U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

75–656 2012

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS: 2012 INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON LIBRARY-WIDE ACQUISITIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE 

ADMINISTRATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 19, 2012 

Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

www.fdsys.gov 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PHIL GINGREY, M.D., Georgia 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, 

Ranking Minority Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

PHILIP KIKO, Staff Director & General Counsel 

JAMIE FLEET, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

PHIL GINGREY, M.D., Georgia, Chairman 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS: 2012 INSPECTOR 

GENERAL REPORT ON LIBRARY-WIDE ACQUISITIONS 

THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in room 

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

Present: Representatives Gingrey, Rokita and Gonzalez. 

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

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

Legislative Clerk; Salley Wood, Communications Director; Linda 

Ulrich, Director of Oversight; Dominic Storelli, Oversight Staff; Bob 

Sensenbrenner, Elections Counsel; Matt Pinkus, Minority Senior 

Policy Analyst; Khalil Abboud, Minority Elections Staff; and Greg 

Abbott, Minority Professional Staff. 

Mr. GINGREY. I now call to order the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight for today’s hearing on the 

Library of Congress. The hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days so that Members may submit any materials that they 

wish to be included therein. A quorum is present, so we may proceed. 

Through its seven service units, the Library of Congress provides 

us—Congress and the American people—an unrivaled repository of 

knowledge and research services, many essential for Congress’ ability to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities. A mission of such 

scope and significance requires adequate resources; and equally important, it requires that its resources be strictly managed. With an 

annual budget of over $580 million, taxpayer dollars, it is absolutely imperative that the Library have the appropriate measures 

in place to avoid waste and ensure these funds are spent in the 

most efficient and cost-effective manner. Of course, this can only be 

achieved through a collaborative effort between the Library and its 

inspector general, which brings me to the focus of today’s hearing. 

In March of this year, we received a troubling report from the 

Library’s inspector general on the state of its acquisition process. 

The report identified 21 deficiencies stemming from inadequate 

management, a lack of training and expertise, and poor acquisition 

communications with the rest of the Library. With $210 million 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

worth of contracts awarded by the Library in fiscal year 2011, 

roughly a third of its overall budget, we simply can’t afford to ignore these problems. 

Equally disturbing is that of the 21 deficiencies detailed in this 

report, this March report, 16 of 21 were identified in 2008, 4 years 

ago, the last time the inspector general performed a comprehensive 

audit of the Library’s acquisitions. If the Library’s acquisition procedures were failing in 2008, why did it take 4 years to follow up 

on that? 

Officewide audits were conducted in 2002, 2003, 2004, as well as 

2007 and, of course, 2008. Not only does it appear that the Library 

failed to take the necessary action in 2008, but it also appears that 

the inspector general failed to do its job in tracking these deficiencies. Congress relies on the inspector general to ensure agencies of the Federal Government are complying with established 

standards and safeguards to prevent any fraud and identify waste 

and abuse. Waiting 4 years to follow up on previous recommendations is far too long to ensure corrective actions have been taken. 

Today I am interested in hearing three things from our witnesses: How bad is the problem, how did we get here, and how are 

we going to fix it? How many of the 21 findings and 51 recommendations have been resolved? What progress has the 120-day 

detailee made, understanding that that person has been in place 

just a little more than a month? Of the necessary corrective actions 

yet to be accomplished, when will they be resolved? 

In addition, I am also interested in hearing from the inspector 

general an explanation of the factors that determine the scheduling 

of acquisition-related audits and to make certain another 4 years 

will not pass between this March report and the next audit. 

I want to thank each of my colleagues for being here today. This 

is a very important subcommittee. We are all extremely busy, and 

we all serve on other very important committees, and these are 

senior members. So I am most appreciative of them being here, understanding the significance of this hearing. 

I would now like to recognize the ranking member of the full 

committee—well, in fact, I guess the ranking member of the full 

committee is not here—but a very, very senior-ranking Member in 

the minority party, my good friend from Texas, Representative 

Charles Gonzalez. And I will recognize him now for the purpose of 

providing an opening statement. 

Charlie. 

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

First I would like to start off with asking for unanimous consent 

to allow the ranking member Bob Brady, Congressman Brady’s 

statement to be entered and be made a part of the record of today’s 

hearing. 

Mr. GINGREY. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The statement of Mr. Brady follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 75656A.001
4 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is good to see this subcommittee in action again, as our oversight role is one of the most important things that Congress can 

do for this country. 

I share the chairman’s concern that the Federal Government 

have a procurement process that works for the American people. 

Many of the most vocal complaints about the first decade of this 

century centered around the practice of granting billions of dollars 

in no-bid contracts, especially during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Senate colleagues, Senators Claire McCaskill and Jim 

Webb, created the Commission on Wartime Contracting to stamp 

out the waste, fraud, and abuse that was costing the Federal Government money. And I hope that there will be a bipartisan bill introduced, obviously, in the Senate in June that will overhaul wartime contracting practices, and that we in the House will act accordingly and support our Senate colleagues. 

Fortunately, today we are looking only at the concerns about 

waste, without the fraud or abuse we have seen among now notorious defense contractors and healthcare companies, one of which 

paid what was, until earlier this month, the largest fraud settlement in United States history, $2 billion in criminal fines and civil 

penalties for systematically defrauding Federal healthcare programs. But the inspector general has produced a report of serious 

problems, and I am pleased that the Library has agreed to many 

of the recommendations, and that the committee has taken an interest in how to improve the procedures at the Library. 

Just as that Medicare fraud suit was a bipartisan effort begun 

under Attorney General Reno and completed under Attorney General Ashcroft, oversight should always be a bipartisan effort. In 

that spirit I will not extend my remarks much beyond what the 

chairman has already said. But I was struck by the report’s notation, quote, ‘‘With the exception of the head of contracts, no contracting specialist at the Library has been on the job for more than 

9 months,’’ end quote. Such high rates of turnover are, indeed, 

troubling both for what they may indicate about the office and for 

additional costs that they may cause. I will be most interested to 

hear what the witnesses have to say about this particular detail of 

the report. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman. 

I now call on my colleague, who passes on an opening statement. 

I would now like to introduce our witnesses. Karl Schornagel was 

appointed inspector general of the Library of Congress in March of 

2001. Prior to his appointment with the Library, Mr. Schornagel 

served as a senior auditor in the Office of Inspector General in the 

Department of Commerce. There he helped establish policies related to Government Accounting Office auditing standards, and he 

conducted internal quality reviews of compliance with audit and inspection standards. Mr. Schornagel began his career in 1979 as a 

junior auditor in the Treasury Department’s Financial Management Service. 

Our second witness, Robert Dizard, Jr., is now the Deputy Librarian of Congress. Prior to this recent appointment, Mr. Dizard 

had served the Library for 22 years in various capacities, including 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

Deputy Associate Librarian for Library Services and Staff Director 

and Chief Operating Officer of the United States Copyright Office. 

Most recently he served as Chief of Staff to the Librarian of Congress. 

The third witness is Lucy D. Suddreth. Ms. Suddreth is the Chief 

of Support Operations for the Library of Congress, where she has 

served since June of 2010. Ms. Suddreth is responsible for supervising the Directors of Human Resources, Integrated Support Services, the Office of Opportunity Inclusiveness and Compliance, Contracts and Grants Management, and Security and Emergency Preparedness. Ms. Suddreth began her service at the Library in 1990 

and has previously served as Assistant Chief Operating Officer and 

Acting Director of Operations, Management, and Training. 

We thank all of you for being here today. The committee has received your written testimony. At the appropriate time I will recognize each of you for 5 minutes to present a summary of that submission. To help you keep time, we have a timing device near the 

witness table—in fact, two of them. The device will emit a green 

light for 4 minutes, and it will then turn yellow when 1 minute remains. When the light turns red, it means your time has expired. 

I am pretty light on the gavel, so don’t feel like you have to race 

through your presentation. We want very much to hear from you 

and realize the importance that we hear you loud and clear. 

Mr. Inspector General, we will start with you. Will you please 

proceed. 

STATEMENT OF KARL W. SCHORNAGEL, INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS; ROBERT DIZARD, JR., DEPUTY LIBRARIAN, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS; AND LUCY D. SUDDRETH, 

CHIEF OF SUPPORT OPERATIONS, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

STATEMENT OF KARL W. SCHORNAGEL 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Chairman Gingrey and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to address my office’s recent reassessment 

of the state of contracting activities at the Library of Congress. The 

contracting function is a critically important aspect of the Library’s 

operations, accounting for more than $200 million in annual expenditures. Due to the breadth, depth, and duration of problems 

found, the Library faces a major challenge to demonstrate to taxpayers that it is a good steward of its contracting funds. 

To maintain public trust and fulfill public policy objectives, an effective contracting function should efficiently address customer 

needs and obtain the best value. The success of any public contracting system is rooted in proper internal controls that, if adhered to through effective management and oversight, promote 

transparency, accountability, competition, and ultimately protect 

resources from fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. 

The Library has a well-documented history of problems in its Office of Contracts Management, OCM, as we have repeatedly reported over the last 10 years. Based on our ongoing concerns, we 

engaged Jefferson Solutions to perform an evaluation of the current 

state of the Library’s OCM. 

The findings and more than 50 recommendations are summarized in 3 categories: First, the management of the contracting 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

function. We report staff lacking sufficient contracting knowledge 

and experience; lack of supervision and training that likely contribute to an extremely high staff turnover rate and low morale; no 

infrastructure component to address policy, training, and reporting 

matters; organizational misalignment and a lack of definition of the 

OCM management structure; lack of continuity in leadership—the 

senior procurement executive position has only been filled for 2 of 

the last 9 years; the absence of a performance management tool; 

and inadequate requirements for reviewing procurements under 

$100,000, and an ineffective Contracts Review Board for contracts 

over $100,000 that does not prevent or detect deficiencies in the 

contracting process. 

The second category, technical issues. We report a lack of adequate planning; deficient market research supporting independent 

government cost estimates; a gross lack of competition—of the 129 

randomly selected contracts valued at $52 million, more than half 

were awarded noncompetitively; poorly defined requirements; inadequate government cost estimates needed to check the fairness and 

reasonableness of vendor quotes; lack of justification for the use of 

risky labor-hour contracts; overuse of nonpersonal services contracts for experts and consultants that avoid competition, sometimes for readily available services; mischaracterization of contract 

types; pervasive incorrect use and exercise of contract options; and 

a misconfigured contract writing tool for inserting critical contract 

clauses. 

Third category, customers. We report poor communication and 

cooperation between the OCM and its customers; customers lacking 

understanding of their roles and responsibilities for planning and 

executing contracts; contracting officer’s representatives inadequately trained; and lack of current and useful policies and procedures. 

Further, the Library does not track any performance metrics related to effective contracting and administration of the OCM, even 

though Library management knows about these longstanding problems and is aware that program managers and staff receive poorquality contracting services. 

An area that stands out in particular is that the OCM does not 

consistently promote or ensure full and open competition, or ascertain whether it is receiving the best price. Consequently, the Library is likely paying more for services and supplies and/or limiting 

access to offerers who may provide superior technical approaches 

and solutions. 

Despite bringing these and other problems to management’s attention in five prior audits and memoranda between 2002 and 

2008, we conclude that Library management’s corrective efforts 

have been unsuccessful, and that there has been further deterioration in the function. The extent of problems found during this review is troubling, considering Library management asserted that it 

had corrected the vast majority of the conditions identified in this 

and our comprehensive 2008 report. 

The government has established procurement regulations and 

best practices for competing contracts, comparing costs, and determining price reasonableness for the express purpose of maximizing 

the taxpayers’ purchasing dollar. The Library’s continued nonVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:23 Sep 13, 2012 Jkt 075656 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A656.XXX A656

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

compliance with these guidelines, along with ineffective management in the OCM and the lack of accountability, expose the Library 

to a high risk of costly inefficiencies and waste of funds. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Schornagel follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 75656A.002
9 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 75656A.003
10 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 75656A.004
11 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 75656A.005
12 

Mr. GINGREY. Before I call on the next witness for his testimony, 

I want to say that, by a previous agreement, it is my understanding, Ms. Suddreth, that you have submitted your remarks, 

but not be giving an oral, and that is fine. 

So we will hear from our last witness before we get into the 

questions of all three of the witnesses. 

Mr. Dizard, you have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT DIZARD, JR. 

Mr. DIZARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Gingrey, Mr. Gonzalez, members of the subcommittee, 

my written statement reviews, and I will now summarize further, 

the work the Library has undertaken in the past 24 months to develop an efficient and stable contracting operation, a need again 

emphasized in the inspector general’s report. And I hope, Mr. 

Chairman, to address some of the questions that you have raised 

in your opening remarks. 

I fully appreciate the committee’s concerns about the issues 

raised in the report and the need for senior management of the Library to show that these issues are being effectively addressed. 

As you mentioned, I am joined today by Lucy Suddreth, the Library’s Chief of Support Operations, in whose service unit the Office of Contracts has been located, and who has overseen much of 

the work outlined in my testimony. 

Like all agencies, the Library depends on contracts for goods and 

services to support our mission. Last fiscal year, as you have noted, 

approximately 30 percent of our budget was spent through contracts issued by the Office of Contracts. Mr. Chairman, I believe we 

have in the past 24 months established a senior management focus 

and a series of actions that will, with sustained attention, address 

the problems we have had and result in a stable and efficient contracts operation. 

I think it is important to note that the issues we are dealing with 

have not involved fraud or abuse in contracts processing or execution. They are fundamentally management-related. Even so, we are 

executing the Library’s budget, and contracts are being processed 

for our programs. We just need to do a better job of it. 

In June 2010, I was appointed Library Chief of Staff, and Ms. 

Suddreth was appointed Chief of Support Operations. From the 

start we both gave this area priority attention. Since that time 

some of the actions we have taken to address contracting operations issues include the following: We have hired 19 new staff 

members to work in the Office of Contracts. We now have 33 staff 

in the office compared to 19 in January of 2011. We have additionally added two new supervisory positions to the staff. 

Our contracting specialists have completed approximately 1,200 

hours of Federal certification training. Last fiscal year we began to 

implement the Office of Federal Procurement Policy’s new training 

curriculum for certifying contracting officer representatives in our 

program offices so that they fully understand their own responsibilities in the contracts process. Two hundred twenty-four staff members have gone through this 5-day training. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

A procurement planning component has been included in our 

new Library budget system, which will be implemented on October 

1. 

Finally, we have transitioned the competition advocate role to 

our general counsel’s office. As of July 1, the general counsel’s office is reviewing solicitations before they are issued to ensure that 

contracts are being properly competed. 

These actions, I believe, address in part the root causes identified 

in the IG’s report and are consistent with the report’s recommendations. 

In June, the House Committee on Appropriations issued House 

Report 112–511, which included language directing the Librarian 

to either hire, contract for, or assign an in-house top-level manager, 

reporting directly to the Chief of Staff and charged with addressing, providing solutions to, and bringing to closure all concerns in 

the inspector general’s report. In response to this language, I have 

detailed Mr. Edward Jablonski to the Office of Contracts. Mr. 

Jablonski is the Associate Director for Finance and Administration 

in the Congressional Research Service. This is his fourth week in 

the Office of Contracts, and he is reporting directly to me. 

The work we started in June 2010 will continue as a priority for 

me and for our senior management team even as we work to complete contracts processing this fiscal year. If there is a major difference between what we are doing now and what has been done 

in the past to address this issue, it is that we are now taking an 

institutionwide approach to the program, not viewing it simply as 

a contracts office problem. We recognize that only with cooperation 

and collaboration among our contract specialists, our program offices, and our financial management and legal staff are we able to 

address the primary issues involved here. 

Mr. Chairman, I can speak for myself and the Librarian in stating that we will sustain our attention and focus in this area. We 

know that effective contracts administration is essential to the 

proper and efficient provision of the Library’s services to the Congress and to the Nation. We also know that we need to address 

these issues fully and enduringly. We will continue to report our 

progress to the committee, and we are happy to answer any questions now. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Dizard. 

[The statement of Mr. Dizard follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 75656A.006
15 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 75656A.007
16 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 75656A.008
17 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 75656A.009
18 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 75656A.010
19 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 75656A.011
20 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 75656A.012
21 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 75656A.013
22 

Mr. GINGREY. And, of course, we will begin the first round—we 

possibly will have subsequent rounds—but I will start with myself 

with 5 minutes, and then I will defer to the ranking member and 

then to Mr. Nugent. I am going to start with you, Mr. Dizard. 

As you noted in your testimony recently, the Library was directed to assign someone to report directly to you for 120 days regarding the contracting office. And as I understand it, this person 

began that work on June 17. The IG report recommends 51 specific 

recommendations to eliminate, and I quote, ‘‘root causes,’’ unquote, 

of deficiencies identified in the report. What actions has the appointee taken to implement these recommendations? What progress 

so far has been made? 

Mr. DIZARD. I will say Mr. Jablonski’s main emphasis now is to 

process the contracts remaining before the fiscal year ends on September 30. On some of the root causes that I think he has already 

addressed in tandem with trying to get the work out, he has greatly improved, I think, the communications between the contracts office and our program offices. He is also working on technology 

tools, principally our financial management system. He has met 

with our system people and our chief financial—— 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, let me interrupt you and ask you this: Of the 

51 recommendations, how many has he addressed? 

Mr. DIZARD. Before Mr. Jablonski got there, we had addressed 

approximately half of them. We first started with addressing the 

areas of staffing and training, and we have done a lot of work on 

that. And I would say we addressed those areas well before the 

IG—— 

Mr. GINGREY. What assurances do we have that these findings 

and recommendations will not go unresolved for another 4 years? 

Mr. DIZARD. I think the assurance is one that I can give you here 

now. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, that is what we want. 

Mr. DIZARD. Right. I will give you that assurance now. And I 

think what has been lacking in our past efforts is a full engagement by all of our senior managers, whether it is in the Librarian’s 

office, as well as our legal managers and financial people. 

So I am confident that even before the report, we have had a 

strong commitment—— 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, let me take you back to this question. Has 

the inspector general—we talked about this last report in 2008. We 

finally get another report in March of this year. Has the inspector 

general—same guy—regularly briefed you on the necessity of implementing those 2008 recommendations? The same recommendations. 

Mr. DIZARD. Well, I can say since I have been chief of staff, the 

Librarian and the inspector general and I meet every month. This 

is a regular topic of conversation. I was in regular contact with the 

IG during this report as well as after. So I think the communications between the inspector general and the Librarian’s office are 

good. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you. Let’s let him speak for himself for just 

a moment on some of the time that I have remaining. 

Mr. IG, in a June 7 National Journal Daily article, you are 

quoted as saying, ‘‘The reason this has gone on for 10 years is beVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:23 Sep 13, 2012 Jkt 075656 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A656.XXX A656

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

cause there is a lack of continuity in leadership,’’ in reference to 

the shortcomings at the Library. You go on to say, ‘‘Beyond that, 

there really is no excuse. That is not even an excuse. There is really no good reason,’’ end quote. Arguably there has been consistent 

leadership at the Library, and yet these problems persist. 

Although you couldn’t provide a reason in the National Journal 

article, could you provide one to the members of this subcommittee? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Well, yes. I think it is very simple. There is 

a position at the Library, the Chief Procurement Executive, that 

has been vacant for 7 out of the last 9 years. That is the leadership 

that I am talking about. That is the primary person responsible for 

these contracting activities. 

Mr. GINGREY. You are talking about the position that Ms. 

Suddreth now holds? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. No, I am not. It is a position under Ms. 

Suddreth that is in charge of both contracts and grants. 

Mr. GINGREY. To your knowledge—and I am sure you would 

know—is that position currently filled? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. No. No, it is not. 

Mr. GINGREY. Before your most recent report—the last one was 

in 2008. Prior to the 2008 report, there was more continuity with 

reports in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2007. 

If these problems are so drastic, then why was there a 4-year gap 

between your reports, 2008 and this current one, March 2012? Why 

4 years? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Well, first of all, we started this most recent 

assignment in 2011. We had to hire a contractor. Of course, that 

took a little time. But that project started in 2011. 

We do not have the resources to do a comprehensive follow-up on 

every important job that we do. No IG, Federal IG, in town does. 

Now, what we do get is semiannually, before we issue our Semiannual Report to Congress, an update as to the status of implementing recommendations. So what we have to do, and what every 

IG does, is rely on management to make a statement, to certify or 

attest to the fact that they have implemented a recommendation. 

So we have to trust the agency. Every once in a while, for a very 

important job, then, yes, we will go back and do a comprehensive 

follow-up, but that takes a lot of resources. And in the meantime, 

between 2008 and this report, we have done many other very important projects that have identified millions of dollars in funds to 

be put to better use. 

Mr. GINGREY. My time has expired. In fact, I have abused my 

first 5 minutes by a minute and a half, and I will be lenient on 

my colleagues. 

Let me turn it over to the ranking member for his questions. 

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

Maybe I overlooked it, but that particular position that we were 

referring to as being vacant for a number of years is the Office of 

Contracts and Grants Management? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. That is correct. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. And it has been vacant for how many years? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. It has been vacant—it was created, actually at, 

I believe, my recommendation back in 2003, and it wasn’t filled 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

until 5 years later, in 2008. And then it was vacated again in 2010, 

and it has not been filled since. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. All right. And just how important is that position 

in order—well, one, would we have avoided many of the problems 

that we face today had that position been filled? And going forward, the importance of the position. It seems like if something had 

been vacant off and on for such a period of time, people start figuring that it is not a necessary position. 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Exactly. Yes. I think if that position had been 

filled with a competent person—this is the subject matter expert in 

a Federal agency, a person who develops the strategies, the methodologies, the approaches, the contract types, and is critical in negotiating contracts. This is an extremely critical position. It needs 

to be filled by someone with a lot of technical contracting experience and also someone who is a good manager. And that position 

is the one that has been vacant for 7 of the last 9 years. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. How many years have you been the inspector 

general? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Eleven years. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Eleven. 

Mr. Dizard, you were Chief of Staff previously. You are now Deputy Librarian. How long have you been with the Library? 

Mr. DIZARD. Twenty-two years. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Ms. Suddreth, you were actually appointed to the 

Office of Support Operations in June of 2010, I believe. 

Ms. SUDDRETH. That is correct. I have been with the Library for 

22 years as well. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Okay. So all of y’all have institutional knowledge. 

Now, I am not going to charge you with knowledge of the procurement process because that may not have been under your jurisdiction or your familiarity with. 

More importantly, what we are trying to do here is not necessarily fix the blame; it is the thing about fix the problem, and 

we will figure blame, if there is to be blame. We are not talking 

about fraud. We are not talking about abuse. But are we getting 

the most value for the taxpayer money? And are we doing it in a 

fair way where vendors are treated fairly? Because, believe me, we 

hear from them. My colleagues will tell you about that. 

My understanding, Mr. Schornagel, is that almost everybody over 

in the Library doesn’t really contest some of your findings, recommendations, and that they are going to incorporate solutions, 

and remedies, and processes and such; is that correct? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Yes. I certainly hope so. I have confidence in 

Mr. Dizard’s ability to get that done with an adequate plan. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Where is the major area of disagreement that remains outstanding? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. There was disagreement on four relatively 

minor findings having to do with whether a contracting module is 

appropriate for inserting clauses in contracts. There is really no 

disagreement, I don’t believe. 

I think the most critical thing, though, is getting quality leadership into the position of Director of Contracts and Grants Management, and then that person will, of course, see to the appropriate 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

organizational staffing and management needs to really turn the 

organization around. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I am going to suggest that we be 

meeting with that particular individual so that we can get this 

straight. I mean, obviously we have someone that is key to this 

whole operation and going forward. 

And I am running out of time, and, Mr. Dizard, I think you 

wanted to respond. 

Mr. DIZARD. If I may, Mr. Gonzalez, the position that you are referring to was established as an umbrella position over grants and 

contracts. The senior lead official for contracts has been filled all 

the time. There have not been vacancies there. Frankly, one of the 

questions that we have now is whether we need that senior umbrella position at this point, and we will decide that before the year 

is out. But I don’t want to leave the impression that we haven’t 

had leadership in the contracts office. We have. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. But I think the inspector general is pointing out 

that there has been some sort of a deficiency there. And in this 

particular position, whether we are going to call it the umbrella or 

the preexisting one, I think you need to get all this straight as far 

as how is this going to flow. We are never going to get any answers 

on this, and we are never going to improve. 

But I have used up all my time. Thank you. And I yield back, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. 

Mr. Nugent from Florida for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NUGENT. Just to follow up on my friend’s comments, this is— 

from a leadership executive position, this is really a damning report in regards to the leadership of the Library of Congress, particularly when these issues have been, I guess, out there for 10 

years. So, you know, as it relates to accountability—and you mentioned the umbrella position. Obviously it wasn’t filled for a number of years, and that there may not even be a need for that position. But you do have somebody who is in charge of contracts; is 

that correct? 

Mr. DIZARD. That is correct. 

Mr. NUGENT. And how long has that person been in that position? 

Mr. DIZARD. Well, this was the position that the Appropriations 

Committee directed us to put somebody in. They said, get a person 

over there to manage the contracts office. Prior to that time, we 

had a person in there for 2 years. 

This has been an issue. We have had an unexpected retirement, 

an illness of a person who was heading the contracts office. The 

continuity has been a challenge for us. 

Mr. NUGENT. And how many people are in the contracts office? 

Mr. DIZARD. Right now there are 33. 

Mr. NUGENT. And what is the average length of experience? 

Mr. DIZARD. Many of them have prior Federal contracting experience, but the average length of experience probably now with us is 

between 12 and 18 months, with some who have been there much 

longer, but overall a relatively new staff. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

Mr. NUGENT. And from the IG’s perspective, is there—I didn’t see 

this in the report—when you mentioned the lack of experience or 

high turnover, is there a reason for that? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Well, yes. You are not going to induce people 

to stay if you don’t have a good structure for helping them, mentoring them, supervising them, providing proper guidance. I mean, 

that exacerbates the problem of turnover, that has been extremely 

high. 

Mr. NUGENT. Ms. Suddreth, what was your role in regards to— 

and I saw in here a reference to training and experience and some 

oversight with that process. What is your role? 

Ms. SUDDRETH. In 2010, stabilizing and improving the staffing 

levels was the first priority. Mr. Schornagel touches on what came 

into focus for us—what came on our plate to focus on in trying to 

do that, the first thing being that we needed to first determine 

what was the appropriate level of staffing for the Library’s contract 

operation, and then what were the types of competencies and skill 

levels, as well as levels of certification that we needed to also recruit. And we did take into consideration that not only did we face 

the issues of staff leaving the Library of Congress, but there has 

been an overall government issue with staff in this particular career series, where there is high turnover. There is a dwindling population of contracting professionals, yet a high demand for those 

kinds of qualifications. We used all of that, looking at best practices 

looking across the leg branch as well as the executive branch, and 

made a decision on what the recruitment plan should be. 

Mr. NUGENT. The question that the IG came up with about was 

the lack of training, or at least that the employees didn’t feel, I 

guess, empowered to do their job. I don’t want to put words in your 

mouth, but that is the impression that I get. What have you done 

to address that in regards to high turnover? 

Ms. SUDDRETH. Two points there. The staff that the inspector 

general would have interviewed at that time are no longer there. 

There was a combination of staff. There was a combination of contract staff, and new staff that had come on, and then two to three 

existing staff. 

Overwhelmingly, we have changed the staffing profile of the contracts office. So we have a staff that came in with the prerequisite 

requirements to fill the job. We have a 74 percent increase in the 

level of certifications to be able to do their job. So he would see a 

totally different landscape of employees were that audit to be conducted today. 

In addition to that, we have thoroughly concluded what we needed to do to help them with their recertification—receive their certifications as well as to continue other training and—— 

Mr. NUGENT. So you are telling me today that staff satisfaction 

will be higher than when this was initially reviewed back—when 

was the actual review, 2011? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. We finished the review in January, and we did 

most of the evaluation work in late 2011. 

Mr. NUGENT. So you are telling me today if they were to redo 

that within the last 8 months that you have improved employee 

satisfaction, specifically? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

Ms. SUDDRETH. I am saying that what staff would tell you is that 

they are enjoying an adequate span of supervisory control so that 

they have that opportunity to be mentored. They have the opportunity to have that direct one-on-one counseling about their jobs or 

advice about their jobs. They would say to you that they have an 

opportunity to receive training. We have offered them career-ladder 

positions. There is an alternative work schedule they get to enjoy. 

Satisfaction would be measured, I guess, from employee to employee. 

Mr. NUGENT. If we are going to go to another round, I will yield 

back. 

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman. And we will do another 

round. I don’t know how many of my colleagues can remain, but 

I certainly appreciate the first round of questions. Obviously they 

are important enough that I think we will have a second round, 

and I certainly intend to ask further questions. 

I will recognize myself now for an additional 5 minutes. 

Let me—since in the first round, Ms. Suddreth, I ran out of time 

before I had an opportunity to ask you some questions, given your 

senior management position—and you just mentioned to us a few 

minutes ago that you have been with the Library of Congress for— 

as well as Mr. Dizard—for 22 years—how do you explain the Library’s failure to simply and consistently train its procurement 

staff? 

Ms. SUDDRETH. Mr. Chairman, I can’t say that I could give you 

any concrete reasons why that has not occurred. I want to say that 

since 2008, I have had more direct insight into the Office of Contracts and Grants Management. I know during those times, with 

the persons who served as Chief of Contracts, there was emphasis 

on training of staff while there were obviously deficiencies that still 

needed to be improved. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, do you disagree then with the inspector general’s report of 2008 and the more recent report here from March 

of this year? 

Ms. SUDDRETH. I found myself in the position to agree with the 

IG’s findings, but most probably because I was faced with a situation where staff were leaving the Library. The turnover rate was 

very high, and we needed to, as I said, arrest that so that we could 

stabilize it and bring people on who would, first, want to come to 

work at the Library of Congress and, obviously, want to stay here. 

Mr. GINGREY. How many recommendations from the March 2012 

audit have now been implemented? 

Ms. SUDDRETH. I believe that I have completed 26 of those recommendations. 

Mr. GINGREY. Are you telling the committee that it would be primarily your responsibility to implement those recommendations? 

Ms. SUDDRETH. It has been. 

Mr. GINGREY. How will you ensure that the recommendations 

that haven’t as yet been implemented and those that are ongoing 

will continue to be implemented effectively and efficiently, particularly given the Library’s failure—and we have harped on this. I 

guess ‘‘harped’’ is not the right word, but we have emphasized 

this—the Library’s failure to solve these deficiencies that go back 

probably 10 years, but let’s say at least back to 2008? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

Ms. SUDDRETH. Well, I will continue to be a part of senior management and continue to be a part of that focus. I believe the Deputy Librarian has really laid out how he intends to make sure that 

this occurs going forward. 

Mr. GINGREY. Thank you, Ms. Suddreth. 

Let me go back to Mr. Schornagel. As inspector general—and you 

have been around. You have been an inspector general or deputy 

or involved in an IG department in three different agencies of the 

Federal Government, so you know what you are doing. You are 

able to recommend implementation of procedures to fix the problems—well, let me rephrase that. Are you able, as inspector general, to recommend implementation of procedures to fix the problems mentioned in your report, or are you limited just to pointing 

out that the deficiencies exist, deficiencies maybe in Library leadership, but it is somebody else’s responsibility to take care of the 

problem? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Well, yes, it is somebody else’s responsibility. 

That is a very clear distinction made in the Federal IG community 

that we are not allowed to take part in management of an agency 

because it compromises our independence. We try to explain as 

much as we can about the problem, about why it is a problem, 

about—— 

Mr. GINGREY. All right. All right. I get that. I get that. 

But in my office, my official office here in Washington, my official 

office in the 11th District of Georgia when I am at home, and indeed even in my campaign office, when I tell somebody to do something, I point out something that is a deficiency, I make a note in 

my BlackBerry or somewhere, iPad, and I make sure that within 

a week or two, or a month at the most, that whoever I spoke to 

in regard to that deficiency has gotten back to me and closed the 

loop. Don’t you do that at least? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. Oh, absolutely. In fact, we issue a draft report 

and—after the Library’s response to every single recommendation, 

we do a final report, and then within 30 days after that, they submit a comprehensive corrective action plan. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, if you go 4 years and nothing has changed, 

it sounds like, to me, you might just be checking a box. 

I have used up my second 5 minutes, and I will turn it over to 

the ranking member. 

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

We all are trying to get to the same place, hopefully. And then 

I will have the last question for the inspector general. But the reason that we are here today is because obviously certain procedures 

may have been followed that deviated what should have been better or best practices. What we will hear from our constituents—and 

we live in a very hostile political environment right now when it 

comes to the Federal dollar. But on page 28—and I want to cover 

this because this is the stuff that does make the stories, and it is 

impossible for us, as Members of Congress, to adequately explain 

to our business community at times. 

This is page 28 of the inspector general’s report. In contract 

number—and there is a long number—it is reflected the RFQ was 

issued on June 16, and responses were received June 21. There 

was a quote from the vendor dated June 9. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

Now, remember, the RFQ was issued June 16; responses received 

June 21. 

But on June 9, there was a quote from a vendor for about $144,000. There was a second quote from the same vendor dated 

June 21, which matched the awarded dollar value of the contract. 

The final evidence is that the service unit provided four possible 

vendors—so the names were out there, I take it—to the contracting 

officer. And this is the contracting officer. That is not the contracting umbrella person. I think we have got that straight. 

There was no evidence that they were solicited. This was a GSA 

schedule competitive buy with only one vendor responding. Now, 

maybe this was an isolated incident, but this is a serious issue not 

just with the Library of Congress, this happens elsewhere. But it 

is our responsibility that this does not happen. 

Is there an explanation, Ms. Suddreth—and I know you have 

been there since 2010, and every contract—I am sure you don’t go 

over and read every contract to ensure that process was followed. 

But how does this happen, where there is some question about an 

early request being made or a submission prior to the issuance for 

a request? Then it is updated in compliance with the timeline; and 

it is the exact amount, obviously, that is eventually awarded, because my understanding would be that it was the only vendor because the others were never solicited. How does that happen? 

Ms. SUDDRETH. Mr. Gonzales, I can’t speak specifically to this 

particular example. I can tell you that having read the report, and 

in working with the Deputy Librarian in putting together an action 

plan, my feeling and approach was that we need to make sure that 

it never happens again. If there are things—I would say that there 

should be stringent policies and procedures as well as quality assurance, a strong quality assurance program, so that this does not 

happen, and that every action that is taken by any of the staff 

there, contracting officers or—and I should say to you, contracting 

officers can also be an employee who is at the GS-13 or GS-14 

level, not to complicate the situation—but so that everyone there 

knows what the proper procedures are. 

So a direct answer to your question is I can’t speak to this particular example. I decided to deal with it from a more holistic view, 

and that we needed to make sure that we had very stringent policies and procedures. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you. 

My final question is going to be of Mr. Schornagel, and it is going 

to follow up on the chairman’s line of questioning, and that is you 

have made your report, there is a response and such. Help us figure out what is the best way for us to monitor this and understand 

whether they are in compliance with the recommendations and any 

other—obviously their own plan, but recommendations that you 

would have been making yourself. What do we do? Do we have to 

have another hearing? Do we meet with the contracting grants person or contract person? I mean, we have got to figure out how we 

are going to monitor this and get our staff to assist us. 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. It is a very difficult thing that you are asking, 

and I think there is no shortcut to that. What is necessary for us 

is to spend the resources to do another comprehensive follow-up 

much sooner rather than later on this project. Hopefully what I 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

would suggest is getting a senior-level executive person in charge 

of contracts at the Library of Congress, make that the head of the 

contracts office, make it the head of contracts and grants, whatever. But get that person in place; give them a little time, you 

know, 6 months at least, possibly longer, to really effect these kind 

of changes; and then my office go in and do another comprehensive 

follow-up, spend hundreds of hours. It takes really digging deeply 

to determine whether something has changed or not. 

Mr. GONZALEZ. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the ranking member. 

And I will now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida 

Mr. Nugent for a second round. 

Mr. NUGENT. Just as a follow-up, you know, as a chief executive 

officer of an organization, obviously the IG report is a blueprint for 

you to follow up on issues that have come to light. And specifically 

when we are talking about taxpayer dollars being utilized appropriately or inappropriately, we don’t really know, and we don’t also 

know what kind of savings would have been accomplished had they 

followed the correct procedures; is that correct? 

Mr. SCHORNAGEL. That is correct. We have done some other work 

on individual contracts and identified some inefficiencies, but it is 

hard to draw conclusions from the kind of audit that we did in 

March of 2012. 

Mr. NUGENT. As the senior leadership team, when you have an 

IG’s report, you have the draft—and I am very familiar with how 

this is done. You have the draft, you have an opportunity to respond. If there are issues that you take exception to, you have the 

ability to respond to those, and there was no negative response on 

your part. This occurred, obviously, in 2008 and now in 2012. This 

is like Groundhog Day; everything keeps happening again. 

Where in the leadership team has this broken down? I mean, 

there has got to be accountability here somewhere. And you can’t 

just say, well, you know, at the lower levels we have had constant 

turnover. Someone in the leadership team has to stand up and say, 

I am responsible, and here is how we are going to do it better. But 

what I hear all too often in the bureaucracy here up in Washington, D.C., is that we are very good at, I want to say, deflecting, 

and at the end of the day—and this is why taxpayers are upset 

with us—it doesn’t seem like there is accountability on anyone’s 

part. 

Mr. Dizard. 

Mr. DIZARD. I would say very clearly the Office of the Librarian 

is responsible. There is no doubt about that. And what I think I 

can answer from my time there—and I have tried to indicate that 

I recognize this, having been in the Library and been in program 

offices—is that this was probably the primary management issue 

that we knew we had to address. But I think what the failure has 

been in the past, as I have mentioned before, is just to say this is 

an isolated problem in the contracts office, and we just need to fix 

that. 

And what we are doing now is looking at this across the board, 

because contracts involve program offices. If program offices don’t 

know what they are doing and do things wrong, that messes up the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

contracts process and the office. We have needs in our financial 

management system. We have gotten our general counsel’s office 

more involved. 

So I am not following the practices of the past. What I am trying 

to say is I am looking at this Library-wide. And I can assure you 

that our senior management across the Library is not only aware 

of this situation, but committed to fixing it. And we are not disagreeing with the inspector general’s conclusions. I would just say 

that I think we have been acting on this for 24 months now so that 

some of the conclusions that he has reached have already been addressed. We have a fully staffed office, a better-trained office. We 

have trained over 200 of our program offices. We are doing more 

in terms of competition, ensuring greater competition. So we are in 

the process now, not all of a sudden responding. 

Mr. NUGENT. And I thank you for that. 

Ms. Suddreth, you had mentioned that 26 of the recommendations have been implemented, 25 still yet to be implemented. Of 

those 25 what would you say are the most critical of those 25 that 

you have not yet implemented? 

Ms. SUDDRETH. Drafting policy and procedures, quality assurance, and then making sure that we have the correct technology 

support for them to do their work. 

Mr. NUGENT. When you say policies and procedures, what specifically are you talking about? 

Ms. SUDDRETH. I am talking about everything from what I would 

label as FAR interpretive policies. As you know, this is a heavily 

regulated profession, so you have to take that which the FAR has 

said that you must do depending on the kind of contract award 

that you make. You need to make sure that those are there. There 

are also standard operating procedures within the office in terms 

of review, levels of review, levels of approval. 

Mr. NUGENT. When was the last time that those policies were reviewed by your office? 

Ms. SUDDRETH. We inherited 2008 policies, and in reviewing 

those policies—that is what also led to part of this action planning—we found them to be woefully inadequate. 

Mr. NUGENT. And do you have a timeline as to when that particular aspect of the recommendations will be done? 

Ms. SUDDRETH. I have. I have put that into the action plan, looking to have that all addressed by the end of the calendar year. It 

doesn’t mean that work is not ongoing, but at least to be addressed 

by the end of the calendar year. 

Mr. NUGENT. So you expect it to be done by the end of this year, 

this calendar year? 

Ms. SUDDRETH. Yes. 

Mr. NUGENT. Okay. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman. 

I am going to ask one last question. And certainly my colleagues, 

if they would like to ask additional questions, I will yield to them 

when I finish my questions. But I am not going to ask them necessarily to stay around for a third round unless they have a burning desire to ask a question. 

But I do want to—before concluding the hearing, I definitely 

want to ask one last question, and actually it is to Mr. Dizard and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

Ms. Suddreth. The inspector general, as I understand it, is the inspector general for all of the operations, the Library of Congress, 

and there are seven divisions, if you will. We have had oversight 

hearings on four of them a couple or few months ago, and he gives 

reports on all seven; does he not? Is that correct, Mr. Dizard? 

Mr. DIZARD. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. GINGREY. And from everything that I have heard, the reports 

have been very good. I won’t say sterling, but the Library of Congress is performing pretty darn well except for this one area. 

Ms. Suddreth, do you think the inspector general is picking on 

you? 

And I ask Mr. Dizard the same question. 

Let us start with Ms. Suddreth. 

Ms. SUDDRETH. No, I do not think the inspector general is picking on me. 

Mr. GINGREY. Do you think he is spot on? 

Ms. SUDDRETH. I think—in looking at the past 2007–2008 reports, I think that he is spot on to still say that the root causes 

are still there. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Dizard. 

Mr. DIZARD. I don’t think the inspector general is picking on anybody in the Library. In terms of this report, I think it was well presented, well structured and factual, and I think it was, for us, an 

actionable report, something that we could react to and, confirm 

what we had been doing. 

I think it would have been helpful if there was some context put 

in the report that was issued in March in terms of what management had already been doing and whether we were on the right 

track or not. But I don’t get to write the reports. Overall the inspector general is very helpful to our management in the work that 

he does. 

Mr. GINGREY. So at the conclusion of this hearing, the three of 

you are going to go to lunch and have a beer? 

Mr. DIZARD. We could do that. 

Mr. GINGREY. You could do that. I know that you could do that. 

Mr. DIZARD. We could do that. I could probably invite Karl. He 

would probably say no. 

Mr. GINGREY. Do my colleagues have any further questions? No 

questions? 

Well, let me then in conclusion make just a few very brief remarks. I want to thank the witnesses. I think you all three have 

been very forthright and haven’t dodged any of the tough questions, have responded to us. And you can tell from our questions 

that Members take this hearing very seriously. And we want you 

to get it right; we want to help you get it right. 

Obviously there will be a report issued to the leg branch of the 

Appropriations Committee, the subcommittee. I think it is due the 

end of the year, right? 

And so it is all about oversight and investigation. You know, 

many committees of Congress have these subcommittees. I have sat 

on one in the House Armed Services Committee and the Science 

Committee, and I am currently on the Oversight and Investigations 

Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

So I understand my role, our role, in regard to this, and it is not 

one of badgering, and nitpicking, and sitting up here and interrupting you, and being rude to you, and making you feel bad, and 

throwing bricks and that sort of thing. And I think the ranking 

member, his demeanor is just like mine, as is Mr. Nugent, the gentleman from Florida. 

So I hope you understand, appreciate and accept the tone of this 

hearing in that light, because we are just trying to make things 

better. We have a responsibility. We love the Library of Congress 

and the many things that they provide, you provide, for not only 

our constituents, but us, Members of Congress. I mean, CRS is an 

invaluable source of information, unbiased, nonpartisan. So we love 

what you are doing; we just want to help you do it better. 

With that I will call the hearing to a conclusion, and I thank all 

of our witnesses. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 75656A.014
35 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 75656A.015
36 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 75656A.016
37 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 75656A.017
38 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 75656A.018
39 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 75656A.019
40 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 75656A.020
41 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 75656A.021
42 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 75656A.022
43 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 75656A.023
44 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 75656A.024
45 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 75656A.025
46 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 75656A.026
47 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 75656A.027