a gift shop. 

Mr. BONNER. Okay. There is a gift shop in the basement of the 

Capitol. 

Mr. AYERS. That is run by the U.S. Capitol Historical Society. 

Mr. BONNER. Historical Society. And so all of those proceeds stay 

within the U.S. Capitol Historical Society? 

Mr. AYERS. That is my understanding. Is that your understanding? 

Ms. ROUSE. That is my understanding. 

Mr. BONNER. But there is an enhanced—there is a larger gift 

shop in the new Visitor Center, is that right? Is that still going to 

be the Capitol Historical Society? 

Ms. ROUSE. The new gift shops are going to be under the Capitol 

Visitor Center and will be managed out of a revolving account. So 

that is the goal. 

The Capitol Historical Society and the Senate and the House are 

some of the material that we are considering to be part of that 

shop. Our Gift Shop Manager wants to develop our own signature 

products. So that is the configuration of it. We are awaiting the legislation that gives us the official authority to do this, but that is 

the general goal at the moment. 

Mr. BONNER. I guess my question is based on, again, a followup to Mr. Latham in terms of the Guide Service. I assume there 

will be obviously a need for hiring new guides. Would there be any 

way to generate some income out of the gift shop that would help 

go to offset the costs for those additional guides, or would that be 

an appropriate place to look? 

GIFT SHOP PROFITS

Mr. AYERS. Certainly. The Visitor Center has two gift shops, and 

we would expect that those gift shops would turn a profit. The legislation that was recently introduced in the House creates a revolving fund. So those profits would revolve back into the CVC so that 

we would pay for salaries and expenses, of the people that run the 

gift shop, for example. Those profits would not generally go back 

to the Treasury. It would be deposited in a revolving fund so that 

we could reuse them. 

Mr. BONNER. And would that be the same for, like, the restaurant vendors? Obviously, the restaurant vendors are there to 

make a profit and also to provide a service, but will they be paying 

a—— 

Mr. AYERS. They pay a commission. 

Mr. BONNER. A commission. 

Mr. AYERS. And that commission can also go into the revolving 

fund. 

TOUR BUS PROCEDURES—HIGH-SECURITY BUILDINGS

Mr. BONNER. And then, finally, just one last point about the 

buses, since it has already been mentioned and probably beaten to 

death, but I think it would be helpful to know how the tour buses 

currently deposit visitors to the Smithsonian Institute and the 

White House and the Pentagon, since at least two of those buildings are also high-security buildings. But all three, the SmithsoVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:24 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 041290 PO 00000 Frm 00450 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\41290P2.XXX 41290P2

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
451 

nian complex as well as the White House and the Pentagon, I think 

it would be helpful to see how they do that vis-a-vis the connection 

to the Capitol. 

Mr. AYERS. We would be happy to provide that for the record. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
452 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 782 here 41290c.087
453 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 783 here 41290c.088
454 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

COST ESTIMATE FOR TRANSPORTING CVC VISITORS

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

I think it is worth beating the horse some more, because I share 

Mr. Latham and Mr. Bonner’s concerns about the distance that our 

visitors would have to travel if they are being dropped off at offsite locations and then, to add insult to injury, to have to pay more 

money to get on a different bus. 

So, for the record, if you could provide us with a cost estimate 

for transporting tourists and the additional police costs from offsite drop-off points so that we can understand what the costs of 

that are and how we can make sure that we defray the need to 

have there be a cost for our constituents. 

[The information follows:] 

COST ESTIMATE TO TRANSPORT TOURISTS FROM REMOTE DROP-OFF SITES

Question. What is the cost estimate to transport tourists from remote drop-off 

sites to the CVC (including additional costs for USCP)? 

Answer. The District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) estimates that 10 percent of the estimated three million CVC and Library of Congress 

visitors would ride the DC Circulator from Union Station to the CVC. Currently, 

the Circulator charges all passengers $1 per trip. 

There are a number of options that could be considered to provide transportation 

from drop-off sites that would eliminate the need for riders to pay a fee. This would 

include federal subsidies to the D.C. Circulator bus program, or contracting for 

transportation services on Capitol Hill. These options could range from $5 million 

to $10 million per year. However, additional research to validate cost estimates 

based on factors such as CVC operating hours, locations of potential drop-off locations, frequency of trips, security, routes, etc., would need to be conducted. Once 

these factors were established, we would work with Oversight Committees and Congressional Leadership to determine the best course of action and the associated 

costs. 

SECURITY AND THE PEOPLE’S INSTITUTION

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And then, also, I have to agree with 

Mr. Bonner, I was not here during the argument over the fences, 

but that argument always comes back, and I know the Capitol Police has expressed concern about it. And we do have to—this is not 

Disney World. This is the United States Capitol, and we have to 

really be very focused on security. But this is the people’s institution. And I know the vast majority of Members that I have asked 

and spoken to—because I have sought out opinions—is that this 

needs to be as open and accessible a place as we can make it. 

So the idea of people—I mean, I have 8-year olds and they are 

approaching the years in which their school will come up here; and 

I see little kids and young children come up on school trips all the 

time. The idea of them walking from Union Station or from the 

White House or having to pay even more money to get on a shuttle 

when they have already gone to considerable expense to come to 

Washington in the first place on a field trip, I think that is just 

over the top. 

So if you could provide that information for the record for us, 

that would be great. 

I have just a few more questions. I can get through them before 

we need to go vote, and then we can recess. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
455 

CANNON TUNNEL ACCESS

The status of Cannon tunnel and whether it will be open or 

closed and whether the only access point for the CVC would be the 

entrance to the CVC, where are we on that? Because I know we 

continue to have debate and discussion about our constituents 

standing in the elements, the heat, the cold, the rain, and there is 

still a concern that if the Cannon tunnel is closed we are either 

going to fry, freeze, or soak our constituents. And none of those 

things are desirable, because it is us that will have to hear from 

them, and it will be understandable. 

So, Ms. Rouse, can you discuss the status of the traffic flow into 

the CVC? 

Ms. ROUSE. I have limited information on it. At the moment, 

through the tunnels on the Cannon side, it is still a discussion between the Committee on House Administration and the Capitol Police on how they will traffic in. I will try to get back to you on 

where they are on that. 

CVC TRAFFIC FLOW

Ms. ROUSE. On the trafficking into the CVC, one of the advantages that we now have is that we have eight magnetometers and 

what we think is going to be an ability to constantly move people. 

So I do not anticipate long lines in front of the CVC at all. We need 

to get people in the building, and that will be the objective of the 

Capitol Police as well as the staff. 

Our ability to have Visitor Assistants greeting people at their 

buses allows us to move people in. So there should not ever be 

cases where long lines of people have passed out in the heat anymore. So I think that that should no longer be an issue. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. If you can respond for the 

record in detail on what the status is of Cannon tunnel and its utilization for our constituents to enter the CVC, since there is going 

to be an entrance to the CVC, which I know the Capitol Police 

would like only to be for staff and Members. 

[The information follows:] 

USE OF CANNON TUNNEL FOR TOURISTS

Question. What is the status of utilizing the Cannon Tunnel for tourist queuing 

and access? 

Answer. We have been in contact with U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) who have been 

working with the House Sergeant at Arms regarding this issue. U.S. Capitol Police 

Chief Phillip D. Morse, Sr., provided the following information. 

The U.S. Capitol Police are gearing up for the opening of the CVC and we plan 

to welcome the American public with courteous, efficient, and safe security. We are 

grateful for the authorization of an additional 21 sworn FTE in the FY 2008 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 110–161. These 21 sworn FTE support the 

USCP’s CVC operational plan, which is based on current operational planning assumptions. 

Since 2005, the Department’s planning has centered on the assumption that all 

tours would originate within the CVC. As a part of previous planning decisions, 

which did not support staff-led tours through the tunnels, 10 positions were moved 

from the tunnel posts to staff other posts within the CVC. 

The Department’s FY 2009 budget request identifies the requirement for 10 additional sworn FTE in anticipation of a change in the CVC’s overall operational plan 

that we understand will support staff-led tours through the Cannon/Russell Tunnels 

to the Capitol. These staffing requirements are based on the planning scenarios contained in the written testimony of Chief Morse, prepared for the CVC oversight 

hearing of November 14, 2007. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
456 

PAVER UPDATE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The status of the pavers. We talked 

a couple times at these hearings about the damage to the pavers 

out on the plaza and who is going to be responsible for paying to 

fix them, and I have not asked about it for a while because I know 

that was a down-the-road issue that was going to be addressed. 

But we are getting down the road now, so I am going to ask. 

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, ma’am, we are expecting a report this week 

from the firm that we have had analyzing that situation. So we will 

be in a position to discuss that next week for sure—hopefully, next 

week. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Has fault been assigned? 

Mr. UNGAR. What we have asked the consultant to do is look at 

the causes of the problem, why it exists, and then how to fix it. So 

we should have its opinion on the reasons, and responsibility, for 

the problem. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Latham, I am not sure how familiar you are with this problem, but there are hundreds of cracked— 

I mean, it is hundreds of cracked pavers out on the plaza that 

should have been designed to withstand the weight of a vehicle and 

apparently were not, so that when they used the area as a staging 

area in the last inauguration when the CVC was actually supposed 

to have been opened, the vehicles actually cracked the pavers. So 

now we are struggling to resolve that. 

HOUSE HEARING ROOM DELAYS

The House Hearing Room, I am getting a little worried that we 

have some continuing delays cropping up with completing the 

House Hearing Room. What is the source of those delays and how 

significant of a problem is it? Because I know that that has been 

the space that we were thinking was not going to impact the overall schedule, but I am worried that if things keep cropping up that 

it would. 

And, Mr. Dorn, if you can respond to both the paver question and 

this one when he is done. 

Mr. UNGAR. Who you do want to go first? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You go first. 

Mr. UNGAR. On the House Hearing Room, we have had some 

structural issues with the dais that caused a bit of delay and some 

other problems there we had to resolve engineering-wise. But at 

this point in time, we are expecting the hearing room to be completed in May except for two items on the dais, and that is going 

to be the leather and the bronze grilles. 

There is a lead time to get those items. At this point, we expect 

those items to be done by the end of July at the latest, but we can 

keep you posted on that. They should not affect the opening of the 

CVC at this point. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. We have got 5 minutes left to 

vote, so I need to ask you to succinctly answer the questions. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DORN. On the pavers, I am looking forward to seeing that 

report. Whether it is a design issue or a construction issue we do 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
457 

not know yet, and I suppose that is what the report is going to help 

us determine. 

On the House Hearing Room, the dates that Bernie are talking 

about do not delay opening. If they are done by the end of July, 

there is still another 3-month period between that July date and 

planned opening, so they should be fine. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Well, I appreciate the update. I think we both appreciate the update. I am really pleased to see that we are still on track and within budget. The management of the CVC seems to be going well 

now. 

OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE PRE-INSPECTION UPDATE

Actually, one more thing. The OOC, I know they have come in 

to do their pre-inspections. What is your perception on how the preinspections are going? 

Mr. AYERS. From my perspective, they are going fine. I met just 

last week with Tamara Chrisler and Pete Eveleth and talked 

through some of that. So I think they are going fine. 

We got their first report. There were a variety of issues in their 

first report; and Bernie has been working very, very closely with 

them over the last few days since we received that report. 

Maybe you can give a quick summary. 

Mr. UNGAR. Yes, Madam Chair, we basically have got the report. 

We are going to meet with them hopefully next week and work out 

a mutually agreed upon course of action to make sure that they do 

all the inspections they need to do and that the items are corrected 

that we need to correct. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Great. They also felt it was 

going well. I just wanted to make sure that you agreed. 

CHAIR CLOSING REMARKS

What I would like you to do, because I think the communication 

has been incredibly helpful in terms of keeping the project on track 

and keeping us informed so that we can really understand what is 

going on and conduct the best oversight that we can, so since we 

are concerned about the issues that are cropping up in the final acceptance testing and there is a potential cost impact and schedule 

impact, even though I know that you are not expecting it to be— 

this is not a criticism of the project team, you know, it would be 

a surprise if nothing came up. I mean, this is a mammoth project 

and the testing—I am surprised, actually, that more problems have 

not come up, to be honest with you. But we want to just make sure 

that we are staying on track. 

So, Mr. Ayers, if you could provide a quick review of your cost 

to complete estimate and report back by Friday, March 28th, if 

there are any changes to the estimate both in terms of the total 

$621 million number as well as how much contingency you believe 

is left after accounting for issues that have come up since you last 

revised the estimate. 

If you could coordinate the estimate with GAO so everybody is 

on the same page. Just so that we know we are really closely 

guarding the estimate and making sure that we are really still on 

track. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
458 

So, with that, Mr. Latham, do you have anything else? 

Mr. LATHAM. No. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. The subcommittee stands in recess until 10:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, when we will have our 

hearing in H–144 on the House’s budget. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
459 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 795 here 41290c.089
460 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 796/900 here 41290c.090
(461) 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008.

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WITNESSES 

DANIEL P. BEARD, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE 

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 

LORRAINE C. MILLER, CLERK, OFFICE OF THE CLERK 

WILSON S. LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS, OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS 

JAMES J. CORNELL, INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

IRVIN NATHAN, GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 

PETER G. LEFEVRE, LAW REVISION COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE LAW 

REVISION COUNSEL 

M. POPE BARROW, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL 

JOHN EISOLD, ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, OFFICE OF THE ATTENDING 

PHYSICIAN 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would like to call this hearing of the 

Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations to order. 

This morning we are going to hear from the officers of the House: 

Ms. Lorraine Miller, the Clerk of the House; Bill Livingood, the 

House Sergeant at Arms; and Dan Beard, the Chief Administrative 

Officer of the House. 

The House is asking for a $1.3 billion appropriation—a $151 million, or 13 percent, increase over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. 

That includes a variety of items: some new and expanded benefits 

that I know Mr. Beard is going to detail; a couple million dollars 

for the Greening of the Capitol Initiative; $17 million for transition 

services following the 2008 elections when we have new Members 

come and have to move Members’ offices; and $5 million for the 

Speaker’s Wounded Warrior program, which I am really excited 

about. 

We are looking forward to hearing from the three of you. 

We have a full agenda, and I have a full day. I don’t know about 

you, Mr. Latham. Do you have any remarks? 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Just to thank the witnesses for all of their hard 

work and that of their staffs to make us able to carry out our constitutional responsibilities here. 

And we have a lot of competing requests for funding, and it is 

going to be a difficult year. We welcome the entire panel this morning. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
462 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We have received your statements, 

and they will be entered into the record. 

[The statements of Mr. Cornell, Mr. Nathan, Mr. LeFevre, and 

Mr. Barrow follow:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
463 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 904 here 41290D.001
464 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 905 here 41290D.002
465 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 906 here 41290D.003
466 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 907 here 41290D.004
467 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 908 here 41290D.005
468 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 909 here 41290D.006
469 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 910 here 41290D.007
470 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 911 here 41290D.008
471 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 912 here 41290D.009
472 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 913 here 41290D.010
473 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 914 here 41290D.011
474 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 915 here 41290D.012
475 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 916 here 41290D.013
476 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 917 here 41290D.014
477 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 918 here 41290D.015
478 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 919 here 41290D.016
479 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 920 here 41290D.017
480 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 921 here 41290D.018
481 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 922 here 41290D.019
482 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 923 here 41290D.020
483 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 924 here 41290D.021
484 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 925 here 41290D.022
485 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And, Mr. Lewis, welcome to the committee. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you have any remarks? 

Mr. LEWIS. I generally don’t have opening remarks, but I am 

pleased to hear the panel. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you for joining us this morning. 

We will proceed under the 5-minute rule. 

Ms. Miller, welcome to the committee. 

OPENING STATEMENT—MS. MILLER

Ms. MILLER. Good morning. Thank you. 

First of all, I would like to thank the subcommittee for its continuing assistance in support of the Office of the Clerk. I have 

served as your Clerk for the past year, and I truly believe that 

there is probably no higher calling. It is a high honor to do this. 

So I want to take my 5 minutes to highlight the things that we 

are doing in the Office of the Clerk. And the first one I want to 

raise with you is our lobbying disclosure and electronic filing. 

ELECTRONIC LOBBYING FILING

If you remember, with the Honest Leadership and Open Government legislation, that required us to retool what we do in order to 

accommodate the some-20,000 lobbyists that will file with the Office of the Clerk and the Secretary of the Senate. That meant that 

we had to purchase new servers. This has been a collaborative effort with the Secretary of the Senate in order to do that. 

So what we did—the House serves as the main port, and the lobbying community then need not file with the Clerk and the Secretary of the Senate separately. They send one filing, and we distribute it jointly. It is much easier on the filing community, and we 

thought that was a project that we had to spend a little extra, 

$323,000, to get the kind of server because the legislation required 

that the information that we make available is sortable, 

downloadable and manipulated in a way that people could get it in 

various functions. So that has been one of our main targets, trying 

to get that going, up and coming. 

As of our February 14, 2008 filing deadline, we had 19,300 filers 

that filed successfully, with a 93 percent completion rate. 

We are now in preparation for the May 2008 financial disclosure 

filings that are coming up, where we will—we have been working 

with the Standards Committee to make sure there are some additional warnings in light of some companies that are putting our filings on PDF. 

FLORENCE KAHN PORTRAIT

As you will remember, last year we completed the publication of 

‘‘Women in Congress.’’ We have three other publications that are 

in the pipeline. Hopefully, in September, we will release the ‘‘Black 

Americans in Congress.’’ We have ‘‘Hispanic Americans in Congress’’; ‘‘Asian and Pacific Islander Americans in Congress.’’ 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
486 

I am so pleased to announce that we are commissioning a portrait of former Congresswoman Florence Kahn. Ms. Kahn represented San Francisco in the early 1920s, and she was the first 

woman to serve on the Appropriations Committee, the first woman 

to serve on the then-Military Affairs Committee, and was the first 

Jewish woman to serve in Congress. So we are commissioning her 

portrait. 

CLERK LIBRARY FACILITY

As the subcommittee knows, one of the duties of the Clerk is to 

maintain the legislative and reference facilities. We wanted to let 

the subcommittee know that our library facility needs attention. 

We are working with the Architect of the Capitol and will come 

back to the subcommittee at some later date about a plan that we 

feel will make sense for what we need to do with the library. 

HEARINGS AND VACANCIES IN THE 110TH CONGRESS

On our day-to-day operations, real quick, during the first session 

of the 110th Congress, we had 1,186 recorded votes. This is 28 

votes shy of the total number of votes we held during both sessions 

of the 109th. 

Since January 2007 to December 2007, the first session of the 

110th, the House held 2,373 committee hearings. And in 2006 there 

were only 1,513 hearings. This is a 57 percent increase in hearings 

this year. If you look at just this week, we had 100-plus hearings. 

On Tuesday of this week, we had 37 hearings in the House alone. 

Ms. LEE. We know. Thank you very much. [Laughter.] 

Ms. MILLER. The House has had eight vacancies in the first session of the 110th, as compared to nine vacancies during the entire 

109th. This year, we have had to fill three vacancies in 2008: Louisiana 1, Louisiana 6 and California 12. We have two vacancies 

that will be filled this week, Illinois and Indiana. 

CLERK’S BUDGET REQUEST

On our budget request: Our request is $24,897,000, a small pittance for the amount of great work that the Clerk’s Office does for 

the Congress. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. She says modestly. 

Ms. MILLER. Modestly. 

This includes our COLA adjustments. Our budget basically is 

centered around our personnel, so our personnel budget increase is 

about $1,867,000. 

From that, we have some nonpersonnel expenses that are included: $747,000 to pay for our closed captioning. We are looking 

for $300,000 for our regularly scheduled computer replacement program. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
487 

And we have already allocated approximately $900,000 for Official Reporters. What happens, with the amount of hearings that we 

are having, when our office is not able to accommodate the capacity 

of all this, we contract out. And so we have $900,000 but we went 

to $1 million, because, depending on the flow of the hearings, we 

need to be able to accommodate. 

With that, I await your questions. 

[Ms. Miller’s statement follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
488 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 931 here 41290D.023
489 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 932 here 41290D.024
490 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 933 here 41290D.025
491 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 934 here 41290D.026
492 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 935 here 41290D.027
493 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 936 here 41290D.028
494 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Ms. Miller. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. Beard. 

OPENING STATEMENT—MR. BEARD

Mr. BEARD. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to appear here today on behalf of the 

budget request for the House as well as the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. 

BENEFITS PACKAGE FOR HOUSE EMPLOYEES

There are five priorities I wanted to talk about that are in our 

budget. The first is achieving parity in benefits between House employees and other executive branch employees. The House of Representatives I think has some of the most dedicated and committed 

employees in Government; yet, their benefits are simply not on par 

with those of many of their contemporaries working for other Federal agencies. 

Those working for the executive branch, for example, enjoy an 

array of benefits that include: a $10,000 annual student loan repayment program—ours is capped at $6,000; a tuition reimbursement program; employer compensation for professional accreditation and dues; transit parking; child care assistance for low-wage 

workers; and paychecks every 2 weeks. 

Other legislative branch entities, such as the Capitol Police, the 

Architect of the Capitol and some others, enjoy some of these benefits, but House employees do not. Therefore, we are asking for $19 

million to strengthen our benefits package and bring House employees up to par with the employees in the executive branch agencies. 

WOUNDED WARRIOR PROGRAM

The second priority we have is employing our wounded warriors. 

Many injured men and women returning from combat tours in Iraq 

and Afghanistan are challenged by their re-entry into the civilian 

workforce. Speaker Pelosi wants the House to be an employer that 

values the courageous sacrifices these veterans have made through 

their service to our country. The Wounded Warrior program, for 

which we are requesting $5 million, will accomplish her goal. 

I am pleased today to introduce retired Marine Corps Master 

Gunnery Sergeant Patricia Orsini, who is down here. Patricia has 

joined our staff and will be the individual heading up the Wounded 

Warrior program. Her job is going to be placing wounded warriors 

in positions throughout the House and helping them develop the 

skills for long-term employment, either in the public or private sector. 

HEARING ROOM MODERNIZATION

The third item in the House budget that I think is worth noting 

is our hearing room modernization program. Members and constituents have come to expect a high level of broadcast quality and 

recording quality of congressional hearings. And, as Lorraine menVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:24 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 041290 PO 00000 Frm 00494 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\41290P2.XXX 41290P2

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
495 

tioned, the number of congressional hearings that we have had, in 

the last year anyway, has been a significant increase. 

So, in addition to wanting to record and broadcast those hearings, Members have a significant interest in archiving and distribution capabilities associated with those visual images. In our budget request, we are requesting $20 million to complete 

the upgrade and remodel of at least the main hearing room for all 

the committees in the Congress. The seven that we have left to do 

are Armed Services, Budget, Education and Labor, Energy and 

Commerce, Financial Services, Oversight, and Science. 

The funds we are requesting will also link all of the previously 

upgraded committee hearing rooms back to the House Recording 

Studio control room facilities, where hearings can be converted into 

Web streams or broadcasts and portions of the hearings can be 

clipped and archived and made available to Members for whatever 

reason they want. 

NEW MEMBER INITIATIVE

The fourth initiative that we have in the budget, which was 

briefly mentioned by the Chair, is our New Member Initiative. The 

successful onboarding of the new Members of the 111th Congress 

is going to require at least $4.7 million. But, in addition to that, 

we want to help new Members and their staff hit the ground running. So we are requesting $14 million to significantly increase our 

assistance to these new Members. 

This would include improving the cabling, computer cabling and 

server configuration in their district and D.C. Offices; the installation of phone, financial and computer systems for their offices; as 

well as the assistance through the CAO for financial services and 

technical services; and supplies for their offices, so that when they 

walk in the door they can get about the most important thing to 

do, which is to hire staff, to be able to begin to undertake and represent their districts. 

Too often it takes Members months and months to get adjusted, 

to purchase all the equipment, to look at the various alternatives 

that they have available to them. And we have found that, as we 

go forward in the first year, we have to have a lot of expenditures 

associated with going into those offices and helping them throughout the first part of the year to get adjusted and to get all the requirements in place. So we would just as soon be able to go in 

early, get it done, the Member can walk in the door. And they can 

make changes as they go forward, but at least they would be able 

to start out that way. 

GREEN THE CAPITOL

The final initiative is the Green the Capitol initiative. We are 

asking for continued support for that effort, with a total of $2 million. 

We have made real progress in the first 6 months. The goal of 

the initiative is to make the House carbon-neutral at the end of the 

110th Congress. And, with the support of this subcommittee, we 

are purchasing renewable power, converting to natural gas at the 

power plant for our needs, and we have purchased carbon-offset 

credits and phased in an array of energy-saving improvements. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
496 

We will continue to go forward with a number of different initiatives in fiscal year 2009, including a review of our food service operations and systems, our transportation activities, procurement, 

as well as many of our business practices. The aim in each case is 

to save energy, save taxpayer money, and to improve the overall 

health and quality of the workplace for our workforce. 

That concludes my testimony. 

[Mr. Beard’s statement follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
497 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 942 here 41290D.029
498 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 943 here 41290D.030
499 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 944 here 41290D.031
500 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 945 here 41290D.032
501 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 946 here 41290D.033
502 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 947 here 41290D.034
503 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 948 here 41290D.035
504 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 949 here 41290D.036
505 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 950 here 41290D.037
506 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 951 here 41290D.038
507 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 952 here 41290D.039
508 

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

Mr. Livingood. 

OPENING STATEMENT—MR. LIVINGOOD

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Good morning, Madam Chair, Mr. Latham and 

Ms. Lee. It is a pleasure to be here this morning and to appear before you to discuss the Office of the Sergeant at Arms budget request for fiscal year 2009. 

Since I last spoke to you, we have made significant progress in 

the areas regarding emergency planning. First of all, we have been 

developing proposals to provide evacuation modeling of the Longworth, Cannon, Rayburn and Ford Buildings and the Capitol. The 

goal of this model is to model all three protective actions, such as 

evacuate, shelter in place, and relocation. We are progressing and 

have come up with an RFP, which we have not put out yet because 

there is no funding for this, but we have been moving along on 

that. And I think it will be a big help for us, with the Capitol Police. 

We are continuing to work with the CAO’s office to review new 

and emerging alert technology for notifications. We will be conducting further evaluation of the CAO’s existing Roam Secure Alert 

notification system. 

Additionally, we have joined efforts with the Architect of the 

Capitol, Fire Marshal, and the Capitol Police and reached out to 

every office on the House side and the Capitol regarding evacuation 

procedures. The offices and committees were issued updated evacuation route maps, which detailed their primary and alternate evacuation routes, as well as maps of the building assembly areas. Each 

office has an assembly area. 

After a recent fire drill, we saw a need to modify several evacuation routes in both the Cannon and the Longworth, and had the 

Capitol Police revisit some of those offices to change their routes 

so the stairways weren’t as clogged as they had been. 

We have also provided updated information on evacuation for 

mobility-impaired persons. We are working to possibly develop a 

floor warden program to assist staff and visitors during an evacuation of the House Office Buildings. And we continue to improve 

our evacuation plans almost weekly. 

To accomplish this mission and the goals of my office, the total funding requested for fiscal year 2009 is $8,480,000. This consists 

of $7,345,000 for personnel expenses and $1,135,000 for nonpersonnel expenses, with an overall increase from fiscal year 2008 of 

$1,614,000. 

This increase is due in part to the request for 15 new FTEs needed to support the Sergeant at Arms operations in the CVC, Capitol 

Visitor Center, as well as the need to fund contracted service dealing with emergency planning and preparedness. 

In closing, I want to thank the committee again for the privilege 

of appearing here today. And I think each of you know how deeply 

I consider it an honor to serve this institution. 

I want to assure you of our constant vigilance and continued 

dedication for the safety and security of all Members, staff and visitors, with continued studies being done for improvements in all 

these areas. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
509 

At this time, I would be happy to answer any questions about the 

budget. 

[Mr. Livingood’s statement follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
510 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 956 here 41290D.040
511 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 957 here 41290D.041
512 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 958 here 41290D.042
513 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 959 here 41290D.043
514 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 960 here 41290D.044
515 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 961 here 41290D.045
516 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Livingood. 

And I really just have to, before I ask you a couple questions, 

commend all three of you. Because, as the officers of the House, 

you have been charged with a tremendous responsibility to take 

care of the Members and to take care of the administration of the 

legislative process, which is an awesome responsibility. And the 

three of you are doing an absolutely fantastic job of that. So we appreciate it. 

STAFF FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES ON THE INTERNET

Ms. Miller, my first question is for you, and it is a two-phased 

question. There has been some concern—I remember a few weeks 

ago I read in one of the newspapers about a Web site that put up 

financial disclosure forms online of, not just the Members—which 

comes with the territory when you are an elected official—but also 

the officers, the reporting individuals, the senior staff who also 

have to do that. The concern was that they put, I think, personal 

information up on their Web site, including Social Security numbers and very personal financial information, even the backup material. 

I was really glad to read a couple weeks later that your office— 

that you have been negotiating with the Web site and brought a 

resolution to that. So can you talk about that? 

And also, because I know there have been concerns about the 

House page program since I got here, if you can talk about the improvements that have been made in the House page program and 

what we can look forward to with that. 

Ms. MILLER. Great. Two of my favorite subjects. 

LegiStorm. We have discovered part of what anybody can do is 

go to our Legislative Resource Center and fill out a form, and they 

have access to Member filings. When you file your financial disclosures, it is a public record, and so we give it. 

But we discovered—and Lenny Shambon is our new legal counsel 

in the Office of the Clerk, and he just joined us about 2 weeks ago, 

walked right into this. What Lenny initially did, when we discovered these filings were up on PDF, we immediately went to try to 

figure out what Members were affected. So we literally, over the 

weekend, just went through every filing we had in 2007, Member 

and the senior staffs. And we discovered about 21 Members were 

affected by it. 

And we discovered that some of the staff had been calling 

LegiStorm independently. They saw this, and they were very concerned. 

Lenny was able to negotiate with LegiStorm to say, ‘‘Look, this 

is some personal information that you have of Members and senior 

staff. It needs to come down.’’ 

So we went to the meticulousness of finding the exact page of a 

Member’s financial disclosure. And I will use Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner redacted a lot of the information in his financial disclosure, but at the bottom of the page, in very small lettering, was the account number and the name of the trust, with his 

name on it. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
517 

So Lenny negotiated, and we came in over the weekend, went 

through all the financial disclosures, got them typed up. He faxed 

that over—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. How many were there? 

Ms. MILLER. There were about 21 Members. 

Lenny, what was it? 

Mr. SHAMBON. There were 26. Out of the 440 Members and delegates, 26 had attachments that could have been exposed; 12 had 

exposed numbers. 

Ms. MILLER. And we went through all of the disclosures to find 

this information out, faxed it over to them on Friday night. By 

Sunday night, Monday morning, they had been taken out from the 

Web site. 

Moving forward—I mean, that was a fire drill in order to protect 

our privacy. Moving forward, there is still a lot of concern among 

some of the staff that names of their children, their personal addresses are still there. And we are working with LegiStorm to get 

that done. 

Moving forward, what we are trying to do as we prepare for the 

May filings, to put something on the filing report, or as you fill out 

the paperwork, that the individual filer knows that you have to be 

very careful about your personal information and redact it. 

The other part of this is that we are trying to come up with— 

in working with the Ethics Committee, we discovered also people’s 

signature was on there. And so we discovered a little—well, it is 

not a trick, but a little facet in the printing where there is a certain 

block that we can put a little machinations over, and as you sign 

the form, once it is copied it goes dark, so that signature is not exposed. 

So we are trying to use things like that to help. But what we are 

really having to do is to do a much better public relations job to 

inform Members and the senior staff that file, ‘‘Be careful of the 

public information.’’ This was innocently done, I think, on Members’ part who just didn’t know. And we had some Members that 

had thousand-page attachments that were exposed; they had security matters. 

PAGE PROGRAM

Now, to my favorite topic, the page program. The Republican 

Leader has given us two new Members to the Page Board, two excellent Members who have an educational background, Ms. Foxx 

and Mr. Bishop. 

After our little controversy, the Speaker and the Republican 

Leader had asked for the IG to do a study, kind of investigate what 

actually happened. And out of that came two major recommendations: That we tighten up on the regs for our residence hall staff, 

and that we actually hire a deputy clerk who would have sole responsibility of reviewing and oversight of the page program—the 

totality of the page program. The page program is divided into 

three segments: The work, the school, and the residence hall. 

So we are in the process—we have about 37 candidates, applicants for the deputy page slot. We have decided—and we have been 

pretty thrifty in trying to figure out how we pay for this. So we are 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
518 

rearranging priorities within our budget so we will pay for the remainder of the year of this deputy clerk slot, this new addition. 

And we are continuing our—since last summer, we have been, I 

guess since June, maybe April, with the cooperation of the Sergeant at Arms, doing a robust security evaluation of the residence 

hall. So we have gone through, we have created a whole new system where the residence hall staff can actually see the ingress/ 

egress of the students leaving the dorm. It is phenomenal, the work 

we have been doing. But it has been over a lot of months. 

And that is basically where we are. We have got, I think, an excellent program. You have to see the kids. Once they come in, they 

are a little starry-eyed. But once they leave, you see that they really get this. They really do. And it is a great program. And we are 

going to work on improving it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Great. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. I just hope the pages aren’t totally skewed for their 

lives after they have been around here. 

You said you had 26 Members that had their information, personal information, disclosed. How many staff people? 

Ms. MILLER. There were, let’s see—do any of you know offhand? 

Mr. SHAMBON. The Members who had errors were 12—nonredacted Members. And all 12 of them had gotten on the LegiStorm 

site. For the staff, out of the 3,219 filings, 68 had errors, and 30 

of those 68 had numbers on the site. 

MEMBERS’ REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCE

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Beard, in January, there was a reprogramming request for $14.4 million, as far as the MRAs, because of the shortfall in 2008. 

Can you assure us that there is not going to be any other shortfall for the MRAs for the remaining portion of this year? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, I think, for the remainder of this year, no, I 

think we are in good shape. 

But, you know, the MRA is probably the most complicated account we have, because we have to guesstimate about 18 months 

in advance what rate the Members are going to spend at, include 

that in the request, and then it goes to this committee. But then 

the Committee on House Administration actually sets the level 

with the authorization. 

So, as we have gone through this series of continuing resolutions, 

the difference between the authorization and appropriations has 

been narrowing, and that was one of the reasons that there is a 

request this year for an increase from a lot of the Members. 

We are going to do our best to avoid it; let me just put it that 

way. 

Mr. LATHAM. Are there any other accounts, different select committees or anything like that, that are going to have a shortfall? 

Mr. BEARD. No. The committee accounts are in good shape. And 

the Select Committee on the August 2nd Vote as well as the Select 

Committee on Global Warming are in good shape. 

Mr. LATHAM. Your request of $590.6 million, do you know what 

percentage of the authorization that is—how that compares historically to the percentage of the authorization? 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
519 

Mr. BEARD. This is for the MRA? 

Mr. LATHAM. Right. 

Mr. BEARD. It is 92 or 93 percent, somewhere around there. That 

is what we shoot for. It is usually 92 or 93 percent of the authorization. 

Mr. LATHAM. My understanding is that it is about 91 percent. 

Historically, it has been 92 or 93, which would potentially lead us 

to another shortfall next year. But hopefully that doesn’t happen. 

CAO PRIORITIES

You listed the priorities here. Is this list with new initiatives, the 

order of your budget priorities? I mean, we are going to be under 

real pressure, obviously, as far as our budget. How would you 

prioritize? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, if asked to go back and prioritize, I guess I had 

better go back and rearrange the list. And I think there are a number of people—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You will be asked to prioritize. 

Mr. BEARD. Okay, well, that is fine. I am happy to do it. No, they 

weren’t presented in any particular order of importance. 

I think that some are new, but some are, like the committee program, an attempt to continue and finish an activity that was started several years ago. And we wanted to put renewed emphasis on 

it. 

Mr. LATHAM. If you could, actually, prioritize. 

Mr. BEARD. Sure. 

[The information follows:] 

QUESTIONS FROM THE HEARING FROM MR. TOM LATHAM

In response to a request for prioritization of new initiatives, please see the following chart: 

NEW INITIATIVES PRIORITY RANK 

Priority New Initiatives Account FY09 Budget Request 

1 ................ Speaker’s Wounded Warrior Program: Operations.A&E ........................................... $5,000,000 

2 ................ Benefits Enhancements: Student Loan Program 

Increase to $10,000 annual & $60,000 career cap.

A&E ........................................... 4,000,000 

3 ................ Benefits Enhancements: Tuition Reimbursement A&E ........................................... 7,500,000 

4 ................ Benefits Enhancements: Centralized Transit 

Benefits.

A&E ........................................... 5,040,000 

5 ................ Benefits Enhancements: Parking Benefits ......... A&E ........................................... 1,650,000 

6 ................ Benefits Enhancements: Child Care Subsidy 

Program.

A&E ........................................... 500,000 

7 ................ Greening Operations & Initiatives ...................... SOE ............................................ 2,000,000 

8 ................ New Member Office Initiative ............................. A&E ........................................... 13,884,000 

9 ................ Hearing Room Renovations: Implement Capabilities ($14.8M) & Initial 12 Months of Operations ($4.2M).

Standing Committees ............... 19,087,000 

10 .............. Benefits Enhancements: LifeCare Resource and 

Referral Services.

A&E ........................................... 200,000 

HOUSE METERING PROJECT

Mr. LATHAM. In the greening of the Capitol, you include $100,000 

to verify the proper operation and data from the new Architect of 

the Capitol metering system. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
520 

Do you need to monitor what they are monitoring? I don’t understand why they can’t do it. 

Mr. BEARD. Well, as you know, they submitted a metering request. It has been under advisement here with the committee, and 

I think the committee has finally approved the reprogramming by 

reducing the number. 

We have been involved with them in a number of different metering activities, particularly in some of our computer facilities. 

And we meter those as well, and we want to make sure that we 

are consistent with what the Architect of the Capitol has in place. 

The overall issue here is, in the 1992 energy bill, the 2005 and 

the 2007 energy bills, we were directed to put meters in place to 

evaluate energy consumption and use in Federal buildings. And we 

have Federal buildings, and we need to verify and coordinate with 

the AOC as they undertake those activities, particularly in our facilities, our computer facilities help and other locations that we 

have. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Ms. Lee. 

REMARKS BY MS. LEE

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much. 

And let me associate myself with the Chair’s comments with regard to our gratitude for all of the work that you all do every day. 

You know, so often we take for granted, staff and Members, the 

type of work behind the scene that is involved just to make this 

place run efficiently, smoothly and without as many complications 

that an institution such as the Capitol could afford. So thank you 

all very much. 

And also to Ms. Miller, this is Women’s History Month, and I 

just want to congratulate you and salute you for being such a role 

model for women throughout the country. 

Ms. MILLER. Thank you. 

STAFF COLA

Ms. LEE. Let me ask you about the COLA for staff. How does 

that work between leg branch and House Administration, and how 

do we know what to really expect? Lots of staff have wanted to 

know that. Because I have no clue. And you know what happened 

this year: We thought it would be one thing, staff thought—and 

then it came out something else, and we had to go back and, sort 

of, hassle a little bit. 

And then let me ask Mr. Beard a couple questions, and you can 

answer them all together. 

I fully support the enhanced benefit package for staff, because all 

of us know that our staff could make a lot more money and receive 

a heck of a lot more benefits doing other things. And it is so important to retain staff. All of us know, staff, they want to stay but oftentimes they can’t stay, strictly because of the economics of it. So, 

whatever it takes, I hope that we can move forward with this piece 

of the budget proposal. 

With regard to the alternative pay dates, I just wanted to get 

from you the status of what we had asked for last year in the omniVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:24 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 041290 PO 00000 Frm 00520 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\41290P2.XXX 41290P2

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
521 

bus bill, in terms of coming back, looking at what the kinks were 

in the existing payroll system, and what the proposal could or 

should be from you. 

And then how the minority women-owned business program 

works within your agency. You know, given the fact that we finally, 

last year, thanks to the Chair and all of us, got in language asking 

for the inclusion of minority- and women-owned businesses in procurement and vendors and in all of the operations of the Capitol. 

Mr. BEARD. The COLA, really, we tee off the President’s number. 

Whatever the President’s number is is what we tee off at. But it 

is complicated here by the fact that we have a Speaker’s pay order 

that sets a cap, and then everything, sort of, cascades down from 

there. We have to work also with the Committee on House Administration, too, as to the exact number. So it is, like most things 

around here, a very active—there are a lot of people stirring the 

soup pot, so to speak. 

ENHANCED STAFF BENEFITS PACKAGE

With respect to benefits, I think it is important for us to recognize, historically, we have almost been like a minor league here. 

We hire people, they come in, they learn the skills, they make the 

contacts, build the relationships, and then they spin out and go 

downtown, to then only come back up here and lobby us again, or 

whatever it is that they do. But they learn a skill, and they make 

a valuable career out of it. 

Every employee we lose is, you know—you have to look, in personnel and management consulting work, they generally consider 

that the cost of a lost employee is about a year, 1 year’s salary to 

11⁄2 years’ salary. And that is what it costs to recruit, train, get the 

new employee back up to speed so that the institution can move 

forward. 

And I think that it hurts the institution overall every time we 

lose these people. So that is why we have put so much emphasis 

on this. We want to keep and retain employees to the maximum 

extent we can. 

We started just with the issue of parity with the executive 

branch. We are not asking for anything that some other Federal 

agency doesn’t have. And we went through and canvassed all the 

Federal agencies to see what benefits they had and how that compared to ours, and the priority of what it is we would like to give 

our employees. 

MINORITY- AND WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS POLICY

And minority- and women-owned businesses—as a result of your 

work last year, we set a policy internally. We monitor that on a 

regular basis. And we have improved our performance, but it is nowhere near what it should be. And we are on target to deliver the 

report that was requested on time. 

Ms. LEE. Good. What is the deadline again? Was it March? 

Mr. BEARD. The initial one has already been presented. 

Ms. LEE. Okay. 

Mr. BEARD. But the other one, I think, is in March or April. 

Ms. LEE. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you very much. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
522 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Lewis. 

REMARKS BY MR. LEWIS

Mr. LEWIS. I do have a couple of questions. 

I wanted to mention, that, for at least a dozen years Vic Fazio 

and I worked together on this subcommittee, he being the Chairman and I had the privilege of being the ranking member. One instance that occurred is very much reflective of some of our current 

difficulties in the House. The legislative branch subcommitee does 

represent all the Members’ interests here, as well as their staffs’. 

Vic and I were upstairs discussing the committee business as we 

were going to the markup, and a call came in from the then-Speaker Jim Wright. The issue of the moment, Members’ pay raises, was 

swirling around the House. And Jim called Vic to let him know 

that he decided, under pressure, to take a poll of the Members and 

make it public. Well, when Vic hung up, we agreed with each other 

that that might be very close to the end of Wright’s speakership. 

[Laughter.] 

So these things go on within this branch, from time to time. 

CAO REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCE

Mr. Beard, I note that you have requested a representational allowance, an item that hasn’t been in the budget for a while, or I 

think maybe since CAO has operated. The amount is not a lot of 

money, but it is $10,000, which is the equivalent of the Majority 

and the Minority Leaders’ funding for this kind of activity. $5,000 

is more than the Majority and the Minority Whips. 

So, explain to the committee why the request for a representation allowance. What will you do with it? 

Mr. BEARD. We thought the other accounts were $10,000, and 

that is why mine was. The other officers have representational allowances of, I think it is, $3,000 each. And my request was to establish a representational account. 

There are occasions when there are—— 

Mr. LEWIS. The question, though, is why. 

Mr. BEARD. As we have guests and visitors who come here, particularly foreign guests and visitors, meeting with the representatives from the Mexican Senate, the German Bundestag and a number of other organizations, there is usually an exchange of gifts, 

and we present them something from our supply store and so forth. 

But those can’t be charged back to the account, so I pay for them 

out of my pocket. 

And the other officers have small amounts of money, $3,000 I 

think it is, for that. 

Mr. LEWIS. Okay. 

APPROPRIATONS COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM SPACE IN THE CVC

Madam Chairman, yesterday, Ms. Lee and I spent time together 

over in the Rayburn Building. The Secretary of State was with us, 

which, to most of us, was important. There was craziness going on 

in the House. There were votes going on. And it crystallized in my 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
523 

mind that there is an item that you and, I think, really, the majority members should consider, and you can do something about it. 

I don’t want to speak for him, but I believe the Chairman of the 

full committee really hasn’t been in favor of a thing called the 

CVC. Nonetheless, we are going forward with it; it is here. It sure 

seems to me that the committee is crazy not to insist that the Appropriations Committee have space for hearing rooms in that CVC 

that are adequate. 

I mean, to have the Secretary of State and Barbara and I running back and forth was nuts. And the time is now; it is not going 

to be later. 

So I would urge the committee, with your staff and otherwise, 

first do some homework and then go from there. I think we could 

really serve the Appropriations Committee very well if we could. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. An intense lobbying campaign has 

commenced. 

Mr. LEWIS. That is very good. If there is anything I can do to 

help, or get out of the way, please let me know. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. LEWIS. I can’t believe I am going to be asking this other 

question, but my staff wanted me to because we have had all kinds 

of calls regarding it. 

COFFEE BRAND SERVED BY RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES

Mr. Beard, I understand that we have, one way or another, made 

a decision about the kind of coffee we deliver in the House. Now, 

I deliver coffee that I buy for my staff in my office, so there is no 

issue in my office. But lots of Members apparently don’t like the 

change in the coffee. And, apparently, this was done without a bidding process. And I am hearing that, at one time, we had very 

fancy coffee and now we have very common coffee. 

So, would you explain that to the committee, as well? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes, I would be happy to. 

When we moved to the new food service vendor in December, a 

request was made to us to consider putting in what is called ‘‘free 

trade’’ coffee. 

And we then had a number of different vendors, we had nine different vendors who offered coffee to a blind taste test of about 50 

staff people who came. 

Mr. LEWIS. I am sorry I am asking this question. 

Mr. BEARD. Yeah. [Laughter.] 

And the one that was selected was Pura Vida coffee. But we also 

continue to serve Starbucks coffee in The Creamery. 

Ms. LEE. May I ask, was Peet’s Coffee in that taste test? 

Mr. BEARD. I honestly don’t know which ones were, but I can 

find out. 

Ms. LEE. I would like to know. Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 

QUESTIONS FROM THE HEARING FROM MS. BARBARA LEE

Question. Was Peet’s coffee included in the coffee taste testing that was conducted? 

Response. Peet’s coffee was not included in the taste testing. There is only one 

advertised Fair Trade blend in the entire line of Peet’s coffee. While this one blend 

could have been included, it was not due to a lack of availability of decaffeinated 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
524 

Fair Trade blend. Although not a requirement, the availability of both regular and 

decaffeinated for each coffee blend was heavily weighted as a factor for inclusion in 

the taste testing. 

Mr. LEWIS. I am afraid to ask the rest of my questions, ma’am. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. I think we should quit while we 

are behind. [Laughter.] 

Thank you. 

Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

NEW MEMBER INITIATIVE

Mr. Beard, the CAO is proposing a new Member initiative at a 

cost of $13.9 million—slightly more than the $10,000 that the ranking member referenced to in his question. And, as I understand, 

you want to hire 10 full-time employees. 

Could you tell us a little more in detail, other than what is already in your statement, about the new Member initiative? What 

has not worked in the past? 

Many of us are recent Members to be elected, and we went 

through new Member orientation, and I don’t think you want to deprive any future Members who come along. But since budgets are 

tight, our office has got a 2.7 percent COLA, could you help us understand why we need this money at this particular time? 

Mr. BEARD. Sure. The FTEs that we are requesting are to provide financial counselors to the offices. Rather than have each of 

these offices hire a part-time, shared employee, as some Members 

do, we would offer the services of the CAO to individual offices if 

they want to use CAO employees to do their financial and budget 

work. And we would also offer to the new Members the opportunity 

to have CAO employees in the technical services area do their computer work. Many Members use part-time employees to do that. 

In many respects, this is in response to the current prosecution 

which arose over a shared employee in the financial services area, 

where the employee was accused of and, I think, has entered into 

a plea agreement on theft. And the question is, how do we ensure 

that the funds made available to the individual Members are being 

spent as carefully as we possibly can? 

So I am working right now with the Committee on House Administration and the Inspector General to come forward with a proposal to make sure that, in the financial services area particularly, 

there is absolutely no opportunity for reoccurrence of the theft that 

we had. 

And the other thing that we found with shared employees is 

some shared employees did not make enough money as House employees to qualify to submit ethics forms. Some have not, in the 

past. I think we have gotten that one straightened out. Some wanted to operate as businesses, but they are not allowed to because 

they are supposed to be employees of the House. 

And so what we are doing is we are really, I think, perpetuating 

kind of a fiction. We are saying this person is an employee; but 

they are actually a business, and we are paying their retirement 

and health care as if they were an employee, but in fact they may 

have eight or 10 offices that they work for. And, in many cases, 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
525 

those offices don’t know what other offices that individual works 

for. 

So I don’t think it is the best arrangement. And the easiest way 

to get out is to start with the next class of Members and say, ‘‘We 

will offer those services to you.’’ We have to do it anyway, because 

the bills are sent to us and we double-check everything. And we are 

the ones that actually cut the check. So the proposal was to offer 

our services in the financial and the computer services area to the 

new Members, if they want to take advantage of it. 

If they want to hire a shared employee, that is their business, 

or have somebody on staff do it, they can do it as well. 

Mr. BONNER. But it is only available to the new Members? 

Mr. BEARD. I would be happy to make it available to other Members, but we don’t have the funds to be able to do that. And the 

thought was, if we started with this class, we could slowly work 

our way forward as the natural turnover in the House takes place. 

ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM

Mr. BONNER. Madam Clerk, this year we have had some mishaps 

with the electronic voting system. And I was wondering if you 

could tell me what your office has been doing to ensure that, when 

we cast a vote, that we can have confidence that it is accurately 

recorded. 

And how old is the current system? And are there any plans to 

purchase a new system? 

Ms. MILLER. Well, we started electronic voting in 1974. So it has 

had about four upgrades in the last few years, the last being in 

2004. 

Honestly, Mr. Bonner, I think our system is sound. It is a 

functionality—we have had more than 2,000 votes, and there has 

been one where the computer—maybe a glitch or so. 

This is a constant daily vigilance. There is a small group of staff, 

senior staff, both sides of the aisle and the parliamentarian, that 

receive an e-mail from us every day. We test it before we go into 

session. If we are in session subject to the call of the Chair, we test 

it again to make sure that, once a vote is called, that the displays 

go up on the machine. We are doing everything we possibly can. 

To the question of what are we—we are doing an internal investigation and constantly trying to evaluate the system. We are in 

the process of looking at hiring a contractor to come and—it is like 

typing, sometimes: You can type something you think it is okay; 

someone else looks at it and they see a mistake. So we are bringing 

in, hopefully, a contractor to relook at it. 

We really do feel that we have a sound system. Are we in the 

process of looking at others? Yes. So, when the House decides that 

we really do need to look at another system, we will have some proposals available. But we don’t have something right now saying we 

can go to X system. 

But we are looking at them, not only—I was in Israel in January, 

and I was sitting there in the gallery, and they have this new electronic system with the little flat screens at every Member’s table. 

A glitch happened. And I said, ‘‘I feel your pain.’’ [Laughter.] 

It was minor, but it was that kind of thing that, for a minute 

or two, they couldn’t complete their voting process. So it happens. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
526 

But we are doing everything—besides the page program, I probably spend more time over at our legislative computer shop trying 

to make sure everything is done. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

WOUNDED WARRIOR PROGRAM

Mr. Beard, you spoke briefly about the Wounded Warrior program and introduced the Master Gunnery Sergeant who is going to 

be heading that up. 

Can you talk briefly about the details of the Wounded Warrior 

program and how it is going to work? Will Member offices be a part 

of it? 

I know it is a $5 million request. About how many participants 

will you be able to handle during this fiscal year? 

Mr. BEARD. It is really two parts. The first part is that the 

Speaker has directed the three of us to undertake efforts to hire 

wounded warriors in the offices and organizations that report to us. 

She has also requested that Bill, through the Police Board, urge 

the Police Board to hire wounded veterans with the Capitol Police. 

So that is one part. 

The second part is we want to set up a fellowship program, and 

our goal is to hire up to 50 fellows by the end of fiscal year 2009. 

These would be evenly divided between the two parties. And our 

goal is to hire wounded warriors who achieve a 30 percent disability, as a minimum qualification. We are working with the Veterans Administration and all of the services to reach out to them 

to find the employees. 

These fellowships would be 2 years. They would be centrally 

funded, so they won’t count against the 18 staff-person requirement 

in your MRA. And they can be either in the Washington office or 

in the district office; it is up to the individual Member. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It sounds like an amazing program. 

Mr. BEARD. Well, certainly the services have been very excited. 

We got into this—Bill and I met with the congressional liaison 

from the Marine Corps, and that is actually how we got started in 

this. General Regner talked about the need to find employment for 

wounded veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq. 

And this was an opportunity, just like the AAAS fellows or the 

Sea Grant program—a number of others have it—this is an opportunity to bring people in, give them 2 years to build relationships, 

get to know the landscape, and work into full employment with either a Member, in their district office or here in Washington, or 

with a committee. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES

On the House restaurants, we have gone through a transition to 

the new vendor. And I wanted your assessment of how things are 

going. How satisfied are you and patrons of the new food service 

provider? Do you have a feedback-collection process? And what is 

the feedback from the employees of the food service? 

Mr. BEARD. I almost hesitate to answer this question. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is one of those I already know part 

of the answer to. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
527 

Mr. BEARD. Well, I think, first of all, Restaurant Associates has 

been a wonderful company to work with. They are very responsive. 

They have been very aggressive. They did an excellent job of making the transition. They came in Friday night, Guest Services left 

and Restaurant Associates came in, and we worked all weekend, 

around the clock, and we opened up the Longworth cafeteria and 

were ready for business on Monday. So I was very satisfied with 

the transition. 

We have the usual bumps in the road that come from that kind 

of effort. I have been very pleased with their efforts to try to drive 

us to have a green cafeteria, to be able to compost our waste and 

reduce our costs that way as well. 

I think in the Members’ Dining Room they have done a much 

better job than in the past, and they are constantly working at the 

training. We have had some problems of late, regarding supplies. 

And, as far as I am concerned, that is Food Service 101, and my 

conversations with Restaurant Associates over the last couple of 

weeks has been that they need to correct those problems and correct them quickly. 

As far as the workforce goes, I have had a couple of complaints 

from workers who don’t think they are getting enough hours. But, 

for the most part, I haven’t had any general outbursts from the employees. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you have a feedback-collection 

process for patrons and for employees? 

Mr. BEARD. We do, yes. I am not sure about patrons. I know 

that, if you are talking about guests coming in—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In other words, staff or—— 

Mr. BEARD. From staff. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. From staff or patrons. We are patrons. 

Mr. BEARD. It is the Web site, the Restaurant Associates Web 

site for the House cafeterias. If you go to that, we get responses 

from that all the time. 

Ms. LEE. Would the gentlewoman yield for just a second? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sure. 

Ms. LEE. With regard to the price of the meals, the costs the new 

menus, are you finding they are very similar or more? 

Mr. BEARD. In most areas, they are similar. In some areas, they 

are higher. They have offered a high-end alternative, which, frankly, hasn’t been greeted warmly here. And, as a result, they have 

stopped offering it over in the Rayburn cafeteria, for example. 

In some areas, it is a little bit higher. But the Committee on 

House Administration controls the pricing, and they approved a 

small price increase, because we haven’t had any increase in a 

while. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Just the only other part of my question I wanted to specifically 

ask you is related to the food service employees and the feedback. 

Because if you have only heard a couple of complaints, I just would 

want to make sure that the employees—sometimes there can be an 

intimidating work environment. And I am not suggesting there is 

one here. But it can be difficult for an employee to complain if they 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
528 

are fearing for the loss of their job. So do you have some way of 

anonymously receiving feedback from employees of the restaurant? 

Mr. BEARD. I do receive them. They send them to me. And I have 

my staff, my legal counsel investigate each one of the complaints 

that have come forward. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Mr. BEARD. I would point out, however, that, you know, when 

Restaurant Associates came in, particularly in the Members’ Dining Room, there was—the plea to us was we really need to improve 

the service. And to improve the service you have to deal with the 

people who serve. You have got to improve training. And so one of 

the things that they have been spending a lot of time on is service 

and training for people in the Members’ Dining Room. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. I want to be respectful of 

the Members. 

Ms. MILLER. May I add to that? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sure. 

Ms. MILLER. One of things that Restaurant Associates has done 

is we are trying to feed our pages a much healthier meal. So they 

are giving us muffins and et cetera for free. They are not charging 

for us in the dorm. But, more importantly, they have the contract 

for the Smithsonian. Our kids on the weekend were going to Union 

Station to the food court. Greasy. And so we have made an arrangement with them so we have—come on. 

Mr. LATHAM. I like grease. 

Ms. MILLER. I do, too. Look at me. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Me, too. 

Ms. MILLER. But we are trying to give them a healthier meal at 

the Smithsonian. So they have been very good at working with us 

to make sure the kids get a much more balanced meal. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

MEMBERS’ REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCE DISCUSSION CONTINUED

I just wanted to return back to the MRA question from earlier. 

From my understanding, your request is about 91 percent. To get 

to the historic level that we need, to 92 percent, would be five million more; to 93 percent would be 11 million more. I just do not 

want to get into the situation we had this year with our staff being 

very concerned and then start looking for jobs real quick because 

they are not going to get their COLAs or their increases. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Would the gentleman yield for one 

second? 

Mr. LATHAM. Yeah. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I do not want there to be a 

misimpression of how that problem occurred. Because we did—and 

you were not a member of the subcommittee last year, but we did 

appropriate in the bill that passed out last June a 4.7 percent increase. We only I think had a $2 million reduction, is that right? 

About a $2 million dollar reduction between June and the omnibus. 

So there was some miscommunication and misunderstanding I 

think on the part of House Administration as to whether it was us 

or them that adequately provided for the resources for a COLA. So 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
529 

we need some more coordination between House Administration 

and this subcommittee so that we can make sure that we do not 

have that problem occur again. 

Mr. LATHAM. However it occurred, it was a big issue in my office, 

and I am sure was the case for everybody else. I just wanted to— 

is that right? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, to me this is the easiest issue in the book. I 

look to House Administration and this committee and say, what do 

you want me to put in? You know, we go through and do the analysis for you, but it is really left to the committees to work out the 

actual numbers. 

I am sure, going forward—we have added money in, as a result 

of the reprogramming that took place, $14 million. So we are going 

to have to sit down with both this subcommittee and the Committee on House Administration to go through the MRA to make 

sure that, effective January 1st next year, we have enough money 

in the MRA to make it all the way through. 

Whether that is 91 or 93 percent, it really does not matter. Because once House Administration sets the authorization ceiling 

next year, that is the rate at which Members spend; and it is off 

to the races at that point. And the rest of it is catching up. 

Mr. LATHAM. But my concern is your request does not reflect 

what is going to be needed. I mean, are those numbers correct? 

Mr. BEARD. I am going to have to ask Dan Doody, my Deputy 

for Operations. 

Mr. DOODY. We worked with CHA to come up with the number 

that was submitted, $590.6. And, again, after we did the initial 

submission was the reprogramming that was done on the $14 million. So we need to have continuing dialogue with the committee 

to get that straightened out. 

I think Dan is saying it correct. We work with you both to figure 

out what the right number is based on the desire of the committees. Last year, there was actually a difference between the 3.5 and 

4.5 percent. That occurred because the President’s number ended 

up changing after we had all submitted our requests. So that contributed to the problem that occurred last year. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. But we should go from what history has told 

us, and it is 92 or 93 percent, which is going to be $5 or $11 million 

more than what this request is. You agree with that? 

Mr. BEARD. I am not sure—is that correct, LaTaunya? 

Ms. HOWARD. Yes, that is correct. It’s true based on the 2009 

MRA authorization request known as of today. To the extent the 

authorization request changes, the appropriation gap will change. 

Mr. BEARD. That is correct. 

OPERATIONS UNDER A 2009 CONTINUING RESOLUTION

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. The chairwoman is going to be tired of this 

question, but I just want to ask each of you about, you know, the 

potential for a CR. It is not because of the House side. I think we 

will do our work over here, but the Senate has certainly said they 

are not going to probably do any more than one or two bills over 

there. What happens to you with a CR? 

Mr. Livingood, you have been ignored all morning. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
530 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. I have in my budget a request for 15 new FTEs. 

Of the 15, 12 relate to the CVC. Four are to staff visitor desks. 

There are two visitor desks, and two people at each, to take visitors 

that come in and people that come into the rooms down below for 

meetings. They process all of these individuals through. 

And then I have an additional eight people connected with Gallery access, and they are called my chamber security people. And 

these eight people, some of them will man check stands downstairs 

for people that are going up to the Gallery, check in all their cell 

phones and all these items that they are not allowed to carry into 

the Gallery. 

Right now, they are currently checking them on the third floor. 

We wanted to get it back downstairs where we initially start so we 

do not end up with two different lines. Plus it is before you get into 

the Capitol. Without that, I will be having to do it upstairs, and 

I will not—it is not the most efficient manner. And, in my opinion, 

it affects security to a degree. It will not be quite as good as it 

would be downstairs. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Mr. Beard? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. And then I have one person who we have asked 

for to help man the Capitol Police Command Center on behalf of 

the House Sergeant at Arms to make sure that I am getting all the 

traffic messages that are happening, everything that is occurring 

instantly. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. And, right now, I have one of my employees up 

there, my co-workers, but I cannot keep—that is an IT person, 

which I need back in my IT shop. I only have two people, and I 

just hope that there is some flexibility considered if we go into the 

CR. 

Mr. LATHAM. CR. Sure. 

Mr. BEARD. From our perspective, we have operated under CRs 

for the last 3 years, so we can do it a fourth year. 

The most important item we have in here—— 

Mr. LATHAM. That is a bad answer. 

Mr. BEARD. Well, you know, you cannot do anything about it; and 

neither can I. 

But the most important item I have is for the $4.7 million to 

bring in new members. We just have to have that money. But I do 

not think that is a problem. I am working it through with the committee staff in the way that we have handled CRs in the past. So 

we could handle it. 

Ms. MILLER. Mr. Latham, it would be tight, but we prioritize. For 

instance, our $300,000 that we used for our upgrade of our computers, we could delay that. My only concern is if the House is actively doing its business, its hearings and all that stenographic 

work, that will impact our overtime and our—what we do for— 

overtime in our stenographic work. Otherwise, we will reprioritize 

and rob Peter to pay Paul and get it done. 

Mr. LATHAM. Just one comment on the coffee. There is really 

good soybean-based coffee coming from Iowa. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. All politics is local. 

Mr. BEARD. I can assure you, Congressman, that I have got 440 

people who advise me on that. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
531 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. 439. I do not like coffee. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I do want to note, to follow up on Mr. Latham’s question and noting we have no other members here, that the Legislative Branch 

Subcommittee is always afforded flexibility when we are in a CR. 

And I know you ask the question every time and I say this every 

time, we are always afforded flexibility because of the primarily administrative functions that have to occur. And I would expect this 

year to be no different. 

I share the same concerns you have about a CR, and I know that 

we would go to bat for an allocation in a CR that would make 

sure—— 

Mr. LATHAM. I just want to make sure everybody is thinking 

about it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yeah. The essential functions must 

continue, and we have to be able to operate the legislative branch. 

Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. Yes, ma’am. 

STAFF ONLY RESTAURANT HOURS

I have two quick questions for the Sergeant at Arms and one for 

the CAO, for our Chief Administrative Officer. Is there any way 

that we could look into what the Senate I believe does to allow at 

least one of the restaurant facilities to be closed—we used to do 

this—for a certain time period for our staff? Because even though 

they go—there is a special line, many of them do not have time, 

especially when we have got—excuse me, I just ran—they do not 

have the time of leisure that some of our constituents, who are the 

taxpayers who provide this opportunity to us, have when they come 

up here. And I think if we could see what the Senate does and see 

if we could do that in at least one restaurant facility on the House 

side it would be beneficial to the staff. 

Mr. BEARD. The answer is yes. I have made a proposal—I made 

a proposal last year to the Committee on House Administration, 

which they did not act upon, which was to essentially have a rolling blackout, if you will, for visitors. In other words, from 11:30 to 

12:30, 12:30 to 1:30, 1:30 to 2:30, we would move it from the Cannon, Longworth and Rayburn Building so that staff would know if 

they are in the Longworth Building that from 12:30 to 1:30 it is 

not open to visitors. Visitors would then be directed to other locations. 

I happen to be an advocate for it, especially as we go into this 

spring period when, you know, the place is sometimes like a zoo 

down in the Longworth cafeteria, and in Rayburn as well. It takes 

a little bit more on the security side to have an officer there to help 

direct traffic flow. 

But the answer to your question is, yes, we can do it, but the 

feeling has been that, you know, if my constituents—if I can go in 

and my constituents cannot, that looks bad. 

Mr. BONNER. But we are going to be opening a brand new large 

restaurant facility in the CVC—— 

Mr. BEARD. We will. 

Mr. BONNER [continuing]. Which I think many visitors will probably welcome the chance to dine there. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
532 

All I would say is, if we could look into it. 

CAPITOL VISITORS CENTER

And then to our distinguished Sergeant at Arms, who we all 

have great respect for, as is true for the three of you, yesterday, 

this subcommittee held a hearing with the CVC folks and the Architect of the Capitol; and I think our Chair and our entire panel 

actually was concerned about he said/she said. We were asking specifically about what could be done to bring visitors to the Capitol, 

as close to the Capitol complex when the CVC opens and minimizing the disruption to them, at the same time respecting the security element. So that is question one. 

What, from your perspective, can be done to keep them from having to go to Union Station and then be brought over on a shuttle 

bus where they would have to pay to do so? That just seems to be 

an unwelcoming message to our Capitol. 

EXPEDITED ACCESS FOR STAFF AT SECURITY ENTRANCES

And, secondly, and he and I—the Sergeant at Arms and I have 

talked about this previously, but since I am on this subcommittee 

now I am going to ask it officially—— 

Mr. BEARD. You might get a better answer. 

Mr. BONNER. I am a staffer at heart. I was on staff for 18 years. 

And I find it incomprehensible that when it is raining, when it is 

snowing, when it is hot, that our staff has to stand sometimes 100 

yards long to get in the building when they have gotten an I.D. Is 

the I.D. not worth anything that could allow them to not have to 

stand in such long lines as they did when I first started here? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. The answer to that is I recognized that over 4, 

5 months ago, sometime after you talked to me about it; and we 

issued instructions to the Capitol Police on the House side to allow 

staff to the front of the line, bypass the visitors, et cetera, et cetera. 

The only people that would come in front of them would be a Member, if a Member is trying to get in. And if they are not doing 

that—some of the doors are doing it, because I have observed it 

personally. But we will reissue, make sure that they are. Because 

I agree with you 100 percent. 

Mr. BONNER. But when I first started we did not even have to 

go through the metal detectors. The background check had been 

done, and if you were allowed to get a badge you did not have to 

stand in a line to go through to prove you are not a security threat. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Right. 

Mr. BONNER. What about the issue with regard to the CVC and 

what we can do to—— 

CAPITOL VISITORS CENTER DISCUSSION CONTINUED

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes, the Capitol Police Board, in conjunction 

with the Capitol Police, are looking at that. We just talked about 

it yesterday separate from your CVC hearing. Because we do not 

go to the CVC. And our object is to get you as close—not you, visitors as close to this building as we possibly can. 

We had come up with the idea of the commuter bus for one, because that does not have an undercarriage that we—there are some 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
533 

things I will not mention here—but just makes it easier for us to 

search it. And we are still exploring are there any other ways? 

We have kept the West Front open, which is a big thing; and we 

are constantly looking at that, too, to see what we can do to make 

it as easy and as accessible as possible. 

Because if you do not get these people here, all this effort we put 

into the CVC will not be as fortuitous as we want it to be. We want 

everybody to come. 

Mr. BONNER. Okay. So the restaurants, you will look at something for the staff. You are going to continue your efforts on shorter 

lines with the staff. If there is a poll of who is the most popular 

Member for the staff, I hope that you will remember the name Jo 

Bonner. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Bonner, I am a former staffer, not 

congressional but legislative, and you can take the girl and have 

her no longer be staff, but you can not take the staff out of the girl, 

and I agree with you. 

And on the Senate side, from what I understand, they have staffonly entrances. I always feel bad I am breezing by staff members, 

I mean, tourists, too, but breezing by staff members because, obviously, we can go to the front. It is sort of crazy. 

I do think in this environment we have to have our staff go 

through the metal detectors, but it is sort of crazy for them to have 

to stand in line, and especially in this season when Washington is 

teeming with tourists. They have got to do their work for us. We 

have to get them through the process. 

Mr. Livingood, last year, Ms. McCollum and Mr. Honda asked— 

and I actually do not remember whether it was this hearing or in 

the Police—— 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Capitol Police Board. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yeah, in the Capitol Police hearing. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes, ma’am. 

EVACUATION PROCESS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But I wanted to bring it up with you 

anyway today, since you are here and can report somewhat on your 

progress about the evacuation process, which you talked on in the 

beginning. But, specifically, they are concerned because they both 

are in Longworth, and the process and the difficulty with the number of floors and if you are caught on the seventh floor. And I know 

you have made some changes, and if you could detail those changes 

and improvements. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes. The first thing we have done, I mentioned 

just briefly here, we partnered with the AOC’s Fire Marshal and 

the Capitol Police, my office did, and we went back to every single 

office in the three buildings and the Capitol and looked at what 

routes they were using. They had been assigned routes, what doors 

to go out or stairwells. And again from the fire drills we noticed 

that there was an extremely long line and a long period to exit 

from the southeast area of the Longworth and southeast area of 

the Cannon. 

So those particular areas on the fourth and third floors and second floor, the Capitol Police, with the Fire Marshal and our office, 

we made a decision how many people should go out that southeast 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
534 

exit and change other people to other exits, some towards this end, 

which would be the north end of the building, so that we are not 

all congested. And I stood down there at a couple fire drills watching. 

After we had done this, we had another fire drill, and I went 

back there, and I noticed it was probably about 45 percent, somewhere in that vicinity, better. But still not as good as I would personally like to see. 

So we went back to those two buildings with the Capitol Police 

on those fourth, third, second and first floors and changed some— 

one or two on every floor, not the whole thing, but just one or two 

on every floor and gave them other exits. 

So that is where we stand on that today. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Good. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. We continue to observe that and are flexible in 

changing routes because that is our big concern. We thought of 

switching the Member assembly areas, some of them over to the 

Capitol. That was a suggestion. And we looked at that long and 

hard and with some other experts, and the problem is the staffer 

sort of is programmed to get away from the Capitol, not come back 

over here, and we found that very few would want to come back 

in the event of certain evacuations to this area. So we kept the assembly areas where they are, but we intend to tweak those as best 

we can. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good. I appreciate your responsiveness. I will make sure that Ms. McCollum and Mr. Honda are 

aware of it. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Then I had two other areas that they asked—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No, go right ahead, absolutely. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. If I could. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Please. 

MODELING OF HOUSE BUILDINGS

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Because they did ask me. And one was to look 

at what electronic systems or computer systems you can use to assist you in evacuations under various conditions, simulation. And 

we have been doing that for the last year. 

And we basically completed our study, and we feel that a threedimensional modeling computer agent-based simulation computer 

modeling system would help all our buildings and the Capitol. It 

would provide better evacuation planning for us and drills, with 

the ever-changing environment here on the Hill. 

Like when I found that it was backed up at a certain stairwell, 

we can put that into our computer and see where people—other 

stairwells, where they ought to go. This simulation tool would use 

a variety—not just fire, but it would use a variety of scenarios and 

options such as explosions, chemical release, attacks or other incidents; and it would help us with our stairway evacuations, our 

shelter in place, and our assembly areas. 

And I think it is really, after a long study—because we have 

been looking at it a couple years. Mr. Honda started us looking, 

and thank him, because that got our attention and got us thinking 

about it, and we brought in a bunch of people just to help us look 

at things. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
535 

It would really help identify the flow of occupants. It would determine potential medical hazards such as smoke. We can put into 

the thing ‘‘smoke’’. And it is a great training aid for all of us. 

The problem is we are not funded. For the House to fund all our buildings and the Capitol would be about approximately $500,000. 

We have not done any. We have written up a proposal, a bid for 

proposal, but that is it. We have not sent it out or anything because we do not have the money. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. The other thing was the notification that they 

asked for. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sorry. I keep cutting you off. 

HOUSE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM

Mr. LIVINGOOD. This was the House emergency notification system. So we had looked at five or six vendors from outside that have 

a system where they have all your data for your staff, Members if 

we wanted that—we just did not want them to have our Member 

data. And they put it into a system, and then we have one unit up 

at the Capitol Police headquarters and type in and it goes out to, 

within a couple minutes, 10,000 people in text, goes out to your 

BlackBerry, whatever you choose: BlackBerry, telephone, e-mail, 

whatever. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is important. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Then we found out we already have a system 

here, thanks to Mr. Beard and his staff. We co-partnered with 

them. They are the technical people. 

And, right now, the House has two tiers for alerts. The first tier 

is one you all know: the fire alarms, strobes, the annunciators and 

the public building address systems. The second tier is a roam secure alert network and the Member voice paging system that we 

can combine if we took roam secure, which is as good as if not better than the other ones we looked at. We could keep all that data 

here so your data is secure, not with some other vendor, and send 

it out—we figured in one minute we could send out 10,000 text 

messages. That is awesome. That way, all staff can get any messages that we wanted to be sent out: evacuation, where to go, what 

to do. 

What this would entail is having someone in each office be responsible for getting to us or getting to whomever we decide will 

be the person that keeps all this information and gives it to the 

CAO so they put it in their system. One person in each office that 

would go to all the staff and Members and find out what—through 

which system do you want to be notified? Telephone, BlackBerry, 

et cetera. 

This also can have a telephone capability for some. It can 

have—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Cell phone, you mean? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes, ma’am. And we figured the cost—we do not 

have an idea, but taking what we have is a lot less expensive to 

consolidate all our tier, first and second tier, into one machine that 

we can type on. 

Right now, you have got to go to two or three, and that is a 

delay. You only have X number of officers up there. So one guy 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
536 

does the first one and goes to the second one and goes to the third. 

If we had this system, we could combine first and second tiers into 

one machine; and that would cost—we do not have a—approximately $400,000 to $500,000. Then we wanted—we can do a desk 

pop-up on your computer. It pops up; and it says, alert, emergency, 

or whatever your message is. But everything has a price. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. True. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. And that is $450,000. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But these are not things in your budget request. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. No, these are not in our budget request. 

And a cable TV scroll, which is your cable TV. The Senate is 

working on that; and it comes across and says, alert, whatever the 

message is. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. But we favor those very strongly. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much for your very 

thorough answer. 

Security and how we get people out of the building is incredibly 

important. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And consistency. If people do not 

know where to go—— 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Exactly. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing]. Then the system is 

worthless. 

Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LATHAM. You have not changed a bit in 14 years, Bill. 

CARBON OFFSETS

Mr. Beard, there was a Washington Post article earlier this year, 

generating a lot of concern that I have heard at home about the 

carbon trading issue. The CRS, in a report, had made two observations: one, that there are no commonly accepted standards for the 

market—and last year we spent what? $89,000? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes. 

Mr. LATHAM. And, two, that consumers should adopt a buyer beware mentality. 

You know, back to negotiations on Kyoto, people like Enron were 

the biggest proponents of carbon trading and this type of speculative market, actually. And there was a Dartmouth professor of environmental science who has said there is really no long-term benefit to it. 

I just wonder, with the kind of red flags that are out there, you 

want to increase the amount available for us to spend. Why would 

we want to put taxpayer dollars into a scheme like that when we 

are not sure about the variables? There is no way to verify that it 

does any good. We are on a tight budget. 

And the GAO I think was going to have a report on this, and 

they have not reported yet. But could you just explain? 

Mr. BEARD. Sure. I think the easiest way to think of carbon offset 

credits is it really is a license to pollute. Companies have undertaken activities where they have reduced the emission of carbon 

into the atmosphere; and, as a result, they go to a marketplace and 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
537 

they sell, if you will—if somebody does want to undertake an activity and build a plant and pollute, for example, put carbon into the 

atmosphere, they can purchase offset credits. 

What we did is purchase offset credits and then retire them. So, 

in essence, what we did is we made sure that a certain amount of 

carbon was not released into the atmosphere. We did this for—primarily because not only is it I think the right thing to do, but we 

want to try to achieve carbon neutrality with the operations of the 

House. 

By purchasing renewable power for all our electric needs, we reduced our carbon footprint a certain amount. By buying natural 

gas for the Capitol power plant, we reduced it more. But, frankly, 

we were at a point where we could not in this year do any more 

to reduce our carbon footprint. 

And the logical thing for large companies, state governments and 

other institutions is to go to the Chicago Climate Exchange. This 

committee had report language where they requested us to do that. 

The authorizing committee approved our approach. We went ahead 

and did it, purchased those credits; and they are with us for this 

year, anyway. 

Are we going to do it again? I do not know. Given the kind of 

controversy that it created, I am going to do everything I can to 

try to avoid doing it again. But I cannot say that we will not. I just 

do not know what our carbon footprint is going to look like next 

year. 

You know, there is no shortage of people looking over my shoulder on this particular issue: the Inspector General, GAO, the authorizing committees, the appropriations committees and individual 

Members who have views on the subject, both pro and con. So it 

is like a lot of things around here. I think it did generate some controversy. But to be perfectly frank with you, it is a new market. 

It may have problems associated with it, but it is the best market 

we have got. And if we are going to reach carbon neutrality in our 

operations, it is the one thing that we have to be able to do. 

Mr. LATHAM. Just one part of—— 

Mr. BEARD. Sure. 

Mr. LATHAM [continuing]. What that purchase was last year, supposedly, it was to give some farmers some money in North Dakota. 

And I do not know if you are aware, but these farmers were doing 

basic tillage practices, been common for 20 years. 

Maybe you are not also aware of the fact that any kind of conservation, if they are enrolled in the government program, they are 

paid through the Farm Bill to do exactly what they are already 

doing. So they are, in essence, getting a check under the Farm Bill 

for doing this and then also getting paid on top of it for doing nothing else. 

So as far as any kind of net benefit—some people called it indulgences, basically, that you are paying for the sin. I just have real 

concern. I do not know, are you aware that they probably got paid 

twice from the government on this to do exactly—— 

Mr. BEARD. No, I am not aware—— 

Mr. LATHAM [continuing]. What were common practices? 

Mr. BEARD. It is a no-till activity. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
538 

Mr. LATHAM. I am a farmer. That is common practice for the last 

20 years. They are not doing anything extraordinary at all. They 

are being paid already by the government for the same thing. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The gentleman has gone beyond his 

time. 

Mr. LATHAM. In more ways than one. 

Mr. BEARD. Okay. 

Mr. LATHAM. I have real concerns with it, especially when people 

like Enron were pushing it. 

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

Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. Madam Chair, I think I have just got one more suggestion since I have got this opportunity and then— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are brimming with suggestions 

today, Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you. 

HISTORICAL SIGNAGE IN MEMBERS’ OFFICES

Well, the suggestion is this. I tried this with your predecessor, 

Mr. Beard, so I am going to try it now with you. This place is so 

full of history; and it seems to me, as our friends over on the Senate do—not that the House ever really wants to be led by the Senate, but it seems to me it would be very easy for us to mark the 

offices in the office buildings of the former Members who went on 

to become Presidents. 

Five of the last nine Presidents have been former Members of 

Congress; and I think when you have people in these office buildings who may not come over to the Capitol or to the CVC, it would 

be a chance for them to see a part of history, even if they can not 

experience it personally. 

Just a suggestion. 

Mr. BEARD. Can I respond to that? 

Mr. BONNER. Absolutely. 

Mr. BEARD. The Architect of the Capitol does have a group which 

oversees, you know, the history of each room; and by consulting 

with them I think you can get a general idea. The problem is that 

from—prior to 1908, there was no office building. Everybody was 

in the Capitol. So in the Cannon Building, when they opened that 

up in 1908, from 1908 to 1933 everybody had just one office. Now 

they have three. So you will have multiple people in there, and it 

is somewhat difficult. 

When they opened Longworth, everybody had two suites, not one; 

and so it is kind of difficult for them. 

But the Architect of the Capitol does have a group that has a history of each of the offices. And I know that former Congressman 

Pritchard of Seattle tried to undertake this activity once he left the 

House as sort of a duty, and I do not know how far he got with 

it. I think it is certainly informative to the Members, as you are 

in your office, that you could say, you know, a former President or 

whatever was here at one time. So I think it is useful to do. 

HALLWAY POLICY

Mr. BONNER. Okay. And then the question—and this has been a 

debate. I guess this process started when the Republicans were in 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
539 

the majority, and it has continued now that the Democrats are in 

the majority. But earlier this week I saw a gentleman walk into 

one of these poster boards that is out in the hallways. And I am 

not pretending to speak for the committee here, but just for my 

own personal opinion. There is a security issue here. There is certainly a health issue here. 

And not weighing in, since both sides—both parties have organizations that have poster boards talking about the debt and the tax 

increases and things like that, I would just ask you as CAO and 

also as Sergeant at Arms, are there health concerns and—I mean, 

not mentioning the clutter aspect of it, but are there health or security concerns that Members should consider when we think about 

whether we are going to put some poster board in front of our 

doors? 

Mr. BEARD. I think absolutely, without a doubt. Just 2 weeks 

ago, for example, a large delegation of blind people were here on 

campus; and to watch them try to work their way down the third 

floor of the Longworth Building would have been a pretty gruesome 

sight. 

The Speaker is getting ready to issue a hall policy. And it has 

been complicated. The original policy was put together by the previous Speaker, and there have been stops and starts to this. But 

I think we have now reached the point where we have to implement this from a safety standpoint. And especially if something— 

if we have a fire and there is a real emergency, those things will 

fall down, people will trip over them and, you know, it is usually— 

it is never the fire that gets you, it is the smoke or being trampled 

that is really the difficulty. 

So I jumped in. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. And from the security standpoint, strictly an 

evacuation, to stop and think when you have got a mass of people 

in the buildings, like today, when there is so many visitors, you are 

going to be hitting those things, walking down the hall tripping on 

them. They should not be there. 

Mr. BONNER. I look forward to the Speaker’s policy. As someone 

who was concerned when they moved the Coke machines out of the 

basement of Cannon because of possible obstruction, it just seems 

to me that was in a very narrowly defined area that only a few people knew where to go get a soft drink. These are in every hallway 

in the complex. And, again, if it is treated where both sides are 

treated equally on that, I do not know who can really complain 

about it. 

Ms. MILLER. Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. MILLER. Can I add to that? 

Having processed rooms for two previous Speakers, that is one 

of the largest problems we had. My job was to make sure that 

there were no obstructions like that in the hallway. But you know 

what the biggest problem was? The Members. 

Mr. BONNER. The Members. 

Ms. MILLER. The Members just insisted on doing it. And the 

more I would walk up and say, Congressman, you have an obstruction in the hall, they would say, I am a Member, you are a staffer. 

So—— 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
540 

Mr. BONNER. Madam Clerk, are you suggesting there is arrogance among Members? 

Ms. MILLER. I would never suggest that. Just making an observation. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

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

GREENING OF THE CAPITOL DISCUSSION CONTINUED

I do want to point out that on the Greening of the Capitol Initiative the amendment that requested the carbon offsets was sponsored by Congressman Kirk. This was a bipartisan initiative, actually, an initiative by Congressman Kirk himself. So it just needs 

to be clearly understood where that initiative came from. 

And my understanding—I know, Mr. Beard, you indicated that 

you were going to try to avoid carbon offsets. From the information 

I have, it does not appear that you are likely to need them this 

year from your proposal that is before us now. 

But the whole idea of the Greening of the Capitol Initiative, let’s 

remind everyone, is so that we can set an example and begin to address the issue of global warming and climate change. And if not 

us, then who? And so to that end, with that goal in mind, how close 

are we to the goal of a carbon-neutral House? 

Mr. BEARD. We will achieve it by the date of the end of the 110th 

Congress. 

The difficulty I have run into is this committee added some 

money for purchase of renewable electric power through the Architect of the Capitol. They decided to run an RFP for that. That RFP 

has been challenged, and so that is held up at the present time. 

The natural gas purchases are going forward. So once we get over 

the protest to the bid of the Architect, we will achieve our goal. I 

fully expect that we will do it early. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is wonderful. How much energy 

do you estimate we will have saved by the end of this Congress due 

to the Greening Initiative? 

Mr. BEARD. I would hesitate to guess at this point, but I can provide you something for the record. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That would be great. Because I imagine it would be quite a bit. 

[The information follows:] 

QUESTIONS FROM THE HEARING FROM MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, CHAIR

Question. How much energy do you estimate will have been saved by the end of 

this Congress due to the Greening Initiative? 

Response. We intend to have our consultants do an energy consumption audit 

once all major initiatives have been in place for six months, so as to accurately reflect the reduction in energy. 

At the current time, we have six of the energy savings activities either currently 

under way or planned for the House in calendar year 2008; they are: (1) Lighting 

retrofits; (2) Steam pressure reduction in the distribution lines; (3) Vending machine 

replacement; (4) Activation of variable speed drive function on air handler motors; 

(5) Improved scheduling for operation for HVAC equipment; and, (6) Duct sealing. 

The only one for which we have estimates of energy savings is the lighting retrofits which we estimate will save 2.4 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
541 

HISTORICAL SIGNAGE DISCUSSION CONTINUED

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In addition, although I know Mr. 

Bonner had to depart, we did have report language in our bill last 

year relating to historical signage in Members’ offices so that when 

our constituents would come—and also for the Members’ own edification that that process is under way. I think we had some study 

language in the bill so that we could make sure that, if Members 

wanted to, they could post a placard in their office so that you 

would know what the history was in the office that you were 

housed in. 

I have completed the questions that I have. 

CARBON OFFSETS DISCUSSION CONTINUED

Mr. LATHAM. As far as the carbon offset thing, the Kirk stuff was 

report language. It was not bill language but encouraging you to 

look at potential purchases like that. 

I know my folks at home would be much more comfortable if we 

actually spent money on things that we know will actually reduce 

the carbon footprint here, rather than a very speculative scheme 

that there is a lot of question on from environmentalists, from commodity people who look at this market as very questionable, and 

as far as being able to verify any benefits. 

So that is my concern. I appreciate it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am sure that, Mr. Beard, you will 

use your best judgment. But the overall goal is to eventually reach 

a carbon-neutral House—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Right. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing]. And we need to make 

sure that we have all the tools that can help us accomplish that 

available to us. 

CHAIR’S ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT

As we have heard today, the House of Representatives’ request 

includes $19 million in new or expanded benefits for House employees. I am interested in the proposals and would like some additional detail. As Ms. Lee said, taking care of our employees—and 

I know, Mr. Beard, that that has been a really important goal of 

yours. Since the first minute I met you, you have been talking to 

me about expanding the benefits for House employees. 

Mr. BEARD. Especially all those smiling people behind you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is a big recruitment and retention 

issue. We all suffer the worry of losing one of our staffers to a 

much more lucrative position, and anything we can do—and benefits really the only way that we have to entice people to work for 

us and to keep them here. In addition to the, you know, fabulous 

environment that they get to work in. 

But, also, the notion of public service, because we have so 

many—the vast majority of our employees are here because they 

have big hearts, and they want to give back to their country. But 

they also have to eat, and they have to take their kids to the doctor. 

Mr. BEARD. Well, and the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 

Obey, has, you know, spoken out on this issue a number of times 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
542 

and has made it very clear that he did not feel it was appropriate 

for us to request benefits beyond that that were currently received 

by the executive branch. And I agree with that, and that is why 

we have tried to narrow our request down to make sure that we 

bring ourselves up—our employees up to parity with the executive 

branch. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So, with that in mind, if you could 

submit a report—the CAO could submit a report by next Thursday, 

March 20th, that discusses each of the proposed benefit increases 

in terms of how widely available those benefits are to other Federal 

employees, how the benefit levels requested compare to the benefit 

levels offered by other agencies, and how each of these requested 

benefits will function and be managed—for example, will they be 

managed centrally by you or will they be handled out of the Member’s office or a combination of those? 

But I think if we can send a message out of this 2009 legislation 

coming from this committee it is that we care very much about recruitment and retention of our very high-quality employees. 

So, with that, the subcommittee stands in recess until April 9th 

at 1 p.m., when we will hear from the Capitol Police about their 

budget. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
543 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1025 here 41290D.046
544 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1026 here 41290D.047
545 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1027 here 41290D.048
546 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1028 here 41290D.049
547 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1029 here 41290D.050
548 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1030 here 41290D.051
549 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1031 here 41290D.052
550 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1032 here 41290D.053
551 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1033 here 41290D.054
552 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1034 here 41290D.055
553 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1035 here 41290D.056
554 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1036 here 41290D.057
555 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1037 here 41290D.058
556 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1038 here 41290D.059
557 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1039 here 41290D.060
558 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1040 here 41290D.061
559 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1041 here 41290D.062
560 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1042 here 41290D.063
561 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1043 here 41290D.064
562 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1044 here 41290D.065
563 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1045 here 41290D.066
564 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1046 here 41290D.067
565 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1047 here 41290D.068
566 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1048 here 41290D.069
567 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1049 here 41290D.070
568 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1050 here 41290D.071
569 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1051 here 41290D.072
570 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1052 here 41290D.073
571 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1053 here 41290D.074
572 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1054 here 41290D.075
573 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1055 here 41290D.076
574 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1056 here 41290D.077
575 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1057 here 41290D.078
576 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1058 here 41290D.079
577 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1059 here 41290D.080
578 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1060 here 41290D.081
(579) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2008.

U.S. CAPITOL POLICE 

WITNESSES 

PHILLIP D. MORSE, SR., CHIEF OF POLICE 

DANIEL NICHOLS, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE 

GLORIA JARMON, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 

CARL W. HOECKER, CPA, CFE, INSPECTOR GENERAL 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would like to call this hearing of the 

Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations to order. This afternoon we will hear from Chief Morse, Assistant Chief Nichols, and Ms. Jarmon—what is your official title? 

Ms. JARMON. Chief Administrative Officer. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing]. The new Chief Administrative Officer of the Capitol Police on their fiscal year 2009 request. The Department is asking for $334 million next fiscal year, 

which is an 18 percent, or $52 million, increase over last year. 

The increase includes $7 million to implement the Library of 

Congress Police merger, $8 million to secure the Capitol Visitor 

Center, and $3 million for the Presidential Inauguration. 

We are so appreciative of the work of the Capitol Police. And 

Chief Morse and Chief Nichols, I have to tell you, I have really 

been impressed by your leadership of this department and your 

commitment to really focusing on drilling down into the problems 

that administratively the Department has faced, and tackling them 

head on and acknowledging them, and being proactive to get those 

addressed—as evidenced by your excellent hire in Ms. Jarmon. 

I know how much you have to take on, but an 18 percent increase is going to be pretty difficult. Mr. Latham and I at every 

agency hearing so far have talked about how we have a lot of needs 

that we are facing, but not a lot of money. And so we are going 

to want to hear from you, as I discussed with you yesterday, what 

your ‘‘got-to-haves’’ are, the highest priorities the Department is 

facing. And I am looking forward to your testimony. 

With that, Mr. Latham. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chief, I also want to welcome you and Deputy Chief Nichols and 

tell you how much we appreciate your service and the job that you 

and your officers do for us here. We recognize your work is not 

easy, and we appreciate the resource needs that you have. 

Also I want to welcome Gloria Jarmon and congratulate her in 

her new job as Chief Administrative Officer with the Capitol Police. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
580 

At the outset one of my main concerns with the operations is the 

importance of a sound, reliable communications system, which I 

know you don’t have right now. And as your written statement put 

it, you are on the cutting edge of operational failure. I know there 

have been some recent instances in which communication glitches 

have manifested themselves. 

We cannot have a security system where that type of situation 

exists. On the other hand, you have a mandate to produce a report 

on the radio modernization that, as we all know, is overdue. 

I don’t want a situation where we are kicking the modernization 

issue down the road while we nickel and dime such a critical need. 

But I do want to know if you see a clear path to getting the communications problem solved, because I agree with you the radio 

modernization is critical; and it is critical now. 

And, Madam Chairwoman, I think it would be worthwhile for us 

to possibly have a separate meeting with the Chief where we can 

discuss that issue, and maybe have some of the dimensions aired 

out, but not in a public forum. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would be happy to do that. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Lewis, do you have anything? 

Mr. LEWIS. I am just awaiting your lead. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

With that, Chief Morse, your full statement will be entered into 

the record and you are welcome to summarize your remarks in 5 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT—CHIEF MORSE

Chief MORSE. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and members of the 

subcommittee. Once again I would like to thank you for the opportunity to come here and discuss the Capitol Police’s fiscal year 2009 

budget request, as well as update you on the progress to improve 

the management and control of our programs. 

I am also pleased to be joined here today by Assistant Chief Dan 

Nichols to my left and Ms. Jarmon, our Chief Administrative Officer, here to my right. And Ms. Jarmon’s addition to our Department and her background and expertise provide the Department 

with a well-rounded leadership team that is necessary to complete 

our efforts and become a premier organization, both administratively and operationally. 

I would also like to thank the committee for its continued support of the men and women of the Capitol Police. Your support, as 

well as the support of our oversight committees, is crucial to the 

successful execution of our mission. 

During my time as Chief, we have begun an important process 

of change, one which requires inspection, investigation, intelligence, enforcement, threat assessment, and personal protective 

capabilities that are able to meet our security requirements. To 

better address this dynamic environment in our fiscal year 2009 

budget, our executive management team personally participated in 

determining the resources required to execute the evolving mission 

of the Capitol Police. 

I recognize that our requested increase is significant, but I believe that it is an important reflection of sound judgment on the 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
581 

part of those responsible for executing the mission of the Department. We felt it was important to present the Congress the resource requirements that, in our best judgment, are needed to optimally execute our mission. 

We realize that our request must be put into a broader context 

within which final allocation decisions will be made. Whatever 

those decisions are, we remain committed to continuing the highest 

possible level of security and service provided to the Congress and 

the visitors to the Capitol Complex. 

I would also like to report that we have been very busy this year, 

and I wanted to give you some highlights of our actions. We have 

conducted a broad scope of law enforcement security operations 

throughout the Capitol Complex which—we have done over 1,100 

arrests for various violations this past year. We have handled multiple major special events to include the State of the Union, Capitol 

Concert Series, large-scale demonstration and congressional events. 

We adopted a concept similar to community policing, which provides direct outreach by Capitol Police officers and officials to the 

committee members and offices within the congressional community. 

We also implemented new security screening guidelines throughout the Capitol Complex. We planned, coordinated and evaluated 

a number of exercises within the Capitol related to air evacuations, 

lockdowns, active shooter—which simulates a person with a weapon within the Capitol structure. We finalized our continuity of operations plan and we implemented a process to review an enhancement of the plan to meet evolving threats and requirements. And 

we conducted multiple training exercises across the Capitol campus 

to improve readiness for our sworn personnel in the field. 

In the administrative arena, we brought on board a new Chief 

Administrative Officer, and I am looking forward to her implementing significant improvements in our administrative and internal controls process. In last year’s report the committee expressed 

some concerns related to the Department’s efforts to address the 

GAO and recommendations, and today I am happy to report that 

since October 2007, we have closed 25 percent of the GAO and Inspector General recommendations and findings and we are actively 

working to address the rest of them. 

We developed a full set of financial statements for fiscal year 

2007 and are actively working on our statement for 2008. We completed our full inventory of capital assets and assigned values to 

these assets. 

We redesigned our budget planning and execution process, formalizing the Department’s Investment Review Board. And at the 

direction of the committees of jurisdiction, we completed the operational and administrative requirements related to the Library of 

Congress Police merger, and that resulted in the passage of legislation. 

We revised the uniform and equipment policy of the Capitol Police that will result in uniformity in appearance and overall cost 

savings. 

While we recognize that we have made progress over the last 

year, we also realize we have a long way to go to meet the challenges that lie ahead. And in closing I would like to say that I am 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
582 

looking forward to continuing my efforts as Chief of the Capitol Police to make it a best-practices organization. 

The progress we have made in the last year demonstrates the 

commitment and hard work of our employees in the Department. 

And I want to recognize the fact that in many ways we are addressing and correcting processes and programs and the culture 

that have been present for a long time. 

So, at this time, I would like to thank you once again for the opportunity to be here before you; and myself and my colleagues are 

open to any questions you may have. 

[Chief Morse’s prepared statement follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
583 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1069 here 41290D.082
584 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1070 here 41290D.083
585 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1071 here 41290D.084
586 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1072 here 41290D.085
587 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1073 here 41290D.086
588 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1074 here 41290D.087
589 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1075 here 41290D.088
590 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1076 here 41290D.089
591 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1077 here 41290D.090
592 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1078 here 41290D.091
593 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1079 here 41290D.092
594 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1080 here 41290D.093
595 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1081 here 41290D.094
596 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1082 here 41290D.095
597 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1083 here 41290D.096
598 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1084 here 41290D.097
599 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1085 here 41290D.098
600 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1086 here 41290D.099
601 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1087 here 41290D.100
602 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1088 here 41290D.101
603 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1089 here 41290D.102
604 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much, Chief Morse. And 

again, we just can’t thank you enough for what a wonderful job the 

Department does in protecting not just the Members of Congress, 

but our visitors and tourists and guests that come to the complex 

every year. 

I want to open by talking about your financial management system and congratulate you—my understanding, correct me if I am 

wrong, is that this is the first time in the Capitol Police’s history 

that you actually have conducted a full inventory and that you 

have a complete set of financial statements; is that right? 

Chief MORSE. That is correct. 

RADIO SYSTEM

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. One of the concerns that we had on 

the radio system, when Mr. Wamp was still the ranking member, 

was that until you actually had the ability to know what you had 

and had the ability to conduct a full inventory, moving forward aggressively with the radio system was—we decided to slow that 

down because we needed to make sure we were being fiscally responsible, that you had to first know what you have before you 

purchase more. 

We did appropriate $10 million. We had had 15, but we pulled 

the other 5 million back because you weren’t ready to expend that. 

Where are you in terms of developing the radio system? And how 

much of the 10 million that you have already been appropriated 

has been obligated or spent? 

Chief MORSE. Where we are right now, we have completed the 

concept and design of the system itself and the costing of the system, and we are prepared to present that. We have an April 16th 

date with the Capitol Police Board to present that. 

I do want to say, as Mr. Latham mentioned, we are behind 

schedule on that; and I will take responsibility for that. This is obviously a significant investment for the Police Department and 

Congress, and it has to be absolutely right. And my goal was to 

have this sooner, but as we looked at this system, we found that 

it was more complicated. 

We have a 25-year-old system, which we also found is supported 

by 25-year-old infrastructure and wiring and such. Facilities are a 

large part of this and were a part of the design and costing, so my 

expectation for December was not met. 

But I think it is important to note that because of its significant 

value to our operation and investment that it is—I wanted to make 

sure that everything was covered from A to Z, that all questions 

and possibilities are covered in this report so that we don’t have 

to keep going back and continuing studies and such. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You have not requested additional 

funds for the radio system this fiscal year, correct? 

Chief MORSE. I have not. 

Your second question was, had we expended any of the 10 million; and we have not. In order to do so, we had to bring forth a 

proposal, a design, and a costing. And we also had to show that we 

were fiscally responsible, that we are changing the way that we 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
605 

manage our operations, and show the Congress that we can manage a project of this magnitude. 

GETTING FINANCIAL OPERATIONS ON TRACK

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. If you recall, we went over 

the financial management issues in great detail last year at this 

same hearing, and you were at the point where you literally had 

only been the Chief for—both of you had only been in office for a 

few months; but at that point, the GAO had described the Office 

of Financial Management as being in constant crisis mode, which 

is one of the main reasons I know you brought Ms. Jarmon on. 

Can you give us an idea of the steps that you have taken to get 

the Department’s financial operations back on track? I think restoration of the congressional community’s confidence is really important in that regard. 

Chief MORSE. Well, we had obviously a lot of professional recommendations that had not been carried out, so it was important 

for us to start with that. Part of our closure of GAO and IG recommendations were a closure of recommendations in the Office of 

Financial Management; and we were able to close eight of those. 

To restore order within that particular organization took the 

need to have the right policies and procedures and the right people 

in place, so we started at the top. And Ms. Jarmon not only gives 

us the knowledge, skills, and abilities in the areas of office administration that meet the criteria for her job, but she is also a CPA, 

which gives her abilities in financial management to be very significant. 

Also, during the last year, we have been able to go back and look 

at the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the people in positions that 

work within that office to ensure that they are at the level that 

they should be to handle the responsibility. So with that effort, and 

also getting statements completed, getting inventory and assets 

management completed, made the job much easier. It brings some 

degree of order to what it is that we are doing. That information 

we did not have in the past and we do now. So it makes the process 

much smoother. 

We also had to build a system—I mentioned earlier that we built 

a system for being able to build a budget, a validated and justified 

budget. And we looked at, bringing our internal controls, our investment review board, our executive management team, all of 

those people coming together and working together with the information and providing you with a substantive and justified budget. 

So all of those things combined make for a much stronger Office 

of Financial Management and certainly gives a good representation 

of the Department and, hopefully, more confidence in us. 

Ms. JARMON. Can I add a little? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sure. 

Ms. JARMON. I just wanted to mention, like Chief Morse said, we 

did prepare the full set of financial statements for the first time, 

and our auditors had a disclaimer in those statements which is not 

unusual for an agency for the first time ever preparing financial 

statements. It was our goal to move in the direction of a clean opinion. It is a work in progress. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
606 

TIMELINE FOR A CLEAN AUDIT

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My time has expired, but do you know 

what is your time line for a clean audit? 

Ms. JARMON. By 2010. We plan to show improvement each year, 

less material weaknesses, and to move forward to a clean opinion 

by 2010. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Latham. 

IMPACT OF A CONTINUING RESOLUTION

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. As the chairman knows, I ask this 

every hearing—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I warned them. 

Mr. LATHAM. We visited, too. 

There is the real possibility, certainly with the statements made 

over in the Senate, that we will be in a continuing resolution potentially up to February or March of next year. I would like to 

know what impact you see that having on your operations, and 

also, if you have put any thought into planning for that contingency. 

Chief MORSE. Yes, Gloria and her staff have been preparing an 

impact statement in the event that we are under a CR. But I think 

as we look at what we have proposed for 2009, if you look at the 

things which—in our terminology, some of the uncontrollables, 

some of the things that we are facilitating—would be impacted. For 

instance, CVC operations, the Inauguration, and those things that 

are a part of our increase. 

And then you have your general expenses and salary, of course, 

that are affected by that within the organization. So hiring would 

be affected. We would only be able to fill attrition; we wouldn’t be 

able to advance the Police Department, we would just maintain the 

Police Department. So I think the biggest impacts are some of the 

increases that you see here in the 18 percent that we would consider the uncontrollable increases to us. 

Mr. LATHAM. Like the Inauguration and those? 

Chief MORSE. Inauguration, the CVC opening, those types of 

things. 

INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. 

Both in your written testimony and your budget justifications 

there is reference to the recent manpower study as identifying an 

increased need for intelligence capabilities. And you say that represents the first step in a long-term process. Can you give us a reasonably accurate description of what the needs are? 

I believe you are requesting 16 full-time equivalents in 2009, and 

this is just one step. Can you give us an idea about what you expect in step 2, step 3, step 4 so that we can have an idea? 

Chief MORSE. Sure. With the intelligence capability currently, we 

run sort of a 5-day-a-week, 8-hour-type operation, special events directly related. We need the capability of running an intelligence 

collection analysis, dissemination of that information on a 24-hour, 

7-day-a-week basis. We do obviously have connectivity with our 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
607 

partners in the Intelligence Community, but this helps us also increase that connectivity with them to have liaison officers with 

them. 

The one key point in our business case regarding intelligence 

gathering analysis and dissemination is that we are relying on 

other agencies to provide information, so we are receiving and then 

disseminating that information. But without the capability to collect information here, to be able to analyze that information, connect the dots with the national intelligence, we lack that capability 

with a legislative branch perspective. So that is where we would 

like to go. 

This business case sets the foundation for sort of piloting this before we are to move on or begin staffing that at any higher levels. 

This will give us a baseline of what we need for the future. 

OVERTIME MANAGEMENT

Mr. LATHAM. You have made the management of overtime a 

focus, providing efficiencies to the Department. Can you tell us 

about what you have done to streamline the use of overtime? I 

think you are requesting 30.5 million for overtime in fiscal year 

2009, which is a major increase over 22.5 last year. Can you explain that a little more in detail? 

Chief MORSE. Sure, with respect to savings, one of the things 

that was passed to the Assistant Chief was to find ways to be more 

efficient in our operations. That includes the deployment of officers’ 

time and attendance, waste, fraud and abuse, internal controls related to that, any technology that we could use to enhance our security systems and not have to use officers for those types of 

things. We put all of those things together to have a package that 

would give us more economy of force, which resulted in a savings 

of overtime. 

To give you one example, one of our analyses that we did was 

taking a look at hours of operation in session, out of session, with 

regards to the opening of doors. We were able to adjust those hours 

in consultation with our stakeholders, which provided a savings 

during out of session periods. 

We were able to do an analysis of where we were spending the 

most overtime and we were able to devise a system that allowed 

us to deploy our officers differently. We call it ‘‘load leveling’’ where 

we were able to redeploy officers and divisions that allowed us to 

significantly reduce overtime—in other words, putting the officers 

where the mission was taking place. And then, of course, the direction is mission directed only. And with those things we were able 

to save a great deal of money. The schedule of Congress was less 

than we expected. 

Demonstrations are always an unexpected, and for a while we 

were dealing with those every day; to a certain degree those have 

stopped on a daily basis. 

Mr. LATHAM. In your request you have a 42 percent increase for 

next year’s schedule. Why is that? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Your time is well expired, but if you 

want to answer the question, that is fine. 

Chief MORSE. The increase has to do with opening of the CVC, 

as an example. We have training that we need to do for that in adVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:24 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 041290 PO 00000 Frm 00607 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\41290P2.XXX 41290P2

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
608 

vance of the opening. We have the Library of Congress merger, 

which we have to have backfill overtime. We have Inauguration 

training, rehearsal, et cetera, that we have to use overtime for. And 

the other types of overtime are associated with routine post assignments and mission site, and the difference is—either filling those 

positions with FTE or paying overtime is the difference. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome, Mr. Latham. 

Mr. LaHood. 

CLOSED DOOR MEETING

Mr. LAHOOD. Are we planning to have a session with these folks 

just to talk about issues that we don’t want to talk about publicly? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. A closed session? There wasn’t one in 

the plans, but we can certainly have one if you would like to have 

a closed session. 

Mr. LAHOOD. I would, because I think there are some things that 

we maybe should—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sure, we can set that up. That is fine. 

NEW HEADQUARTERS

Mr. LAHOOD. You know, I read in one of the Capitol Hill newspapers about the idea of a new police headquarters. Can you talk 

about that? 

Chief MORSE. Yes, I believe that particular article came from a 

Transportation and Infrastructure hearing that I attended, and I 

was asked by the chairwoman if—actually, I was given advice that 

with the property around the existing Capitol campus going away 

pretty quickly that if we were in need of a Capitol Police headquarters, we should begin looking for that very quickly. 

We obviously have reached our capacity as far as facilities are related; and we work constantly with the AOC, the Architect of the 

Capitol, to relay our needs with respect to that. We haven’t been 

asking for significant increases of personnel, and so obviously we 

trimmed it back from within to get police officers on the street deployment-wise to work most efficiently. But, you know, a Capitol 

Police headquarters or facilities are a need; they will become a 

need as the agency grows because we have reached our capacity. 

So that is something that is on the radar screen. 

But—I haven’t put any proposals together yet or made any recommendations, but it is certainly something that has to be looked 

at. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Nothing in the works as far as the Architect’s Office is concerned, like drawing up plans? 

Chief MORSE. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And you have not asked them to do that? 

Chief MORSE. I have not. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Is that how it would start? 

Chief MORSE. That is how it would start. I believe there have 

been a number of plans in the past, facility plans, et cetera. We did 

direct that our Office of Facilities and Logistics collect all of those 

documents and proposals of the past and put them together so that 

we would have some sort of idea of what has been recommended 

in the past. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
609 

But I have nothing current, actively going on. But in order to 

start that, that would be the start of that process. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome. 

Mr. Bonner. 

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER FTES

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am the rookie. I guess 

you have rookies on the police force; I am the rookie on the committee. So let me ask a couple of quick questions since I was not 

here last year. 

You discussed the radio system then. I think you have addressed 

the questions already on that. But one that consistently comes up 

whenever we have visitors is about the CVC. Does your current 

force have adequate resources in terms of manpower to be able to 

deal with the new visitors center? 

Chief MORSE. The Congress had been very generous in assisting 

us with the FTE to provide for the opening of the CVC in fiscal 

year 2006; 45 additional FTEs were hired for that purpose. There 

is also—with closure of certain screening facilities, exterior screening facilities of the Capitol now that will be taken up by the CVC 

itself, there is an input of officers into that. 

We have also requested in our fiscal year 2009 budget some support FTE for the CVC; and in the event that certain assumptions 

are not met regarding post-opening, that would not be in the original plans. And also the new Visitors’ Experience for the Library of 

Congress. 

So those are what those FTE increases are for. 

But we are, from an emergency planning standpoint, emergency 

preparedness standpoint and special operating procedures, ready to 

open. And with the exception of these FTEs that we are asking for, 

we are prepared to open in November of 2008. 

STAFF ENTRY

Mr. BONNER. Let me shift gears quickly. 

Last month, I had the opportunity to ask the Sergeant at Arms 

what congressional staffers need to do to be successfully admitted 

to bypass a long line of visitors in spring and summer tourist season. Lots of people here, and we welcome them; this is their building, after all. But we also have members of our staff that are trying 

to get in the building to do the people’s work along with us. And 

I was led to believe by the Sergeant at Arms that staff with House 

ID could bypass a lot of this front of the line at the metal detectors. 

But my own staff was not able to do that today when they tried. 

Is there a universal policy that the thousands of staffers could 

have that would allow them to know what they could do to get into 

the building to do the work? 

And secondly, I will ask you the same question I asked the Sergeant at Arms. Is it not feasible—I was a staffer for 18 years along 

with Mr. LaHood. It seems to me we have got thousands of staffers 

who come into the building every day through the parking garage 

without going through the metal detectors and you have other 

staffers who, for whatever reason—they live on the Hill or whatVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:24 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 041290 PO 00000 Frm 00609 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\41290P2.XXX 41290P2

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
610 

ever reason—have to stand in a long line sometimes in inclement 

weather to get in. 

Is there not some way to have a staff entrance so that the staff 

do not have to stand in long lines to get into the offices where they 

work? 

Chief MORSE. Well, with respect to the Sergeant at Arms’ comment about a universal policy for staff, I believe that was something that was piloted for a while, but not as an everyday thing. 

It was piloted for some time. 

With respect to the CVC, there were many discussions within the 

working groups of having an expedited line open for staff entering 

the CVC, because they would be there to greet, on behalf of the 

Members and such, the constituents. 

As far as having a separate line, we do have staff doors specifically. But with such large crowds that we have, we facilitate that 

by trying to measure if there is a long line if we can move constituents to other doors so that the business of Congress can carry on 

and the constituents can see their Members. 

Were there any other options or plans that you were aware of? 

Assistant Chief NICHOLS. We have actually done a number of 

studies looking that that issue. As you say, the work of Congress 

has to proceed regardless of the visitor load, and we are trying to 

balance both issues. 

One of the recommendations that was in a recent staffing study 

that we conducted was actually designating staff-only doors. That 

helps us with staff, and that is something we need to formalize and 

then move forward to the committees through the board members, 

if they think that is a viable option to pursue. 

Mr. BONNER. Do I have time for one more quick question? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Kind of. 

CANNON TUNNEL VISITORS DESK

Mr. BONNER. Is there any consideration to putting a visitor’s 

desk in the Cannon tunnel? Because currently visitors who are in 

the office building trying to get to the Capitol to process expeditiously have to go to the Rayburn desk. Is that just a matter of 

funding? 

Chief MORSE. The visitors’ greeting position there is—I believe is 

through the Sergeant at Arms’ offices. 

Mr. BONNER. I will ask him that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Bonner, we are going to have 

Chief Morse at the CVC hearing next week and we can ask him 

for detailed, CVC-related questions next week. 

Chief MORSE. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome, I know you are excited. 

Mr. Lewis. 

CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS OF DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. LEWIS. Chief, as you may or may not know, I have had a 

long history of working with the inspectors general. When I chaired 

the subcommittee on VA–HUD, the inspector general there received a special allocation of funding because of problems related 

to people’s money being appropriated for Section 8 kinds of housing 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
611 

and the money never getting to the local level. She did a fabulous 

job in helping us develop the housing fraud initiative. 

I had another line of questioning, but an item has come up regarding the inspector general that concerns me a lot and I hope 

you will be patient with me. It won’t be too long. 

The Capitol Police Inspector General, Carl Hoecker, has conducted Criminal Interstate Identification Index checks on all Capitol Police employees, sworn and civilian, roughly 2,000 individuals. 

This was done using the Washington Area Law Enforcement System, WALES, owned by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. 

These criminal background investigations were conducted beginning in December of 2007 and completed in February of 2008. 

Names and dates of birth of employees were entered into the system. 

So a series of concerns here: There is no policy directive existing 

in the Department on conducting these investigations. 

Two, these investigations were conducted without the knowledge 

of the individuals. To date, employees have not been notified of this 

activity, and if I was one of your sworn officers, I would be really 

teed at not knowing. 

This raises serious violations of privacy and fourth amendment 

rights. It also violates the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Act with regard to bargaining unit employees, because it 

represents, quote, ‘‘a change in working conditions,’’ and it was 

done without any negotiations with these respective unions. 

The implications of the search being conducted by the inspector 

general implies or most likely will be perceived as a secret activity 

which may exacerbate the legal, political, public relations and organizational morale aspects as a result of these criminal background 

checks. 

Chief, I would like to have you tell us and the committee, and 

especially the chair, has this been done? And respond to these lines 

of question, if you would. 

Chief MORSE. Yes, sir, thank you. 

Yes, that has been done. With respect to Triple I checks on employees, we go back to 1997 and a directive from the Police Department. I believe it was the appropriations omnibus bill, 1997, 105th 

Congress, related to the Lautenberg Act, related to domestic violence among police officers. 

This Police Department in 1997, directed all employees to report 

if they had been arrested for domestic violence. And as I recall, as 

a young officer I had to submit my report of whether I had been 

arrested or not. 

Also within the organization there is a rules and conduct general 

order that states specifically the conduct of a police officer and 

what is expected of them both on duty and off duty. We also swear 

to an oath of office to protect the Constitution of the United States 

and also to enforce laws and to be compliant with those laws. 

So each officer receives that training, as well, at our Training 

Services Bureau. 

With respect to Triple I checks, a special operating procedure, 

signed June 1, 2005, in the Office of Professional Responsibility 

previous to my administration, clearly states that Triple I checks 

would be conducted on a yearly basis. Also what I found was that 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
612 

within the organization, obviously Triple I checks are conducted for 

background investigation of new employees or recruits or new hires 

on our civilian staff. 

I also know that within the organization there is a policy on Triple I checks for employees within the United States Capitol Police 

to have background investigations which includes a Triple I check 

for a security clearance—Secret, Top Secret and SCI. 

What I noticed was, we had several different policies and special 

operating procedures within the organization. I also know that the 

officers and employees are held at a higher level of integrity and 

character as law enforcement officers and enforcers of the law, so 

we needed to formalize that process within the organization. So in 

September of 2007 we directed the Office of Human Resources to 

begin formalizing the overall process so that we could protect the 

integrity and character of the Police Department and hold to our 

oath and directives and be compliant with those directives in our 

organization. So as a part of our repeatable business practices, 

those were the steps to take to go forward. 

The inspector general, Mr. Hoecker, knew that we were moving 

forward with that project and with his oversight of compliance with 

directives, he took on the task of running the Triple I checks for 

the employees of the Police Department so that we would have confidentiality and no bias. 

Mr. LEWIS. At your direction? 

Chief MORSE. In concert with the formalized process of the Police 

Department, to provide a baseline of clearing any questions to be 

presented in two phases to the Office of Human Resources so that 

they could complete their initiative and put a formalized process in 

place. And this would be mirrored—as do all other Federal law enforcement agencies, including the Metropolitan Police Department 

and U.S. Park Police, who do a 5-year review of all of their employees. 

So we were just instituting an initiative that has been a past 

practice in the organization, that there were several different special operating directives, special operating procedures that existed; 

and we were just bringing it together to complete that initiative. 

And that is where we are today. 

Mr. LEWIS. Madam Chairman, I am worried about all kinds of 

questions here that relate to individual rights as well as legal 

rights, et cetera. 

I don’t happen to be a lawyer, thank God, but did you get legal 

counsel regarding the procedures that you are using here? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Lewis, your time has expired by 

a couple of minutes. 

Mr. LEWIS. These are pretty important questions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And other Members have questions as 

well. And we will come back to you. 

Mr. LEWIS. This will probably be my last attendance at this subcommittee. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Also, when we have a closed session, 

we can address this. 

Mr. LEWIS. I hope the chairman will take this very seriously and 

follow through with it. There are civil rights questions here. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
613 

POLICY ON CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My understanding is that the officers 

and employees of the Capitol Police were aware of the background 

checks. I have a document that I would be happy to ask unanimous 

consent to enter into the record that was signed by the Chief and 

approved specifically that says: Interim reviews, conduct Interstate 

Identification Index checks every 2 years on all USCP employees 

to ensure that employees remain in good standing. That was dated 

September 5th of 2007, and it was signed by the Chief on September 21st of 2007. 

So unless I am wrong, Chief, did the employees of the Capitol Police, were they aware of the Triple I checks that were going to be 

instituted every 2 years? 

Chief MORSE. That particular—let me see what it is. 

This is in reference to the proposal that was made to me in September of 2007 which I sent back to the Office of Human Resources 

with an approval to proceed with this policy or with this initiative. 

At this point—and prior to it getting to me, the trail was Office 

of Human Resources, Chief Administrative Officer, Office of Employment Counsel, and then to me were the notes that were on the 

document. 

What I have since found out is that the point at which I approved this and sent it back to the Office of Human Resources was 

at the time that the Inspector General began the Triple I checks, 

which are—which had been something, like I said, that had been 

an SOP and directive of the Department prior to, so—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do employees—— 

Chief MORSE. There is an expectation, certainly. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I don’t mean to be—— 

Chief MORSE. I had a Triple I check accomplished on me when 

I became Chief of Police. 

EMPLOYEE AWARENESS OF CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If it is standard operating procedure, 

are all the employees of the Capitol Police aware that Triple I 

checks will be done every 2 years or on a fairly consistent basis? 

Chief MORSE. Capitol Police officers are aware that they are held 

to the highest standard of conduct. 

Mr. LEWIS. That wasn’t the question. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I assure you that I will hold him to 

answer the question. 

Chief MORSE. That they are held to the standards of conduct, 

that they are held to the oath of office. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Did they know that the background 

checks would be used? 

Chief MORSE. Specifically the tool that we use? No, we don’t necessarily tell anyone. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But is there an expectation that they 

know that these checks will be done periodically? 

Chief MORSE. Absolutely. We give orders so that people will be 

compliant. There is no other way to ensure compliance with the directive. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
614 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. This wouldn’t have come as a surprise 

to them? 

Chief MORSE. I cannot see it as coming as a surprise to anybody 

in law enforcement. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There has been a concern raised by 

the ranking member of the full committee. And I will develop a 

question, based on the follow-up, in the homework that we assign. 

Mr. LEWIS. I hope I may attend that closed session and I hope 

also in that closed session, if I am not able to be here, that you 

will pursue whether they sought legal counsel about the methods 

that are used here. I can see a revolution going on among our police officers. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am very comfortable that the Capitol Police and the employees of the Capitol Police are aware, based 

on what the Chief said. But I intend to pursue it before we have 

a closed session, most definitely. 

Thank you very much for bringing the issue to our attention. 

Mr. LEWIS. I have additional questions for the record, if I might. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sure. Absolutely. Any questions that 

Members have can be answered for the record. 

EXPANDED RESPONSIBILITIES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We will move into round 2. 

On the increases that you have asked for, how much is related 

to the expanded responsibilities that you’ve been asked to take on 

and how much is related to other program increases? And of the 

other program increases, the ones that are not related to the expanded responsibilities, can you highlight what your priorities are 

in the likely event that we are not able to fund them all? 

Chief MORSE. Okay. With respect to oversight increases or general? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Part of your increase is related to 

your increased responsibility at the CVC, the Inauguration and all 

of that, and then there are other Department priorities. 

Chief MORSE. I actually have a breakdown. I will just read from 

the breakdown itself. 

About 3.4 percent for a COLA and annualization of fiscal year 

2008, because obviously a time lag within the 2007 time period will 

be moved over to 2008. So the COLA annualization will be a 3.4 

increase. 

Some of the uncontrollable increases: the 6.1 percent for CVC operations, the Library of Congress merger, the new Visitor’s Experience and AOC tunnel project. 

And then 1.1 percent, 2009 Presidential Inauguration, and 0.9 

percent, Office of Inspector General request. 

We have USCP increases specifically totaling just 6.4 percent: 1.8 

percent, force development; 0.2 percent, Chief’s priorities; 0.6 percent are requested positions from 2008; and 1.6 percent other new 

hire costs and other pay costs; and about 2.3 percent, general expense costs related to the 6.1 percent uncontrollables that I listed 

above. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
615 

DEPARTMENT PRIORITIES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In terms of the priorities that you 

have, separate from the added responsibilities, what are the highest—what are the things that if we are going to cut, what is it that 

you have got to have among those priorities that are not related 

to your added responsibilities? 

Chief MORSE. With regard to some of the uncontrollables, we 

have to obviously look at some of the CVC operations, the Inauguration—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No, no, I know—but you have part of 

your increase that is uncontrollable and some of your increase that 

is your other priorities. 

Of the other-priorities piece of it, which I know is about a third, 

what are the most important components of that? Because when 

we are prioritizing, I want to do it based on your priorities, not 

based on ones that we pick out of the air. 

Chief MORSE. Obviously, we will start with the continuation of 

the operations, and then we look at some of the force development 

priorities that we have to enhance our abilities to secure the campus. 

So I think our budget is broken down in a way with validation 

and justification where we are easily going to be able to talk about 

that and prioritize things the way we want. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you want to respond for the record 

in terms of the detail? 

Chief MORSE. I have—we have a sheet here. 

Assistant Chief NICHOLS. We brought this—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. This is not ‘‘Stump the Chief.’’ 

Chief MORSE. I am just trying to get the right information, if I 

was going to answer you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sure. 

Chief MORSE. We are looking at—we would probably look at 

some of our analysis of our human capital posture, our environmental assessment internal controls and environmental assessment 

that we do. Looking at our environmental, operational, administrative assessment conclusions. We would look at those as low priority 

to cut. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Chief MORSE. And those have a long list of things associated with 

them: analysis of performance measures and operations, current 

forecasting for the Department of human capital posturing, status 

of—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. You are speaking Greek to me. 

If you can work with our staff on drilling down into those priorities 

when the time comes. And my time has expired. I will come back 

to myself. 

FOLLOW-UP ON BACKGROUND CHECK POLICY

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. I want to pursue a little bit more about 

what Mr. Lewis was talking about. 

The paper you submitted for the record, was that a directive notification or was that just a concept paper? 

Chief MORSE. This is a concept paper. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
616 

Mr. LATHAM. It is not a policy? 

Chief MORSE. No, it is not. It is a concept paper that was submitted to me, and I approved and sent back to the Office of Human 

Resource management to begin this process of formalizing what is 

already in policy and procedure within the Police Department. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. But that is not official policy? 

Chief MORSE. No. 

Assistant Chief NICHOLS. But I think, to clarify, all of our employees have a duty to report to us any time that they are arrested. 

So that is policy; and therefore, this would be a check and balance 

to make sure that employees who work for a law enforcement agency are held to a higher standard. 

Mr. LATHAM. I don’t have a problem. Is the Inspector General 

here? 

Mr. HOECKER. Yes. 

INSPECTOR GENERAL AUTHORITY TO DO CRIMINAL BACKGROUND

CHECKS

Mr. LATHAM. On what basis, I just think it is unusual to have 

a broad—do a background check of everybody in the Department 

all at once. On what basis and what authority did you do that? And 

if you could, provide any legal opinions for the record as to your 

authority to do this.I am extremely concerned about what some 

people would think was a fishing expedition, for no real cause—I 

can see it on an individual basis certainly, but to just go out and 

do a background check on everybody in the Department, whether 

they are sworn or not certainly raises some real questions when no 

one was notified about it. 

Mr. HOECKER. First, let me introduce myself. I am Carl Hoecker, 

Inspector General for the Capitol Police. 

This came about—the Chief is one of our stakeholders; about 

midsummer of every year, we solicit input: What should the IG be 

doing to help the Department? And, in part, what was important 

to the Chief in our discussions, that I recall, was that he had noticed a few employees that not been held accountable to this specific rule A.2 of Directive PFR 1.2, and that is: The policy of the 

Department is to ensure that all employees, both sworn and civilian, maintain an exemplary standard of personal integrity and 

highest professional standard of conduct both in their private lives 

and in their official capacity. 

Rule A.2 is conformance to the law: Employees will obey all laws 

of the United States, District of Columbia, every State and local 

and military jurisdiction in which they may be present. Employees 

arrested or indicted for a violation of any law, other than minor 

custodial or noncustodial traffic offenses or summoned to appear in 

response to a criminal complaint, will immediately notify one of 

their supervisors who, in turn, will notify the Chief of Police 

throughout chain of command. 

What the Chief noticed was that there were a few employees who 

were requesting security clearances, and their names seemed familiar to him or the people in his office; and they did some research 

and found that there may have been an internal affairs case on 

this person that would have brought the question if this person 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
617 

could have a security clearance and even face discipline in the Department because they did something wrong. 

So this job was a compliance job, looking at management controls, what departmental controls, management controls they have 

to follow this up. And I relate that to, if you have a policy, you need 

to have management follow-up on this. 

And there was an SOP—I believe it is a few years back, I forget 

the date, but that they would do an annual Triple I check, a criminal history check, on all employees, and that would be done by the 

Office of Internal Affairs. That was not being done. 

And so there were processes and things that were scattered 

throughout the Department, and they had no way to bring it together. So obviously the inspector general was concerned about the 

integrity of the Department, and anything that I could do to help 

promote better integrity, that is exactly why I did this, sir. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Were you asked to do this? 

Mr. HOECKER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LATHAM. By whom? 

Mr. HOECKER. Chief of Police. 

Mr. LATHAM. You were requested by him to do this? 

Mr. HOECKER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LATHAM. I am confused as to why, if you had specific cases 

of concern about individuals, why you had to do an everybody-inthe-Department sweep to ferret out individuals whom you have 

identified as having a problem. 

Mr. HOECKER. Well, sir, this really should have been done all 

along, according to that internal affairs policy. But it wasn’t being 

done; it obviously fell through the cracks. 

Maybe they did not have the FTE resources to do that, so it just 

wasn’t being done. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. LaHood. 

LACK OF NOTIFICATION ON CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS

Mr. LAHOOD. Let me tell you how I characterize this. 

I have the highest regard for law enforcement people, but this is 

an outrageous abuse of power to check into people’s backgrounds 

that are not law enforcement people, unbeknownst to them. Without telling them, I think is unlawful and perhaps illegal. 

Now, why would you look into somebody’s background without 

telling them? Why would you do that? These people are not carrying a weapon. They are not law enforcement people. They might 

be a clerk working at a desk or answering a telephone. What gives 

you the right to do that? 

Mr. HOECKER. Well, sir, I said before there was a policy all along 

in the Department—— 

Mr. LAHOOD. What gives the IG the right? If it is standard operating procedure, what gives you the right to do it? 

Mr. HOECKER. The IG is concerned with the integrity of the Department, with programs and operations, with the economy, efficiency. That is our charter, sir, and this sits within that ambit. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Absolutely not. There is absolutely nothing that 

gives you the right to look into a non-law enforcement person’s 

background. Nothing does that. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
618 

Now, Chief, I am going to ask you a direct question. Were people’s backgrounds looked into and checked on unbeknownst to 

them? 

Chief MORSE. Yes. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Why? If they were not carrying a gun, if they are 

not law enforcement people, if they are a clerk working in a office, 

what gives you the right to do that? What gives you the right to 

ask the IG to do that? What authority do you have to do that? 

Chief MORSE. To protect the integrity of the Police Department. 

LEGITIMACY OF CONDUCTING NO-NOTICE BACKGROUND CHECKS

Mr. LAHOOD. Look, I am a simple-minded person. I am a trained 

school teacher. I taught school before I came to Congress. I expected every one of the kids in my class to behave. If one of the 

kids did not behave, then I would do something about it. And what 

you are saying to me is that because you thought maybe one or two 

people had not been following the rules, that you were going to 

have a blanket policy, unbeknownst to them, to look into 

everybody’s background. 

I think if it is not illegal, it should be; and I frankly don’t think 

you have the right to do it. I know you want to protect the integrity, and if somebody violates the rules of the Department, particularly a non-law enforcement person, you have every right. 

If somebody gets a DUI, if somebody is arrested for domestic violence, if somebody does not obey the laws, that is one thing. But 

unbeknownst to law-abiding citizens who come here to the Capitol, 

thinking they are doing the right thing, obeying all the laws, to 

look into their backgrounds and do background check and have a 

police agency do a background check, I think is wrong. I don’t think 

you have the right to do it. 

Assistant Chief NICHOLS. I just want to make sure we have this 

in context. 

I have been a police officer for 25 years. I chose to work for a 

law enforcement agency. There are things that go along with wearing this badge and working for a law enforcement agency that has 

to be maintained because we are held to a higher standard. 

Mr. LAHOOD. I couldn’t agree with you more. 

Assistant Chief NICHOLS. The other thing, though, we don’t know 

what we don’t know, Mr. LaHood. If somebody does not report to 

us in accordance with our established policy that they have been 

arrested, there is no check and balance for us to know that information and take appropriate action. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Then why don’t you tell the people that you are 

doing it? 

Assistant Chief NICHOLS. I believe, sir, that it is in the regs and 

people know that when they come on to this agency they are submitting themselves to a background investigation. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Let me say this: When the employees of the Capitol 

Hill Police who are in no law enforcement positions find out that 

their backgrounds have been looked into, some of them are going 

to be outraged because they were not told and they had no idea it 

was going on. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
619 

To do it under the guise of protecting the integrity of the Department—look it, we would all agree that that is a very important 

goal, but you ought to tell the people that you are doing it. 

Assistant Chief NICHOLS. Well, I think—and that is fair. I think 

if the goal is agreed upon that everyone is agreeing that this is a 

justified goal for this police department, as it is for every other law 

enforcement agency, that is what we were trying to achieve. If we 

could have done that better, then it is a lesson learned and we can 

move on. 

But the fact of the matter is that the standard has to be adhered 

to. The policy has been in place for years. The fact that it was not 

acted upon before we came along is beyond our control. 

Mr. LAHOOD. I see no policy that gives the IG—to give the Chief 

to tell the IG, ‘‘You look into everybody’s background.’’ I haven’t 

seen that policy. 

Show me the policy that says that unbeknownst to the employee. 

Where it is at? 

Assistant Chief NICHOLS. It is a standard operating procedure 

that was done in internal affairs. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Hiring an outside group to do it, getting the IG to 

do it? There is no policy. 

Show it to me. 

Assistant Chief NICHOLS. We will work on that, sir. I think the 

point made was, there were policies in disparate places within the 

agency, and we were trying to find a unified way to achieve the 

goal. 

Mr. LAHOOD. This is not the way to treat employees of the Capitol Hill Police, in my opinion. 

EMPLOYEE EXPECTATIONS OF BACKGROUND CHECKS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Let me follow up on this, and I am going to give you some homework at the end of this that will ask you to provide us with more 

detailed information. 

But my understanding—and it would be hard to be more concerned about people’s civil liberties and civil rights than me. I am 

a member of the Judiciary Committee, and I began my career here 

in Congress standing up for civil rights and civil liberties. So I am 

certainly extremely sensitive, too. 

But from what I am hearing—and I will ask you to give us more 

information later—is that you had an inconsistent policy. Is it correct that you had an inconsistent policy, that there were various 

ways that background checks, periodic background checks, were 

conducted on employees and that because there is a requirement 

of the employees, whether they are sworn officers or civilians, to 

report to you when there has been an arrest or indictment for a 

violation of any law other than minor noncustodial traffic offenses 

or if they had been summoned to appear in response to a criminal 

complaint, that they have to immediately notify one of their supervisors? 

Was there an inconsistent policy that you were trying to make 

uniform, and is it your belief, or testimony, that there is an expectation in the Police Department, when you are hired, whether you 

are civilian or sworn, that you will be subjected to periodic backVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:24 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 041290 PO 00000 Frm 00619 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\41290P2.XXX 41290P2

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
620 

ground checks—I don’t mean to put words in your mouth—and that 

even though you may not have directly notified the employees of 

this background check, that there is an expectation when they are 

employed that they will be subject to them? Is that right, or is that 

overstating it? 

Chief MORSE. That is correct. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. I want to make sure because, 

Mr. LaHood, I would absolutely share your outrage if there was not 

an expectation. And I will ask the police leadership to follow up 

with us on exactly what the procedures were and are. 

I can understand that, working for a police department, there 

would be an expectation that you have to be beyond reproach, and 

that if there is a concern that employees are not reporting violations of law or indictments or arrests, that a check to make sure 

that you have got a consistent application of the policy may be in 

order. So we will ask you to follow up. 

CVC AND CANNON TUNNEL

I want to shift to the CVC and the Cannon tunnel, and we will 

ask you a little bit more about that next week. There was an $8 

million increase in your fiscal 2009 request to provide security for 

the Capitol Visitors Center, which also includes funding, my understanding is, to potentially keep the Cannon tunnel open for staffled tours if Congress decides to go that route. Can you break down the $8 million request? How much of that 

is estimated to keep the Cannon tunnel open for staff-led tours in 

the event that Congress makes that decision? 

Chief MORSE. Okay. With respect to the additional FTEs, we have a total of 31—that is $2.5 million; and the general expenses 

associated with that are $544,000. The CVC plans, including staffled tours using the tunnel, is about $4,920,000. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. $4 million for the tunnel staffing? 

Chief MORSE. That is for the overtime. $4.9 million overtime. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is because you would be using 

existing officers and you would move them over to the tunnel as 

opposed to new hires? 

Chief MORSE. That is correct. There is a preparation for opening. 

Once we receive the permit for occupancy, the officers who will be 

working the CVC will need to come in and train for emergency preparedness evacuation and receiving the visitors into the CVC. 

OVERTIME USE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And the other question I have relates 

to overtime. 

How much does the Department rely on overtime? And are you 

making plans, instead of focusing so much on overtime, to try to 

hire new officers? Would that be more efficient? Is it a more costefficient way of dealing with your staffing needs to engage in new 

hires as opposed to overtime? 

Chief MORSE. One thing we needed to do was a staffing study; 

and we completed the staffing study, which included looking at all 

of our processes to ensure that we were doing everything in the 

most efficient and effective manner. That also gave us really the 

number of officers needed to do the mission that we currently 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
621 

cover, as well as any future state of improvement or security enhancement that we needed to do. 

And so we have those figures, but first we had to—and as we 

promised last year, first we would look within to make sure that 

we had the economy and efficiency of our officers with deployment 

strategies, responsibilities directly related to the mission. 

We have the CVC opening which—construction security, security 

screeners will be put back into the field, and we will realize officers 

from that. So we really had to cut the fat from within before we 

were asking for more employees. 

But the eventuality will be looking at the difference between— 

if you ask for more FTEs, that drives a lot of other factors: facilities, uniforms and equipment, general expenses and such. We will 

have to find the means between the overtime amount and minus 

out what facilities and all the other expenses would be to find the 

most cost-efficient measure. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My time has expired. 

Mr. Latham. 

INSPECTOR GENERAL FIREARM

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. Just to go back to the subject we were 

on before, I would ask you and also the inspector general, Chief, 

to provide us, for the record and to us personally, any statutory 

justification, or legal opinion that you have to justify what, I would 

agree with Mr. LaHood, looks like a fishing expedition. 

I might ask the inspector on a different subject—at one point in 

the past you sought authority to carry a weapon and be deputized 

for law enforcement. Seems like we have had this before here. Is 

that accurate? And if so, who approved your seeking this authority? 

Mr. HOECKER. That is accurate, sir. And I am working with the 

Capitol Police Board on that. And under their direction, I sought 

U.S. Marshals special deputation and received it. 

Mr. LATHAM. It is my understanding that the Police Board withdrew its approval to carry the weapon. Why did they withdraw 

that? 

Mr. HOECKER. Yes, sir, I got a phone call from the chairman, and 

he said there had been some questions on, I guess it was liability 

for the weapon and whether the U.S. Marshals Service was appropriate for the IG here. And I said, Okay. 

So I turned my weapons back in, and at this point they are still 

in the custody of the Department. 

Mr. LATHAM. I think it does raise, as in a previous hearing, separation of powers issues, as to who you actually answer to, the executive branch or the legislative branch. 

Mr. HOECKER. Yes, sir. 

NEW RECRUITS

Mr. LATHAM. Chief, your justification, your request—you are 

seeking 264 new recruits for 2009, and this is the largest increase 

since 9/11 or the anthrax issue. How did you get to that number? 

And is there any way to know whether the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center can actually accommodate you with that 

many new recruits? 

Chief MORSE. Yes, sir, I could. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
622 

Mr. LATHAM. They are backed up, the way it is right now. 

Chief MORSE. Of the 264, this is inclusive of 23 attrition carryover from last year that we were unable to assume due to the CR. 

So we missed a class, which could be a size of 48 if we don’t get 

the additional class at the end of this fiscal year that we are asking 

for. 

Fiscal year 2009 is just 162 for normal attrition or retirement, 

people leaving the Department—you know, turnover. Library of 

Congress merger is a backfill of 24, and that does not include those 

who will remain at the Library of Congress as officers until the 

transition date; 31 are for CVC operations and 11 for the new Visitors Experience, the remaining number of 13 is in regards to our 

force development, which we testified to, the intelligence capability. 

TRAINING AVAILABILITY

Mr. LATHAM. How about training? Is it available for that many? 

Chief MORSE. At this point, we have a request in for the end of 

this fiscal year, for the additional 24 end of the year class, but we 

have not received any response back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Your request of 264 additional? 

Chief MORSE. We are going to ask for it. And I believe we are 

awaiting approval for the six classes. So we don’t know yet. 

Mr. LATHAM. Are your officers currently getting the 80 hours of 

training that they are supposed to get per year, especially in certain areas? 

Chief MORSE. Eighty hours of training is really an overall average. There are some officers who receive more training than 80 

hours, so 80 hours is an overall average. 

But what we have done within the Training Services Bureau is 

prioritize. We have priority 1, priority 2 training, which is mandatory training and certifications that we do on your own basis, 

which—including not only firearms qualification, but it can include 

things like fire extinguisher training, in-service training regarding 

legal issues, et cetera. 

I don’t have the exact figures of what each individual has earned, 

but our overall average is 80. That is a mark that was set previously and probably needs a little more work on, since we do obviously know that other officers and specialty units receive a lot 

more training than the average line officer does. 

Mr. LATHAM. I assume I am done? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. 

Mr. LaHood. 

CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK PROCEDURE

Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. IG, can you walk us through the procedure 

that is done to do a background check on people? Who is involved 

and how it takes place? 

Mr. HOECKER. I can, sir. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Could you speak up? 

Mr. HOECKER. I can do that, too, sir. The way it was done in this 

instance and the way that the Capitol Police, the way I understand 

it is—— 

Mr. LAHOOD. Is it done similarly for every employee? 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
623 

Mr. HOECKER. Well, I was going to describe the actual access to 

the electronic check first, sir. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Similar for every employee? There is no distinction 

for someone who is law enforcement and someone who is answering 

the telephone? 

Mr. HOECKER. No, there was not. 

We were—there is a person dedicated by the Metropolitan Police 

Department at the Department—at Capitol Police. They train users 

for WALES. And it is a 1- or 2—a 2-day training course, and it 

deals with actually conducting different checks, wants and warrants checks, criminal history checks. 

And once that training is done, then that person is assigned a 

user name and a password. And then they use the computer that 

is dedicated for that purpose to actually do the checks. And what 

they do is, they plug in the name and date of birth and then the 

results come back. 

Mr. LAHOOD. But what do they look at? 

Mr. HOECKER. I’m sorry, sir? 

INFORMATION EXAMINED IN CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS

Mr. LAHOOD. What kinds of things do they examine? What do 

they look at? 

Mr. HOECKER. Well, it is a check; name and date of birth would 

get sent forward through WALES to the criminal history, and it 

would either come back negative or come back with some kind of 

a record, so to speak. And sometimes those records are not that 

person; sometimes it is a person within, say, 10 years of date of 

birth that may or may not be that person; but that is just the way 

the system generates results. 

And then those results are checked to make sure and to see if 

that is the exact date of birth and that record is retrieved. Let’s 

say it was an arrest for drunk and disorderly; that record is retrieved, and then it is verified, that that person is employed or is 

not. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Do we look into anything else? 

Mr. HOECKER. No, sir. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Criminal background? 

Mr. HOECKER. It is a Triple I check. Interstate Identification 

Index. 

Mr. LAHOOD. If someone was stopped for a traffic ticket, would 

that show up? 

Mr. HOECKER. It may or may not. I don’t know. 

Chief MORSE. It does not. It is if you have been arrested and you 

submitted fingerprints to the law enforcement agency that has arrested you. And it dates back to, I believe, about—— 

Mr. LAHOOD. If someone were arrested for a DUI, that would appear? 

Chief MORSE. If they submitted it to the NCIC and were 

fingerprinted, yes. 

Mr. LAHOOD. So the criteria are then—fingerprints is how it 

would show up? 

Chief MORSE. That is one verification of the person who committed the offense. That is one verification to be able to do that, 

yes. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
624 

UNION NOTIFICATION OF BACKGROUND CHECKS

Mr. LAHOOD. Did you have any obligation to notify the union, 

that these employees were members of, that this information was 

being collected on them? 

Mr. HOECKER. I did not collect any information, sir. This is information that is in the repositories of law enforcement and WALES. 

I did not collect anything. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Was the union that represents employees of the 

Capitol Hill Police notified that their backgrounds were being 

looked into? 

Mr. HOECKER. Not in this context, no, sir. 

But when someone comes on the job, whether they are sworn or 

civilian, they fill out what is called a ‘‘blue book’’; and that blue 

book is a certification for their initial background investigation, 

and it tells them that their employment is contingent upon successful results of a background investigation. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Mr. HOECKER. Yes, sir. 

Assistant Chief NICHOLS. Also, employees who are a collective 

bargaining unit and who are not are under the same obligation to 

report to us. So it is a known factor to report to us. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. I don’t have any additional questions, so I will wrap up if you don’t have anything else. 

Mr. LATHAM. I have got a couple I can put in the record. 

CLOSING REMARKS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. I don’t want to rush you; if you 

wanted to ask them publicly, that is fine. 

Okay. We had a lot that we went through in this hearing, and 

I don’t want it to be overshadowed that you are really to be congratulated for putting forward and completing the first set of complete financial statements in the Department’s history. That was 

many, many years in the making—not ‘‘in the making’’ but many, 

many years coming, as well as a complete inventory. 

And this leadership of the Capitol Police is really to be commended for beginning to right the administrative ship of the Capitol Police, because it really has been badly needed for a long time. 

ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENTS FROM THE CHAIR

There has been quite a bit of strong language that has been 

thrown out there on the background check subject today. I would 

like to get a reality check on what really occurred so that we can 

make sure that there is a comfort level not just with the Members 

but with the Capitol Police community. So by next Wednesday, 

April 16th, if you would submit a report with a detailed explanation on why the Triple I checks were done, what authority allowed you to do those checks, whether they are done within the Department procedures, whether Capitol Police employees were aware 

of the checks or whether there was an expectation with their employment that they would be periodically subjected to checks, 

whether performing these checks represents a change in policy, and 

whether this is a standard operating procedure for this Department 

and for other police departments around the country. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
625 

And if you could also please explain whether you sought legal 

counsel regarding the legality of performing these Triple I checks. 

Additionally, this hearing has made clear that the Capitol Police 

are taking on a number of expanded responsibilities in fiscal year 

2009, and that is one of the major reasons for the 18 percent increase being requested. 

At the same time, an increase of that size is just not realistic— 

we were able to do 10 percent last year—given the constraints that 

we are going to be operating under. This subcommittee really needs 

a clear sense of what your highest priorities are and what you will 

be and not be able to do with an increase of less than 18 percent. 

With that in mind, if you would submit a report by next Wednesday, April 16th, as well, that would explain what you would and 

would not be able to do if you are held to either a 5 percent increase or 10 percent increase, basically what your highest priorities 

for funding would be at these lower funding levels. 

With that, I appreciate the Members’ time and attention and the 

Capitol Police’s efforts. 

The subcommittee stands in recess until tomorrow at 1 o’clock 

when we will hear from the GAO. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
626 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1141 here 41290D.103
627 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1142 here 41290D.104
628 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1143 here 41290D.105
629 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1144 here 41290D.106
630 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1145 here 41290D.107
631 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1146 here 41290D.108
632 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1147 here 41290D.109
633 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1148 here 41290D.110
634 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1149 here 41290D.111
635 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1150 here 41290D.112
636 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1151 here 41290D.113
637 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1152 here 41290D.114
638 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1153 here 41290D.115
639 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1154 here 41290D.116
640 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1155 here 41290D.117
641 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1156 here 41290D.118
642 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1157 here 41290D.119
643 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1158 here 41290D.120
644 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1159 here 41290D.121
645 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1160 here 41290D.122
646 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1161 here 41290D.123
647 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1162 here 41290D.124
648 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1163 here 41290D.125
649 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1164 here 41290D.126
650 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1165 here 41290D.127
651 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1166 here 41290D.128
652 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1167 here 41290D.129
653 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1168 here 41290D.130

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
(655) 

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2008.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO) 

WITNESSES 

GENE L. DODARO, ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL 

SALLYANNE HARPER, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 

GEORGE STRADER, CONTROLLER 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would like to call this hearing of the 

Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations to order. Today we are going to hear from the acting Comptroller General, Gene Dodaro, about the agency’s budget request. I 

want to thank you and your staff for the quality support GAO provides the Congress. And that includes direct support provided by 

GAO staff like David Marroni. 

I don’t need a script for this. I didn’t realize what this was. Obviously, this was just handed to me. I can do this all on my own. 

David Marroni is the finest example of a public servant that we 

have in this institution. He has worked tirelessly, provided us with 

expertise, advice; has just done an incredible job representing your 

agency and helping us get the job done here in the Legislative 

Branch Subcommittee. And we owe him and you a debt of gratitude 

for lending him to us for the last year. So I just want to thank you 

very, very much. 

Mr. DODARO. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We have a tight budget situation, as 

no one knows better than you. I want to congratulate you on your 

new role at the GAO. I know you are accompanied by your Chief 

Administrative Officer, Sallyanne Harper, and your Controller, 

George Strader. You have asked for $538 million in direct appropriations, a $38 

million or 7.7 percent increase, which includes a request for an additional 151 staff. That is just under a 5 percent increase in the 

agency’s size. I do appreciate that this is one of only two Legislative Branch agencies that actually asked for a single digit increase. 

But it is going to be a difficult budget year, as you know, and Mr. 

Latham and I can probably read each others’ scripts at these budget hearings now. We can swap roles one day just for fun. 

But I will say to you what I said to each of the agency heads. 

We would like to get from you what your highest priorities are. We 

are going to try to do our best to fund what your needs are. And 

clearly I know, because of the enhanced oversight that Congress 

has engaged in, you are really working to the brink and you need 

the additional assistance and additional staff, I know that. And you 

had flat staffing for the last number of years, and I absolutely recognize that. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
656 

So, with that, Mr. Latham. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. LATHAM

Mr. LATHAM. I want to also welcome you and to commend you 

doing more with less all the time or with the same. I commend 

your service to the Congress and to the country. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Dodaro, your full statement will 

be entered into the record, and you can proceed with a 5-minute 

summary. Welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT—GENE DODARO

Mr. DODARO. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to talk about 

GAO’s budget request. First, I would like to thank you, Madam 

Chair and members of the Subcommittee, for your past support to 

GAO. We appreciate the confidence that you have shown in us and 

believe that we have provided an excellent return on the investment that you have made in us. Last year, our work for the Congress led to financial benefits of over $45 billion and over a thousand improvements in government operations. Importantly, our 

work is targeted to support the Congress in its oversight and legislative priorities. And as the demands and challenges facing the 

Congress increase, so does the premium on GAO work to provide 

help to the Congress. Demand is high and increasing. 

DEMAND FOR GAO WORK IS INCREASING

Requests for GAO assistance in fiscal year 2007 were up 14 percent over 2006 and so far this year, through the first half of 2008, 

were up an additional 20 percent from a comparable period last 

year. GAO witnesses are appearing at congressional hearings at a 

record pace. And potential mandates which are included in bills 

submitted in the Congress, which are a harbinger of the type of demand that is going to come down the road, are up over 75 percent 

in this Congress compared to the same point in time in the prior 

Congress. 

STAFF LEVELS

Unfortunately, we are not well positioned right now to meet this 

increased demand. Our current staffing level for this fiscal year is 

at 3,100 full-time equivalent positions. This is the lowest level we 

have ever had at GAO. Our staff are working hard. But we don’t 

believe, as indicated by your opening remarks and I appreciate 

your recognizing that people are working hard, and that we are 

going to be able to sustain that level of effort and provide more 

services with the same level of staff. We asked for some help. We 

believe, unless we get the help, we are just going to have a growing 

list of additional requests that are targeted to terrific areas for 

oversight and help meet the Congress’s needs; it is just going to 

continue to grow. We are asking, as you indicate, Madam Chair, for 

a 5 percent increase in staff of about 150 people. 

We think at this staffing level we can help better meet the demands of the Congress as it conducts its activities and executes its 

constitutional responsibilities. It also will be a terrific boost in the 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
657 

morale and the productivity of the existing dedicated and talented 

GAO work force. 

UNION RELATIONSHIP

Going forward, I also want to assure this Committee that I am 

committed to work in a constructive, effective way with our new 

union to establish a labor-management environment that benefits 

all GAO employees. Since the union has been in place since September, we have worked toward a prompt pay agreement for 2008 

pay decisions. We are working right now on an interim agreement 

with the union and also look forward to shaping a collective bargaining agreement over a longer period of time. 

Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee, I fully appreciate the fiscal constraints that you are facing, and I know that you 

have difficult decisions that lie ahead. But please know that we appreciate your thoughtful consideration of our budget request and 

also know that, regardless of the outcome, that myself and all the 

people at GAO are going to work hard to give the Congress the best 

results with whatever resources you deem appropriate to provide 

us. 

So I thank you for your time and attention and look forward to 

answering any questions you may have. 

[Mr. Dodaro’s prepared statement follows:] 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
658 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1175 here 41290D.131
659 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1176 here 41290D.132
660 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1177 here 41290D.133
661 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1178 here 41290D.134
662 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1179 here 41290D.135
663 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1180 here 41290D.136
664 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1181 here 41290D.137
665 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1182 here 41290D.138
666 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1183 here 41290D.139
667 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1184 here 41290D.140
668 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1185 here 41290D.141
669 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1186 here 41290D.142
670 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1187 here 41290D.143
671 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1188 here 41290D.144
672 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1189 here 41290D.145
673 

BENEFITS OF INCREASED STAFFING LEVEL

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Dodaro. It 

is really good to have you come before us. 

And we—really I mean Congress—can’t thank GAO enough for 

its incredible expertise that it provides as an independent agency 

that has always really been an incredibly good example of the neutrality that we need to make sure that we can make decisions. I 

want to ask you about the additional 151 FTEs that you are asking 

for. I know you cited growing demands for your products. How 

much of a difference will this make? What is the difference between what you can and can’t do or will and won’t be able to do 

if you do or don’t get them? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, first of all, we think we can produce more 

products and services with the additional resources. But also we 

can provide more timely assistance. What is happening now is, on 

average before, it took us about 2 and a half months to be able to 

staff most congressional requests that were coming in, which is understandable given the fact that people are always engaged in producing products for the Congress. That has grown to about 4 

months now. And in some areas, particularly in health care and 

homeland security, as you well know, the number of issues facing 

the Congress are growing, as well as the natural resource and environment area, given energy concerns. So, in some cases, it takes us 

6 to 8 months to initiate a new request in those areas. So what we 

do is we work with each of the committees and try to prioritize 

within each committee what is its highest priority. But it has just 

taken us longer. 

TIMELINESS OF STARTING NEW WORK

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. For example, you have a performance 

measure for timeliness that shows that 94 percent of congressional 

staff who responded to feedback surveys in fiscal year 2007 said 

the agency’s products were timely. 

Mr. DODARO. That measure is based upon which engagements we 

accept, Madam Chair. In other words, once we agree to do the 

work, we agree to deliver it within a certain period of time. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. So it doesn’t count the things 

that you couldn’t do or couldn’t get to? 

Mr. DODARO. No. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. I understand. 

Mr. DODARO. I would hate to see what that figure would be right 

now, if it included the reports we could not get to. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If they were asked about their frustration level of what you said no to? 

Mr. DODARO. Correct. 

PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND NEED FOR NEW STAFF

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Your performance results over the 

last 5 years when your staff level has declined have actually improved, which is a good thing. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So, if that is the case, then it seems 

like you are doing just fine. Why do you need 151 additional staff? 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
674 

Mr. DODARO. Well, two reasons. One is that we are not providing 

all the services that the Congress wants. And oftentimes our services don’t always directly lead to financial benefits but better informed decisions on the part of the Congress and better legislative 

actions that they take or increased oversight. And so, number one, 

we are not doing that. Number two is our people are working at 

an incredible pace. 

You appropriately gave Dave Marroni credit for the hard work 

that he does here. Well, we have 3,100 people that are working just 

as hard at the GAO. We expect Dave to work as hard when he 

comes back, too. But we are stretched. And what I am concerned 

about is that the quality of the work that we do produce for the 

Congress is going to be impaired if we try to produce more with 

the same level of resources. And that is not in the Congress’s interest nor GAO’s interest. 

USE OF CONTRACTORS VS. STAFF

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Have you compared contracting out 

for more work versus the hiring of permanent employees? 

Mr. DODARO. We have done a lot of contracting with our internal 

operations. And if you would like, I will let Ms. Harper talk to you 

about that. We do have standing contracts with the National Academy of Sciences to get some additional expertise if we need some. 

We do contract out some financial audits that we do. But in most 

of our areas, it is hard to contract out to maintain the independence and to meet the standards that we have. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Really? Do you think your contractors 

don’t have the same level of independence that your employees do? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, the defense contracting community, for one, 

has been consolidated, so there is a lot of increased contracting activities going on in Federal agencies, which is one of the areas we 

have on our high-risk list. So the contracting community is more 

and more a part of the executive branch operations. And we find, 

as we evaluate other activities, that a lot of the contractors, in our 

opinion, don’t necessarily have the level of independence that the 

Congress would expect GAO to have going forward. So we do contract in selective areas. We have purchased a lot of databases, and 

we do contract out to try to become more efficient. But we are very 

careful because our reputation is our greatest asset, and if we are 

not viewed as a nonpartisan independent, we lose our value to the 

Congress. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

My time has expired. Mr. Latham. 

GAO MANDATED WORKLOAD

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

In your opening, you talked about some of the mandates coming 

from Congress and how that has increased your work load. Would 

you go into that and explain a little bit more as to exactly what 

you are talking about? What type of mandates? 

Mr. DODARO. Right. These would be, for example, in the activity 

to deal with open government legislation last year. There is a provision for lobbyists to now file forms with Congress and register. 

We are now required to audit those filings every year to make sure 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
675 

that lobbyists are filing in compliance with the laws of the Congress and also to look to see what the Justice Department is doing 

and looking at the referrals there. So that is a totally new requirement for GAO going forward. 

A lot of the other mandates ask us to look at big investments 

that the Department of Defense is going to be making. For example, we now have annual requirements to look at the Missile Defense Agency and that development, the Joint Strike Fighter 

project, that is in place. So there are a lot of requirements that are 

being put in there. 

There are huge investments that are being made all across the 

government. And I think we have established a very good reputation for looking at whether or not the technologies have matured 

enough early in the process to warrant moving production and 

making investments on the part of the Congress. So we are being 

asked to intervene earlier and earlier in the process, which is important. 

So a lot of the mandates also include investments in the IRS and 

the Customs Service and a number of other agencies where we look 

at the plans that they have in place and give the Congress a 

thumbs up or down before it lets the money go forward on the investment. And so a lot of the mandates are in those areas as well. 

IMPACT OF PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION ON GAO WORKLOAD

Mr. LATHAM. You know, we are going to have a new executive 

branch, new President, this next year. Is that going to have an impact on you as far as the transition from the current administration to whatever new administration comes in? What does that do 

to you? 

Mr. DODARO. Actually, the Presidential Transition Act, Congressman, specifies GAO as a source that transition teams should go to 

to learn more about the challenges that they will face in taking on 

their new responsibilities. This is a very important role. We are organizing ourselves to help provide that level of advice. We have a 

regular process with each new Congress to update our high-risk list 

and to help the Congress in setting its oversight legislative agenda. 

But we are also going to organize our materials and issue work by 

agency and establish points of contact and provide a resource to the 

transition team going forward. 

Mr. LATHAM. What do they rely on you for? 

Mr. DODARO. What they would—oh, please finish. I am sorry. I 

didn’t mean to interrupt. 

Mr. LATHAM. I am just curious exactly how they use you. 

Mr. DODARO. Well, what has happened in the past—I have been 

through a number of these transitions—a new Cabinet official will 

come on board, and all of a sudden, we will congratulate them for 

being on our high-risk list. And they will want to know how to get 

off the high-risk list as fast as possible and what they need to do, 

because the Congress uses that list to conduct oversight and to 

make funding decisions. And also, past administrations, both the 

Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, have used 

our high-risk list as the basis for their management improvement 

agenda. So people who will be coming into the Executive Office of 

the President will want to know, across government, what are the 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
676 

biggest management challenges? And then each Cabinet agency 

head will want to know where the biggest risks are and what some 

of our recommendations are that they need to focus on to improve 

their operations. So it is a big task. 

And to the extent that people want our advice, we give it to 

them, maintaining our independence. It is also a good opportunity 

for us to work with them to explain how GAO interacts with the 

executive agencies to carry out our audit functions so that they can 

cooperate with us more easily in making their people available for 

interviews and getting us records faster, which is another area that 

can increase our productivity. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. LaHood. 

COMPTROLLER GENERAL APPOINTMENT PROCESS

Mr. LAHOOD. How is the position of Comptroller General filled? 

Mr. DODARO. Congressman, there is a process in law. There is a 

10-member commission created when there is a vacancy in the 

Comptroller General position. And those 10 members are 5 on the 

House, 5 on the Senate. It is the Speaker of the House, the Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chair and ranking members of 

our Oversight Committee, which is the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. On the Senate side, it is the Senate 

pro tem, the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, and the 

Chair and ranking member of our oversight committee in the Senate, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. That 

commission meets and forms the search committee. They screen, 

interview applicants and send a list of three or more names over 

to the President. Then the President picks off that list. The President can ask for more names if he or she determines that it is necessary. And then the person nominated by the President is then 

confirmed by the Senate. 

Mr. LAHOOD. For a term of? 

Mr. DODARO. Fifteen years. 

TIME FRAME FOR ACCEPTING NEW REQUESTS

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

When someone makes a request of your office, it appears that 

what now takes, about from the time you accept the responsibility, 

that it would be about a 4-month wait. 

Mr. DODARO. On average. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And if you don’t get these additional staff people, 

how long will the wait be after you accept an assignment to study 

something or look into it or investigate it? 

Mr. DODARO. It will vary by area, Congressman, but on average, 

it is 4 months. A lot depends on whether the volume continues to 

increase. Obviously, the more requests that come in, the longer it 

is going to take us to get to some, so the average time is going to 

get longer. But it is going to go nowhere but a longer time frame. 

I can’t predict right now how many more months. But what I am 

concerned about is there are a number of areas, and I pointed some 

out in our testimony that—for example, behavioral techniques for 

airline screening passengers; we are to look at FDA’s post-market 

drug safety program—things that we can’t get to right away that 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
677 

are really important public safety concerns. I feel a responsibility 

that we are not getting there as fast as we can. I can’t predict exactly how long the list is going to be, but I think it will be at untenable levels for a number of congressional committees. 

HIRING STRATEGIES

Mr. LAHOOD. If you were allocated some or all of the money that 

you are requesting, what kind of people would you be looking for 

to hire, what types of backgrounds and how would you go about 

finding those people? 

Mr. DODARO. I am going to let Ms. Harper talk about her recruiting program, but we have no difficulty finding very talented staff 

in all disciplines. We have difficulties filling all our positions in the 

economist area and the attorney area, for example. On these 151 

positions, we would look for different disciplines. We need more 

people in the information technology area, for example. We talked 

about technology assessments. We need software engineers, people 

in construction management. We have hired people with engineering degrees that have provided terrific support to this Committee 

on the Capitol Visitor Center, but there are a lot of other big construction projects. But most of the people we hire have public policy, public administration backgrounds. 

Sallyanne. 

Ms. HARPER. We have a very aggressive recruiting program. 

About a third of the people that we recruit come through our internship program. And we are generally targeting people who have 

a masters degree or above. They may have a public policy background. For our health care area, we tend to skew toward a health 

care analysis background. Most of the people that we bring in at 

entry level in our analyst series have not only a master’s and above 

but also some number of years of experience. 

We tend to be oversubscribed for the number of vacancies that 

we have because we have a very aggressive on-campus recruiting 

program. Our senior executives at GAO manage the campus recruiting for individual campuses. And we bring new hires with us 

when we go out to recruit. We get our announcements out early 

enough. And we try and respond much more quickly than a typical 

Federal agency would in order to be competitive with the private 

sector firms that are competing for the same types of people that 

we are. 

Mr. DODARO. We try to maintain a balance of having specialists 

in all these disciplines. We have an actuary. We have got economists. But we also like to have more generalist people that we can 

move if the priorities of the Congress change. For example, after 

Hurricane Katrina hit and we were asked to go look at what was 

going on with that situation, we were able to pull people across 

GAO that were able to focus on that area, and they would get into 

it right away. 

So most of the people we hire would have this generalist type of 

background with the credentials Sallyanne is talking about. But we 

would also target, based on our work force plan, hiring a number 

of specialists as well. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you very much. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Ruppersberger. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
678 

FINANCIAL BENEFITS

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. First thing, in your testimony you indicated 

that, in fiscal year 2007, the GAO’s work resulted in $45.9 billion 

in financial benefits generating, if this is true, an impressive return of $94 for every dollar invested in GAO. Now, can you provide 

some examples of how you did that? This is something that really 

sticks out in my mind to see that a request is followed. 

Mr. DODARO. Well, sir, a couple of examples. One, every year we 

do the financial audit of the Internal Revenue Service––not only 

money they use for operating costs but the $2.5 trillion that they 

bring in in Federal revenue. We noticed that delinquent taxes were 

growing, and they didn’t really have a way to figure out how to 

pursue the cases that would yield the best benefits. So, based on 

our recommendations, they developed a model, and now they can 

more aggressively pursue collecting delinquent taxes. That was 

about $4 billion as a result of our recommendation. 

IMPACT OF CURRENT STAFFING LEVEL

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Following up on Mr. Lahood’s questions, 

GAO’s full time equivalent of 3100 FTEs is the lowest ever? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. What impact is that going to have—give 

me specifics—on your ability to respond to that congressional demand? 

Mr. DODARO. The average time for us to get to congressional requests on areas for oversight is going to increase. On average, it 

takes 2 and a half to 4 months. There are several hundred of these 

congressional requests in our queue. That is going to grow if we 

don’t get additional resources. 

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. As far as getting very competent qualified 

people on your staff, are you having a hard time recruiting people 

that are working for GAO? Are they going to other jobs? Are you 

losing people for more money? Where do you stand? 

Mr. DODARO. Actually, we don’t have very much difficulty attracting top talent. People enjoy the mission of GAO. They are committed to making improvements in the government. So we are able 

to hire. It is not a matter of being able to find top people. 

In terms of attrition, we lose about 10 percent a year, which is 

relatively low for professional services firms. About half of those, 

4 to 5 percent, are normal retirements. And the demographics of 

our work force are pretty reflective of society in general. And then 

another few percent are leaving now. 

Our people, because they are competitive, do receive offers and 

receive a lot of money. About a third of the people who leave go 

to other Federal agencies for better paying jobs. Some agencies 

have different pay authorities than GAO. That is one of the things 

we are trying to seek—to get some additional pay authorities in 

that area. But others are attracted to the private sector. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
679 

IMPACT OF A NEW CONGRESS ON GAO’S WORKLOAD

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Are you requested to get or do you have 

more demands at the end of an election right after new Members 

come in? A new President will be coming into office. Does that put 

more stress or strain on your work force? 

Mr. DODARO. As a new Congress gets organized and agendas 

shift or people shift in chairmanships, that does create the need to 

rethink and finish the work that we have in process as well, so we 

are trying to start new work. So it does create the need to do planning, and it may adjust—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. 3,100 is the lowest FTEs that you have 

had? 

Mr. DODARO. Right. Ever. 

MANAGING DEMAND WITH CURRENT RESOURCES

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Ever. How are you going to manage that if 

you don’t get any more money? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, we are going to have to take a look at how 

we prioritize the requests that we do receive from the Congress. 

Right now we have three priorities. The first is statutory requirements or requirements placed in conference or committee reports. 

Second is the request from Chair or rankings. And third are requests from Members. We haven’t been able to start a request for 

a Member for years. We have essentially dropped that third priority. And now we are triaging requests from committee chairs and 

ranking members against the mandates. And so we are going to 

have to relook. And it may have to be that we have to just go with 

things that are in the statute first. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. In order to get anything done, I need to go 

through the Chairman. 

Mr. DODARO. It might require an act of Congress. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Bonner. 

REASONS DEMAND IS INCREASING

Mr. BONNER. Heaven help us if it requires an act of Congress. 

What is the reason for the increase? What is driving this increase, the demand of the services? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, there are really two things, I believe, Congressman. Number one is I think we have done a really good job 

of preparing strategic plans, working with all the congressional 

committees. We do work for every standing committee in the House 

and Senate and 80 percent of the subcommittees. So we work with 

them to develop what issues we think should be looked at. They 

tell us what they are interested in. So we have really worked in 

a collaborative way with the committees to focus on issues that are 

of national importance and really important to oversight and effective services for the American public. And as we do that and we 

have been delivering quality results and it has led to changes and 

improvements in government, people then want more demands and 

services on GAO. 

Second is that the issues confronting the Congress are becoming 

much more difficult. They are becoming more global in nature. We 

now have issues with our financial markets. We have done a lot of 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
680 

work in that area. We are preparing our work to help the Congress 

evaluate potential proposals for relooking at the regulatory structure for financial agencies and institutions. And if things come up, 

like this last time there was a contested election in Florida, and 

we were asked by the task force to look at the voting machines, or 

something or other unexpected comes up like another disaster, 

then we are able to help the Congress and respond better. But we 

are limited now if something like that occurs going forward. So it 

is both. I think we are delivering good value. People know good 

value when they see it. And secondly, they have more challenges 

in front of them that they would like help with. 

OPTIMAL STAFFING LEVEL

Mr. BONNER. You said the low mark you are at today is 3,100 

employees. What has your high mark been in the history of GAO? 

Mr. DODARO. In the history of GAO, in the modern GAO history, 

post-World War II, it has probably been around 5,400 people, I 

would say, give or take a few hundred, Congressman. Back in the 

days when GAO was doing voucher examinations—and I want to 

be clear I was not there in that period. I have been there a long 

time, but—there was somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000- 

plus clerks looking at vouchers. But in a post-World War II environment, our high mark was around 5,400. 

Mr. BONNER. And what would the optimal number be in making 

your request for additional funds? Obviously you have got a magic 

number in your mind that would help relieve some of the pressure 

that you are under. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. 

Sallyanne. 

Ms. HARPER. I think, Congressman, what we have asked for is 

the optimal number for fiscal year 2009, because what that 151 

represents is about 300-plus leaving, 300-plus coming in, and we 

are targeting 500 people to hire total. And so we can’t absorb any 

more in a 1-year period. We can’t really do it the right way. And 

for a 1-year period, that would be the best we could do if we could 

get that. 

PAY COMPETITIVENESS

Mr. BONNER. Now, you all have indicated you don’t have any 

trouble recruiting qualified people. How competitive is your pay 

compared to other agencies at the Federal Government and also 

the private sector? 

Mr. DODARO. We think at the entry level and midlevel we are 

very competitive, and we have done pay studies on that. We also 

have some terrific benefits at GAO. For example, one of our people 

stopped me today and thanked us for our child care facility. And 

we have doubled the capacity of that. We call it Tiny Findings. And 

nowadays with our work force, you have to be careful you are not 

run over by a stroller coming into the GAO building, but it is nice. 

We pay for student loan repayments, and that helps attract as 

well. And we have retention and recruitment bonus authority. 

Now, as you go up the line to the more senior people, the technical people, we are really not fully competitive with the private 

sector. That is just the way it is. We have asked, and there are proVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:24 Jul 21, 2008 Jkt 041290 PO 00000 Frm 00680 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\41290P2.XXX 41290P2

rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
681 

posals working their way through Congress, to allow us to raise the 

GS–15 cap, or in GAO, it is Band III level, higher than the statutory cap right now by about $8,000. We think that will help us a 

lot as well. So, by and large, we are not fully competitive, but we 

also have the advantage of the GAO mission which really keeps 

people working for us. 

EMPLOYEE LONGEVITY

Mr. BONNER. I guess, finally, do you have an average tenure for 

your team of 3,100? How long, once someone goes to work for the 

GAO, how long do they traditionally stay? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, it is changing a little bit with the generations. 

It is hard to tell. I think the people that started with GAO and finished their career, kind of like myself, are becoming increasingly 

rare, but people are staying. We find that if they stay for the first 

3 years at GAO, they stay for at least 6 to 10. And then we also 

find many people come back. We have about 11 people a year over 

the last 10 years for whom the grass wasn’t always greener and 

have come back. 

Mr. BONNER. Well, I agree with the Chairwoman, you do have a 

strong reputation. We say that you have the Good Housekeeping 

Seal of Approval. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No question about it. 

Mr. DODARO. Thank you. 

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

IMPROVED UNION RELATIONSHIP

The evolution of the relationship with the union that was born 

last year has been a little bit of a bumpy road. And I would like 

to hear from you on how it is going. We are going to have a public 

witness hearing in which we will hear from the union representatives and hear their perspective as well. But my sense is that it has 

begun to improve. If you can also talk about the denied cost-of-living adjustments and where the agency is now versus where you 

were before on the payment of those back COLAs to your employees. 

Mr. DODARO. First, on the relationship with the union, we think 

things have improved. The bumpy issues you mentioned we believe 

are behind us. And we expect you will hear the same from the 

union when they talk to you. I am committed to open constructive 

relationships with them. We just announced yesterday that we are 

going to undertake a comprehensive review of our performance appraisal system, for example. We sent a draft memo to the union in 

advance to figure out how they want to cooperate with us and work 

with us in developing it. So I think we are in very good shape. We 

have hired a very talented person to head up our work force relations. He has a lot of experience working with the unions in the 

past. So I think things are on a good trend line, and I am committed to making sure that they stay that way. 

Now, with regard to the COLA increase for people who were denied that in 2006 and 2007, as I indicated in my written statement 

and also in my appearance before Chairman Danny Davis of the 

Work Force Subcommittee, we would like to and do support that 

and hopefully get that issue behind us as well. And I think the real 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
682 

issue now is to get the legal authorities to be able to do that and 

the funding authority to be able to execute that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. As far as the funding, how do you expect to be able to fund those COLAs? 

Mr. DODARO. We are still working that through. There are a 

number of options. We are working with our oversight committees 

to try to do that and looking internally, and we hope to have that 

worked out. 

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The technology assessments, we had 

authorization for you to use up to $2.5 million in fiscal year 2008 

omnibus to conduct technology assessments for the Congress. Can 

you give us an idea of the state of your progress on that? I know 

you had said that you initially would be able to do one in this fiscal 

year and three or four in the next fiscal year. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. Well, we are going to step up our outreach 

activities. We have a meeting already scheduled with Congressman 

Holt’s staff for next week and other members of the House that are 

interested in this. I also bumped into Congressman Holt yesterday 

and told him I would like to meet with him to get his input and 

ideas. We have developed a list of potential areas where technology 

assessments can be conducted—for example, in data mining activities or disaster preparedness modeling and some other areas. So we 

hope to work with the interested parties to begin one this year. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

DIVERSITY STUDY

Because Congresswoman Lee is not here, I want to ask a question that I know she would very much like the answer to. There 

was a diversity and performance review study that you have been 

undertaking to make sure your performance rating system is fair 

to all your employees. I know it is due in June, but do you have 

any preliminary results from that? And the affirmative action plan 

language that we included specifically last year, where are you in 

developing that plan? 

Mr. DODARO. First, the affirmative action plan, which is due in 

June, we started to prepare that and will submit it on time. Overall, our work force at GAO is very diverse and exceeds the relevant 

civilian labor force numbers for almost all categories. We do have 

some areas where we need to make some improvements, and we 

will be outlining that in the plan on how we plan to do that. Now, 

with regard to the study—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You don’t have any preview? 

Mr. DODARO. A preview of ? 

Ms. HARPER. The Ivy study. 

Mr. DODARO. That is the second one I was going to get to. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No, I mean of what you might include 

in your affirmative action plan. 

Mr. DODARO. Well, I know there is at least one category for Hispanics that we need to focus on. I don’t have anything else right 

now. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If you don’t, you don’t. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
683 

Mr. DODARO. But my point is, in most cases, people have affirmative action plans because their current work force doesn’t meet the 

relevant civilian labor force targets. In our case, we do in the vast 

majority of cases. That is why I am struggling, because we are really not sure in terms of hiring. And so we will talk in our report 

about what we are planning to continue to do to have a good work 

force, but we don’t really have very many gaps that we need to fill. 

Our big issue right now is on your second point, and that has to 

do with a study that we commissioned because of concerns that we 

had about the performance appraisals for African American analysts at GAO compared to Whites. And we were concerned about 

it. We contracted with the Ivy Planning Group to come in. They are 

a professional objective group. And we wanted to get an outside 

perspective on this issue. They are due to issue us their final report 

later this month. We are looking forward to receiving their insights 

and recommendations. I am committed to forthrightly address their 

recommendations, and we will move forward on that issue. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Great. Thank you. 

My time has expired just in time for you Mr. Latham. 

COST OF ACHIEVING FINANCIAL BENEFITS

Mr. LATHAM. You had, and I commend you for it, talked about the $45.9 billion in financial benefits to the government. Do you do 

any kind of evaluation of what the improvements cost? You mentioned the IRS collection of $4 billion. Do you follow what it costs 

the IRS in this case to implement your suggestions? Are you offsetting that, or do we know what the net is? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. Actually, what we claim in the report is the 

net benefit. In other words, we take out whatever the cost would 

be. And typically the estimates that we report, Congressman, are 

third-party estimates, either in this case by the agency or by CBO, 

or in some cases, if Congress takes action, we use their figures. So 

we try not to, except in rare circumstances, do the calculations ourselves. But they are all in net benefits. 

USE OF CONTRACTORS

Mr. LATHAM. Good. Do you have any concerns, as you contract 

out some of the functions that GAO is supposed to be the auditor 

for, that you lose any control? I mean, the purpose of GAO is to 

be the auditor for Congress. In my mind, if you contract out, I just 

wonder whether we are losing some of the purpose? 

Mr. DODARO. We are very selective in contracting out our audit 

work. Most of our contracting out is for our internal operations— 

like, for example, our information network and our communications 

network. But when we do contract out, we have very senior and experienced people to oversee the contract. We have the technical expertise to know that we set the requirements properly and the 

quality of work is there, so I am not concerned. We have tried to 

learn lessons of what we have seen in the executive branch agencies and what we write reports on. And two big problems are not 

having the right type of senior people yourself, technical people, to 

oversee the contract and to make sure your requirements are stated properly and you know you are getting what you pay for. I am 

fairly comfortable we are okay, but we are judicious in what we do. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
684 

COST OF FINANCIAL AUDITS

Mr. LATHAM. That kind of went to my next question talking 

about auditing the executive branch. And if you could tell us a little bit about the cost of that in your budget and in particular having to do with auditing the IRS and your public debt. 

Mr. DODARO. With regard to the financial audits that we do, we 

have the audit responsibility to audit the consolidated financial 

statements of the Federal Government. And we also rely on work 

that is done by the Inspectors General across the government to 

audit the individual departments and agencies. But we have the 

ability to step into the shoes of any of the Inspectors General and 

take over the audit. And we have done that in the case of IRS and 

public debt. And the reason that we have done it there is that they 

cover all the revenue collection activities of the Federal Government, the $2.5 trillion-plus figure. And the Bureau of the Public 

Debt is the largest liability on the financial statements. I believe 

those audit costs are about $6 million to $8 million a year. Now, 

we have sought authority to have IRS and the Bureau of the Public 

Debt reimburse us for those audits, as happens on our audits of 

FDIC and the Securities and Exchange Commission. And so, in 

those cases, they reimburse us for the cost; IRS and Public Debt 

do not. 

Mr. LATHAM. They are not stepping right up and want to pay you 

back? 

Mr. DODARO. No, and actually they have gotten a free ride for 

about 10 years now, and so we are trying to change that. That 

would make a big difference obviously in providing additional support. That would more than offset the increases that we are asking 

for at this point in time if that gets enacted and we actually receive 

the funds. 

INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Mr. LATHAM. Just kind of going back to the work force discussion 

we were having. Some of the problem with the CRS a few years 

ago, they have kind of overcome that, but there was kind a bubble 

of retirements coming on all at one time. Is that a concern for you 

at GAO? Do you have a similar problem? 

Mr. DODARO. We have been working very hard at dealing with 

that issue for the last 7 years or maybe even longer. I am going 

to let Sallyanne explain how we do it. But we have aggressive succession planning activities underway. I think we have dealt with 

it. We have had a lot of retirements. About 50 percent of the people 

we have at GAO right now have been there 5 years or less, but our 

performance as indicated by the comments here, hasn’t really 

changed much. 

Mr. LATHAM. Institutional knowledge? 

Mr. DODARO. And we are rebuilding it. We are concerned about 

it; don’t misunderstand, we are concerned about it. There will be 

some additional retirements coming up. But Sallyanne has been on 

point for really making sure our work force is in the right place in 

this area, so I am going to let her talk. 

Ms. HARPER. We will lose about 335 people this year, with about 

4 or 5 percent of our total staff being strictly to retirement. And 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
685 

that is a lot of knowledge moving out the door. But we have done 

very aggressive work force planning. And we also do knowledgetransfer work if we have someone who has a particular expertise 

and they are ready to retire but we still have a need to begin to 

train this 50 percent that are still new, we can bring them back 

on a limited basis and offset a retirement annuity that they would 

otherwise be penalized for, so that they can complete the knowledge transfer to the new staff coming in. And that has been very 

helpful for us in terms of avoiding that walking-out-of-the-door 

phenomenon. 

Mr. LATHAM. Did you over time, need legislative approval? 

Ms. HARPER. We did. We got legislative approval for that in our 

first human capital bill of 2001. OPM, on the executive branch side, 

does have that approval as well. That is that authority for the executive branch and will also grant that on a limited basis to executive branch agencies for the same reason. Holding onto that knowledge transfer and being able to groom people to succeed have been 

critical. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome. 

Mr. Bonner. 

FOSTERING OBJECTIVITY

Mr. BONNER. On Monday of this week I had an opportunity to 

speak to 17 future journalists at Springfield College in Mobile, Alabama. And as a former journalist myself, I tried to impress upon 

them the importance of being objective in their reporting. How do 

you all—do you have a secret? Obviously, the journalism profession 

doesn’t know it, but how do you impress upon your employees to 

be unbiased in the work that they are asked to do? 

Mr. DODARO. That is an excellent question. First of all, it has 

been built—the culture has been built over a number of years. But 

it is rooted in two fundamental principles: One is adherence to our 

professional standards. We issue auditing standards that anyone 

auditing the Federal Government’s expenditures have to follow. All 

our policies are built on those standards, which include independence and competence and review and reporting standards. And so 

the first day you step into the GAO, you hear about those standards. And we also have a set of core values of accountability, integrity and reliability. And integrity is really a key one here because 

our work is professional, objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair and balanced. We had those values in place 

throughout the whole time I have been in GAO. 

But one thing I really give credit to Comptroller General Walker 

for was articulating them. We put them down. We communicated 

them effectively, and it has really helped. And then we have a review process and checks and balances within the organization, a 

quality assurance process. And we then decide what level of management review will occur. And now we review reports before they 

go out for comment to ensure the integrity of the process. So that 

is something that I have been working on very diligently for the 

past decade almost, is how to ensure we have good risk management processes in place; that I know what the thousand products 

we are going to put out a year are going to say; and that every 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
686 

product you pick up from the GAO has that quality instilled in it, 

and it is reliable and objective. And it is a big challenge because 

we are decentralized. A lot of people sign the reports. But quality 

is a real value, and it is a real strong ethic within GAO. And it 

has taken a lot of time to develop, but it is really essential to our 

reputation and people understand that. 

Mr. BONNER. So you really do have a culture when they walk in 

the door? 

Mr. DODARO. That is exactly right. And we follow our own internal control standards, and you have got to have the right tone at 

the top. And that tone at the top has to go through every part of 

the organization to make sure that everybody understands this is 

really important, and when decisions are made, they are made 

based on facts and evidence. 

IRAQ ENGAGEMENTS

Mr. BONNER. We all benefit from your work, but could you give 

us an idea—you all have been asked to do a lot of work on the Iraqi 

war, and that is controversial in this building and in this country. 

What is a bird’s eye view of when you have to go to the hearings 

and you are doing all the work, give us an idea what the bird’s eye 

view is in terms of what it is like to prepare a report and do some 

work that you do, if you don’t mind? 

Mr. DODARO. Sure. In that particular case—— 

Mr. BONNER. That is an example because it is recent. 

Mr. DODARO. Well, that one has some unique dimensions to it. 

First of all, a lot of information we look at there is classified. And 

then, what is decided to be unclassified is up to the executive agencies. GAO does not have classification authority. And we are bound 

by law to adhere to the classifications that the executive agencies 

put on material. So, in that case, we did have, in terms of preparing for hearings that are in public forums, the difficulty of deciding or getting timely reviews by the Department of Defense as 

to what could be shared publicly and what couldn’t. So that was 

issue number one in that situation. 

Another interesting situation is that, obviously, with the war 

going on, you are trying to report on a real-time activity, so events 

are changing all the time. The security situation one day is not the 

same as it is the next day. And so that is a particular challenge. 

We want to make sure we have the most up-to-date information 

possible. Obviously you have a challenge there of being able to be 

on site. We did establish a presence, ongoing presence there, but 

we have had to bring some of our people back recently. And we are 

going to go back in there as soon as we get reinforced housing, and 

we are working on that. The new embassy is supposed to open next 

month, and we are hoping to get housing in that embassy. Fortunately, all these elements I am explaining don’t happen on most of 

the engagements that we have. But, in that case, it was important 

to deal with those. We dealt with them the best we could. We think 

we came up with a good report. We are in the process now of updating our work and expect a report by June. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
687 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. I just have one other 

question because the Members have done a good job asking some 

of the things that I wanted to cover, so we are working well as a 

team here. I understand GAO has focused on environmental stewardship and energy efficiency, which is something obviously that 

our leadership has been trying to promote and to use the legislative 

branch as a model for that. What steps has GAO taken to make 

your operations more environmentally friendly and energy efficient? 

Mr. DODARO. I am going to ask Sallyanne to do that. Sallyanne 

did come to us from the Environmental Protection Agency a few 

years ago. 

Ms. HARPER. GAO has been doing energy audits at the GAO 

building for over 15 years. We first started in 1991. And we were 

able to get a lot of large investments made in redoing our entire 

HVAC systems and all of those over time. We had a step back after 

9/11 because of new security enhancements we had to make to our 

handling systems within the GAO building. That took us a step 

back on our energy efficiency. We did have an assessment done, 

however, recently that we think holds promise. And we are within 

10 percent of GSA’s goals for all of its Federal buildings. We are 

within 10 percent of hitting their goal in terms of our energy consumption for the GAO. We think, with some of the ones we are 

looking at now, we can get even closer than that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you have any funding in your request for 2009? 

Ms. HARPER. We have continued funding in our facilities management line for that, yes, we do. These are initiatives in response 

to a study that we had done basically 2 years ago. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

GOVERNMENT CREDIT CARDS

Mr. LATHAM. Just one quick question. There was an article, a 

story yesterday about some of the abuse with credit cards in the 

government in different agencies. What role do you play in that? 

Is that something that you look at, or is that the IG’s responsibility 

in each department? 

Mr. DODARO. Yesterday’s report was a GAO report. And what we 

did there was take a statistical sample across the Federal Government. We had been doing work in this area before. Now, a lot of 

Inspectors General also do work in individual departments and 

agencies, and we try to coordinate with them so we don’t duplicate 

work. But in this case, we were asked by a Senate committee to 

do a governmentwide look. And so we did the statistical sample 

and obviously found a lot of problems, and that is an area that 

needs tightening up. 

Mr. LATHAM. Did you make recommendations with the agencies? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. And we will follow up. We did work on transit 

benefits. We have done work on travel where people are using premium class travel. And in this particular case, with the purchase 

cards. We found OMB has been fairly responsive in trying to get 

the changes in place with the agencies, but really it is the agencies’ 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
688 

responsibility. And so we have made a lot of recommendations to 

them. And they just need to tighten up. In a lot of cases, there is 

a need for flexibility, but there have to be proper controls. And this 

goes to the risk management approaches that need to be in place. 

But that was our work. 

It was unfortunate that a couple of—you talked about journalism—in a couple of reports, I think it was the AP story, had 

‘‘GAO: Pointing Out Fraud, Waste and Abuse.’’ So a lot of people 

who called GAO thought we were the ones committing the problems. We assured them that was not true, and it was the other 

agencies. But thank you for that question. 

Mr. LATHAM. You bet. And thank you for the great job you do 

and having such credibility with all of us. I appreciate that. Thank 

you. 

CONGRESSIONAL APPRECIATION

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

And I do, before we close the hearing, want to reiterate on behalf 

of the committee and really the entire House of Representatives, 

please take our message back to your employees and your staff that 

we just can’t thank them enough for the hard work and dedication 

that they put in every day and the good work products that they 

turn out that we are all able to rely on. In a very partisan environment, it is good to have information available to us that we know 

isn’t left or right and that we can all count on for accuracy and 

neutrality. So we appreciate it very, very much. 

Mr. DODARO. Thank you. And I will tell them that. 

ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT FROM THE CHAIR

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thanks. As I have with each agency, 

I am going to assign you a little homework. As we noted in last 

year’s House report, budget justification books are one of the key 

tools we use to review and make decisions on agency requests. 

They need to be geared towards our needs, not those of the agencies. And they must be accurate, concise and provide a level of information we need to quickly understand what is being requested. 

With that in mind, by next Thursday, April 17th, I would like GAO 

to submit a summary table that clearly breaks down its requested 

increase into distinct items or projects so we can see both total 

amounts being requested for each item as well as the individual 

parts that make up those totals. For example, there should be a 

column for your requested staff increase that shows both the total 

amount needed to implement the increase as well as the components of the increase, like salary, training and travel. In addition, 

I would like at least a paragraph for each item on the table that 

explains why that item is being requested, where it falls in priority 

compared to other items and what its impact would be if funded 

or not funded. If partial funding will let you implement the item 

to some degree, you should note that as well. We are just trying 

to get as much information as we can so we can really—— 

Mr. DODARO. I understand. That is a good way to go about it. I 

understand. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
689 

CLOSING REMARKS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

With that, the subcommittee will stand in recess until April 

15th. I am not sure we will all be in a very good mood that day, 

but it is April 15th nonetheless at 1:30 p.m. We will hold our 

monthly oversight hearing on the CVC. Thank you. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARING
690 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1227 here 41290D.146
691 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1228 here 41290D.147
692 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1229 here 41290D.148
693 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1230 here 41290D.149
694 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1231 here 41290D.150
695 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1232 here 41290D.151
696 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1233 here 41290D.152
697 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1234 here 41290D.153
698 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1235 here 41290D.154
699 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1236 here 41290D.155
700 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1237 here 41290D.156
701 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1238 here 41290D.157
702 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1239 here 41290D.158
703 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1240 here 41290D.159
704 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1241 here 41290D.160
705 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1242 here 41290D.161
706 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1243 here 41290D.162
707 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1244 here 41290D.163
708 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1245 here 41290D.164
709 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1246 here 41290D.165
710 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1247 here 41290D.166
711 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1248 here 41290D.167
712 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1249 here 41290D.168
713 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1250 here 41290D.169
714 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1251 here 41290D.170
715 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1252 here 41290D.171
716 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1253 here 41290D.172
717 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1254 /1300 here 41290D.173
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Ayers, S. T .......................................................................................................... 1, 67, 421

Barrow, M. P ............................................................................................................ 461 

Beard, D. P ............................................................................................................... 461 

Billington, J. H ........................................................................................................ 109 

Chrisler, Tamara ..................................................................................................... 325 

Cornell, J. J .............................................................................................................. 461

Dodaro, G. L ............................................................................................................. 655 

Dorn, Terrell............................................................................................................. 1, 421 

Eisold, John .............................................................................................................. 461 

Elzy, Nadine ............................................................................................................. 257 

Gallagher, James ..................................................................................................... 109 

Harper, Sallyanne .................................................................................................... 655 

Hoecker, C. W .......................................................................................................... 579 

Jarmon, Gloria ......................................................................................................... 579 

Jenkins, J. C ............................................................................................................ 109 

Lefevre, P. G ............................................................................................................ 461 

Livingood, W. S ........................................................................................................ 461 

Marcum, Deanna ..................................................................................................... 109 

Medina, Rubens ....................................................................................................... 109 

Miller, L. C ............................................................................................................... 461

Morse, P. D., Sr ........................................................................................................ 579 

Mulhollan, D. P ........................................................................................................ 109 

Nathan, Irvin ........................................................................................................... 461 

Nichols, Daniel ......................................................................................................... 579 

O’Keefe, Ambassador John ..................................................................................... 325 

Orszag, Peter ............................................................................................................ 325 

Page, Jeffrey ............................................................................................................. 109 

Peters, Marybeth ..................................................................................................... 109 

Rouse, T. S................................................................................................................ 1, 421 

Strader, George ........................................................................................................ 655 

Tapella, R. C ............................................................................................................ 257 

Ungar, Bernard ........................................................................................................ 1, 421 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) 

Page 

60 Day Policy Letter ................................................................................................ 30 

Advance Reservation System .................................................................................. 26 

Anticipated Shortcomings ....................................................................................... 29 

Budget Shortfall ....................................................................................................... 28 

Chair Closing Remarks ........................................................................................... 63 

Chair’s Additional Assignments ...................................................................... 63 

Chair Opening Remarks .......................................................................................... 01 

Change Order—Punch List ..................................................................................... 49 

Change Order Monitoring ....................................................................................... 58 

Change Orders ......................................................................................................... 50 

Contractor Performance .......................................................................................... 50 

CR Impact On CVC Operations .............................................................................. 51 

CR Impact On The CVC .......................................................................................... 50 

CVC—Meeting Its Needs ........................................................................................ 52 

CVC Contingency Plans .......................................................................................... 51 

CVC Cost Estimates ................................................................................................ 42 

CVC Governance ...................................................................................................... 41 

CVC Governance Structure ..................................................................................... 43 

CVC Hiring and Staffing Diversity ........................................................................ 54 

CVC Operations—Appropriations Committee Involvement ................................. 57 

CVC Oversight ......................................................................................................... 42 

CVC Training Program ........................................................................................... 59 

Design Program Concepts ....................................................................................... 43 

Electrical Vault Concerns ....................................................................................... 57 

Fire Alarm Acceptance Testing .............................................................................. 52 

Fire Alarm Acceptance Testing Process ................................................................. 57 

Governance and Legislation .................................................................................... 55 

Homework Question for the Record from Congressman Wasserman Schultz .... 65 

Member Of Congress Representation .................................................................... 27 

Minority and Women-Owned Business Involvement ............................................ 32–40 

Minority Recruiting.................................................................................................. 44–48 

Minority-Owned and Small Business Initiatives .................................................. 30 

Office Of Compliance Report .................................................................................. 54 

Opening Ceremony Plans ........................................................................................ 41 

Opening Remarks—Congressman Latham ............................................................ 02 

Opening Statement—Stephen Ayers ...................................................................... 02 

Accomplishments Over The Past Year ........................................................... 03 

Fire Alarm Acceptance Testing ....................................................................... 03 

Minor Construction Activities ......................................................................... 03 

Punch List Items .............................................................................................. 04 

CVC Operations ................................................................................................ 04 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

iv 

Opening Statement—Terrell Dorn ......................................................................... 16 

Punch List Items .............................................................................................. 16 

Near-Critical Path Focus ................................................................................. 16 

Fire Alarm Testing ........................................................................................... 17 

Open Change Orders ........................................................................................ 17 

CVC Construction Cost .................................................................................... 17 

Opening Statement—Terrie Rouse ......................................................................... 09 

CVC Administration ......................................................................................... 09 

Advance Reservation System ........................................................................... 09 

CVC Website ..................................................................................................... 09 

Communication Plan ........................................................................................ 10 

Capitol Tour Action Plan ................................................................................. 10 

Programs and Events ....................................................................................... 10 

CVC To-Do List ................................................................................................. 10 

Prepared Statement—Stephen Ayers ..................................................................... 05–08 

Prepared Statement—Terrell Dorn......................................................................... 19–25 

Prepared Statement—Terrie Rouse ........................................................................ 12–15 

Punch List Closed Items ......................................................................................... 49 

Punch List Items ..................................................................................................... 59 

Recruitment Efforts ................................................................................................. 55 

Staff Tours ................................................................................................................ 56 

Staffing Changes ...................................................................................................... 26 

Staff-Led Tour Progress Report .............................................................................. 26 

Training and Staffing .............................................................................................. 29 

Training Initiatives ................................................................................................. 54 

Training Program Outline ....................................................................................... 60–62 

Visitor-Member Connections ................................................................................... 28 

Architect of the Capitol (AOC) 

Appropriation Budget Initiatives ........................................................................... 91 

Best Alternative For Swing Space .......................................................................... 84–86 

Cannon Renovation ................................................................................................. 87 

Capitol Power Plant Operations ............................................................................. 96 

Chair Closing Remarks ........................................................................................... 101 

Chair Opening Remarks .......................................................................................... 67 

Contingency Plan For Critical Needs ..................................................................... 89 

CR Plans For The CVC ........................................................................................... 94 

CVC Governance Legislation .................................................................................. 88 

CVC Reprogramming—Funding Sources ............................................................... 94 

Deferred Construction Projects ............................................................................... 92 

Energy Reduction Projects ...................................................................................... 99 

Ethanol 85 Fuel Pump ............................................................................................ 97 

FDA Building Project .............................................................................................. 83 

Greening Of The Capitol Initiative ........................................................................ 95 

Homework Questions for the Record From Congressman Wasserman 

Schultz ............................................................................................................... 102–104 

House Metering And Energy Reduction ................................................................ 93 

House Metering Project ........................................................................................... 87 

Jacksonville Bandstand ........................................................................................... 89 

Life-Safety Security Projects ................................................................................... 100 

Long Term Appropriation Concerns ....................................................................... 91 

Long Term Costs ...................................................................................................... 87 

Meeting Energy Reduction Requirements ............................................................. 99 

Minor Construction Reprogramming Concerns ..................................................... 92 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

v 

Office Of Compliance Citations .............................................................................. 98 

Ongoing Initiatives—Capitol Power Plant ............................................................ 95 

Opening Remarks—Congressman Latham ............................................................ 68 

Opening Statement—Stephen Ayers ...................................................................... 68 

AOC Achievements ........................................................................................... 69 

Unfunded Requirements .................................................................................. 68 

Power Plant Outsourcing ........................................................................................ 100 

Prepared Statement—Stephen Ayers ....................................................................71–82 

Priority Projects Not In Request ............................................................................ 91 

Project Backlog ........................................................................................................ 90 

Project Budget Request ........................................................................................... 98 

Project Prioritization Process .................................................................................. 89 

Questions for the Record From The Honorable Tom Udall .............................. 105–108 

Energy Usage Reduction .................................................................................. 105 

Longworth Building Egress Improvements .................................................... 107 

Use Of Proceeds For Environmental Efforts .................................................. 106 

Reinvestment In Facilities ...................................................................................... 90 

Utility Tunnels Remediation Update ..................................................................... 97 

Library of Congress 

Additional Assignments of the Chair: 

Office of Workforce Diversity ........................................................................... 173 

Overseas Field Offices ...................................................................................... 175 

Accessibility of Music Collections to the Blind and Deaf.................................. 158, 159 

Aging Library Workforce ......................................................................................... 157 

Capital Security Cost-Sharing ............................................................................ 152, 179 

Cataloging of Print Materials ................................................................................. 161 

Center for Visiting Scholars .................................................................................... 141 

Childcare Center ...................................................................................................... 139 

Closing Remarks—the Chair .................................................................................. 172 

Congressional Research Service: 

Adequate Funding Level .................................................................................. 246 

Retirements and Succession Planning ............................................................ 156 

Section Research Managers ............................................................................. 247 

Continuing Resolution and Unfunded Critical Needs....................................... 153, 155 

Contracting with Minority and Women-Owned Businesses ............................. 139, 238 

Difficult Funding Choices ....................................................................................... 133 

Digital Talking Book Program: 

Amendment ....................................................................................................... 153 

Funding ................................................................................................. 133, 136, 160 

Program Cost, 4- and 5-Year Implementation ............................................... 160 

Program Status ................................................................................................. 251 

Rollout, 6-Year versus 4-Year ...................................................................... 133, 136 

Digitizing Sound Recordings ................................................................................... 158 

Providing Digitized Sound Recordings to Blind and Deaf ............................ 159 

Food Service Provider and Cafeteria Staff ............................................................ 169 

Fundraising Coordination ....................................................................................... 161 

Inspector General Law Enforcement Functions ................................................ 163, 181 

GAO Opinion on OIG Authority to Carry Firearms ...................................... 166 

Legislative Branch Allocation Decisions ................................................................ 137 

Library Mission and Resources .............................................................................. 112 

National Audio Visual Conservation Center: 

Impact of No Additional Funding for Culpeper Staff .................................... 162 

Staffing Request ............................................................................................... 162 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

vi 

National Digital Information Infrastructure Preservation Program (NDIIPP): 

Accomplishments .............................................................................................. 135 

5-Year Plan ....................................................................................................... 141 

Funding Requirements ..................................................................................... 134 

Partnerships and Matching Funds ................................................................. 134 

Office of Workplace Diversity.............................................................................. 171, 173 

Opening Remarks: 

Chair Wasserman Schultz ............................................................................... 109 

Mr. Latham ....................................................................................................... 110 

Opening Statement of the Librarian ...................................................................... 111 

Packard Campus, Culpeper, Virginia .................................................................... 162 

Preserving Library Collections ............................................................................... 152 

Preserving Music in Digital Library ...................................................................... 157 

Questions for the Record from the Chair: 

State Department Capital Security Cost-Sharing Program .......................... 179 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Honda: 

Asian American and Pacific Islander Collection ............................................ 255 

Legislative Information Access ........................................................................ 253 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Latham: 

Inspector General Firearms Issues ................................................................. 181 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Udall: 

American Folklife Center ................................................................................. 249 

Construction Projects ....................................................................................... 250 

Digital Talking Books ...................................................................................... 251 

Questions for the Record from Ms. Lee: 

Adequate Funding Level for CRS ................................................................... 246 

Contracting Policy for Women and Minority-Owned Businesses ................. 237 

Racial and Ethnic Makeup of Library Staff ................................................... 238 

Section Research Managers in CRS ................................................................ 247 

St. Cecelia’s Renovation .......................................................................................... 140 

Separation of Powers, Legislative and Executive Branch .................................... 164 

Staffing Request—Audio Visual Conservation Center ......................................... 162 

Statements: 

Director, Congressional Research Service ...................................................... 121 

Register of Copyrights ...................................................................................... 127 

Librarian of Congress ....................................................................................... 114 

Thanks to the Librarian from Mr. LaHood ........................................................... 136 

Welcome Witnesses .................................................................................................. 110 

Government Printing Office .............................................................................. 257 

Additional Assignments from the Chair ......................................................... 283 

Status of Discrimination Cases ................................................................ 285 

Environmental Improvements .................................................................. 290 

EEO Issues ........................................................................................................ 281 

Environmental Sustainability ......................................................................... 282 

Facilities Repairs .............................................................................................. 278 

Impact of a Continuing Resolution ................................................................. 279 

Opening Remarks by the Chair ....................................................................... 257 

Opening Remarks by Mr. Latham .................................................................. 258 

Opening Statement from the Public Printer .................................................. 258 

Passport Availability ........................................................................................ 276 

Passport Facility Security ................................................................................ 273 

Passport Production Levels ............................................................................. 274 

Plans for a New Facility .................................................................................. 279 

Potential for Passport Fraud ........................................................................... 277 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

vii 

Government Printing Office—Continued 

Printing Ink ...................................................................................................... 279 

Printing Paper .................................................................................................. 280 

Public Printer, Prepared Statement ............................................................... 261 

Questions for the Record from Ms. Lee .......................................................... 303 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Udall ....................................................... 319 

Questions for the Record from the Chair ....................................................... 294 

Shortfall in Congressional Printing ................................................................ 277 

Technology Investment .................................................................................... 275 

The Future of GPO ........................................................................................... 272 

Welcome Mr. Bonner ........................................................................................ 272 

Workforce Replacement ................................................................................... 274 

Office of Compliance, CBO, and Open World Leadership Center 

Accuracy of CBO Estimates .................................................................................... 372 

Additional Assignments from the Chair ................................................................ 382 

For the Congressional Budget Office .............................................................. 386 

For the Office of Compliance ........................................................................... 384 

For the Open World Leadership Center ......................................................... 389 

Advantages of Open World being in the Legislative Branch ............................... 359 

AOC Citations .......................................................................................................... 371 

CBO Health Care Analysis Capabilities ................................................................ 379 

CBO History of Shifting Resources ........................................................................ 380 

CBO Information Technology ................................................................................. 380 

Contracting Policy for Women and Minority-Owned Businesses ........................ 374 

CVC Inspections ....................................................................................................... 381 

Expanding Open World to Iraq and Afghanistan ................................................. 360 

Further Discussion of Open World Expansion ...................................................... 361 

Impacts of a Continuing Resolution ....................................................................... 358 

Office of Compliance Reduce and Prevent Initiatives .......................................... 370 

Open World Potential Alternative Funding Sources ............................................ 357 

Open World Report on its Future ........................................................................... 357 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schultz ..................................................... 325 

Opening Remarks—Mr. LaHood ............................................................................ 326 

Motion to Recess ............................................................................................... 326 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Latham ............................................................................ 326 

Opening Statement—John O’Keefe (Open World) ................................................ 343 

Prepared Statement—John O’Keefe ............................................................... 345 

Opening Statement—Peter Orszag (CBO) ............................................................. 334 

Prepared Statement—Peter Orszag ................................................................ 335 

Opening Statement—Tamara Christer (OOC) ...................................................... 328 

Prepared Statement—Roberta Holzwarth ...................................................... 332 

Prepared Statement—Tamara Chrisler .......................................................... 329 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Latham .......................................................... 394 

For the Congressional Budget Office .............................................................. 406 

Aging Workforce ........................................................................................ 408 

Director’s Representational Requirement ............................................... 410 

Health Care Staff ...................................................................................... 406 

For the Office of Compliance ........................................................................... 394 

Accomplishments in FY 2007 ................................................................... 399 

Capitol Power Plant Utility Tunnels ....................................................... 403 

Capitol Visitor Center ............................................................................... 401 

Contract for a Braille Specialist ............................................................... 397 

Emergency Egress Procedures ................................................................. 398 

Prevent and Reduce .................................................................................. 395 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

viii 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Latham—Continued 

For the Office of Compliance—Continued 

Pilot Self-Certification/Spot Safety and Health Inspection of District 

Offices ..................................................................................................... 396 

Settlements Made ...................................................................................... 394 

For the Open World Leadership Center ......................................................... 411 

Benefits ...................................................................................................... 415 

Cost-Share Partners .................................................................................. 416 

Grant Monitoring Policies ......................................................................... 418 

Legislative Branch .................................................................................... 413 

Omnibus ..................................................................................................... 411 

Relations .................................................................................................... 412 

Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum ...................................................... 419 

For the Open World Leadership Center ......................................................... 419 

Expansion to Mexico ................................................................................. 419 

Scoring the Farm Bill .............................................................................................. 373 

Self-Certification of District Offices ....................................................................... 381 

Size of Agencies and Requested Increases ............................................................. 361 

Support for Open World Program .......................................................................... 360 

Utility Tunnel Abatement Efforts .......................................................................... 370 

Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) 

Advance Group Reservation .................................................................................... 445 

Advanced Reservation System Process .................................................................. 442 

Cannon Tunnel Access ............................................................................................ 455 

Capitol Hill Access ................................................................................................... 443 

Chair Closing Remarks ........................................................................................... 457 

Chair Opening Remarks .......................................................................................... 421 

Continuing Resolution—Potential Impact ............................................................. 444 

Cost Estimate For Transporting CVC Visitors ..................................................... 454 

Cost Estimate To Transport Tourists From Remote Drop-Off Sites ................... 454 

CVC Gift Shop Proceeds .......................................................................................... 449 

CVC Opening Plan .................................................................................................. 443 

CVC Preview ............................................................................................................ 445 

CVC Screening Process ........................................................................................... 444 

CVC Status—Locations ........................................................................................... 449 

CVC Tour Operations—Transportation ................................................................. 442 

CVC Traffic Flow ..................................................................................................... 455 

Gift Shop Profits ...................................................................................................... 450 

Gilbane’s Reporting System .................................................................................... 447 

Guide Service Funding ............................................................................................ 449 

Homework Questions for the Record By Congressman Wasserman Schultz ..... 459 

Capitol Historical Society ................................................................................ 460 

Final Acceptance Testing and Their Potential Impact—Cost To Complete 

Estimates ....................................................................................................... 459 

House Hearing Room Delays .................................................................................. 456 

Library of Congress Tunnel .................................................................................... 448 

Office Of Compliance Pre-Inspection Update ........................................................ 457 

Opening Remarks—Congressman Latham ............................................................ 421 

Opening Statement—Stephen Ayers ...................................................................... 422 

Construction Transition ................................................................................... 423 

Construction Update ........................................................................................ 422 

Fire Alarm and Life-Safety Testing ................................................................ 422 

Opening Statement—Terrell Dorn ......................................................................... 433 

Construction Update ........................................................................................ 433 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

ix 

Opening Statement—Terrie Rouse ......................................................................... 427 

Advanced Reservation System ......................................................................... 427 

CVC Website ..................................................................................................... 428 

Staffing and Recruitment ................................................................................ 427 

Paver Update ........................................................................................................... 456 

Prepared Statement—Stephen Ayers ................................................................. 424–426 

Prepared Statement—Terrell Dorn..................................................................... 434–440 

Prepared Statement—Terrie Rouse .................................................................... 429–432 

Punchlist and Change Order Update ..................................................................... 446 

Security and The People’s Institution .................................................................... 454 

Security Interests .................................................................................................... 445 

Smoke Control System ............................................................................................ 441 

Staff-Led Tours ........................................................................................................ 446 

Testing Issues .......................................................................................................... 441 

The Capitol Guide Service ...................................................................................... 448 

Tour Bus Procedures—High Security Buildings ................................................... 450 

Transportation To and From The CVC .............................................................. 452–453 

Use Of Cannon Tunnel For Tourists ...................................................................... 455 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Appropriations Committee Hearing Room Space in the CVC ............................. 522 

Benefits Package for House Employees ................................................................. 494 

CAO Priorities .......................................................................................................... 519 

CAO Representational Allowance ........................................................................... 522 

Capitol Visitors Center ............................................................................................ 532 

Capitol Visitors Center Discussion Continued ...................................................... 532 

Carbon Offsets ......................................................................................................... 536 

Carbon Offsets Discussion Continued .................................................................... 541 

Chair’s Additional Assignment ............................................................................... 541 

Clerk Library Facility ............................................................................................. 486 

Clerk’s Budget Request ........................................................................................... 486 

Coffee Brand Served by Restaurant Associates .................................................... 523 

Electronic Lobbying Filing ...................................................................................... 485 

Electronic Voting System ........................................................................................ 525 

Enhanced Staff Benefits Package ........................................................................... 521 

Evacuation Process .................................................................................................. 533 

Expedited Access for Staff at Security Entrances ................................................. 532 

Florence Kahn Portrait ........................................................................................... 485 

Follow up to Initial Questions for the Record from Mr. Latham ......................... 567 

Green the Capitol .................................................................................................... 495 

Greening of the Capitol Discussion Continued ..................................................... 540 

Hallway Policy ......................................................................................................... 538 

Hearing Room Modernization ................................................................................. 494 

Hearings and Vacancies in the 110th Congress .................................................... 486 

Historical Signage Discussion Continued .............................................................. 541 

Historical Signage in Members’ Offices ................................................................. 538 

House Metering Project ........................................................................................... 519 

House Notification System ...................................................................................... 535 

Members’ Representational Allowance .................................................................. 518 

Members’ Representational Allowance Discussion Continued ............................. 528 

Minority- and Women-Owned Business Policy ..................................................... 521 

Modeling of House Buildings .................................................................................. 534 

New Member Initiative ........................................................................................... 495 

New Member Initiative ........................................................................................... 524 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

x 

Opening Remarks—Madam Chair ......................................................................... 461 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Latham ............................................................................ 461 

Opening Statement—Mr. Beard ............................................................................. 494 

Opening Statement—Mr. Livingood ....................................................................... 508 

Opening Statement—Ms. Miller ............................................................................. 485 

Operations Under a 2009 Continuing Resolution ................................................. 529 

Page Program ........................................................................................................... 517 

Prepared Statement—CAO ..................................................................................... 497 

Prepared Statement—Clerk .................................................................................... 488 

Prepared Statement—General Counsel ................................................................. 467 

Prepared Statement—Inspector General ............................................................... 463 

Prepared Statement—Law Revision Counsel ........................................................ 470 

Prepared Statement—Legislative Counsel ............................................................ 474 

Prepared Statement—Sergeant at Arms ............................................................... 510 

Questions from the Hearing from Mr. Tom Latham ............................................ 519 

Questions from the Hearing from Ms. Barbara Lee ............................................. 523 

Questions from the Hearing from Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Chair ..................... 540 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Latham .......................................................... 551 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Lewis .............................................................. 574 

Remarks by Mr. Lewis ............................................................................................ 522 

Remarks by Ms. Lee ................................................................................................ 520 

Restaurant Associates ............................................................................................. 526 

Staff COLA ............................................................................................................... 520 

Staff Financial Disclosures on the Internet .......................................................... 516 

Staff Only Restaurant Hours .................................................................................. 531 

Wounded Warrior Program ..................................................................................... 494 

Wounded Warrior Program ..................................................................................... 526 

United States Capitol Police 

Additional Assignments from the Chair ................................................................ 624 

Cannon Tunnel Visitors Desk ................................................................................. 610 

Capitol Visitor Center FTEs ................................................................................... 609 

Closed Door Meeting ............................................................................................... 608 

Closing Remarks ...................................................................................................... 624 

Criminal Background Check Procedure ................................................................. 622 

Criminal Background Checks of Department Employees .................................... 610 

CVC and Cannon Tunnel ........................................................................................ 620 

Department Priorities ............................................................................................. 615 

Employee Awareness of Criminal Background Checks ........................................ 613 

Employee Expectations of Background Checks ..................................................... 619 

Expanded Responsibilities ...................................................................................... 614 

Financial Management ............................................................................................ 604 

Follow-up on Background Check Policy ................................................................. 615 

Getting Financial Operations on Track ................................................................. 605 

Impact of Continuing Resolution ............................................................................ 606 

Information Examined in Criminal Background Checks ..................................... 623 

Inspector General Authority to do Criminal Background Checks ....................... 616 

Inspector General Firearm ...................................................................................... 621 

Intelligence Capabilities .......................................................................................... 606 

Lack of Notification of Criminal Background Checks .......................................... 617 

Legitimacy of Conducting No-Notice Background Checks ................................... 618 

New Headquarters ................................................................................................... 608 

New Recruits ............................................................................................................ 621 

Opening Remarks of Chair Wasserman Schultz ................................................... 579 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

xi 

Opening Remarks of Mr. Latham .......................................................................... 579 

Opening Statement of Chief Morse ........................................................................ 580 

Overtime Management ............................................................................................ 607 

Overtime Use ........................................................................................................... 620 

Policy on Criminal Background Checks ................................................................. 613 

Questions for the Record ......................................................................................... 626 

Radio System ........................................................................................................... 604 

Staff Entry ................................................................................................................ 609

Timeline for a Clean Audit ..................................................................................... 606 

Training Availability ............................................................................................... 622 

Union Notification of Criminal Background Checks ............................................. 624 

Government Accountability Office 

Additional Assignment from the Chair .................................................................. 690 

Benefits of Increased Staffing Level ...................................................................... 673 

Closing Remarks ...................................................................................................... 689 

Comptroller General Appointment Process ........................................................... 676 

Congressional Appreciation .................................................................................... 688 

Cost of Achieving Financial Benefits ..................................................................... 683 

Cost of Financial Audits .......................................................................................... 684 

Diversity Study ........................................................................................................ 682 

Employee Longevity ................................................................................................ 681 

Energy Efficiency ..................................................................................................... 687 

Financial Benefits .................................................................................................... 678 

Fostering Objectivity ............................................................................................... 685 

GAO Mandated Workload ....................................................................................... 674 

Government Credit Cards ....................................................................................... 687 

Hiring Strategies ..................................................................................................... 677 

Impact of a New Congress on GAO’s Workload .................................................... 679 

Impact of Current Staffing Level ........................................................................... 678 

Impact of Presidential Transition on GAO Workload ........................................... 675 

Improved Union Relationship ................................................................................. 681 

Institutional Knowledge .......................................................................................... 684 

Iraq Engagements .................................................................................................... 686 

Managing Demand with Current Resources ......................................................... 679 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schultz ..................................................... 655 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Latham ............................................................................ 656 

Opening Statement—Gene Dodaro ........................................................................ 656 

Demand for GAO Work is Increasing ............................................................. 656 

Staff Levels ....................................................................................................... 656 

Union Relationship ........................................................................................... 657 

Optimal Staffing Level ............................................................................................ 680 

Pay Competitiveness ............................................................................................... 680 

Performance Results and Need for New Staff ....................................................... 673 

Prepared Statement—Gene Dodaro ....................................................................... 658 

Questions for the Record—Mr. Latham ................................................................. 700 

Comptroller General Annuity .......................................................................... 705 

E-Security Lab .................................................................................................. 703 

Financial Benefits ............................................................................................. 706 

Presence in Iraq ................................................................................................ 700 

Workforce Planning .......................................................................................... 701 

Questions for the Record—Mr. Udall ..................................................................... 712 

DOD Procurement ............................................................................................ 715 

High Risk Series ............................................................................................... 713 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
Page

xii 

Questions for the Record—Mr. Udall—Continued 

Timeliness ......................................................................................................... 712 

Questions for the Record—Ms. Lee ........................................................................ 707 

Recruiting Practices ......................................................................................... 707 

Reasons Demand is Increasing ............................................................................... 679 

Recruitment and Retention ..................................................................................... 678 

Technology Assessments ......................................................................................... 682 

Time Frame for Accepting New Requests .............................................................. 676 

Timeliness of Starting New Work .......................................................................... 673 

Use of Contractors ................................................................................................... 683 

Use of Contractors vs. Staff .................................................................................... 674 

Æ 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING