LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida, Chairman 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

DENNY REHBERG, Montana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

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

ELIZABETH C. DAWSON, Clerk 

JENNIFER KISIAH, Professional Staff 

CHUCK TURNER, Professional Staff 

PART 2 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012—Part 2 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida, Chairman 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

DENNY REHBERG, Montana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

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

ELIZABETH C. DAWSON, Clerk 

JENNIFER KISIAH, Professional Staff 

CHUCK TURNER, Professional Staff 

PART 2 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

65–845 WASHINGTON : 2011 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 1

JERRY LEWIS, California 1

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNY REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

————— 

1 Chairman Emeritus 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

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 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

WILLIAM B. INGLEE, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
C O N T E N TS 

Page 

Library of Congress ................................................................................................. 1 

Government Accountability Office .......................................................................... 55 

Architect of the Capitol ........................................................................................... 93 

Government Printing Office .................................................................................... 145 

Congressional Budget Office ................................................................................... 179 

Testimony of Members of Congress and Other Interested Individuals and 

Organizations ....................................................................................................... 201 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................... 285 

U.S. Capitol Police ................................................................................................... 373 

(III)


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2012 

FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 2011.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

WITNESSES 

JAMES H. BILLINGTON, THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS 

ROBERT DIZARD JR., LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CHIEF OF STAFF 

DEANNA MARCUM, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR LIBRARY SERVICES 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIRMAN CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. I would like to call the meeting to order. This is 

the first hearing for fiscal year 2012 of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the Full House Committee on Appropriations. The 

total fiscal year 2012 budget request that we are going to consider 

is a little over $3.8 billion. That is about a $142 million increase, 

or 3.9 percent, over the current funding levels. This is going to be 

exclusive of the Senate. The Senate is about $1 billion which they 

will consider on their own. Our job is to determine the level of 

funding for the Legislative Branch and then make sure that we are 

accountable to the taxpayers and the people that we represent. 

Now I think most people know that our little corner of the world 

is the smallest amount of money among all the discretionary appropriations, about one-half of 1 percent. But that doesn’t mean that 

we are going to have any less scrutiny over our appropriations 

process. As you all know, we went through a process, House Resolution 1, where we cut $100 billion out of discretionary spending. 

Some people say it is $60 billion, depending on which numbers you 

use, but we started to end this culture of spending and tried to get 

back to a culture of savings. The Legislative Branch Subcommittee 

was part of that process. We shared in those difficult decisions, 

shared in some of the pain. 

As you all know, the members of this subcommittee cut the budgets of the leadership. We cut the budgets of the different committees about 5 percent. In fact, we cut the budget of the Appropriations Committee by twice that, and then we cut all the Members 

of Congress office accounts by 5 percent, just to be sure that we led 

by example and we shared in that pain. 

Now H.R. 1 is gone. We are still in the process of funding 2011, 

but right now this is kind of the beginning of starting the funding 

for 2012. And I want to remind the members of the subcommittee 

that we are in a pretty difficult situation. I don’t really need to remind anybody of that, that our fiscal issues here in the country are 

pretty mind-boggling. When you look at the fact that we are almost 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
2 

$14 trillion in debt, that is almost equal to our GDP, the total output of our economy. And so that is not a good situation to be in. 

We are at a point where we will experience another trillion-dollarplus annual deficit and we can’t sustain that forever. Everybody 

agrees with that, the Democrats and the Republicans alike. And 

then 42 cents out of every dollar we spend we are borrowing. So 

everybody knows we have got to get a handle on this spending 

issue. That is going to help improve the economy. That is going to 

help improve jobs. So we are all in this boat together. 

So we want to begin that process today. I have been working 

with our Ranking Member, Mr. Honda. We worked well together 

at 2:00 a.m. in the morning when we were going through the first 

20 hours of debate on H.R. 1, and we will keep working together. 

Mr. HONDA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I want to thank the members of the subcommittee for being here today. At this time I want to recognize 

Mr. Honda for any remarks he might have. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it has been a pleasure to work with you and work out some of the kinks that we have 

been faced with. And I thought it was done well, Mr. Chairman. 

And Dr. Billington, I want to welcome you to the subcommittee 

to present the Library of Congress’ 2012 request. And the Library 

has requested what, $666.7 million, an increase of 3.6 percent 

above fiscal year 2010. And as Dr. Billington likes to point out, the 

Library is the Nation’s oldest Federal cultural institution and we 

should all be proud that it resides in this branch of government, 

and I am. The librarians are stalwarts of anti-censorship and the 

repository of knowledge and everything else. So I appreciate your 

mission. You allow Congress to operate in a transparent manner 

through the THOMAS Web site, giving our constituents the ability 

to see what we have voted on and read the legislation before Congress. 

The Library of Congress also supplements our staff through the 

Congressional Research Service, which received most of the Library’s increase. The CRS request is $117 million, or 4.1 percent, 

above fiscal year 2010. CRS provides invaluable analysis for Congress, including customized analysis of issues for individual Members. Members and staff rely on the professional staff at the Library to ensure we have the best available information on the 

pressing issues we face. 

Some may be surprised to know that the Library has the copyright responsibilities for the entire government. The Copyright Office budget request is $21.7 million, including the offsetting collections planned in fiscal year 2012. The budget supports the U.S. 

Copyright’s office administration of copyright registrations and the 

acquisition of nonregistered copyright works published in the U.S. 

We want to ensure that the Library has the resources to promptly 

process claims as to not grow the copyright backlog. The budget request states that the Copyright Office ‘‘will continue to develop 

functional and usability enhancements to the electronic Copyright 

Office system at a decreased rate due to budgetary impacts.’’ Well, 

today I want to know what it will take to ensure that we do not 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
3 

go back to 2009 and keep people waiting for more than a year in 

some circumstances to have their copyright claim processed. 

So with that, I will conclude my statement and I look forward to 

Dr. Billington’s opening statement. 

RETIREMENT OF CRS DIRECTOR DAN MULHOLLAN

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. And before I turn to Dr. Billington, 

I wanted to just take a moment to acknowledge the upcoming retirement of one of your staff members sitting behind you there, 

Dan Mulhollan. He is the Director of the Congressional Research 

Service and he announced that on April 3, of this year, he is going 

to be retiring. That is after 42 years of dedicated service to the 

Congress. And so I just wanted to point out that he has been the 

Director of the CRS since 1994, and he has got a long distinguished 

career. But one of the things that jumped out to me, which was 

kind of interesting, is that he served, provided analytical support 

to the Senate Committee on Presidential Activities that was better 

known as the Watergate Committee. And so he has been around 

a long time. In addition, he was the Acting Deputy Librarian of 

Congress from 1992 to 1994. So I know that all the members of the 

subcommittee and the full committee certainly want to thank you 

for those 42 years of service. We appreciate it very much. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

OPENING STATEMENT—THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS

Mr. CRENSHAW. So, Dr. Billington, I will turn to you now for you 

to summarize your statement. We will insert your full statement 

into the record, and if you would like to introduce any of the staff 

that are here, the floor is yours. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Honda, Mr. 

LaTourette, and members of the subcommittee. 

First of all, I will mention our excellent new Chief of Staff, Robert Dizard, who has been a member of the Library active in a 

whole variety of different capacities, in copyright and congressional 

relations and in library services, most recently. We are very fortunate to have him. And he is in charge of a whole new management 

agenda, trying to pull things together and realize more synergies 

and economies in the Library. So he is playing a special role. 

I think you have met all of our Executive Committee as well who 

are behind us and they will assist with the more detailed questions. 

The Congress of the United States has been the greatest patron 

of the library in the history of the world. Mr. Chairman, all of us 

at the Library of Congress are really deeply grateful that, for the 

last 211 years, Congress has created, sustained, and instructed its 

library, through good times and bad, to have made this institution 

into the world’s largest collection of knowledge in almost all languages and formats, the closest thing to the mint record of American private sector creativity and innovation, and finally, the leading American public institution in both capturing transient information of importance on the Internet and at the same time sharing 

our collections online. 

The Library embodies key ideals on which this Nation was 

founded, the right of a free people to have unfettered access to the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
4 

world’s knowledge and to the record of our own citizens’ creativity, 

and the necessity for a dynamic and productive people to have material incentives for innovation. In presenting our budget request 

for fiscal 2012, Mr. Chairman, I want to stress that what the Library is doing is now more important than ever for the United 

States of America as we try to live and work in the Information 

Age. 

Serving the Congress is the Library of Congress’ top priority. The 

Library’s Congressional Research Service has, as Mr. Honda has 

already pointed out, for almost a century embodied the distinctive 

American ideal of a knowledge-based democracy. CRS serves Congress exclusively. And the Library’s Law Library also provides objective nonpartisan information and analysis to the First Branch of 

Government. 

Both our international economic competitiveness and our national security depend increasingly on knowledge and information 

that is drawn from every part of the globe. The Library of Congress 

is the mother lode of what you might call the Nation’s strategic information reserve, that is essential for the work of the Congress 

and of other government agencies. Even as we speak, our Cairo office is systematically sending us in realtime the pictures, pamphlets, and social messaging of the current uprisings in the Middle 

East. 

The Library is making a unique and original contribution to the 

all-important crisis in K–12 education throughout America with its 

authoritative Internet outreach. We are currently delivering 24.5 

million items free of charge, most of which are primary documents 

of American history and culture with dependable commentary by 

our curators. We also have now begun to include in our widely used 

Web services similarly unique documents from other world cultures, drawing from our own collections and from many of our 120 

partner institutions from all over the USA and the world. We are 

also working with more than 185 other U.S. partners from 44 

States and 37 national libraries on our congressionally mandated 

program for digital preservation of what is most important for the 

future. This is a very perishable world and a lot of very important 

things have to be kept. 

FISCAL CHALLENGES

Mr. Chairman, we want to responsibly address at the same time 

the massive fiscal challenges posed by the Federal deficit, of which 

we are all properly concerned. I would respectfully suggest that we 

have been working on this. For a number of years now, we have 

been submitting constrained budgets for which the committees 

have generally commended us. If we set aside the normal inflationary pay and price level increases that all agencies request, the 

Library in the last 4 years has asked for program increases averaging only 2.3 percent of the base budget; and for 2012, our budget 

request includes less than 1 percent in program increases. These 

are for two mission-critical needs, $2.7 million to sustain CRS’ 

services, given the new challenges being posed by information that 

the Congress needs, and $2.8 million to improve security in our information technology and communications system. The great bulk, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
5 

77 percent of the overall 3.5 percent requested increase, is for the 

mandatory pay and price level increases of $18 million. 

Almost all library programs provide one-of-a-kind national resources and services that no one else in either the public or private 

sectors can reasonably be expected to replicate. 

Even under a best-case budget outlook, funding at the fiscal 2010 

level for both the rest of fiscal 2011 and 2012 would result in an 

effective budget cut of more than $31 million, or 4.8 percent, 

against the fiscal 2010 base. This alone would require substantial 

program and staff sacrifices. And some of the reduction scenarios 

currently being proposed could cut to the bone and require us to 

take steps that not even past wars and depressions have forced the 

Library to consider in its 211-year history. 

We have scoped out what it would look like. If faced with major 

budget cuts, we would have to ask ourselves where we should cut 

the many core services that we uniquely perform. In our deacidification of brittle books and manuscripts, by far the biggest and 

most comprehensive in the country? Those items would then become unusable and disintegrate. In our cataloging and standards 

service that will increase the burden on already strained local and 

State libraries if our cataloging service has to be depleted? In providing fewer books and magazine titles free to 800,000 blind and 

physically handicapped Americans who generally read much more 

than sighted people? 

Even if we cut back our public services significantly, we would 

reluctantly also have to consider furloughing or cutting back on 

personnel. Our dedicated, experienced, and multi-talented staff accounts for 63 percent of the Library’s overall budget and 89 percent 

of CRS’s. The Library is now doing far more work than in 1992, 

but with 1,076 fewer people on the staff. Half of those reductions 

have occurred just in the last 5 years when we have been submitting modest budgets. 

FT. MEADE, MODULE 5

In conclusion, I should also say that we are critically dependent 

on sustaining this very successful collections storage program at 

Fort Meade, which is 9 years behind schedule, and we ask your approval of funds for construction of Module 5, which is included in 

the AOC budget. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Honda, Mr. LaTourette, and other members 

of the subcommittee, we are, as Mr. Honda pointed out, our Nation’s oldest Federal cultural institution. The Joint Committee on 

the Library is the oldest joint committee of the Congress. So we go 

back to the founding. But we have now become part of the innovative infrastructure of America in the Information Age, with future 

and present uses that have hardly yet been fully exploited. 

I thank you again for your support of the Library and for your 

consideration of our fiscal 2012 budget request. And of course we 

will be glad to answer any questions. 

[The statement of the Librarian of Congress, Dr. Billington, follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
6 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 15 65845P2A.001
7 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 16 65845P2A.002
8 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 17 65845P2A.003
9 

ESSENTIALS VERSUS NON-ESSENTIALS

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you very much, Dr. Billington. We will 

start with some questions, and we will try to observe the 5-minute 

rule. If there are more questions, we will go a round or two. 

But let me start by just asking you, I appreciate that you have 

looked hard at the services that you all are providing. These are 

the questions that I am going to be asking just about everybody 

that comes before this subcommittee and that being along the lines 

of, in these difficult economic times, I think we have got to do that 

against this backdrop of asking what is essential and what is nonessential in terms—I mean, where is the Federal role in all of these 

services? And that is kind of a fundamental question. It is almost 

like between wanting something and needing something. The need 

is something you have got to have. I would say that is an essential. 

Something that you want, maybe something you can do without. 

Nice to have but maybe you can do without it. That would kind of 

be nonessential. 

So that is kind of the first question that I think we all ought to 

be asking. And then when you get to the point where you are answering that question about essentials, then are you providing 

those essential services as effectively and as efficiently as you can? 

Because this is just not a time for business as usual. We are all 

going to have to do more with less. 

So with that kind of as a backdrop, tell me, when you go through 

this process, as you say you have done—and I appreciate that, 

these modest increases—what kind of questions do you ask your 

staff and yourself about your services in terms of what is essential, 

what is nonessential? When you kind of cut back in some of these 

areas, what goes into your thinking about how you can do more 

with less? Could you talk a little bit about that? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Now let me start off, and then I will ask Mr. 

Dizard because he has been presiding over the new management 

agenda and the revision of our strategic plan for more than a year. 

And that is directed precisely at the question of realizing more 

synergies and economies by getting everybody to work together on 

this variety of services. 

The short answer to your question of what is essential is to say 

that there is almost nothing of the major things, even significant 

elements in our budget, that are not services that have been either 

directly mandated by the Congress by specific acts of Congress over 

the years or have come to be essential and counted on. I just 

itemized three things, but I could go down a much longer list—and 

indeed we have prepared it in the course of this—of all the different services. 

So what our general approach would have to be is to simply cut 

back more than the nearly 1,100 staff positions that we have already cut out and there have been 500 or so in the last year. So 

we would try to spread the grief more or less evenly. We would 

have to make some decisions. Generally speaking, we can’t go very 

much further than say the 1.7 percent in the Senate version that 

is floating around or the 3 percent cut that has been one of the scenarios that we have been asked to discuss. And this is all of what 

we are discussing. Mr. Dizard will supplement what I have to say. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
10 

STAFF FURLOUGHS

Generally speaking, the difficult part is that so much of our 

budget is personnel. And we would have to go into—if beyond the 

1.7 or the 3 percent, we would have to go into furloughs, perhaps 

very serious furloughs. And if we went beyond that level, we would 

have to contemplate the unpleasant task that we have been able 

to avoid so far with our economy of simply releasing people. But 

I don’t think there is a major service that I can identify. We have 

had this discussion, pretty candidly and pretty seriously, that we 

could offer as being something that is nonessential. I mean, they 

serve different people. The Copyright Office serves the creative 

community; the blind and physically handicapped—— 

ROLE OF OVERSEAS OFFICES

Mr. CRENSHAW. My time is about up. I want to, before I call on 

Mr. Honda—for instance, I know you have had a lot of overseas offices over the years. And some of those have been curtailed. I think 

now you only have six or seven. But is that something you look at 

when you say, do we really need to have an office in so many different cities around the world and now we have seven? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. It is only in six cities. And these cities are 

among the most important to the United States right now. In our 

Cairo office, our young Arabic-speaking person who has been evacuated is communicating in realtime. If you see the regular media, 

you will see only pictures of the masses of crowds. Our Cairo office 

is a major collector of the Arab world. Our Islamabad office in 

Pakistan is collecting remarkable things, beginning with the autobiography of Osama bin Laden, that weren’t available otherwise. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I am going to go to Mr. Honda. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. These offices provide things that nobody else 

can get, including other agencies and other collection forces. So 

these we would be very reluctant to cut unless we want to cut off 

the supplies from these areas. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. So you have been looking at them? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. We have certainly looked at them, but we need 

to keep looking. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Let me go to Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

THE LIBRARY’S ASIAN DIVISION

I think, Mr. Chairman, Dr. Billington was very accurately portraying the role of the Library and the entire division in terms of 

acquiring information for our use. And let me just say for the 

record that I believe that the chairman and I really do understand 

that you actually are an extension of things that we do need in 

terms of resources and knowledge and information. So having said 

that, I just wanted to ask for a quick update on the Asian Division. 

I understand that the acting chief of that division is not going to 

be there permanently. And I would like to know what the future 

of the Asian Division would be. And also, will the current acting 

division Chief be part of the search for the replacement of that position? 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
11 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Peter Young was very experienced and did remarkable work. In fact 14 new collections, documenting the Asian 

Pacific American experience were added just in the year 2010. So 

this is a very dynamic division in terms of its collection and of 

course in terms of its outreach and its ability. The Jakarta office 

is one of the most effective and very well regarded. We certainly 

hope we can keep Mr. Odo for as long as we can. He is doing a 

marvelous job. 

Mr. HONDA. Will he be engaged in helping search? 

Mr. DIZARD. He will be on the selection panel. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Oh, yes. Absolutely. 

REPRESENTING PACIFIC RIM ASIA IN THE COLLECTIONS

Mr. HONDA. And in view of your testimony in some of the other 

writings that the Pacific Rim Asia is a very more recent area of 

focus and it is an area that many of us have a very little bit of information on, so the need is great for acquiring information and 

those kinds of activities so that we have good intelligence, I was 

just wondering what are the current plans and future plans you 

have, given the fiscal picture that we have before us. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, we examined a few years ago our whole 

Chinese collection. We now have special collection officers in various parts of China. Our China collection is the largest outside of 

the Chinese-speaking world, just as our Japanese collection is the 

largest outside of Japan. These collections are constantly being 

added to. We had a meeting of two former Secretaries of State of 

the United States and former Foreign Ministers of China not long 

ago in the Library, and we took the opportunity to show this contingent unique Chinese-language materials and some of the treasures of the Library of Congress. Our curators described the historic 

Chinese collection items speaking fluent Chinese. 

Mr. HONDA. I get all that. I just want to know, what are the 

plans so you can tell us that this is an important area and we can’t 

afford to, lessen our efforts out there because it is an area that we 

don’t know too much about, even though we are constantly in contact. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. They have a very active program of bringing 

people in. Next week we will celebrate the Nowruz new year festival which is celebrated everywhere from Lebanon to the Xinjiang 

Province in the interior of China. It is an ancient custom. So we 

will have all the ethnic communities that participate in those parts. 

We are drawing very heavily on increasing our context with the 

ethnic communities that have their historic origins and knowledge 

so that we can get focused on bringing them together and getting 

them connected with our collection development. 

But I might ask Dr. Marcum, who is the head of Library Services, to just add on that because she has been systematically looking at this. We have excellent people in the Asian Division. 

COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS IN CHINA

Dr. MARCUM. In China, we have experiments underway now to 

find far more comprehensive ways of collecting materials throughout China, working with the scholarly community in China and 

American scholars. We have a North American organizing comVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:05 Jul 13, 2011 Jkt 065845 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A845P2.XXX A845P2

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
12 

mittee made up of librarians around the country in the United 

States and Canada and the National Library of China to begin to 

look at cooperative collection development programs to bring in 

more collections from China. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. We will come back. Mr. LaTourette. 

LIBRARY’S BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Dr. Billington, 

welcome. As I have in the past, I want to commend you and your 

team for the things that you are doing. I very much enjoyed the 

Library’s traveling exhibits that toured the country this summer. 

One of them stopped in Twinsburg, Ohio and I had the chance to 

visit it with some of our school kids. And I met the husband and 

wife who were driving the semi around the country. It was really 

a nice experience. 

I think, as I also mentioned to you, I read the article in The Post 

about the jeweler up in McLean who collected the Civil War portraits from sales all over the place. And I am very much looking 

forward to the opening of that exhibit. And I think that is the kind 

of thing, the hallmark sort of thing that the Library is known for. 

And I congratulate you for doing it. 

We have talked before this hearing, and I have listened to your 

statement, and I have also listened to statements by the chairman 

and distinguished ranking member. And you know that in this environment, your budget is going in a direction other than other 

budgets are going, where as other people are coming in and asking 

for flat funding or less funding, your budget request has an increase. And I think when you make that request, from my standpoint, I am disappointed in some of the work we are doing around 

here because we don’t distinguish between what I consider just to 

be spending and what I consider to be investments. I consider your 

work to be an investment. But I think it is incumbent upon you, 

if you want to be successful here today, to tell us why it is that 

when everybody else is experiencing cuts between 5, 10, 22 percent 

that you feel that the Library is justified to have this modest increase. And in that regard, you mentioned that most of it, 63 percent, is in terms of wage increases that are mandatory. And then 

if you could talk about why those are mandatory. 

MANDATORY PAY FOR LIBRARY STAFF

The reason that is on my mind is the President of the United 

States has indicated that he wants a pay freeze for Federal employees for 5 years, which I think is goofy. I don’t think you should be 

punished for working for the government. But regardless, that is 

where the bulk of the money is. If you could explain why those are 

mandatory, first of all. 

CRS FUNDING REQUEST

And then the next biggest chunk is for Mr. Mulhollan, about $5 

million to hire new staff and for his pay increases. One of the 

things that always amazes me around here is we ask CRS and Mr. 

Mulhollan’s staff for a lot of stuff and we complain when we don’t 

get it fast enough. I assume that based on the LMI study that has 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
13 

been completed this recommendation in the budget is somehow 

based on what those findings were and what the additional needs 

might be at CRS. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, I think the CRS request is not really an 

increase from past levels. It is to make up for the decreases that 

have been particularly severe there in recent years. They are not 

nearly up to where they were. But as you say, the questions are 

becoming more complex and these are mostly for scientific and financial analytic specialists. The scientific and technical component 

of issues is increasing. And they have a good knowledge base there 

but not enough to do what they need to do as quickly as necessary. 

INVESTING IN INFORMATION

On your bigger question of investment, this is classic investment 

in the sense that you do not know now what questions, say on the 

global scene, are going to be the most crucial ones. The overseas 

offices purchase to a large extent a catalog of exotic languages 

abroad to be able to reach the right materials. The autobiography 

in Arabic of bin Laden, for instance, was discovered in a Pashto 

speaking area. So you have to have wide-ranging competencies, and 

they are very hard to cut back on because you don’t know in the 

future where the focus will be. Who would have thought Chechnya 

and Rwanda and even Afghanistan would be as important to America as they currently are. Of course the other thing is if you cut 

back on subscriptions that you have had for a long time, you don’t 

just cut it back by one year, you cut it back by 50 percent in terms 

of the utility for Congress and the government. But these are investments. And nobody else—no other country is investing this 

way—this is a potential enormous advantage. 

If you ask, what is keeping our balance of trade better than it 

would otherwise be, it is because of the information-based exports 

and having the complete file of copyright deposit in the United 

States and being able to offer the support to protect it on the international scene. These are investments. 

MANDATORY WITHIN-GRADE INCREASES

Mr. DIZARD. I can answer, Mr. LaTourette, about the mandatory 

pay increases. You are correct on the cost-of-living adjustments. We 

are not applying those obviously. The greatest part of the mandatory is within grade increases, people who have earned another 

step in their pay. And then we have a smaller amount for increased 

retirement contributions in the FERS system and then some Foreign Service national pay for our overseas offices. It is mandated 

by the State Department. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. So these step increases, are you mandated— 

they have to go into effect regardless if no one gets a cost-of-living 

adjustment? 

Mr. DIZARD. Right. If people perform at a satisfactory level for 

a certain period of time, they go up a step. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And you have no discretion in that? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. We also can’t control it, sir, if we have to have 

reductions. And we stand to risk losing precisely the people with 

the kind of extremely focused expertise that are needed to deal 

with the digital universe which we are trying to keep track of and 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
14 

preserve. That is a mandated function. We are supposed to quarterback a national program. And we are. So how do you cut out the 

quarterbacking function? It affects the whole program. More and 

more of the things we are doing, we are doing with partnerships; 

if we can avoid putting it on the appropriation, we do. But it is 

rather essential that the investment idea be understood and that 

the information-based and the knowledge-based and the creativitybased things are the things that are keeping us at the forefront of 

international competition in many, many areas. 

CUTS AT OTHER LIBRARIES

Also, the library community is suffering generally, whether public libraries in great cities or university-based libraries, they are 

facing much more severe cuts. The margin of what we will be able 

to have if we can continue pretty much as we have been doing will 

be a unique asset for future uses. You can’t really determine what 

they will be. For example, having old railroad timetables, old telephone books. These are the basis for a lot of environmental research. You wouldn’t think it. America is kind of a leader really in 

many respects in higher research and education. And these kinds 

of unique materials are an excellent source I think in this regard. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you and I thank the chairman for the 

patience. Sadly, I have to go to a steering committee meeting. But 

I thank you for your testimony and your observations. I would just 

say in some cases, being from Cleveland, the team might perform 

better without a quarterback from time to time. That is not universally the case. But thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. Mr. Bishop do you have questions? 

OPEN SOURCE INTELLLIGENCE REPOSITORY

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. I appreciate it very much. I 

am the son of a librarian. I grew up around libraries. I am particularly taken by the tremendous responsibility that the Library of 

Congress has in keeping our Nation, as well as, our Congress informed of vast information that exists across our continent. From 

studying my reading material, it seems to me that your function 

really provides a multiplier effect by everything else that we do. I 

am interested in finding places to cut our budget, because we do 

have a real serious fiscal crisis. At the same time, many functions 

that the Library of Congress performs are essential, and are often 

taken for granted. The Library of Congress provides essential information for so many walks of life. You are the basis, you are the 

source. If there is any place that perhaps should have a flat budget, 

if not an increase, it should be the Library of Congress. 

I served on the Intelligence Committee a few years ago, and one 

of the major sources of intelligence for our intelligence community, 

as well as for those who target us, is open source intelligence. An 

open source is any publicly gathered source of information. The Library of Congress is the largest repository of open source intelligence. Certainly the Library of Congress is a big help to our intelligence community. I understand that in the past you have been 

able to provide expertise in certain areas where even our military 

and our intelligence communities had some limitations. You were 

able to come up with some documents which if they had been exVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:05 Jul 13, 2011 Jkt 065845 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A845P2.XXX A845P2

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
15 

amined closely, could possibly have given clues to the September 

11th terrorist attacks, 9/11. Therefore, when we try to press and 

squeeze you to find a place to cut—there may be some places you 

would not have as the highest priority. I have seen your justifications for why you want to keep your budget at least flat. For instance, by adding the STEM people to help Congress analyze 

science, and mathematics, all of the highly technical data which is 

now so common in our existence, and adding Members of Congress 

which is essential. If we do not understand it, we can’t do what we 

have to do, and if you do not have people that understand it, you 

can’t properly catalog that information and prepare the reports 

that Congress requests. We are requesting more of these reports 

every session of Congress, because we need the information to 

make good decisions. 

I sympathize with the Catch–22 that you are in. We have the information and you have the information. You have to collect it and 

you have to preserve it. At the same time, we have to tighten your 

budgets. I ask you to look at whatever you can, but I can definitely 

sympathize because I see your great asset. I would like for you to 

share some of the maybe unknown things that you do with the resources that have been helpful for our country, the intelligence 

community and others. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I will just say one thing and then turn it over 

to the Chief of Staff here. First of all, it is a very talkative world. 

There is a great deal of open source material that we need to know. 

It is better if it is sitting here in the Library of Congress. This 

tends to be a town in which people talk a lot and read very little, 

but we have 21 public reading rooms divided into regions of the 

world and forms of knowledge that are open and available. And to 

take an example, the only formal piece of paper that I am aware 

of that the 9/11 Commission found in which a scenario of someone, 

a suicide mission, taking control of American planes and flying 

them into a symbolic building as if they were a cruise missile, was 

from a study made by a small division of the Library of Congress 

called the Federal Research Division, which does research mostly 

for DOD, intelligence, and so forth, using the Library’s collections. 

And that was based on an open source description in a small, remote publication in the Arab world which was incorporated into a 

Federal Research Division study. That was the only thing that the 

9/11 Commission I believe could find in which a scenario like that 

was described—they didn’t predict the specific target or the specific 

people or any of that. But it didn’t seem to register with anybody. 

It outlined what they had discussed publicly. And I think that is 

a small illustration of the fact that there is much more public discussion and even public availability and open source material 

available to us. 

Published material in the world has increased by 40 percent in 

the last decade. And of course the online material is exploding 

virally. Open source material is a major source for better understanding the economic problems as well as security problems of our 

country. 

I will turn it over to you. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
16 

FEDERAL RESEARCH DIVISION

Mr. DIZARD. I will just respond briefly on the open source. Much 

of the open source research is done by the Federal Research Division. And last year they did work for 27 different offices in 10 executive branch agencies, 10 different departments, and did quite a 

significant amount of work for the Director of National Intelligence 

Open Source Office, including work for their Korea-Japan office as 

well as for their Africa office. In the Africa office they did a series 

of six reports on terrorism in sub-Saharan Africa and southern Africa. They also did a major report for their Asian office on Indonesia, working with our Jakarta office. 

So getting to your broader point, this open source research and 

access, that is basically what the Library is—a major point of open 

source research. These individuals, there are about 30, extensively 

use our foreign language collections for executive branch agencies, 

and the Congress as well, to provide precisely what you were talking about, unique research using unique collections. 

Mr. BISHOP. What would happen if you could no longer provide 

this service? 

COPYRIGHT COSTS AND REVENUES

Mr. CRENSHAW. We are trying to get around. We will come back 

to that. I think Mr. Price is on his way. A couple of questions just 

about trying to do more with less, being efficient. I mentioned the 

different offices and you say you have looked at those. I wonder, 

for instance, if the Copyright Office, do the registration fees 

charged does that cover all the cost? Is that something that you 

looked at that could be adjusted? Or tell me how that works. 

Mr. DIZARD. I can answer that. The registration fees are looked 

at every 3 years, and they are adjusted to cover a majority of the 

cost of the registration system. So the Copyright Office is mainly 

funded by fees. The licensing function is fully covered by royalties 

that are subsequently distributed. So we look at Copyright Office 

fees on a triennial basis and we do an economic study and submit 

it to Congress. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. It is almost there or it is not quite there? 

Mr. DIZARD. There is a balance. Since copyright registration is 

voluntary, there is always a balance between being prohibitively 

expensive and then that causes a decrease in the public record of 

copyright ownership. Also the Library relies on the Copyright Office for deposits of between $35 and $40 million a year. They come 

in for copyright registration. We don’t have to purchase those 

works. So the Copyright Office, when you look at it in totality, is 

a—— 

Mr. CRENSHAW. But that is something you look at and adjust 

from time to time? 

Mr. DIZARD. Exactly. We are in a pattern now of doing that every 

3 years. 

CENTRALIZED VERSUS DISPERSED BUDGET FUNCTION

Mr. CRENSHAW. You have a central budget office. Also, it seems 

you have got financial budget personnel in Library Services, Law 

Library, Copyright Office, CRS, and Books for the Blind. Is there 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
17 

a way to consolidate some of those? You know when we are trying 

to figure out efficiency, those are just questions that come to my 

mind. 

Mr. DIZARD. Okay. Our individual service units have budget offices, but they are relatively small and they are executing their 

own individual budgets, making more of the policy decisions and 

resource allocations decisions. Our main budget office is looking at 

managing the Library’s overall financial systems. So we could look 

at that as a potential. But I am not sure there is a great amount 

of savings potential there. 

IT SECURITY REQUEST

Mr. CRENSHAW. I see there is a $5.5 million request for information technology security that is I assume to broaden your research 

capabilities. What would happen if you didn’t have that additional 

money? How would that impact your ability to do the things that 

you plan on doing? 

Mr. DIZARD. Well, the information security requirement really 

isn’t an option for us. We have to increase our security capabilities. 

So that would be something that we would have to do. I don’t think 

that that is something we could let go. That affects every part of 

our business and our communications. So that is pretty much a 

mandate. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Does that mean you couldn’t do more if you didn’t have that extra $5.5 million of your function now without 

that? Are you saying there will be increased demands on that security part that you will need if you didn’t have it? Does that limit 

your ability to—— 

Mr. DIZARD. What we have had to do this fiscal year up to this 

point in order to address those needs is to not do other projects or 

slow them down while we are addressing the IT security needs. 

And that is a mandatory. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Mr. Price. 

OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP PROGRAM

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for having to 

juggle two hearings this morning. But I appreciate the chance to 

see our friends from the Library, the assembled cast here, with 

many good things to say, I am sure. I want to focus on one of those 

things—a program that is not going to have a hearing of its own, 

and therefore, this is the opportunity to deal with it. The Open 

World Leadership Program is the most intensive exchange program 

dealing with former Soviet states, countries that have every reason 

to appreciate the chance for professional level contact with people 

in this country that aids in their own development, aids our relations, and is one of the Library of Congress’ most innovative and 

worthwhile efforts. Admittedly, it is not what you would necessarily predict would be part of the Library’s portfolio. It is a 

unique effort, and therefore sometimes is overlooked. 

Now, just like everything else, Open World is facing budgetary 

challenges. I think it is worthy of full congressional support within 

the legislative branch. I want to give our guests a chance to comment on this. Executive branch-administered exchange programs 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
18 

are often driven by short-term policy goals. Open World is perceived differently. Part of that does have to do with its location in 

the legislative branch and in the Library of Congress. This program 

isn’t conducted through a policy-driven agency. It is totally nonpartisan. It attracts a wider scope of participants, and it leverages 

U.S. hosts and builds civic engagements in ways that other programs have more difficulty doing. I have personally participated in 

the program in my district. I certainly can vouch for its effectiveness. 

So I want to ask about the assumptions behind the fiscal 2012 

request, which is for $12.6 million. I understand that it anticipates 

some modest expansions. But more generally, what can you tell us 

about the way this program is going, any significant breakthroughs 

or developments that are relevant to our considerations? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I will just mention one brief thing and then 

bring up Ambassador O’Keefe, who runs the program, who has 

been running it very well. 

Let me just say briefly, I think that one of the most exciting 

breakthroughs on this has been that the Russians themselves have 

tried to bring them over. It is modeled on the 1.5 percent of the 

Marshall Plan that was spent bringing young Germans over after 

World War II. It has been doing this. Now we have got about 

13,000 Russian alumni, alumni from Ukraine, Georgia, the new 

Muslim republics. And they have these intensive stays. Hosts have 

been from every state, they have been here from every state in the 

union. 

OPEN WORLD ALUMNI NETWORK

Mr. PRICE. That is what I mean by intensive. What is the number again, the alumni number? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, 13,000 from Russia. Then there is another 

2,500 or so from Ukraine, Georgia and the new Muslim republics. 

All of the states of the former Soviet Union have sent over key 

leaders, young leaders. This is a leadership development program. 

It is not part of the Library of Congress. It has its own separate 

identity. I happen to be chairman of this board. 

But just to give you a couple of examples, the Russians are now 

recognizing that they want to bring some Americans over to help 

them. Somebody was in Montana and studied the constitution of 

the State of Montana and has gone back to help rewrite the constitution for Kyrgyzstan after their turmoil. Part of these little revolutions that are occurring. So there is direct input like that, but 

there is also indirect in the whole process of democracy building, 

whereby 16 percent of the support of the key members of the supreme court in Russia are alumni of this program, 10 percent of 

Duma are alumni of this program. They came over first as representatives of the local courts all over the place, and they are now 

going to higher places. 

Now the Russians brought over—related to Open World, spinning off from it—younger people, presidents of colleges, that are 

undergraduates, the younger generation. Our average age is 37, 38 

years old. Now there are people in their early 20s. It was a big hit 

and the Russians have tripled their support for doing this. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
19 

So it seems to me it is the beginning of a breakthrough for something that could really be quite dramatic. And I happen to be working in my other capacity as Librarian of Congress with the Chief 

of Staff of the President of Russia on developing a whole new library system in Russia. And that has led to the repatriation of a 

lot of movies that we no longer have in this country but which we 

have already begun to do this that the Russians preserved this. 

But Open World is something that is a very original kind of 

thing because it is intensive. They stay in people’s homes. That 

makes an enormous impression. They see the real America. They 

see how government works from the bottom up and from their periphery in. And that is something quite new in Russia. That is 

what de Tocqueville said was the secret in American democracy. 

He didn’t believe it until he came and saw. They are coming and 

seeing it and piggybacking on important ideas, and they are able 

to do this because of the Library connection in the legislative 

branch of government. 

NEW RUSSIAN LIBRARY SYSTEM

So it is an unusual thing to do, but that unusualness is precisely 

the thing that is leading an autocratic society, autocratic traditions, 

to think that there is importance to people all over the place and 

to having citizen participation at the local level. That is what they 

are doing with this new library system. It will have branches in 

every state, every part of Russia whether it develops or not, whether it becomes electronic to produce openness that it is not being 

produced in the traditional media. So this is all a frontier step. 

Open World is run by a very small staff, with very small administrative apparatus. So the resources go into getting—American 

communities also are donating a lot of money, almost as much as 

we are asking in appropriations for the program. So I think it is 

an important thing for America. Again, it is not in the Library of 

Congress, but it is in the leg branch of government and it is very 

important. It wouldn’t work if it didn’t represent the Congress of 

the United States. The Library originally had this program but 

now it has a mixed identity and a private-public board. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. I thank Mr. Price because I was always curious 

about the Open World Program, and I think the chairman is correct that there are a lot of things that go on in the Library of Congress under your purview that a lot of Members, myself included, 

are not completely aware of. 

PROMOTING CONGRESSIONAL AWARENESS OF THE LIBRARY

And I am going to go off subject for a second in the questions. 

It seems to me that if we are going to have an appreciation for the 

kinds of services this Library of Congress provides, the umbrella 

that you encompass, if it is to be appreciated by Members, new and 

old alike, there must be some way that we could look at how we 

orient our new Members and the more veterans also to the breadth 

of the information and the services that you do provide because 

perhaps the staff knows it. Maybe staff knows more than Members 

do on this. But if this kind of information is at our fingertips and 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
20 

we are not aware of it, it seems to me that some effort should be 

made in the orientation of our new Members and the staff just so 

that we understand why we are looking at a modest—well, no cuts 

and perhaps some modest increases in certain areas because it 

makes us more efficient and a better servant for our country and 

our constituents. 

It is just a thought. You don’t have to answer it. It might figure 

out how they work with new Members. 

PROGRESS WITH TELEWORK

The issue of technology and telework and using technology to be 

able to make ourselves more efficient, I was wondering where we 

are at on that process. And in the past Chair Debbie Wasserman 

Schultz was very focused on putting telework policy into place in 

the CRS. Could you tell us where that is at and what feedback you 

may have from staff to this? 

Mr. DIZARD. Each of our service units now has a telework program. And in the last pay period, about 600 staff teleworked. So 

we have about 16 percent of our staff who are teleworking, and 

that compares favorably to other Federal agencies. 

Mr. HONDA. During the snow period, was there a peak in that? 

Mr. DIZARD. Well, there is a new designation of unscheduled 

telework which the Executive Branch has implemented and we are 

figuring out whether we should implement a similar policy for 

snow days. 

BUDGET FOR THOMAS

Mr. HONDA. And in the area of technology and sharing information, the Web site THOMAS was launched back in 1995 and it has 

been an exceptional success at providing the public with access to 

actions of Congress. How much are setting aside to support THOMAS, and what is the relationship of the Library of Congress with 

the Government Printing Office and for providing data to the site? 

Can you give us some information on that? 

Mr. DIZARD. The THOMAS budget would be included—a great 

part of it would be included in our overall IT budget. I can go back 

and try to break that down for you. There is a lot of similar support between THOMAS and the congressional LIS system. But obviously your question about the Government Printing Office, they 

have been a partner with us as well as the House and the Senate 

in providing information for the past 15 years. I think we are working with—— 

Mr. HONDA. The Printing Office, a lot of the cost of the work that 

they do is recovered through fees that they charge. Does that also 

help with the financial impact that the Library of Congress provides, continues to provide this kind of service for the public? 

Mr. DIZARD. There are no transfers between agencies. But if it 

helps GPO, it helps us. As I said, we are partners. 

Mr. HONDA. I hope that the community, the general public understands that through THOMAS they have access to the information in the Library of Congress right on their laptops. And it is a 

great, I think, resource that the general public should know about, 

to know they are getting a good bang for their buck that you are 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
21 

putting out. The chairman and I would like to be able to say that 

this is what you are getting for your dollar. That is important. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Honda. We have a vote coming 

up pretty soon, but let’s finish this. I don’t have any more questions. I have some that I will submit for the record. But Mr. 

Bishop, please, if you have some additional questions. 

INFORMATION SHARING BY THE LIBRARY

Mr. BISHOP. I am just torn that the tremendous work you do is 

unnoticed and taken for granted. I was just thinking about the 

multiplier effect that you have in terms of information sharing with 

all of the libraries in the United States of America and of course 

our Armed Forces abroad. Is the Library of Congress the basic 

source of information for virtually every library? Is every library 

based upon your organizational system? If you were to reorganize 

the system, would this require every library in the country to reorganize its cataloging system? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes. Everybody depends on the Library of Congress and it is widespread in the world more broadly. But it is essential for our own functioning of our library system. We also do 

free interlibrary loans. As I say, we have 24 million items online. 

So we are sharing a large amount of the Library with everybody. 

You can get that at home as well. But you are absolutely right. 

This needs to be used more. By the way, they have formed a Library of Congress Caucus to help develop better awareness. New 

Members are given an intensive long exposure in Williamsburg 

with their families that CRS arranges for every crop of new Members of Congress. But the idea of more orientation, more awareness, we are ready to respond to anything you ask. That is one reason we are sending this 18 wheeler truck with a little miniature 

Library of Congress around to the smaller towns’ and bigger towns’ 

libraries to know about us, and they will be benefiting more because their budgets are being reduced. 

PRESERVATION OF ORIGINAL MATERIALS

Mr. BISHOP. You want more money because you need more storage space. Now everybody is trying to go paperless and we are trying to reduce the footprint for storage. Please offer the best arguments for why we should be keeping things instead of trying to preserve it in a digital form. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Because the digital form doesn’t preserve things 

very well, we have to preserve it in its original form for a whole 

lot of reasons. But most importantly, we are increasingly aware of 

the vulnerability of digital material but also the impermanence of 

it. It is the magnetic tape or whatever it is on where the zeros and 

ones are recorded physically. You have to keep migrating the digital material. And as we are learning more and more about its 

vulnerabilities, it is never going to be entirely tamper-proof. There 

are all kinds of cybersecurity problems which we are addressing, 

we really have to address if we are going to keep using digital material. 

Mr. BISHOP. Is part of your request for cybersecurity? 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
22 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes. But at the same time, somebody has to 

keep the original version. If you don’t keep the original version of 

music, for instance, you will end up with nothing but elevator 

music left because things get modified, changed. That is why Congress decided to keep a National Film Registry, National Sound 

Registry. We are the most creative country in the history of the 

world. More than 6 million pieces of sheet music in the copyright 

depository, but all of this stuff has to be acquired, preserved and 

made accessible. Those are the fundamental things that we do, and 

that is what that means, that if it is going to be preserved, you 

have to have it in correct preservation format. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, if preservation is concerned—— 

Dr. BILLINGTON. It was publicized where an individual went and 

altered a document to enhance his bona fides as a historian. 

Mr. BISHOP. Is that going to cost you additional funds in order 

to make sure that does not happen again? Is this going to require 

an increase in budget? Could you just utilize security measures 

that you already have in place? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. It depends on what new threats emerge but 

there is an inherent vulnerability that is not present in the physical. That is why we continue to house 147 million analog items. 

When we digitize something, we don’t throw away the original. We 

got Amazon to give us some pro bono advice years ago about 

whether there is any way we can avoid all of this storage space? 

And they said there really is not, given your mission, given what 

you are supposed to do, to gather in the world’s knowledge and not 

only acquire it but preserve it and make it accessible. 

So this is an insurance policy. We also have backups. We are 

doing everything we can in the digital world, and the support this 

committee has given us in the past has enabled us to back up our 

digital material. Even so, there is an inherent vulnerability. Also, 

the method of decoding changes all the time. And suddenly the material that is recorded as zeros and ones is perishable, but the way 

decoding is, you could be left only with a lot of zeros or ones and 

the early digitized stuff is now lost forever. That is why Congress 

mandated 10 years ago that we get into this business of preservation. 

CLOSING REMARKS

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. Mr. Honda, do you have any more 

questions? Because I don’t. 

Mr. HONDA. Not in this area, but I understand we are going into 

the next area. 

Mr. CALVERT. I apologize for being late. I had other commitments. But I appreciate your coming here this morning. I appreciate your testimony. And if I have any additional questions, I will 

submit them for the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. We thank you for being here. Thank 

you for your testimony. I appreciate it very much. And we look forward to working with you. 

[The statement of the Acting Register of Copyrights, Ms. 

Pallante, follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
23 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 50 here 65845P2A.004
24 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 51 here 65845P2A.005
25 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 52 here 65845P2A.006
26 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 53 here 65845P2A.007
27 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 54 here 65845P2A.008
28 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 55 here 65845P2A.009
29 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 56 here 65845P2A.010
30 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 57 here 65845P2A.011
31 

[The statement of Director of CRS, Mr. Mulhollan, follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
32 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 60 here 65845P2A.013
33 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 61 here 65845P2A.014
34 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 62 here 65845P2A.015
35 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 63 here 65845P2A.016
36 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 64 here 65845P2A.017
37 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 65 here 65845P2A.018
38 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I have some questions I will submit to be answered for the record. Also, there are questions for the record from 

Mr. Honda, Mr. Price and Mr. Bishop. 

[The questions and responses follow:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
39 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 67 here 65845P2A.019
40 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 68 here 65845P2A.020
41 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 69 here 65845P2A.021
42 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 70 here 65845P2A.022
43 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 71 here 65845P2A.023
44 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 72 here 65845P2A.024
45 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 73 here 65845P2A.025
46 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 74 here 65845P2A.026
47 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 75 here 65845P2A.027
48 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 76 here 65845P2A.028
49 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 77 here 65845P2A.029
50 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 78 here 65845P2A.030
51 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 79 here 65845P2A.031
52 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 80 here 65845P2A.032
53 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 81 here 65845P2A.033
54 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 82 here 65845P2A.034
(55) 

FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 2011. 

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

WITNESS 

HON. GENE L. DODARO, COMPTROLLER GENERAL 

CHAIRMAN CRENSHAW’S OPENING REMARKS

Mr. CRENSHAW. We will now move onto the second part of this 

hearing this morning. 

We have with us Mr. Gene Dodaro, who is head of the Government Accountability Office. And I want to welcome the Comptroller 

General to our committee. 

Gene was sworn in as the eighth Comptroller General of the 

United States on December 30th, 2010. He is the first GAO career 

employee to be confirmed to the position, and that is in 89 years. 

So, congratulations for that. 

This year, your request for FY 2012 is $556.8 million. That is 

equal to the appropriation under the continuing resolution. 

So we want to thank you for recognizing the need for fiscal discipline. We have talked a lot about that this morning. We look forward to working with you. 

Your office is kind of called the investigative arm of Congress, 

you know, the congressional watchdog. And your job is to kind of 

help improve some of the things that we are talking about in the 

midst of this economic problem: efficiency, effectiveness. 

In fact, one of the things that I know that a lot of people don’t 

know, is that when we appropriate $1 to you, that you return $87 

on that investment. And I am tempted to say, we will give you $1 

billion and maybe we will just solve all our problems. But, I know 

it is not that easy. 

But we are trying to be better stewards, and we appreciate what 

you do. And so, I want to thank you for your hard work. 

And, at this time, I want to turn to the ranking member, Mr. 

Honda, for any remarks he might have. 

RANKING MEMBER HONDA’S OPENING REMARKS

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I share the same sentiments that the chair has. And I hope 

that folks understand that the chair has been working very hard 

to make sure that we maintain the level of services as much as 

possible under the weight of the kind of expectation there is in cutting things. 

But I think that, on top of being the watchdog, I understand that 

your area is considered the best place to work. So, you know, besides $87 to $1, the best place to work, if you were a city, then you 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
56 

would probably be one of the best cities to live in and safest cities 

to live in. 

One of the things I was concerned about is, we constantly make 

demands of GAO, in terms of studies, when we go through our different committees. And that is across all the committees that we 

sit on. And so, my concern is that you are able to fulfill that function and be able to address the kinds of concerns that Members of 

Congress, in whatever role that they are playing, whatever responsibilities they have, when they ask for GAO reports, that you have 

the wherewithal and the resources to be able to do that. 

And hopefully that, if there is any backlog on the fiscal side, 

that, we become aware of that, so we know that we are going to 

be able to pay for what we ask. And so, if you have any comments 

regarding that in your presentation, I would be very interested in 

hearing that. 

Beyond the budget challenges, Mr. Dodaro, I want to applaud 

your work in dealing with long held issues at GAO with respect to 

disparity in performance ratings experienced by African American 

employees. I hope you can give us an update on your progress in 

this area. Something must be working at GAO, I understand that 

your agency was once again named one of the ‘‘Best Places to 

Work’’ in the federal government by the Partnership for Public 

Service. Given your role in reviewing problems at other agencies it 

is important that GAO establish itself as an exemplary workplace. 

I am glad you seem to be succeeding in doing just that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

UPDATE ON DISPARITIES IN PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS BETWEEN AFRICAN AMERICAN

AND WHITE EMPLOYEES

We have continued to monitor the outcomes from our performance appraisal system and determined that there are still disparities between African American and 

white employees but the frequency and magnitude of the disparities are substantially less than several years ago. We are addressing the rating disparities through 

our strategic focus on creating and maintaining an inclusive and fair work environment, as well as through our efforts to overhaul our performance appraisal system 

which is well underway. 

We have continued our reviews of employee performance appraisal data. For example, in fiscal year 2010, the Special Assistant for Diversity Issues and the Managing Director for Opportunity & Inclusiveness reviewed performance appraisal 

data by protected class for consistency and provide reasonable assurance that the 

systems were operating in a fair, merit-based and non-discriminatory manner. 

Where concerns were noted, the Special Assistant for Diversity Issues conducted individual assessments, and if necessary, met with senior managers in an effort to 

reconcile any concerns regarding the sufficiency of merit-based support for appraisals and resolve any issues. 

In support of diversity and inclusion generally, we have instituted several efforts 

such as (1) issuing annual workforce diversity plans that summarize the diversity 

of our workforce, outcomes from key human capital processes, and views of our employees; (2) meeting regularly with union and employee group representatives; (3) 

training all staff on diversity and inclusion issues; and (4) using recruitment approaches that reach broad and diverse candidates. To improve our performance appraisal system, we completed a comprehensive review and based on the findings 

from this review we plan to place greater emphasis on communication, feedback, accountability, and employee development than is a part of our current system. We 

will continue to monitor performance appraisal data and other key data and continue to emphasize the importance of having a diverse workforce and an inclusive 

work environment at GAO. We are hopeful that these efforts will lead to a performance management system where there are no disparities between African Americans 

and whites in performance appraisal scores. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
57 

Mr. Dodaro, we will submit your written statement for the 

record, and we would be happy to hear you summarize your testimony and introduce any of the staff that you have with you today. 

[The statement of the Comptroller General follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
58 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 91 65845P2A.035
59 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 92 65845P2A.036
60 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 93 65845P2A.037
61 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 94 65845P2A.038
62 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 95 65845P2A.039
63 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 96 65845P2A.040
64 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 97 65845P2A.041
65 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 98 65845P2A.042
66 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 99 65845P2A.043
67 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 100 65845P2A.044
68 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 101 65845P2A.045
69 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 102 65845P2A.046
70 

MR. DODARO’S OPENING REMARKS

Mr. DODARO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you, Ranking Member Honda, Congressmen Bishop and Calvert. It is nice to see all of you here. 

I have with me today our Chief Operating Officer, Patricia Dalton; our General Counsel, Lynn Gibson; and our Chief Administrative Officer, David Fisher. 

In light of time constraints and to make sure I understand all 

of your questions and get the chance to answer them, I just want 

to make four fundamental points briefly here this morning: First 

would be the nature and scope of our support to the Congress; second, the return on investment that the taxpayers and the Congress 

get back from their investment into GAO; third, the importance we 

place on having a skilled, motivated, diverse, dedicated workforce; 

and fourth, the rationale for the submission that we made to the 

Congress. 

First, on the nature and scope: GAO serves every standing committee of the Congress, and, in recent years, 70 percent of the subcommittees have submitted requests. We work with them, Congressman Honda, to understand their priorities. We have more requests for our services than we can get to in a timely manner, but 

we work with requesters to address their highest priorities. 

We work on and testify before Congress, on average, about 200 

times a year. In fact, next week, we are appearing at 13 hearings 

before the Congress, on everything ranging from the Flood Insurance Program to cybersecurity. We focus both in-depth on individual programs and agencies, but also have a government-wide 

perspective. 

We just issued two reports that I would note to this committee. 

One is the update on our High-Risk List, where we look across the 

Federal Government’s portfolio of programs and identify areas that 

we think are at highest risk of fraud, waste, and abuse for mismanagement and also in need of broad-based transformation. Last 

week, we also just released a report on overlap, duplication and 

fragmentation in the Federal Government, pointing out 81 areas 

where there are opportunities for billions of dollars in cost savings. 

Both the efforts on high-risk and overlap/duplication offer the opportunity for Congress and the administration to focus on areas 

that could reap billions of dollars of savings and improve the performance and accountability of the Federal Government. 

On return on investment, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we 

returned last year $87 for every dollar spent on GAO in financial 

benefits, in terms of cost savings or opportunities to gain revenues 

or better use of Federal resources. Actually, our rolling 4-year average has been $94 to $1. 

We also issue hundreds of reports and testimonies each year to 

help inform the Congress. Last year, we had over 2,000 recommendations. Our recommendations are implemented at about an 

82 percent rate over time. We are very pleased that our recommendations are constructive and put into place and we can then 

produce these types of benefits. 

In addition to the financial benefits, we have had over a thousand other documented benefits last year in improved services to 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
71 

the public or improved government operations. For example, helping to improve the oversight over the safety of nursing homes is 

just one example. We make a lot of recommendations to improve 

the performance and ensure the accountability of government for 

the benefit of the American people. 

We achieve these benefits through having a very dedicated, talented workforce. Our staff are trained in all sorts of disciplines, 

ranging from financial auditors to IT specialists to subject-area 

specialists in health care, defense, et cetera. 

We spend a lot of time working with our employees getting feedback. As you mentioned, Congressman Honda, we were ranked 

among the best places to work in government, and that has been 

consistent for a number of years. We have good, constructive working relationships with our union and with our employees. I am very 

pleased that we have that relationship and that we have a workforce that is really dedicated to supporting the Congress and carrying out its constitutional responsibilities. I would be happy to 

talk a little bit more about that in the Q&As. 

As the auditor of the government’s consolidated financial statements, we well recognize the fiscal pressures facing the Federal 

Government. We believe we came in with a prudent request. As 

you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we are asking for level funding. 

With that funding level, we believe we can work with the Congress 

to meet their greatest and highest-priority needs, particularly in 

this time of fiscal stress and demands, to try to do our part to help 

Congress get the country on a more sustainable fiscal path without 

sacrificing as much in services as might otherwise need be. 

If our funding would be below that level, we would have difficulty. We would have to reduce our staffing. That would mean we 

would do fewer requests for the Congress, and it would take us 

longer to be able to complete them. We can talk more about that. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss our request with you. I know this committee will give it careful consideration, and I thank you for that. 

IMPROVING EFFICIENCY

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you for your testimony. 

And in the atmosphere in which we are operating today, your 

corner of the world becomes even more important. We thank you 

for the work that you do. Thank you for recognizing, as you would 

be expected to do, the difficulty of the situation, to come in and say, 

‘‘We are going to ask for what we had last year.’’ And I know that 

requires some efficiency, but that is what you specialize in. 

So maybe, could you tell us one or two things—because this is 

what we are going to ask a lot of people who come before us—how 

you are doing it more efficiently, how you are doing it more effectively, how you are doing more with less? What are some of the 

things that you did to be able to give the kind of essential service 

that you give but do it in a more efficient way? 

Mr. DODARO. We have tried to reduce the cost of operating our 

facilities. For example, we put in more energy-efficient lighting. We 

installed a boiler to create our own steam. We used to buy steam 

from GSA. We have made some other adjustments in the building 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
72 

to reduce some of the normal cleaning activities and other investments. 

We have postponed some needed investments in IT and facilities. 

Our GAO building is a 60-year-old building; some of the systems 

are coming to the end of their useful life. We put in a new fire 

alarm system because that was a safety issue, but we have deferred other system upgrades. 

We have focused with our staff on reducing travel. We use 

videoconferences more to cut down on our travel costs. We are looking at a number of activities to cut back and have tried to pare 

back as much as we can. 

We also knew we were going to be in this position, so we scaled 

back our hiring last year from what we would normally have done, 

because 80 percent of our costs are personnel costs. We can control 

some of these other costs and become more efficient. We have to 

be able to do that. Also, this year, we have not replaced the people 

that were leaving until we know what our budget is going to be for 

this year. 

Cutting back personnel costs, focusing on our fixed costs and 

bringing them down as far as we can, and postponing some investments are the way we are trying to conserve the resources necessary to be able to—once we have a budget for this fiscal year, figure out what staffing levels are appropriate given the demand for 

our services. 

On average, we receive between 900 and 1,000 requests a year 

from Congress. We work to prioritize those. Once we have our 

budget for this year, we will be able to size our staffing levels appropriately. 

ROLE OF GAO FIELD PRESENCE

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, you do these studies about efficiency and 

duplication. And I assume that you do that for yourself, as well. 

You ought to be experts in that. 

I noticed you have a field office in Los Angeles and you have a 

field office in San Francisco. Is that something you look at to say, 

could we consolidate that, or would that save on travel? Are those 

the kinds of things that you look at internally? 

Mr. CALVERT. Or move it all down to L.A. 

Mr. DODARO. We periodically look at our field office structure. 

Right now, we have 11. Not too long ago, we had about 40 or 50. 

We have about 25 percent of our people there. 

The field is important for us to be able to get out firsthand and 

do observations wherever they are, such as wildfires in California 

or other issues where we need to be on-site. The field also helps 

us to have a diverse workforce, because not everybody wants to 

work in Washington, and we get some great people out there. 

We periodically look at our field structure, Mr. Chairman. For 

example, a few years ago, we closed our office in Kansas City. With 

modern telecommunications and travel, we can update our assessment. 

I would prefer deferring those reviews until we know what our 

budget situation is. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Okay. Thank you. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
73 

We are going to try to stick to the 5-minute rule. There are going 

to be votes coming up pretty soon. 

But let’s go now to Mr. Honda. 

GAO’S STRATEGY FOR ADDRESSING MANDATES

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 

I think you have touched on some of the concerns that I have 

had, but there was a mandate from the Senate to do audits of our 

agencies. Can you give us an update on where we are at with that 

and how we can maintain the support level in order for you to be 

able to do the important work that we need to do in process of auditing? This is where we are able to find the waste, fraud, and 

abuse. 

Mr. DODARO. Thank you for that question. 

We have a number of mandates to look at overlap and duplication and efficiency in operations in programs across the Federal 

Government. 

For example, the report we just issued on overlap and duplication was built on work we had done for over half the committees 

in the Senate and half of the committees in the House. We tried 

to do work that meets multiple objectives. 

Many of our requests have multiple congressional requesters 

from the same committee, and often from other committees. Many 

of them are bipartisan requests. We try to work with the committees and do one body of work that will meet multiple needs, thereby being more efficient in how we use our resources and be more 

effective. 

If we are funded at the 2010 level, we can continue to do that 

work and to provide these cost-savings opportunities to the Congress in the most efficient manner. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Calvert. 

LEASING OF SPACE WITHIN GAO’S HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While I am not new to 

the House of Representatives, I am new to this committee. So I am 

looking forward to learning a lot about these various agencies that 

are under our jurisdiction. 

One of the issues that was brought to my attention was your 

building. As a matter of fact, I am an old commercial real estate 

guy. I know where you are located and I know it is a pretty sizable 

building. 

I remember, back in 2001, during the anthrax scare here on Capitol Hill, you housed a lot of House Members—and we thank you 

for that—while we were cleaning up the facilities over here. I understand that, back in the mid-1990s, you had 5,000 FTEs, but you 

have reduced that now down to about 3,200. Is that right? 

Mr. DODARO. That is correct, Congressman. 

Mr. CALVERT. So I imagine you had a substantial amount of vacant office space there, and I understand you sublet that space to 

various agencies. Is that also correct? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, that is correct. Actually, the headquarters for 

the Army Corps of Engineers occupies the entire third floor and a 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
74 

1 31 U.S.C. 782 authorizes the Comptroller General to 

• lease or otherwise provide space and services within the General Accounting Office 

(GAO) Building to persons, both public and private, or to any department, agency, or 

instrumentality; and 

• expend receipts for the operation, maintenance, protection, alteration, or repair of 

the GAO Building in such amounts as are specified in annual appropriation Acts without regard to fiscal year limitations. 

substantial portion of the sixth floor in the building. They have 

about a thousand people in our building. It is good to have somebody from Defense which pays their bills. 

Mr. CALVERT. Yeah. Well, we were talking about it. We haven’t 

done an appropriations for that yet. You may have to give them a 

3-day notice. 

Mr. DODARO. I think they are good for it. 

Mr. CALVERT. Okay. What kind of rent are they paying? Are they 

paying market-value rent? 

Mr. DODARO. I would have to ask. 

David, would you mind coming up? 

We just renegotiated the rent. 

Mr. CALVERT. I was just curious, when you are kind of changing 

from one pocket to the next here—— 

Mr. FISHER. They pay $7 million a year for the space based on 

square footage, both for the space itself as well as the ancillary 

services that we provide for them, including cleaning. It is a market rate, and we have a 10-year lease that has been negotiated 

with the Corps. 

Mr. CALVERT. Do you have any other Federal entities in the facility? 

Mr. FISHER. They are the only tenant that is paying rent. 

Mr. CALVERT. So does that pretty much fill up your building? Is 

your building totally full? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. We are going to take a look at the space. We 

do that periodically. 

Mr. CALVERT. So the lease revenue, where does that lease revenue go? Does that stay within your agency? Do you use that 

money to do improvements, since you do have an older structure 

in that building? How do you use that revenue? 

Mr. FISHER. It primarily goes back into the building. There are 

a couple of additional sources of funds beyond the appropriation 

that we get. Gene can talk about some of the reimbursable work 

we do for financial audits. We also get the rent money that comes 

in, on top of the appropriation, to account for our total resources 

for the year. Primarily, the money that comes in from rent purposes does go back into the building for improvements. 

Mr. CALVERT. Primarily. But some of it for other purposes? 

Mr. FISHER. I would have to get back to you for the record for 

sure. 

[The information follows:] 

COLLECTION AND USE OF RENTAL RECEIPTS

In FY 2010, GAO collected $5.3M from the Army Corps of Engineers to lease 

space in the GAO Building. We estimate about $7M in collections in fiscal years 

2011 and 2012. 

By law,1 all rental receipts must be used for operation, maintenance, protection, 

alteration, or repair of the GAO Building. 

Costs to operate and protect the GAO Building in FY 2010 were almost $20M. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
75 

Annually, costs for maintenance, alteration, and repair of building systems and 

structures can vary significantly depending upon the nature of the activity. We try 

to phase projects over a multi-year period to minimize the budgetary impact in a 

single year, while maximizing our investment. 

Mr. CALVERT. I am trying to find out how that money is being 

utilized. And I, obviously, have no objection to using rent money to 

improve the facility that you have, to make sure you don’t have to 

use appropriated funds for that purpose. I would appreciate you 

doing that. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Mr. Bishop. 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH SECURITY

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Let me just thank you for what you do. You are essentially the 

policemen for our entire government. We thoroughly depend on 

you, your expertise and your investigations for what we do. 

In thinking about the recent heightened security requirements 

for Members of Congress, have you been engaged, in terms of assessing the efficiencies and the cost of providing security for the 

Members in their district offices as well as our constituents who 

visit us here at the Capitol? 

Obviously, we are at a time of budget cutting and financial crisis. 

However, we want Members and our constituents to be adequately 

protected at the Capitol. 

Have you been engaged in that process at all, to assist us in 

knowing how much it is going to require us to sacrifice in order to 

provide the necessary security? 

Mr. DODARO. We have been asked and have done work on the 

Capitol complex, looking at security and the staffing models and 

assumptions that the police have used. To my knowledge, we have 

never done anything in the district offices in that regard. 

Most of our work that we do is focused on the executive branch. 

We do some work in the judicial branch, primarily looking at their 

facilities and the courthouse constructions. We provide a lot of 

services to this committee on other entities within the legislative 

branch, as well. 

Mr. BISHOP. A number of Members have raised concerns, that 

our security requirements have increased; however, our budgets 

have decreased. We are going to need some help from someone who 

has investigative expertise to tell us how we can get the job done. 

I think we need some factual basis to determine if we need to 

provide Members with adequate additional funds for the provision 

of security. Perhaps this may be a function we need to transfer to 

the Capitol Police. 

The whole issue of security has come to the forefront, because 

members travel back and forth to their districts. 

Mr. DODARO. One of the things I would suggest is that while we 

don’t have a lot of law enforcement expertise to do first-hand assessments, that would be something I would think the Capitol Police or other law enforcement agencies could help you with. 

Mr. BISHOP. Would you have to cost it out? 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
76 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, you would have to cost it out, and you would 

have to do tradeoffs. I know, in our own case, in the 11 field offices 

we were just talking about, we have to work with the owners of the 

buildings on security arrangements for the GAO people in the facilities. We deal with that aspect of this issue with regard to safety 

for our own employees. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you have some models we could utilize? 

Mr. DODARO. We would be happy to share with the committee 

what we do. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. And I am sure, as we go through 

their hearings, we will probably address that even more with the 

Capitol Police and with our own office of counsel and others. 

A vote is taking place. There are about 8 or 9 minutes left to go. 

I can submit any other questions I have for the record. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Honda. 

RECOVERY ACT MONITORING

Mr. HONDA. Just a quick question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Previously, I made mention about the mandates and fulfilling 

mandates and the costs associated with it. With TARP and with 

our Recovery Act, the model that we have in there is that we created a mandate but we also included in the statute funding for 

that. And I was just wondering whether that is a model that we 

should be looking at. 

And then, also, some of the work that we have in the Recovery 

Act, we still have a lot of work out there because—and maybe that 

is why you have 11 sites out there in the States. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. 

Mr. HONDA. Is there continued funding for that kind of work? 

And, if not, how are you going to cover that? 

Mr. DODARO. You asked a number of questions. First, on the Recovery Act—— 

Mr. HONDA. Sorry about that. 

Mr. DODARO. No, they are all good. 

On the Recovery Act, we were given $25 million. That money expired at the end of September 2010. With that money, we were able 

to monitor the implementation of the Act and use of the funds in 

16 States across the country who received about two-thirds of the 

$280 billion that flowed through the State and local governments. 

We have moved to a model now, since we don’t have funding left, 

to do rotation on programs receiving the money. We did a review 

on Head Start. We are doing a review on the energy-efficiency 

grants right now, and we will do a review on the funding for the 

water infrastructure and transportation programs. We have had to 

stagger our reviews. 

FUNDING MODEL FOR REIMBURSEMENTS

Now, the model, I think, that worked. Like TARP, we get reimbursed, and we will get reimbursed from the TARP fund until the 

last TARP dollar is repaid. In those cases, Congressman, there are 

unusual reporting requirements. We have to report every 60 days 

on the Troubled Asset Relief Program, bimonthly reviews on the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
77 

State and local money, quarterly reports on the use of the reporting 

by the recipients on jobs created. 

I also think there are opportunities to give us some relief from 

some of those mandates now that a large portion of the TARP 

funds have been repaid. The Recovery Act money will largely be 

distributed this fiscal year. There are other mandates that we have 

that we are going to submit to the committee, about 25 or so, 

where we think there could be some flexibility. 

Now, moving forward, I think our base appropriation is sufficient 

for one-time requests that are coming in. But if there are requests 

for us to do recurring annual audits of something, then I think we 

could come up with some principles whereby it would make sense 

to consider those to be funded by the source. Right now, we are reimbursed for certain financial audits we do, like the IRS and the 

Bureau of Public Debt. 

FOLLOW-UP BRIEFINGS TO MEMBERS

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, perhaps—and this is not a mandate, 

but for those of us office holders, it is always good for us to have 

information that is relative to our area and relative to major kinds 

of programs that we have—such as TARP and ARRA. 

Is there a way that individual offices can tap into information as 

it relates to their area, so they can report back to their people on 

how things are done? I think that our constituents would appreciate that kind of information, and it makes us look responsive. 

And if there are ways to do that, then I would appreciate it if we 

could move to access the information for all of the Members. 

Mr. DODARO. Sure. We can provide a briefing for each of the 

Members on what we have done in their State, and in their particular districts as well, on the Recovery Act funds. 

The bulk of the TARP money is with the repayments by AIG, the 

automakers, the automakers’ financing arm that provided assistance, and the Home Affordability Modification Program. There are 

a few smaller banks that haven’t repaid yet. But, the bulk of it has 

been repaid. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

DUPLICATION AND THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, thank you. 

And thank you so much for your testimony. 

One thing, just in closing. I think you do a great job when we 

ask you to talk about efficiency and about duplication. The bigger 

issue, I think, for you to think about and for all of us to think 

about is, as I talked earlier about: What are the essential roles of 

government? I mean, and that is kind of outside your purview, but 

I think we ought to be asking that question. Not only, are you 

doing it efficiently, but if you are doing things that maybe we 

shouldn’t be doing in the first place, the fact we are doing it efficiently and effectively, you know, is not as important. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. So think about that as we go forward. 

And, again, thank you. I think this has been a model of efficiency 

and effectiveness. We have had this hearing; we conducted it in 

time to go vote. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
78 

So thank you very much for all that you do. Thank you. 

Mr. DODARO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. The Subcommittee will stand in adjournment 

until 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 15th. At that time, we will 

hear testimony from the Architect of the Capitol. 

[Additional questions for the Record follow:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
79 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 126 here 65845P2A.047
80 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 127 here 65845P2A.048
81 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 128 here 65845P2A.049
82 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 129 here 65845P2A.050
83 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 130 here 65845P2A.051
84 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 131 here 65845P2A.052
85 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 132 here 65845P2A.053
86 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 133 here 65845P2A.054
87 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 134 here 65845P2A.055
88 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 135 here 65845P2A.056
89 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 136 here 65845P2A.057
90 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 137 here 65845P2A.058
91 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 138 here 65845P2A.059

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
(93) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2011. 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

WITNESS 

STEPHEN T. AYERS, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

CHAIR OPENING REMARKS

Mr. CRENSHAW. The subcommittee will come to order. Today we 

are going to hear testimony from the Architect of the Capitol, the 

Honorable Stephen Ayers. You have testified before our committee 

before, but always as the Acting Architect of the Capitol, and today 

you are the real thing. So I want to congratulate you on your appointment last year. 

I am looking at the request of $619 million. That is $92 million, 

or 17.4 percent, above the current continuing resolution, And that 

is exclusive of the Senate office buildings. I know you have got a 

wide range of challenges, but your problems are our problems. We 

are in this thing together. And you know that these are difficult 

times from an economic standpoint. Everybody is going to have to 

try to do more with less. We are going to have to be more efficient, 

more effective. And I know you have got a job that kind of lends 

itself to that in terms of priorities and I know you have thought 

a lot about that. 

So I want to let you know that our subcommittee wants to work 

with you to figure out ways that we can save money, do things 

more efficiently. That is why we are here. 

So before I turn things over to you, I want to ask the ranking 

member, Mr. Honda, if he has some remarks. 

OPENING REMARKS—CONGRESSMAN HONDA

Mr. HONDA. Yes. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate this opportunity. And welcome and congratulations. Like the 

Spanish saying goes, mi casa es su casa. And you just happen to 

be the architect of the casa. 

One of the things I wanted to say very clearly is the 

prioritization process that you have helped the subcommittee put 

together from which we can make tough choices. And I just wanted 

to say that because the priorities have to be very complete, whether 

it is funded or not. I think that you need to put that on the record 

so that if something does come up in the near future, that you had 

put it in place for our consideration. Whether we do anything about 

it, we have to share that responsibility and the consequence. 

The chair had talked about the level of increase over 2010. I 

think you had a comment about your budget request, you probably 

say it more accurately—the original submission was lower, but it 

somehow is changing, so I anticipate your comments around that. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
94 

It was not only humorous, but it was very pointed, too. You are requesting a 5.1 percent increase to the operating budget and an increase of 6.1 percent for the multiyear projects. In addition to addressing the increasing backlogs of demands for life safety compliance and security issues, the request incorporates real property 

items that are essential to the Legislative Branch, the agency’s 

mission, including the House of Representatives, Library of Congress, and the Capitol Police. I think that the challenge to this subcommittee is to serve as stewards of this branch of government, 

while operating under the tight budgetary constraints, and that is 

the most salient with your office. 

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

We must take care to ensure that the near-term pressure for fiscal restraint does not ultimately impose significantly higher 

lifecycle costs in the long term, and that is important. This will require advance planning for large projects in the pipeline, and I am 

pleased that this subcommittee was able to begin that process last 

year when they started building a revitalization trust fund which 

was around $50 million for the initial planning. 

The chairman and I came to the Congress at the same time. We 

are in the same class from 2001, 9 months before September 11th, 

the terrorist attack. The evacuation of the Capitol and the House 

and Senate office buildings on that horrific day showed me many 

flaws, and I am concerned that those flaws still remain today and 

that adequate plans and systems are not in place. 

Since joining the subcommittee, it has become apparent that one 

major issue is lack of a singular point person, and the House and 

Senate Sergeants at Arms are point people for the respective bodies. However, most people look to the Capitol Police as the lead. In 

addition, none of this can be accomplished without our chief of 

buildings, the Architect. Where does the budget stop in order for 

us to come with the precise singular plan, regardless of what the 

organizational structure is. And maybe you can help us today to 

figure who is in charge of the evacuation and emergency preparedness across the Capitol. 

I bring this up on more than an annual frequency, mainly because I am very concerned about the health and safety of our staff, 

those who are ambulatory and those who are disabled and also our 

Members. I think we have that overriding responsibility to be concerned about that. The chair and I have discussed this once before. 

I will conclude my comments with that and yield back. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Honda. 

Mr. Ayers, your full statement will be inserted into the record. 

So I want to turn the floor over to you to make any comments you 

might have and introduce any staff that you might want to introduce. Please proceed. 

Mr. AYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Representative Honda, for the opportunity to testify today regarding 

our 2012 budget request. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
95 

CHALLENGES

Today we face significant challenges as our facilities and infrastructure continue to age and our mission continues to expand. In 

fact, we currently have a backlog of nearly $1.5 billion in deferred 

maintenance and capital renewal projects that, if left unaddressed, 

could greatly impact the safety and security across the Capitol 

campus. 

As steward of the Capitol campus, I know that investment in our 

aging and historic infrastructure is vital; however, I also realize 

that the current fiscal environment presents a very difficult challenge for us and the Congress to do more with less, and I think our 

budget request attempts to address this challenge. 

NEED-BASED BUDGET

We have prepared a budget based on the current needs of our 

buildings and we call this a need-based budget. The projects requested are prioritized to enable the subcommittee to make informed decisions about what to fund and what not to fund. We are 

also preparing a series of alternative analyses that can get us to 

a flat budget or a 5 percent or a 7 percent decrease. We are looking 

forward to working with the Congress and are prepared to work 

with the subcommittee to make those informed and difficult decisions regarding the future investment in the Capitol campus. 

In addition, to ensure that we make maximum use of every taxpayer dollar, we continue to identify cost savings and efficiencies 

in our organization to aggressively address the most effective ways 

to use our limited resources. We have implemented comprehensive 

performance metrics that have led to very significant savings in 

our organization in the last few years. For example, we have reduced our inventory on hand from $56 million down to $71⁄2 million 

just by putting in place some important performance metrics. We 

also put in performance metrics in our IT shop and have recently 

eliminated 150 printers and fax machines across the organization. 

These are little things, but these little things can add up to be big 

things, and it also, I think, represents a culture of accountability 

in the organization. 

We have utilized public-private partnerships to finance our energy reduction projects, allowing us to invest our appropriated 

funds in higher priorities. We have renegotiated leases to get better 

rates and have reduced staff through attrition without impacting 

our ability to achieve our mission. 

This budget reflects the highest requirements to prevent further 

deterioration of our facilities. We have included projects to improve 

security and safety on the Capitol campus. And more importantly, 

we have deferred nearly $130 million in projects that are ready to 

proceed and need to proceed, but we think can be delayed another 

year or two. 

Through the work of our professional staff, we are able to address our client needs on a daily basis, maintain our facilities, and 

mitigate the number of projects that are required. However, even 

at this level of funding, the operating budget alone will not enable 

us to defer projects indefinitely. And as I know you know, these 

projects will only become more serious and, in the end, cost more. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
96 

Mr. Chairman, the Architect of the Capitol, we believe, embodies 

the commitment to preserving and maintaining the historic fabric 

of our country, and our Fiscal Year 2012 budget request reflects 

the seriousness with which we take that responsibility. We continue to be successful in our mission due to the skills of our dedicated staff, and we reap the benefits of their knowledge, skills and 

abilities every single day. And it is a real honor for me to lead this 

team. Their work doesn’t go unnoticed, and, in fact, our 2010 customer satisfaction survey notes that over 90 percent of our customers are fully satisfied with the level of service we provide the 

Congress. 

With that, I will conclude my statement and be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Ayers follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
97 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 147 65845P2A.060
98 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 148 65845P2A.061
99 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 149 65845P2A.062
100 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 150 65845P2A.063
101 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 151 65845P2A.064
102 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 152 65845P2A.065
103 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 153 65845P2A.066
104 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 154 65845P2A.067
105 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 155 65845P2A.068
106 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 156 65845P2A.069
107 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 157 65845P2A.070
108 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 158 65845P2A.071
109 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 159 65845P2A.072
110 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 160 65845P2A.073
111 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 161 65845P2A.074
112 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 162 65845P2A.075
113 

MEETING PRIORITIES

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you very much. As I understand it, you 

have 161⁄2 million square feet of buildings and about 450 acres of 

land. You have got a lot on your plate. Before the hearing, we had 

a chance to talk about how you go about setting the priorities in 

terms of construction and in terms of maintenance. And quite 

frankly, I was very impressed with the process that you go through 

to outline it. I think it would be helpful to the subcommittee if you 

could talk a little bit about how you go about establishing those 

priorities and the list that you have that almost gives us the opportunity to say these are things we know we need to do and we have 

got to figure out what we can afford to do and what we cannot afford to do. So can you talk a little bit about that process that you 

have gone through? 

Mr. AYERS. I would be happy to. And, of course, our budget 

comes in two parts. One is this operational piece that enables us 

to pay salaries and do the day-to-day work, and then there is the 

capital, capital with an ‘‘a,’’ budget portion, which is construction 

and renovation projects. So we have got what, we think, is a world 

class prioritization process in place that is really a tool for the Congress to enable them to make good, informed decisions, need-based 

decisions on our facilities. 

So we look at a number of criteria. First we identify what type 

of project it is, whether it is ranging from deferred maintenance, 

meaning something that is broken and now needs to be fixed, 

through the spectrum to capital construction or construction for a 

new building. And the thinking there is our algorithm will weigh 

a deferred maintenance project more than a new construction 

project because we want to invest dollars in what we have before 

building new. 

Secondly, every project is given an urgency classification from 

immediate to high, to medium, to low urgency, and these are all 

done by third party independent consultants to our organization. 

And then lastly, every project is evaluated against six 

preestablished criteria from mission to energy efficiency to regulatory compliance, to historic preservation. So we look at all attributes of a project and give it a numerical score from 1 to 100 

based upon this preestablished criteria. And then all of that comes 

together and, in the end, we produce a list of prioritized projects 

from 1 to 100, or however many there are in that given year. And 

then I make a decision of what I think needs to be funded and 

what I think can be deferred in that given year. 

PRIORITY RANKING

Mr. CRENSHAW. So I guess you would say if you have a list, number one is top priority and whatever is at the bottom is less. But 

if you were to give us a list, you would say these are the ones that 

I think we can’t do, you mentioned a billion and a half dollars of 

things we can put off. But when you give us a list, you say these 

are things that I believe that based on my prioritization need to be 

done this year, then I guess if we were to look at it and say we 

don’t have as much money as we wish we had, we may not be able 

to do the bottom two or three based on your prioritization. And I’m 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
114 

sure you would always tell us if there are life safety issues involved, and those obviously are high on your priority list. So if you 

were to look at what you have asked for, the $600-plus million, are 

there things that maybe toward the end of your list, even though 

you think they ought to be done now, they should be done now, if 

they can’t be done for another year there is some cutoff in there 

somewhere? Where do you think we are in terms of what you have 

asked for if somebody just said we just can’t do two or three things, 

would they be at the end of your list? 

Mr. AYERS. Absolutely. This tool, this prioritized list is meant to 

be a tool to help facilitate good decision making and theoretically, 

you can just start at the bottom of the list and move upwards if 

you need to reach a bottom-line. And we recognize that not everything can be funded. Sometimes the committee has a number that 

they need to reach depending upon what your allocation is from the 

broader group. So you can start at the bottom of the list and simply 

move the line up. Also conversely, of course, you can start at the 

top of the list and move the line downward if the committee allocation happened to be positive that year. 

CAPITOL DOME REPAIR

Mr. CRENSHAW. Where do the repairs to the Dome fit? I know 

that is in the 2011 budget. That is obviously a great symbol of our 

country. And if it is falling apart, then we ought to make sure that 

we fix it. Is that on your list or is that last year’s list? Or does it 

stay on that overall list? 

Mr. AYERS. It is on last year’s list. That was competing for funding in Fiscal Year 2011, the first phase of that. We intend to do 

it in two phases, the first phase being the most important, which 

is the lower portion of the Dome or the skirt. That is estimated at 

about $20 million. The remainder of the Dome, estimated at about 

$80 million, we think would be in a different fiscal year. It is not 

competing for 2012 funding. So certainly it would be higher on the 

priority list because it is our symbol of representative democracy. 

It will achieve a score, a very high score, likely 100 in historic preservation. And when something reaches 100 in our importance scale, 

it automatically pushes it to the top of the list. 

So we think it needs to be done. There is no question about it. 

We think it needs to be done now. I know when you stand on the 

plaza and look at the Dome, it really looks terrific; but when you 

get up close to it, it literally is rusting apart and falling apart and 

pieces of ornamentation fall off the Dome, fall down to the roof, 

poke holes in the copper roof. It really does need some work. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. Mr. Honda, did you have some questions? 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is almost like going 

from a regular TV set to Blu-Ray, huh? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, sir. When you get up close, you can see all of 

the detail. 

JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES

Mr. HONDA. I think the chairman is correct in that it is the symbol of our country. And let me ask a delicate question. The responVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:05 Jul 13, 2011 Jkt 065845 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A845P2.XXX A845P2

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
115 

sibility for the Dome, that is shared between the two branches, is 

that correct, the Senate and the House? 

Mr. AYERS. Anything that happens in the Capitol Building from 

an authorizing and appropriating perspective, it is shared jointly 

between the House and the Senate. 

Mr. HONDA. In the current budget, who is carrying the major 

burden of that? Is that our side or is that being shared or is that 

an issue that both sides need to sit down and talk about in order 

to go forward? 

Mr. AYERS. Our budget is made up of 10 separate appropriations. 

If something is in the Capitol Building, it would be in the Capitol 

Building appropriation, which the Dome is. That appropriation is 

a joint appropriation shared by the House and the Senate. So both 

of those entities would have to come to agreement to fund that 

project. 

Mr. HONDA. You are the Architect for both sides? 

Mr. AYERS. Correct. 

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, if it is appropriate, maybe we should 

have some sort of informal meeting with the other side as to looking at the joint plan. And I for one feel the same way, that it is 

important to move forward, with the full blessing of both sides. 

LIFE-SAFETY PRIORITIES

On the Cannon life and safety project, can you explain to us basically what is being funded under that title life and safety project? 

I know it has stopped and we are doing cosmetics right now, but 

it should be funds that are expended with the future in mind so 

that everything builds upon the last step. And how will, the life 

saving technology that we have been talking about for a few years, 

how will that fit into the plan? 

Mr. AYERS. The specific project that is in our budget request, is 

our second priority. I think it is $4.2 million. That project has a 

citation from the Office of Compliance related to it and this estimate and this scope of work abates that citation but does not include the kind of technology we have been speaking of. We believe 

that kind of technology will be employed in the Cannon Building 

when we do the Cannon Building renovation project. This effort 

simply enables us to abate the citation. The citation specifically 

deals with the unprotected flow of smoke in a building like the 

Cannon Building that has some open stairways. 

So what the project will specifically do would enable us to take 

the Cannon Building and enclose many of the stairwells—using 

very sensitive architectural features that enable the exits to be free 

of smoke to enable people to exit freely and safely out of the building. That is really the scope of that project. 

So the technology would come as part of the Cannon Building. 

Today, our fire alarm systems are zoned systems. So if a smoke detector is activated, it shows up on our fire alarm control panel as 

a zone. First responders would have to search that zone to find 

where the issue is. 

The current technology is fully addressable fire alarm systems 

like we have employed in the Capitol Visitor Center that enable 

you to pinpoint exactly which detector was activated and exactly 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
116 

where that smoke detector is to enable your first responders to respond exactly to the room and the location. 

Mr. HONDA. I think that that is important, that there is a central 

office that is monitoring all that, to be able to communicate that 

to the first responder in realtime, in two ways or multiple ways. 

I would be very interested in being continuously informed of how 

that technology is added and how that would enhance our ability 

to move people through the building and out safely so that we 

could avoid areas of obstruction. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. AYERS. I think, if I may, Mr. Honda, similarly we have 

talked in previous hearings about installing cameras in the stairwells in the House office buildings. That project has been funded 

by the committee and we are moving out apace. In fact, we installed the infrastructure for some 150 or 160 cameras to enable 

the Capitol Police to monitor the flow of traffic in the building and 

the flow of traffic in the stairwells, this would then give them the 

ability to see if something is backing up and have their floor wardens and others divert people that are evacuating to different stairwells. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

ENERGY REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Ayers, we talked some about maintenance 

and construction. And I know you have done a lot of work on just 

kind of day-to-day savings, as you mentioned, do a lot of little 

things and they all add up and become a big thing. I wanted to ask 

you a couple of questions about overall energy, because when you 

have got that much square footage, then obviously energy consumption is a big part of your ongoing expense. I know that it has 

come to light in terms of energy consumption, everybody wants to 

see that reduced, everybody cares about the environment. But 

when I look, I see there are two programs that you have that were 

put in place. I guess one was a statutory and one was more of a 

directive. But they both seemed to work toward achieving energy 

reduction goals. One is the Energy Independent and Security Act 

of 2007 (EISA), and then you have the Green the Capitol Initiative. 

In terms of efficiency, and streamlining things, could you comment 

on what are the differences between those two efforts and wouldn’t 

it make more sense to align those together, have kind of a campus 

wide approach? Can you talk about those two programs and how 

that might be done more efficiently? 

Mr. AYERS. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. I do think that 

there are continued energy savings to be found in our energy reduction program and it saves real money for us. Today there are 

two independent goals and objectives that we are pursuing. It does 

cause some confusion and I think there is some overlap in that 

from a program management as well as a public perception perspective. Of course the EISA goal is the legislative goal that requires us and all of our Federal partners to reduce energy intensity 

by 3 percent per year for 10 years, for a total of 30 percent reduction over a 2003 baseline. The Green the Capitol Initiative is a 

completely different effort to achieve a 5 percent reduction per year 

for 10 years for a total of 50 percent reduction in energy use over 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
117 

a 2006 baseline. The fact that these are two completely independent things that require us and others to track them independently. So having them have one common sort of congressional objective, I think, would enable us and our partners to really manage 

one program. So there are savings and efficiencies to be gained 

there by managing one program, managing one set of data and 

managing one set of priorities. 

MEASURING ENERGY PROGRAM RESULTS

Mr. CRENSHAW. Just to figure out how you are doing takes a little time and energy. Right? If I were to ask you how you are doing 

on one versus how you are doing on the other, is that something 

you all have to calculate and say we are up to speed on EISA but 

we are behind on Green the Capitol? Where are we today? 

Mr. AYERS. That is exactly right. It does take two completely different sets of data and calculations. The Green the Capitol initiative is for the House buildings. So that takes 31 percent of the Capitol Power Plant and half of the Capitol Building and half of the 

Capitol Visitor Center and all of the House buildings. So it gets a 

little complicated. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. It is hard to draw a line, this is all House side? 

Mr. AYERS. It is difficult to do that. So there are a lot of assumptions that go into those equations. So we have been working at 

these programs since 2007. That is when EISA came into effect. To 

date we have met all of our goals under the EISA program and the 

goal this year was saving 15 percent. So we have met all of the 

EISA goals. For the last 3 or 4 years, we have met the Green the 

Capitol initiative goal. And this year we just fell slightly short of 

the Green the Capitol goal. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. But it does make sense. You can see some efficiencies if you streamline that program, more of a consolidated approach campus-wide, as opposed to trying to piecemeal, that is 

something we will have to decide? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, I do think there are efficiencies to be gained and 

certainly the Architect has purview of all of the facilities on Capitol 

Hill in the Legislative Branch. So that also includes the Supreme 

Court and all of the Library of Congress and Capitol Grounds and 

the House and the Senate office buildings as well as the Botanic 

Garden. 

CAPITOL POWER PLANT

Mr. CRENSHAW. I know that you have been doing a lot of work 

in this whole energy consumption area and you were explaining to 

me earlier when we met, this cogeneration aspect of the Capitol 

Power Plant. I know that sometimes you can spend a little more 

money, but in the long run save money and sometimes the Federal 

Government tends to say let us just put it all in a big pot and then 

go build it as opposed to leveraging. You mentioned some publicprivate partnerships, and that is what the private sector does so 

well, to kind of leverage their dollars. Talk about what you are 

doing as it relates to the Capitol Power Plant. I think that is something that we need to be aware of and maybe do more of. 

Mr. AYERS. Well, I think that the really good question is we have 

these goals, legislative goals as well as the Green the Capitol iniVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:05 Jul 13, 2011 Jkt 065845 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A845P2.XXX A845P2

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
118 

tiative goals. How are we going to meet those energy reduction 

goals? Those kinds of efforts take investment and take money to 

implement projects to reduce energy. I think we have a couple of 

options to reach those goals. 

One is we have put in place three Energy Savings Performance 

Contracts to date which bring in private companies, investing their 

money in our facilities and achieving a certain level of energy reduction. That will get us halfway to the goal. 

So how do we get to the rest? We can do more of those energy 

savings performance contracts or we can come in with budget requests and seek appropriated dollars to do that. But we think if we 

seek appropriated dollars, there is only so much bandwidth those 

appropriated dollars are now going to take away from our deferred 

maintenance backlog that we need to chip away at. 

So we think the best opportunity is to bring in private money to 

do that. We have spent the last year looking at how are we going 

to achieve these energy reduction goals. We are convinced, as is the 

National Academy, who has peer reviewed our plan, that cogeneration is the right way to do that. It is the home run. We can completely do it with private financing and it enables us to reach our 

statutory energy reduction goals in the end. So this cogeneration 

system enables us to use natural gas to turn a turbine engine to 

make electricity.That electricity will feed the power plant and the 

heat generated from making that electricity, this is the co-part, 

heats our boilers and makes the steam for the Capitol complex. A 

very efficient way to do it, and this is pretty standard. NIH just 

did it. GSA just did it. Over at the new Homeland Security Headquarters, they are doing it as well. So it is very common and it is 

the industry trend these days. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Right. Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. I think that was a great line of questioning and we can show that kind of efficiency and savings over 

a long period of time on paper in terms of crunching the number, 

right? 

Mr. AYERS. Absolutely. 

Mr. HONDA. So I think that is something that I would like to see, 

if the chair doesn’t mind, because it is a way of doing our job responsibly on behalf of the rest of our Members. And these things 

are not partisan issues. This is all about running the Capitol, that 

it is run correctly. 

With that in mind, will the boiler project be able to have us move 

forward on the EISA objectives and reach our goal as far as what 

we call greening—but we have a different term that has less emotion to it—but has become more efficient and more compliant? How 

will we do that? And then if we can, why shouldn’t we move forward and try to achieve that 50 percent goal and then go beyond 

that? 

Mr. AYERS. With the cogeneration system, we have modeled that 

energy savings reduction method and, of course, energy savings 

equals money savings. That is ultimately what this is after. We 

have modeled that and we are convinced that cogeneration will enable us to achieve the 30 percent reduction that is statutory from 

the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. And it will almost get us to the 50 percent goal of the Green the Capitol InitiaVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:05 Jul 13, 2011 Jkt 065845 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A845P2.XXX A845P2

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
119 

tive. We think we will be just a percentage or two below the 50 percent goal, if we are able to implement the cogeneration system. So 

it does achieve energy savings that are actually far greater than 

the EISA statutory goals. 

Mr. HONDA. You say if we are able to. In your budget, is there 

a plan recommended to achieve that? And I know it is up to us to 

make the final decision, but is that in the budget and is that laid 

out there? 

Mr. AYERS. No, Mr. Honda, it actually doesn’t show up in our 

budget. We would do it primarily with private financing. So that 

would require simply a letter seeking your approval for us to engage in that contract with the private vendor that would use their 

money to invest. We would pay them back over the course of 10 or 

12 years with the energy savings they achieved. That is the great 

value of these contracts, the energy savings are guaranteed. If the 

companies don’t achieve them, they don’t get paid. 

Now, the little caveat is that we have to manage and verify the savings. So there is a $2 million request in our 2012 budget 

multiyear that enables us to hire consultants or staff to manage 

and watch over these contractors that are doing work on our facilities. So there is a small bit of appropriated dollars, sort of management fees. And then the rest of it is completely private money. And 

in this particular case, if it is fully financed, we think the payback 

period is 13 years and 13 years on a piece of equipment that can 

last 35, 40, 45 years is a really good payback. 

GARAGE PROJECTS

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. On the underground garage projects, I 

understand that we have budgeted the West Garage to be started. 

So in that light, is the East Garage going to be completed so that 

those who have been displaced will be able to get back into the garage while the West is being worked on and will the workers be 

accommodated while we make these shifts in them? Are there adequate funds available to do this plan and complete it? And is there 

an issue of noncompliance on this project? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, to all of those questions. We do believe that 

when the East House Underground Garage construction is coming 

to an end, we will be able to—if the West Garage is funded in 2012, 

we will be able to start that work right after the East Garage. So 

we will displace all of the folks in the West Garage over into the 

East and empty the West Garage and begin the construction work 

there. 

I may have misspoken. Actually I don’t think that there is a citation related to the garage work. But it certainly has potential because there is falling and spalling concrete in those garages, and 

that clearly is a safety hazard that could hurt someone. So I think 

that is money that is invested to avoid a potential citation from the 

Office of Compliance. 

GARAGE SECURITY

Mr. HONDA. In terms of security, is that part of the planning? I 

understand that is one of the soft spots that we have in our system 

in terms of having adequate staff to watch the ingress and egress 

of folks. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
120 

Mr. AYERS. The East and West Garage rehabilitation projects 

really take care of the structural issues, the delaminating concrete 

issues there. There is another project in our 2012 request that does 

focus on improving security matters in the House and Senate garages. So that security issues can be taken care of. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

OPERATIONAL BUDGET/STAFFING

Mr. CRENSHAW. Let me ask a couple of questions about the operational side. When I looked at the budget, I think over the last 6 

years, the operational side has gone up quite a bit, almost 50 percent. But I think that has got to be due in large part because of 

the Capitol Visitor Center. You have got I think 150 to 200 employees you didn’t have 6 years ago. So when you look at ways to save 

money, to be more efficient, what are some of the things that you 

are doing as it relates to all of the people giving tours, giving directions. Is that something you look at? It seems like there is probably 

a big demand in the Spring for people to take tours. In the Winter 

there is less demand. How do you manage all these people now? 

That seems like a new responsibility. When you think of the Architect, you think he is going to design and build things, not manage 

a lot of people, giving tours and directions, et cetera. So how does 

that fit into your overall scheme to save money and be more efficient? 

Mr. AYERS. There is no question that our scope of responsibilities 

has significantly grown in the last 4 or 5 years. I reflect back not 

just on the people side, but we have a brand new facility in 

Culpeper, Virginia, that is nearly half a million square feet. We 

have four brand new buildings at Fort Meade. We have two brand 

new buildings in Manassas, Virginia. All of these have come about 

in recent years and require money to operate, maintain and improve on an ongoing basis, just like the Capitol Visitor Center, 

which is half a million square feet of facilities with nearly 250 employees there. So there is no doubt our operational budget has 

grown. The number of employees that serve in those new buildings 

and those new efforts has increased over time as well. But I think 

our staff really did a remarkable job this year. I look at our budget 

and these two big buckets, our operations money and our project 

money. On the operations side, I think our increases have been— 

this year anyway—have been pretty flat versus the project side 

with a very significant increase because of that backlog of deferred 

maintenance. And we challenge our staff to look very carefully at 

that, look very carefully at employees, look very carefully at overtime expenditures. I know in this budget cycle we had additional 

requests for 12 new employees, new FTEs, and we rejected all of 

those and felt this was not the right time to request those additions 

to our staff. 

PRIORITIZING MISSION GOALS

Mr. CRENSHAW. You mentioned some of the new responsibilities. 

Do you ever stop and think are some of the things you are being 

asked to do, some of the missions we have called upon you to do, 

is this something that is really the best use of taxpayers’ dollars, 

are these kind of essential things you ought to be doing? Do you 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
121 

have any thoughts about that? It is a hard question to answer because you are supposed to do what you are asked to do and then 

you come to us and see how much it is going to cost. Do you see 

anything that maybe as a mission of yours that maybe not as important as it might be as other missions? We are always talking 

about efficiency and effectiveness, but I don’t know that we always 

ask the question, is this something the government ought to be 

doing in the first place. Because even if you are doing it efficiently 

and effectively, if it is something you ought not to be doing, then 

I am glad you are doing it efficiently, but the broader question is 

why are we even doing that, why is the Federal Government doing 

that. So anything that you think of that you don’t like, you can tell 

us and we will ask you to stop doing it. 

Mr. AYERS. I would be happy to submit a very long list for the 

record, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter]. 

Actually, I do have two thoughts on that. One is we often receive 

requests from Members and requests from others to do X, Y and 

Z projects. When we think something is a little out of the norm or 

maybe we shouldn’t be doing that, the first thing that we do is engage with our authorizing and appropriations committees to help 

us talk through whether we should and shouldn’t do various initiatives. We get lots of those kinds of things every year. The committee staff is really helpful for us in terms of being able to say 

yes or no, ‘‘we want to take on this initiative or we don’t want to 

take on this initiative.’’ The leadership and the Committee on 

House Administration and the Appropriations Subcommittee have 

really been helpful and I know they will continue to do so. 

Secondly, one of the questions we do ask ourselves is how should 

we do this work. So, for example, we took on this big new project 

in Culpeper, Virginia, nearly half a million square feet. We asked 

ourselves, ‘‘How should we manage that building?’’ Should we recruit another 40 or 50 Federal employees and put them down there 

or have them drive back and forth, or should we bring in a private 

contractor to do all of that work for us? Ultimately we do a business case analysis. In this particular case we said we need to do 

this with the private vendor and we put one Federal employee 

there to manage that whole process. We think that is a much better use of Federal funds. And similarly we have done the same 

thing, we have one Federal employee managing a contractor that 

operates and maintains a facility in Culpeper, Virginia, as well as 

our 100 acres up in Fort Meade, Maryland. So that kind of business model is something we go through as well. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Mr. Honda. 

FOB–8

Mr. HONDA. Is it the Ford Building that we are using to place 

our staffs there, while we are going to be working on the Cannon? 

Is that plan still going to move forward? 

Mr. AYERS. I think you are referring to the FOB–8, the Federal 

Office Building 8, which is next door to the Ford Building. That is 

a building that is currently owned by the General Services Administration and they are renovating it. We plan to lease 200,000 

square feet, or four floors, of that to enable us to use as swing 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
122 

space as we renovate the Cannon Building in the coming years. 

That is still our plan to do that. 

Mr. HONDA. Earlier I guess I alluded to the idea of we are doing 

a lot of cosmetology, doing foundation work on our face and putting 

makeup on it. The building exterior and appointing of the details 

and the caulking, that is going to require some money. And if we 

are going to be moving forward with that, are there any problems 

with the funding for that? Are we on schedule? And can you tell 

us where we are with that? 

Mr. AYERS. As a building manager, our number one enemy in our 

business is water. 

Mr. HONDA. I thought you were going to say it was us. 

Mr. AYERS. I would never say that, Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. That is on the list, right? 

Mr. AYERS. So water is our enemy and water can cause so many 

problems for us, whether it is deterioration or whether it is mold 

growth, which can then affect the work products of the Congress 

or the priceless collections of the Library of Congress or the beautiful murals painted by Constantino Brumidi. We have to be diligent every single day to make sure our roofs and our walls are watertight. We do have money in our budget—I know in the House 

this year there is an additional $150,000 for us to hire masons to 

work to patch the holes in the masonry between the stone blocks 

and be sure that we keep water out of our buildings on an ongoing 

basis. With that we think today we are adequately funded in that 

regard. 

Mr. HONDA. I guess that is in line with the chairman’s question 

about the need to have a maintenance program. And this is one of 

the backlogs of the maintenance programs. And having shared responsibility with the other side, it sounds like we need to still get 

together on a different variety of projects so that we have shared 

responsibility in terms of the fiscal responsibilities. 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. 

CVC TOURS

Mr. HONDA. I think that that probably should be on our list in 

our discussion with the other House. With the CVC, a lot of other 

Members have complained—myself included—that the tours were 

going to be taken over by the guides. And our offices take a lot of 

pride in being able to guide some of our constituents. It has a lot 

of benefits to it. So I was wondering if you have any information 

as to what the impact of that is? And if you need more time, if you 

want to get that in writing later on, the impact of Member offices 

guided versus the guided tours, something that we can feed back 

to our Members so that they know that we are fulfilling that request. 

Mr. AYERS. I know we have talked about this quite a bit at hearings and in other venues in that we make our reservation system 

really flexible for visitors to come and reserve a tour or a ticket for 

the Capitol Visitor Center. It is really flexible. They can do that 

with a guided tour or they can do that straight to their Member’s 

office with a staff-led tour. But in the end, we have been open two 

years now, just over two years with nearly five million visitors in 

those two years, and our statistics show us that about seven perVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:05 Jul 13, 2011 Jkt 065845 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A845P2.XXX A845P2

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
123 

cent of our visitors are staff-led tours for Members and 93 percent 

are guide-led tours. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually I haven’t heard 

any complaints for a few months now. It sounds like it is working. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. On that point, at one time there was a rule that 

only the redcoats could give tours, you mentioned only 7 percent 

are staff led. Was that because they are not supposed to do that 

or can they do that if they want to? Is there any rule requiring a 

redcoat to conduct that tour? 

Mr. AYERS. No, of course not. There are no rules in that. There 

are many Member offices that really enjoy giving staff-led tours 

and it is really an important constituent service for them. So they 

are fully able to do that and we integrate them into those tours absolutely seamlessly. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I don’t have any more questions. Mr. Honda, do 

you have some more questions? 

UTILITY TUNNEL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Mr. HONDA. Just one other. The utility tunnel program, is that 

on-line and are we going to be okay with that? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes, Mr. Honda. We are ahead of schedule and under 

budget on that project. 

Mr. HONDA. Do you want to say that again? 

Mr. AYERS. I would love to. We are ahead of schedule and under 

budget. And our settlement agreement with the Office of Compliance on that issue requires us to be finished by June of 2012. And 

we are quite confident we are going to beat that date. So that 

project is going very, very well. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this sharing 

of information, and I look forward to a possible meeting in the future with the other House. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I want to join Mr. Honda in just saying thank 

you. You have your tremendous challenges, and it is encouraging 

to hear the thought that has gone into how you deal with those in 

these difficult economic times. That is the purpose of hearings like 

this, so we can better understand exactly what you are going 

through because we have got to go through it as well. So thank you 

for being here today. 

The subcommittee is going to be adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on 

Wednesday, May 11th. At that time, we will hear testimony regarding the Government Printing Office and the Congressional 

Budget Office, also myself and other Members of the Subcommittee 

have some questions to be answered for the record. 

[The questions and responses follow:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
124 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 189 here 65845P2A.076
125 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 190 here 65845P2A.077
126 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 191 here 65845P2A.078
127 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 192 here 65845P2A.079
128 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 193 here 65845P2A.080
129 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 194 here 65845P2A.081
130 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 195 here 65845P2A.082
131 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 196 here 65845P2A.083
132 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 197 here 65845P2A.084
133 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 198 here 65845P2A.085
134 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 199 here 65845P2A.086
135 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 200 here 65845P2A.087
136 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 201 here 65845P2A.088
137 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 202 here 65845P2A.089
138 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 203 here 65845P2A.090
139 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 204 here 65845P2A.091
140 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 205 here 65845P2A.092
141 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 206 here 65845P2A.093
142 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 207 here 65845P2A.094
143 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 208/400 here 65845P2A.095

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
(145) 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2011. 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WITNESS 

WILLIAM J. BOARMAN, PUBLIC PRINTER OF THE UNITED STATES 

CHAIRMAN CRENSHAW’S OPENING REMARKS

Mr. CRENSHAW. Today we are going to hear testimony from the 

Government Printing Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and 

from outside witnesses. 

Our first witness is going to be our new Public Printer, William 

Boarman. Upon taking Office in January, he became the 26th Public Printer of the United States. 

I congratulate you on that appointment. 

Mr. BOARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. We are going to look at your fiscal year 2012 

budget request, a little over $148 million, and that is about a $13 

million increase, which is about 10 percent. 

You and I have talked, and we all know how difficult our economic situation is, and it might be difficult to find an additional 

10 percent. In fact, everybody is being asked to do more with less. 

You know that. We have talked about that. So, in your testimony, 

you might talk about thoughts like that. I would love to hear about 

the problems you are having and the solutions that you propose on 

how you figure out a way to meet all this. 

Mr. Bishop, would you like to say anything in Mr. Honda’s stead? 

MR. HONDA’S OPENING REMARKS BY MR. BISHOP

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. I will give Mr. Honda’s remarks welcoming Mr. 

Boarman to your first House Legislative Branch Appropriations 

hearing. Of course, the GPO has received a renewed interest in recent months, and there are a lot of proposals and ideas about how 

to revamp the work that you do. And while we are not necessarily 

opposed to reviewing how Congress does its work, including the 

documents requirements, we believe that the Members should 

spend some time getting to know exactly the insides of the agency 

before we actually take action. 

According to your testimony, the printing produced for Congress 

ranges from 5.5 cents a page to a penny or less per page compared 

with nearly 7 cents a page for documents printed from the kind of 

office printers typically used throughout the Government and Capitol Hill. If this is accurate, that is the type of unintended consequence you have to avoid when evaluating the future of government printing. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
146 

Not having GPO print the Congressional Record, for example, 

could cost Member offices more in paper costs than we save by not 

having GPO print the document. 

Also, the very name of your agency, the Government Printing Office, doesn’t do it justice. GPO is the source of data for the THOMAS Web site that makes Congress more transparent to all depository libraries across the country and the Library of Congress. Generations to come can analyze the work of Congress due to our recorded history included in the documents that you publish. 

So we thank you and the over 2,000 workers at GPO for the 

work that you do, and we look forward to your testimony and responding to the questions that we raise. 

Mr. BOARMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

Your statement will be inserted in the record, so please feel free 

to make any remarks you would like to make and introduce any 

folks that you brought along with you. 

OPENING STATEMENT—MR. BOARMAN

Mr. BOARMAN. Thank you. I will forego all the introductions so 

we can get to it and save some time. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here. As was 

mentioned by Mr. Bishop, this is my first oversight hearing—I 

mean, my first funding hearing, although I have been in these 

meetings many times before as an advocate for GPO, so I feel sort 

of at home. 

The funding picture has changed since we submitted our appropriations request in January. At that time, our request was about 

level with the continuing resolution. Now it would represent a significant increase over the 2011 funding. And that is due to the fact 

that we submitted it months ago, before the final budget was 

reached for 2011, which sort of put us on hold. 

We know Congress is facing hard choices in providing funding for 

next year, and like others, we know we have to make hard choices 

ourselves in doing more for less. We are prepared to work with you 

on setting a funding level that gives us the resources we need to 

carry out the work you give us in the coming year. 

To begin that discussion, I want to be clear about the work that 

GPO does. In spite of our name, which often becomes a source of 

discussion, GPO today is essentially a digital platform for the production and delivery of congressional information products in forms 

and formats Congress requests. Printing is what many people see 

when they look at us, but it is only the tip of the iceberg in what 

we do. 

Most people don’t know that it is GPO that puts congressional 

and agency information on the Internet. We have been doing that 

since 1994. Our Federal Digital System, FDsys, has more than 

250,000 Federal titles online and sees more than 25 million documents downloaded free of charge by the public every month. 

The printed products we produce are in the quantities ordered by 

Congress. We don’t print any more than we are required to 

produce. To ensure that those quantities are what Congress wants, 

we are conducting a comprehensive survey of congressional offices 

of their printing needs. It is the first ever survey of its kind. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
147 

Now, up to 70 percent of the cost of congressional printing is for 

the prepress function to create the digital product. After the initial 

cost is set up on press and binding, our print and incremental rates 

run from about a penny to about 5.5 cents per page. By contrast, 

the cost of printing documents on office laser printers is much more 

expensive, up to 7 cents a page. 

Now, over the years, the efficiencies we have generated have cut 

the cost of information products for Congress by more than twothirds in real economic terms. We have reduced from 8,000 employees when I was at GPO as a proofreader 35 years ago to just 2,200 

today, yet more people have more access to congressional information through us than ever before. And that is a remarkable 

achievement. All of this has been achieved by an agency with an 

unmatched technological capability, backed by an expert and dedicated staff. 

We recover our costs by charging for printing. Our digital platform that supports congressional information products is funded almost entirely from the rates we charge for our print products. 

The rates we charge for printing also fund the cost of operating 

GPO as an agency, including the cost of essential functions like security, finance, EEO, personnel, and an Inspector General. Unlike 

other legislative branch agencies, we don’t get separate funds for 

those costs. We have to recover them through the printing work we 

perform. 

If we cut printing, I want to make sure we are not cutting into 

the digital platform that supports Congress or our ability to run 

the GPO the way you would want us to do it. I also want to make 

sure we are not opting for the false economy of a printing system 

that relies on office printers. Such systems can be far more expensive than what we are doing now. 

Mr. Chairman, we know Congress is looking for ways to reduce 

costs, and we get that. We have been one of Congress’ leading partners in saving money through the transformation to a digital information enterprise, and we will help you get there. 

We have appreciated working with the Subcommittee and your 

superb staff. I know you will give our request full and fair consideration, and I thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions of you and the other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of the Public Printer follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
148 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 408 here 65845B.001
149 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 409 here 65845B.002
150 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 410 here 65845B.003
151 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 411 here 65845B.004
152 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 412 here 65845B.005
153 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 413 here 65845B.006
154 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 414 here 65845B.007
155 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 415 here 65845B.008
156 

MORE WITH LESS

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Boarman. 

Let me start by asking, you mentioned about the Congressional 

Record, that 70 percent of the work goes in there is the digital 

preparation and 30 percent is actual printing. Do you think other 

than printing less copies to save money, are there things you can 

do on the other side of the equation that might save money? 

For instance, does anybody work overtime to get it all out, or can 

you tell me what goes into that 70 percent. Because the 30 percent 

of the printing, it seems to me if you printed for a penny or less, 

we are not going to save much money by printing fewer copies because it is going to cost more, as Mr. Bishop said. But the 30 percent that goes into that, tell me about that and have you thought 

about any ways to save money on that side? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, you know, I have been around this process 

for a long time. I have been associated with GPO for probably more 

than 35 years as an employee, as an advocate, and now as Public 

Printer. And the discussion about efficiencies in the production of 

the Congressional Record has been an ongoing discussion with 

many Public Printers and many chairmen of this Subcommittee. 

And it really comes back to the way Congress works. And people 

have said, Well, we are going to change that. But the reality is, our 

processes are built around what Congress does. 

Congress comes in at a certain time, and they go out at a certain 

time. Sometimes they don’t know when they are going to go out. 

And so our production capabilities are built around the way Congress operates and the demands that you place on us on a daily 

basis. We have a three-shift operation. We only work overtime if 

we have to. But we have a very limited production force today compared to what we had when I was there 35 years ago. 

So overtime does happen, especially when the House or the Senate or both stay in late at night or into the wee hours of the morning. And to me, as a bystander and now as Public Printer, it is 

amazing that the people that work there are able to accomplish 

what they do overnight with the demands that are put on them. 

There are things that I think Congress could do in changing its 

habits that could save money, but again, these things have been 

talked about before. You know, the Extensions of Remarks a lot of 

times come in late at night. They have to, I guess, go through a 

process of being introduced through the Clerk’s Office. And then 

sometimes they come to us and we actually have to keyboard them, 

rather than get them in a machine-readable format. If there were 

some way for that to happen earlier in the day so that we could 

make that part of the Record and that part was put to bed in the 

prepress process, I think we could save some money. 

But I think Congress is going to do what it has to do to legislate 

for the United States Government, and it is going to take different 

kinds of hours than most businesses are used to. That is what 

makes the GPO unique. I have been in the printing and publishing 

business for 40 years, and I don’t think there is any other organization like the GPO that can accomplish what it does. Are there more 

efficiencies that we could squeeze out of our organization? I am 

sure there are, and I am looking at those. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
157 

I have only been there for 4 months. I have made some major 

changes at the top. We have had a number of people that have departed, and we have tried not to replace people. We put a freeze 

on traveling. We absolutely look at every job that is vacant to see 

whether it needs to be filled. We have cut out expensive overseas 

travel. 

I think that we respond to you, and whatever you want us to do, 

we have to do. And if there is to be an examination about how Congress works and how they can change, we would welcome being 

part of that discussion to help you make some changes. 

DELIVERY SCHEDULES

Mr. CRENSHAW. When you deliver the copies to Congress and 

then some go to the Library of Congress and other people, would 

it make any sense, where more urgent deliveries take place right 

way and then there is another delivery that is less urgent would 

that reduce the crunch time, is that something that you all think 

about, or would that make any sense? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, I did mention in my testimony that we are 

doing a survey to see who wants the Record. And obviously, if a 

number of Members opt out, that is going to create a savings right 

away and may change the way we actually do business with printing the Record. We will have to see. We will have the results of 

that later in May. As far as the delivery, I mean, we are just down 

on North Capitol and H Streets. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. In turn if you got to get it out to all of the Members, they ought to get it first, right? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Right. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. But if you got to stay up all night to make sure 

the Library of Congress gets it the same time, can then get it 4– 

8 hours later. 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, I have to honestly say, I don’t know what 

time they get it, but I doubt whether they get it the same time that 

you do. Our priority is to get it up to Congress by 9:00 if we can 

or as soon as we can after that, depending on what time you go 

out in the morning. And those trucks pull out of Jackson Alley on 

North Capitol, and they are here in a matter of minutes. And so 

the efficiency of that operation, I think because of the location of 

the GPO and the House and the Senate and the Capitol, is as good 

as it gets. I don’t think the Library gets their copies at 9:00. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. So are you saying, once you do all the work and 

make sure the Members get it, it is done, so it is time to go home. 

It is all one package that gets delivered. You wouldn’t save much 

money. 

Mr. BOARMAN. Once it gets on the presses, and you have to understand, these are very high-speed sophisticated presses, and we 

only run 3,700 copies. We printed 20,000 copies back in the early 

1990s. So for the press to run 3,700 copies and the machine does 

almost everything—it sends it to a binding system that comes out 

stapled together for delivery—you are talking about a matter of 

minutes for the press to produce everything that’s needed. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. So really 70 percent of that goes in—— 

Mr. BOARMAN. Right, that is for the prepress work. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I appreciate that. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
158 

Mr. Honda, welcome. 

OVERHEAD

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. I apologize for being tardy here. 

I thought I had my car, and I didn’t have it, so I had to walk. 

So I assume that you just spoke on the process and everything else. 

Did you speak of the overhead of costs in terms of the overhead for 

your office? 

Mr. BOARMAN. No, sir. That was one of the major surprises that 

I was made aware of not too long after I took office. The overhead 

of GPO had increased almost by 50 percent over the last 5 years. 

Mr. HONDA. Would you mind just talking about that and distinguish, maybe define, what overhead means. 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, it is what we add on to the cost of printing. 

Actually, 33 cents of every dollar that we charge Congress for 

printing goes to cover overhead. Some of these things are unfunded 

requirements. We have an EEO Office that we have to run, and we 

have a personnel office, and then we have an Inspector General, 

which is required by law. I’ve learned we probably have the largest 

Inspector General’s Office in the legislative branch. 

Mr. HONDA. And that is a function over and above what we funded you for? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Yes. We fund that out of the cost of printing. We 

don’t get any separate funding for that, and I mentioned that in 

my testimony. 

SPACE

And then we have the building issue. We have a wonderful building. You know, there are actually four buildings there. The newest 

building was built in 1940. The oldest one was built in 1903. And 

there were 8,000 people working in these four buildings when I 

was first there, and today there are 2,200 people rattling around 

in space that we don’t need. 

And so what I have done is I have asked my staff and all of the 

heads of our business operations to study how we could move all 

of our employees from two of our buildings into the other two. One 

building is specifically set aside for passports, and it is a very secure area. We do some storage there. And that is across the street 

from our main complex on North Capitol Street. That building was 

built in 1938. 

The cost of maintaining the unused space in our buildings is 

enormous for us. And why this wasn’t addressed in the past it is 

beyond my understanding. The Capitol and House and Senate Office Buildings are bulging through the walls. I visit here every 

week; I visit Members. And some of my meetings are held in the 

hallway because there is so little space in Hill offices. We could 

provide overflow space for the Architect of the Capitol, and many 

of the functions that take place in the different congressional office 

buildings could move to GPO, and then that would open up more 

congressional space in your office buildings. 

I estimate we have anywhere from 70,000 to 100,000 square feet 

that we could make available in the next 2 years. And what that 

would do is we would get revenue from that because the Public 

Printer by law has to recover his costs, and so it would be a very 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
159 

nominal amount we would charge. But we would reduce the cost 

of maintaining those buildings, which can be sizable because of 

their age, and it would reduce the cost that we have to pay for 

steam from the Architect of the Capitol—— 

Mr. HONDA. There is plenty in Congress. 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, we get our steam from the Architect— 

Mr. HONDA. Well, from both sides, sir. 

Mr. BOARMAN. And we get our power from PEPCO. 

And these are big high-ceiling old buildings, and the cost is just 

enormous. And my chief financial officer, who is sitting behind 

me— 

Mr. HONDA. Which one, the one with his arms crossed? 

Mr. BOARMAN. One of the first things I did—and I had discussions with a lot of you and I deeply appreciate the time you gave 

me. I have had a chance to meet you in advance, and I think I 

mentioned this so it ought to get on the record. In every organization I have been associated with, the chief financial officer reported 

directly to the chief operating officer. At the GPO, he was down 

several layers. Now he reports directly to me, and I meet with him 

on a weekly basis if I am able to do that. Never more than two 

weeks go by when we don’t meet. And this is one of the issues that 

he brought to my attention that, if we want to get a handle on the 

overhead, we have got to address this issue of the building, we 

have got to make more efficient use of it, and we have got to get 

this space rented. So we are working on that. 

SECURITY

GPO’s security is another issue. Now, we have a very, very fine 

security force, and I am very proud of them. But I am in the printing and publishing and electronic business; I shouldn’t be in the security business. There have been proposals for our police officers— 

which are in the statute, the Public Printer has his own police 

force—that they become part of the U.S. Capitol Police force. I have 

spoken to the officers. They are all members of the local FOP lodge. 

I think it is the same one as the Capitol Hill Police. They would 

like to become Capitol Hill police, just like the Library of Congress 

police did, and they merged them in. 

About $13 million of our cost is for security, both in DC and Mississippi. And we need security. We could be a target for attack because of what we do for the Congress, because of what we do for 

the State Department, and the secure IDs that we do for the rest 

of the Government. We could definitely be a target. I don’t want 

to lessen the security. And I want to compliment what we have because they are fantastic, because I know they will all be watching 

and hearing what I am saying. 

But I think we would be better off if the Congress would consider 

taking that over to the U.S. Capitol Police. Security costs add to 

our overhead and it would help us tremendously in dealing with 

the issues that the Chairman raised at the opening about less dollars if such a transfer could be considered. 

Mr. HONDA. So the understanding of your budget has to be expanded, and I understand that when you say, my printing office is 

more than just printing. When you say overhead, we can over charVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:05 Jul 13, 2011 Jkt 065845 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A845P2.XXX A845P2

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
160 

acterize that we either don’t know, don’t understand or are not 

aware of. 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, I think we are the only agency that doesn’t 

get funding for positions; it has to come out of our printing and 

binding appropriations. So 33 cents of what you pay for printing 

goes to pay for that before we get to pay the people that do the 

work and pay for the paper and pay for the ink. 

INSPECTOR GENERAL

Mr. HONDA. Very quickly, with the Inspector General, how does 

that work? When they go into a functional mode, what is the frequency of their work load, how does it come about, who initiates 

it? 

Mr. BOARMAN. The Public Printer by statute appoints an Inspector General, and then the IG is free to conduct any and all investigations relating to fraud, waste, or abuse in the agency. 

Mr. HONDA. By whose direction? 

Mr. BOARMAN. By statute, the IG can do that independently. The 

IG is under the supervision of the Public Printer, but it is clear in 

the statute that the IG is free to conduct any investigation that relates to fraud, waste and abuse. 

As I said, we have twice as many as any other legislative branch 

agency, and we certainly aren’t the largest agency. We are just 

around 2,200 employees, and I think the Library of Congress is 

around 3,600 people, and the GAO is around 3,200. 

All of their Inspector General forces are significantly smaller 

than ours. Now, recently GPO’s Inspector General resigned, and I 

have appointed an interim IG, because the resignation provided 

minimum notice and came as a surprise. I didn’t know it was coming, so I have an interim person on duty, and we will initiate a 

search for a permanent Inspector General, a nationwide search to 

put someone into that position in the hopes that they would look 

at this overhead and other efficiency and effectiveness issues for 

us. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Boarman, I fully appreciate the worth and the value of your 

agency. You do what nobody else in the country does, and we appreciate that very much. 

I was listening to you in response to Mr. Honda’s questions talk 

about some of the ways that you could pass it on with the building 

space that you have unused, the security and the heating and air, 

but in each of these respects, you just pass those costs on to another agency. It is not really saving us money. It may be saving 

your particular budget money, but I think all or many of those 

come out of our appropriation anyway. So it is almost a passthrough, but understandably we have to work with efficiency. 

DISCRIMATION COMPLAINTS

Let me go to another area. I understand that the Government 

Printing Office has experienced a significant number of discrimination complaints, particularly in fiscal year 2009, and most of the 

complaints were filed by African-American employees who accused 

officials of racial discrimination for denying pay increases or proVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:05 Jul 13, 2011 Jkt 065845 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A845P2.XXX A845P2

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
161 

motions. I understand that this subcommittee directed GPO to take 

aggressive steps to prevent discrimination in the workplace and to 

submit quarterly reports on your progress in reducing the number 

of equal employment opportunity complaints. Can you describe 

your efforts to decrease the amount of discrimination complaints, 

as well as your work to promote diversity in management at GPO? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, it has been a significant problem for the 

agency over the years. And I think really the core of the problem, 

as I can understand it in the short time that I have been there, 

is a lack of understanding of how the employees feel when they 

don’t get a promotion or they don’t get a pay raise. 

And the process that was in place was not a bad process, but I 

think it lacked a human touch. And so I have had meetings with 

all of the top managers within the different business operations, 

along with the head of our EEO Office, to describe to them what 

I would like to see happen over a period of time. More training is 

needed for our supervisors to be sensitive to these kinds of issues. 

And more importantly, when someone doesn’t get a promotion, 

there should be a meaningful meeting with that individual to describe to them why they failed to meet the requirements and did 

not get the promotion and then offer them an opportunity to get 

the training necessary to be able to qualify the next time, rather 

than just say, we are sorry, you didn’t make it, and good luck. And 

I think that is the way the agency has been operating. 

So we are changing in that way. And I think we will see a big 

change in that. 

The other aspect of this that bothers me is that there is a mediation aspect in the EEOC process that is rarely used. It is no cost 

to the employee to just move from the initial charge right into a 

formal charge, and so of those individuals who raised allegations 

of discrimination in 2010, all of them opted to use traditional EEO 

counseling instead of the mediation process, despite its success rate 

in the Federal sector in resolving disputes. 

Now, at the end of the day, many of these charges are found to 

be without merit, either in court or before they get to court. And 

the employees feel cheated because they got involved in a process 

thinking that they were going to achieve something or get something out of it. 

I firmly believe, because I have a background in negotiating and 

mediating, that they would get more out of the mediation process 

if there were a way to get them into it. And I think we have failed 

miserably as an agency in convincing people to take that step as 

part of the process, because I think that in mediation, they would 

see progress; they would see things happen for them that are good, 

rather than getting into the end of a legal process. 

Mr. BISHOP. In the process, though, can’t either side when there 

is an equal opportunity complaint, request mediation? 

Mr. BOARMAN. No, I believe, and I will check on this, but I believe I am right in saying that it has to be both sides have to agree. 

[Information for the record:] 

If the aggrieved individual elects mediation in lieu of traditional EEO counseling, 

the agency official with authority to resolve the matter must participate in the mediation efforts. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
162 

Mr. BISHOP. And can the Equal Employment Opportunity Agency 

initiate mediation before they issue a right to sue letter? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, I don’t know the answer to that. You may 

be right. But evidently, it is not being used. It is not being utilized, 

because we end up in court in some cases, and it is very expensive. 

We have lawyers in the General Counsel’s Office that work on this 

on a regular basis. 

[Information for the record:] 

If an individual files a formal complaint, they must exhaust administrative remedies before proceeding to court. The Equal Opportunity Commission requires that 

all federal agencies make available ADR during the pre-complaint and formal complaint stages of the EEO process. At the GPO, mediation is the technique utilized. 

Mr. BISHOP. Which means that with your new approach, if the 

agency took the initiative to try to utilize a mediation or conciliation process, it could save a lot of expense of having the lawyers 

in court—— 

Mr. BOARMAN. I agree. 

Mr. BISHOP [continuing]. All of this? 

Mr. BOARMAN. I agree. 

Mr. BISHOP. Not wasting everybody’s time and the taxpayers’ 

money, too. 

Mr. BOARMAN. And that is what we are committed to doing. 

FINANCIAL MEDIATION

Mr. BISHOP. How many complaints have you had to settle in 

terms of financial mediation? 

Mr. BOARMAN. I don’t have the answer to that. 

[Information for the record:] 

There have been no findings of discrimination by GPO issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in many years. However, GPO settled 10 EEO 

complaints during FY 2010. The settlements included remedies such as attorney’s 

fees (7), award (1), leave restoration (3), lump sum payments (4), promotions (2), reassignment (3), and training (1). 

Mr. BISHOP. Have there been any complaints where you have 

had to offer back pay? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, sir, there have been cases in the past where 

we have. 

[Information for the record:] 

While there have been cases in the past where back pay was awarded, no back 

pay was awarded in FY 2010 as a remedy during the administrative process. Settlements involving promotions have typically included a lump sum payment instead 

of back-pay awards. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do you know about how many complaints and how 

much in terms of dollars? Did it come out of your budget, or did 

it come out of a judgment fund? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Cases settled in court come out of the Justice Department judgment fund. Cases settled administratively come from 

GPO funds. 

Mr. BOARMAN. There were some significant cases back in the 

1970s and 1980s, and probably one of the largest EEOC cases of 

all time was the GPO. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am looking at 2009, though. I am not trying to go 

back—— 

Mr. BOARMAN. But we can get that for the record. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
163 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

[Information for the record:] 

During FY 2010, GPO settled 10 EEO complaints. Some of these were settled at 

the administrative level, involving payments from GPO funds, and some were settled with payments from the Justice Department’s Judgment Fund as the result of 

the cases being in district court. Total monetary benefits paid for administrative settlement were approximately $66,300, inclusive of lump sum payments and attorney 

fees and costs. Judgement Fund payments to settle cases during the same period 

totaled $150,000, inclusive of attorney fees. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

Now I would like to welcome Mrs. Emerson. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

UNUSED OFFICE SPACE

It is nice to see you again, Mr. Boarman. A couple of questions 

I wanted to ask. Under the subcommittee I chair, Financial Services and General Government, I have the General Services Administration, and we always have issues with unused office space, and 

so I am curious, do you all work with GSA, or do you stay independent from them? 

Mr. BOARMAN. No, we do not. We are a legislative branch agency, 

so we are independent of them. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Right. But I think there is a way that you can 

work through them. I am not suggesting that or advocating that 

you do so because they have their own issues. But I was just curious as far as the—— 

Mr. BOARMAN. We would be open to certainly exploring that because I am very serious about this. I mean, I think it is one of our 

major overhead issues that we need to get our arms around. And 

we can move I believe the people that we have in these areas that 

are sort of rattling around into the other two buildings and make 

the space available. And from what I am seeing, Congress could 

use a lot more space. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, even if Congress didn’t use it, is there anything, any legal reason why an executive branch agency couldn’t 

use some of the space? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Without a statutory change, the only thing I can 

think of is we would have to get approval from the Joint Committee on Printing because they oversee us, and they have a final 

say, and they have to sign all contracts for us, so we would have 

to go there. 

Mrs. EMERSON. The only reason I suggest that is because there 

are a lot of agencies that need extra office space, and it seems to 

me that if they could get it for a much more reasonable price 

through you—— 

Mr. BOARMAN. And within walking distance of the Capitol. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Right. And I don’t know that they care to see us 

too much, but that is besides the point. You know what I am saying. I am just thinking. If in fact you can get that kind of approval, 

it seems to me that then we are killing two birds with one stone, 

saving money and giving you some extra income that might be 

helpful. And I appreciate you looking in to seeing whether that 

would be possible. 

Mr. BOARMAN. Thank you for that. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
164 

Mrs. EMERSON. You are most welcome. It is, you know, 100,000 

square feet. There are other agencies who have leased that, probably 600,000 square feet in anticipation of something happening 

and sitting on it for a year, and that is just taxpayer money down 

the tubes. 

Mr. BOARMAN. Right. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I would love to be able to figure out how we can 

help you get this space done. 

PRINTING FOR THE 2013 PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATION

In your testimony, on page 6, we are talking about congressional 

printing and binding appropriation. And the increase there, at the 

bottom, you say of the increase, $1,400,000, is estimated to be required for work to support the 2013 Presidential Inauguration. So 

tell me, what in 2011, well, okay, fiscal year 2012, you are doing 

to prepare for the inauguration that you would need that money 

for. 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, first of all, as you know, the inauguration 

of the President is a congressional affair. I mean, the people lined 

up on the Mall and all the parties afterward that is something else. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Believe me, I know. I lost my children during the 

last one. 

Mr. BOARMAN. But the event that happens here at the Capitol 

is solely put on by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 

Ceremonies, and so we print for them. And we expect fully that 

perhaps as early as the spring of 2012 and certainly by early summer to be getting orders from them for printing. And of course, it 

is invitations. It is tickets. It is security ID badges. It is signs. It 

is a full gamut of things you would have for that kind of an affair. 

Last time we spent $1.4 million on that, and that was based on the 

orders that they gave us and the time restraints that we had to go 

through. 

I think some of the security ID badges, which took a little more 

work, I think the U.S. Capitol Police may have picked up the tab 

for that, because these were unique. They had never been done before. The ID’s had an ability for someone to read them with a reader right on the spot. So if you had someone, a sentry or a guard 

standing there, someone could come up and check their badge to 

see if they were legitimate. And we will be doing more of that I am 

sure, but that is generally what we do. We fully expect to be getting orders in 2012, and that is why it is in this budget. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Except, forgive me for seeming ignorant here, but 

since we—I mean, let’s just anticipate, for example, that President 

Obama will be reelected. Okay, so then we know that, but it is possible that he may not be. So how are you printing things when you 

don’t know who the President is to be? I mean, I am just curious. 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, there are lots of things that obviously the 

Joint Committee does. We wouldn’t have gotten work in June of 

2008 if there wasn’t work to be done. We don’t put the President’s 

name on all inaugural materials, but I can get you an answer for 

the record. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, could you? I would just be curious, what 

things actually do get done in that budget? I am not—you know, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
165 

because I don’t know and I am curious, particularly since we have 

no clue who the President is going to be. 

Mr. BOARMAN. Inaugural IDs, tickets, signs, and other materials. 

Anything that would not have the President’s name on it, we would 

work on ahead of time. 

Mrs. EMERSON. So just the big invite, I guess, because it has the 

names is what gets done at the last minute. 

Mr. BOARMAN. There would be tickets probably that we would 

work on, signs, IDs, all of those kinds of things. Anything that they 

ask us to do, we do. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. Well, no, I mean, I couldn’t quite remember if the President’s name was on everything. I just imagined at 

least the invitation would have to have the President’s name on it. 

Mr. BOARMAN. That would be the last thing we would do, I am 

sure. 

Mrs. EMERSON. And so you had a $1.39 million shortfall from 

last time? 

Mr. BOARMAN. And that was because, we always estimate the 

printing that Congress is going to send us, and that is what we ask 

for in our appropriation. And then we got more requests for hearings and bills than anticipated, and that is what the $1.39 million 

represents. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. So that doesn’t relate to the inaugural of 

2008. 

Mr. BOARMAN. No. There were two things, the inauguration costs 

and the printing that we did beyond what we were given appropriations for, based on the demands of Congress. 

CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING

Mrs. EMERSON. Okay. Thanks. That clarifies that. 

And then did you say, or I might have misheard you, in your oral 

testimony, did you say that if you can’t do as much printing work 

as you are currently doing, then you can’t pay for digital enhancements? Did I hear you say that correctly? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, the way we bill the Congress is on print orders. And so if you are going to cut back the printing, we wouldn’t 

be able to bill for the work that is done; and 70 percent of it is not 

printing. It is prepress. And so we actually bill Congress on a perpage cost. So I guess what we are asking for is for the committee 

to consider us billing Congress a different way, and we can work 

with the staff on that to get that done and get the appropriate language worked out. 

Whatever the appropriation is, it is, but we want to be able to 

bill that appropriation for the work that is done. If we are asked 

to produce fewer copies, we still have to pay for the 70 percent to 

get it up online. 

Mrs. EMERSON. So, in other words, we may not in fact, by passing the legislation we have to reduce printing operations, we are 

not necessarily saving money; is that what you are telling me, at 

the end of the day? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, I think that some of it may actually cost you 

more money. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Really? 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
166 

Mr. BOARMAN. It depends on what the individual congressional 

offices do. If a Member and his or her staff has not used the Congressional Record on a daily basis other than on the screen, then 

they absolutely should cancel their subscription, which would save 

money. 

But if they cancel it and then print it out or maybe half of it out 

every day over a period of time, it is going to cost the legislative 

branch. You know, it will save money over here, but it is sort of 

like the argument on the overhead. It is shifting it somewhere else. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I understand that. 

Mr. BOARMAN. That is the point I was trying to make. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I have just one more question. We have time for 

another round. 

PRINTING EQUIPMENT

You mentioned that you pay for your equipment. I guess you 

have a revolving fund. And I just wonder, has that worked okay? 

I mean, is all your equipment up to speed, is your pricing structure 

adequate to make sure you can replace all your equipment and continue to do things in an efficient way? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, our revolving fund is what we use to make our capital investments. Earlier this year we had about $12.8 million appropriated there, and that was mostly taken out in this last 

round of budget cuts, so it left us pretty high and dry for future 

investments in equipment. And we do need to do that. I mean, we 

have three old presses that are the work horses that every day 

produce hearings and bills. But they should have been replaced by 

now. 

And there was a staff recommendation to do that last year, and 

it was not done. Now we are in a situation where the money has 

dried up. So we are going to have to work our way through all of 

the issues that I have talked about today in terms of overhead and 

try to get our arms around some savings and hopefully replenish 

the revolving fund to make some critically important investments. 

We will be looking at equipment opportunities as they avail 

themselves, but we certainly need to at some point replace those 

presses. If printing loads drop, that would change the kind of press 

we would look at. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. But so far, you are pretty up to speed? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, we have all kinds of presses. I mean, we 

have presses that print envelopes, that print stationery, and other 

equipment. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Do you have any particular need right now, because what happened to that revolving fund? Who took it? Did we 

take it? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Yes, sir, you took it. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Sorry about that. 

Mr. BOARMAN. And that would have been helpful. Because it is 

exactly the money that we would have needed to probably buy two 

presses. These presses are very expensive. They cost anywhere 

from $4 million to $6 million apiece. And in this business, you can’t 

just have one, because if one breaks down, so you need to order 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
167 

two. And when you order one, it could take you a year to 2 years 

before it is delivered, so it is a long process. So if we still had that 

money, we would probably be in the process of getting approval 

from the Joint Committee on Printing to purchase some new presses. 

This is one of the things that I never quite understood for an op- eration this size: I cannot make a purchase for more than $50,000 

without the Joint Committee on Printing approval, even if I have 

the money in my budget. In today’s market, you can hardly buy a 

bunch of laser copiers for $50,000. And I have asked them continuously to push it up to at least $150,000 or $300,000, because for 

decent size equipment, you are talking about millions of dollars. 

MANAGEMENT LEVELS

Mr. CRENSHAW. In terms of management, I hear from time to 

time criticism that you have a lot of levels of management within 

the folks that work there. Have you looked at that as a new guy, 

to see if all those levels are important? Are there ways to streamline that? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, we did look at that, and what we found is 

that in the Federal Government, the ratio of supervisor-to-worker 

is about 12 percent, and we are just about at that level, so I don’t 

think we are out of whack. 

Now, having said that, I mean, I am constantly looking at ways 

to make economies. We have had four or five top SLS’s who have 

left since January and voluntarily gone someplace else, and four of 

them were not replaced. And that is a savings of like $800,000 annually. SLS’s are like $165,000 plus benefits, so each one of those 

is about $200,000. So I am looking at all that. 

I tell you, in the production area, we only have about 800 people 

that do all of the production for the entire Government, not just for 

Congress, but for the Office of the Federal Register, which we do 

every day, and other agencies. We put that work up online as well. 

We do all the printing for the President. We do the budget for 

OMB. Of course, we contract out about 75 percent of what we take 

through the doors. But for production purposes for the entire Government, we have only got 800 people. And so 12 percent of that 

is supervisors. 

And I have to tell you, when I go home at night knowing that 

Congress is in late, I can sleep because I know that those supervisors are going to make sure that that work gets done. I came in 

one morning after we had a bad ice storm, and I was very worried 

that we were going to be in trouble up here because we were running late. I got an e-mail, as I do every morning, from Lyle Green 

our Congressional Publishing Director, who is behind me, that the 

Record was going to be late; enough people could not get to work. 

And they normally come in under any circumstance, but this was 

an unbelievable ice storm. 

And I went down to the bindery to see where we were, and there 

was my top operations guy on the end of the bindery taking Congressional Records off and stacking them on a pallet. So it is that 

supervisory core that knows how to push that work and will do 

whatever they have to, to make sure that Congress gets what you 

need, whether it is up online or ink on paper. So I don’t think that 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
168 

we are—you know, I think we are right where we should be in that 

level. In the management ranks and maybe the white collar areas, 

I am looking at them, and maybe we can downsize there. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 

PERSONNEL GUIDELINES

Just to follow up on Mr. Bishop’s question on the personnel and 

human resources areas. Are there written guidelines for management on what the process is in terms of announcements that are 

adequate so that people can look at it and bid for it? And in terms 

of the day-to-day work that management does, are there guidelines 

for them to be following in terms of how they operate and how they 

do business on a daily basis? Is there transparency, and is there 

some engagement of those that are being managed? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, there are guidelines for everything. All our 

jobs are competitive, and they are open competed. Most of the jobs 

that open for promotion within GPO are limited to GPO employees, 

so it gives them a better chance. And occasionally we will open it 

government-wide if we need some special talents. But by and large, 

most of the promotions are able to bid in the competitive service 

by employees within GPO, and there are guidelines for all of that. 

The guidelines are in typical Government language. Are they 

adequate to deal with the sensitivities that Mr. Bishop addressed? 

Probably not. And that is something that I am trying to work on. 

I think it is more of a human touch than regulation. I think the 

regulations are there. I think people need to be trained how to respond to the needs of people when they are disappointed and they 

are let down. 

DIVERSITY

Mr. HONDA. On the human touch, I don’t have an argument. But 

just quickly, off the top of your head, if you were to break down 

the staff, what is the demographic? What is the percentages of 

folks at the top? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, we are highly a majority minority organization. About 58 percent of our employees are minorities, with about 

54 percent African-American. And some of them hold very high 

level positions. My chief of staff, who basically runs the GPO on a 

daily basis, is an African-American woman and one of the finest 

people that works for me. 

Mr. HONDA. Any Latinos? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, I just hired an interim Inspector General 

who is a Latino. We have Latinos, yes, we do. We have Asian 

Americans. 

Mr. HONDA. Let me just go through it. Asian Americans? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Yes, we do. 

Mr. HONDA. So, institutionally, then you are—you have a diverse 

group? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Yes, though I think we could do a better job in 

some areas. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
169 

Mr. HONDA. So you can’t say we do promotions internally, because when people do promotions internally if there is not a diverse 

population, then you have an institutionalized kind of setup. 

Mr. BOARMAN. Most but not all promotions are internal, and we 

are very diverse. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. I will submit something in writing in terms 

of—— 

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

Mr. HONDA [continuing]. the achievement of increased square 

footage efficiency. There are techniques. I would just be curious to 

have a discussion with you on how you can achieve that. 

Mr. BOARMAN. I would be happy to do that. 

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. BOARMAN. And I would welcome the opportunity. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Bishop. 

PAPER

Mr. BISHOP. It seems as if paper is under attack these days, and 

I think Mrs. Emerson referred to the Stop the Over-Printing Act 

that would end the requirement that GPO print hard copies of bills 

and resolutions. And earlier this year, the House also passed under 

suspension of the rules a measurement to reduce the Department 

of Defense printing and reproduction budget by 10 percent, which 

is supposed to save $357 million. I know that it appears that paper 

is going out of fashion. Is it really? Are there some areas where we 

will need to continue to have paper? And as we move into the future, 5 years, 10 years, what do you foresee how the future of 

paper, with regard to your agency and overall with regard to government? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, I don’t think Congress is ready to be 

paperless today or tomorrow. Ten years from now, I think that is 

certainly a possibility. I remember one day when you and I met off 

the House floor, I noticed that you had an iPad with you, and I use 

one every day, and I think that when that technology or something 

that replaces it that is even better and every Member of the House 

and every staff person has one, where you could actually sit on the 

floor of the House and page through a bill and find and search for 

what it is you are looking for, I think that paper is going to be less 

and less used. 

But for archival purposes, I think you absolutely have to have 

paper copies. There is no assurance that any of this stuff that we 

are storing electronically will last for a hundred years. Paper and 

microfiche are the only proven archived mediums at this point. 

Mr. BISHOP. Microfiche? 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, microfiche doesn’t wear out, even though a 

lot of people don’t use it. So I think paper is going to be around 

for archival purposes. I certainly hope so. There is a lot of libraries 

in remote areas in the country that can’t afford the technology that 

is out there. And people go to those libraries to see what their Government is doing. And a lot of them are depository libraries, and 

we provide them with copies through the budget that you approve 

for us each year. So I think it is going to be around awhile. But 

I do think that when the technology continues to improve, I mean, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
170 

there will be less and less demand from GPO to print for the Congress, and certainly 10 years out, that is a possibility. 

WEB SITE

Mr. BISHOP. Well, one follow-up to that. A member of my staff 

has commented that the GPO Web site is very challenging to navigate, especially when it comes to searching for government documents. I have been asked to ask you whether there have been any 

efforts to streamline your Web site to make it more user-friendly. 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, I have heard that complaint before. Personally, I don’t have an issue with it. I am able to navigate it. 

Mr. BISHOP. You know what you are looking for. 

Mr. BOARMAN. Yes, sir. But clearly, if people are having a problem with it, we have got to do better. GPO’s chief information officer resigned about 2 weeks before I arrived who was responsible 

for the FDsys program, and I had a search, a nationwide search 

for a new CIO. 

Mr. BISHOP. What program are you referring to? 

Mr. BOARMAN. The FDsys, the Federal Digital System. And that 

is what is up online. We have GPO Access, which we began in 1994 

and it will sunset at some point, and then we have FDsys, our new 

system and that is the future. And I think that is where the complaint is coming from, because I have heard that. For legislative 

tracking research that many congressional offices perform, the Library of Congress’ THOMAS is clearly a good search engine. But 

remember, everything that THOMAS puts up comes from us; everything comes from us. 

Mr. BISHOP. So they organize it better. 

Mr. BOARMAN. Well, they do for certain needs that Congress has. 

But I am not sure that historically FDsys was supposed to do the 

job that THOMAS does. THOMAS has its place in Government, 

and ours serves the need for official, permanent access to Government publications. But you asked a good question, and it is something that we will be working on, and it is another challenge for 

us to make sure that we make FDsys more user-friendly. The fact 

that I can use it doesn’t mean that everybody else can use it. And 

if we hear that, we are concerned about it, and we are going to 

work on it. Thank you for the question. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Boarman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I don’t have any more questions. 

Do other members have any more questions? 

Mr. HONDA. The FD system, when you are going about reviewing 

the Web site, do you go through the process of understanding what 

approach you are going to use to design your Web site? The most 

recent process is called crowdsourcing. It is a more open source. 

And for a government agency, it seems like you might want to look 

at having the public participate in designing a Web site so that we 

might match up with what they are used to seeing, so you might 

want to have your staff look at that. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
171 

Mr. BOARMAN. We will look at that, and we would be pleased to 

have more discussions with you about that. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Boarman. 

Mr. BOARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Following are questions submitted to be answered for the 

record:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
172 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 449 here 65845B.009
173 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 450 here 65845B.010
174 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 451 here 65845B.011
175 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 452 here 65845B.012
176 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 453 here 65845B.013
177 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 454 here 65845B.014

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
(179) 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2011. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

WITNESS 

DOUG ELMENDORF, DIRECTOR 

OPENING STATEMENT—CHAIRMAN CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Now I want to welcome Doug Elmendorf, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. This year you requested 

about $46.9 million, and that is about the same as last year before 

we had a $100,000 rescission. And the committee should note that 

in fiscal year 2009, you received a $2 million supplemental that 

was available in fiscal years 2009, 2010 to help out with increased 

workload, with health care, and financial housing markets, et 

cetera. 

Also, I want to thank you and your staff for the great job that 

you did on the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process. We all 

worked long and hard on that. And I especially want to thank 

Janet Airis and her staff for the unbelievable and outstanding job 

of scoring and support for our full committee, as well as the work 

that she did for the subcommittee. 

Mr. HONDA. Are you looking for a raise, or what? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I am going to leave that to him. But with that, 

Mr. Honda, would you like to make an opening remark? 

OPENING STATEMENT—MR. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. I just want to add my congratulations and thanks 

to the chairman’s thanks. We did an internet news search on the 

term ‘‘Congressional Budget Office’’ and found nearly 1,000 hits in 

reference to your agency, half of which was saying you were overestimating, the other half said were you underestimating. So that 

showed us that you were—— 

Dr. ELMENDORF. We cannot win! 

Mr. HONDA. Your function, as it should be, as an independent, 

nonpartisan group. 

I was just thinking about how to create a metaphor for your office. The only thing I could think of was Moses. You know, he had 

a brother named Aaron, and Aaron always helped Moses out, such 

as keeping his hand up with the staff in his hand so the Red Sea 

would part. We never hear much about him except for that. The 

term ‘‘I am my brother’s keeper,’’ and, yes, you are. And sometimes 

you say, he ain’t heavy, he is my brother. So you have got all kinds 

of metaphors, at least in my head, in appreciation. I think that 

sometimes goes unsaid. And we place upon you a lot of burdens, 

and after you do that, we either whip you or we do not even pay 

attention to you. So for being what do you call this, abusive parVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:05 Jul 13, 2011 Jkt 065845 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A845P2.XXX A845P2

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
180 

ents, I want to thank you for doing your job everytime we ask. And 

I look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Elmendorf, as you know, these are difficult 

economic times. We talked about that before. I note that your request is pretty much the same as last year. So I look forward to 

hearing your testimony. Your full statement will be inserted in the 

record. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT—DR. ELMENDORF

I should start by saying that Janet Airis and her team are terrific analysts, and I am proud to be their colleague. 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Honda, Congresswoman Emerson, 

as you know, CBO’s mission is to provide the Congress with objective, impartial analysis of budget and economic issues. In fulfilling 

that mission, we depend on a highly skilled workforce. And roughly 

90 percent of our budget represents compensation for our staff. 

Therefore, as you discuss the appropriate size of CBO’s budget, you 

are effectively discussing how large a budget office you want to 

have. And that depends in turn on the amount and types of estimates and other analysis that you want to receive from us. 

We do not expect and are not requesting to be spared from the 

budget stringency facing the rest of the Federal Government, but 

the challenge we face every day is that requests for our estimates 

and analysis exceeds our ability to produce them. So I do not want 

to pretend that CBO could do more or even the same amount for 

Congress with fewer resources. 

Each year we produce about 650 formal cost estimates, but those 

are just the tip of the iceberg, because more and more we are being 

asked to provide informal estimates of proposals, both at early 

stages of the legislative process and later for floor amendments. 

Those informal estimates number in the thousands. 

Each year we also release about 100 analytical reports and other 

publications that support those cost estimates, including our budget and economic outlooks, our analysis of the President’s budget, 

our long-term budget outlook, monthly budget reviews, and indepth analyses of a broad range of policy issues, including health 

care delivery and financing, policies for increasing economic growth 

and employment, tax reform, and defense policy. 

In addition, our work is becoming more difficult and time-consuming because of the increasing complexity of the analysis that 

Congress is asking us to do. One important example is health care. 

Current law now includes a complicated combination of programs 

meant to provide insurance coverage and influence the delivery of 

health care. Estimating the costs of those programs and proposals 

to change those programs is even more daunting now than it was 

a few years ago. 

Another example of increasing complexity is the financial area. 

The conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the passage 

of the Dodd-Frank bill, and other policies have greatly increased 

the government’s involvement in the financial sector, again making 

budget estimates and other analyses much more challenging for us. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
181 

And the third example is increasing demand for long-term estimates. To examine the effects of extending expiring tax provisions 

or the effects of proposals to correct a very large long-term fiscal 

imbalance, we have had to do new thinking and new modeling to 

extend our analyses decades into the future. 

The Congress boosted CBO’s resources in 2009 and 2010 to enable us to better address health care and then also financial issues 

without sacrificing other work we do. This was part of a multiyear 

plan to boost staffing from about 230 people to about 260 people, 

but we have now changed course. CBO’s proposed budget for next 

fiscal year, $46.9 million, is roughly equal to the resources that 

were available to us in 2010 and again in this year, 2011. This 

budget scales back the multiyear staffing plan to just above 250 

employees. It also includes significant restraint in salaries and 

spending on information technology, neither of which could be sustained indefinitely. If the Congress were to approve a smaller budget for CBO, we would defer still more IT purchases, not buy some 

data we would otherwise use in our analyses, and cut back on 

training. However, we would also need to reduce the number of 

people at CBO, limiting the estimates and other information we 

could give to the Congress. 

The cut in staffing might be larger than you would expect. For 

example, a 5 percent cut in funding would allow us to average 

about 240 people over the coming year. But we would need to finish 

the year less than 240 due to the fact that we would start the year 

with more than 240. And that path of declining staffing would be 

nearly as fast as natural attrition, meaning we would be able to 

hire few, if any, new analysts. As a result, not only would we have 

fewer staff, their skills and expertise might not be well matched to 

the Congress’ needs. 

In closing, I want to thank the committee for the support it has 

provided CBO for many years, and especially in the past few years. 

The people at CBO understand well or better than anybody the 

challenge you face in setting appropriations for CBO and for the 

rest of the Federal Government, and we are committed to doing the 

best possible job with whatever resources you provide. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, thank you very much. 

The prepared statement of the Director of CBO follows: 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
182 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 462 here 65845B.015
183 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 463 here 65845B.016
184 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 464 here 65845B.017
185 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 465 here 65845B.018
186 

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

Mr. CRENSHAW. You mentioned that 90 percent of your budget is 

people, if you have less money, you will have less people, and you 

will be able to produce less work product. I want to probe a little 

bit into where the demands for those products come from. Are they 

statutory? Do we write in the statute we have to have this? Like, 

for instance, health care, as we were developing legislation, I am 

sure that is one of the reasons there was some additional money 

appropriated, again on account of you had to do a lot of work on 

the front end of that. You mentioned that even now that it is law, 

you still have got a lot of things because it is so complex. 

But is there ever a time when you say, okay, there was a crunch 

time in terms of health care, but now that it is in fact a law, there 

will be things you need to do along the way, talk about that. Is 

there always some crisis that you have got to deal with? Are a lot 

of those crises produced by us and do we write in the statute that 

you have to file quarterly reports or do whatever? Or is a lot of that 

what you decide? Talk about how much of that is driven internally 

and how much is driven by us when we ask you to do something. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. So I have been Director for a little over 2 years, 

and it does feel to me like one big, long crisis period. I think a few 

thoughts. Some of our products are specified in statute. We are 

supposed to produce cost estimates for every piece of legislation reported out of committee, and we get to about 99 percent of those. 

We are required to produce outlooks for the budget and the economy by statute. We are required by statute to issue statements assessing the effects of mandates in legislation on State, local, and 

tribal governments, or on the private sector. We are now required, 

because of the PAYGO legislation, to submit additional estimates 

for inclusion in the Congressional Record before the House or the 

Senate vote on legislation, and we did about 150 of those last year. 

So some of these things are directly out of statute. I think almost 

all the rest comes from requests. By statute, we serve the Budget 

Committees first, and then the appropriators, and Ways and Means 

Committee or Finance Committee on the Senate side, and other 

committees beyond that. And anybody on those committees will tell 

you that we are behind in addressing the questions they are asking 

us. And I think it is partly that there are—the country faces very 

serious economic and budget challenges. This has been the worst 

economic downturn since the Depression, the worst financial crisis 

since the Depression. The budget deficits are the largest they have 

been since the Second World War. The long-term budget outlook is 

as dark as it has ever been. So these are very real problems. 

And I do not want to suggest that the questions we are being 

asked are in any sense unreasonable. They are all quite reasonable. 

But the problems are really across the board—the topics that we 

work on. And I think there are many alternative ways of proceeding—different Members of Congress have different views, but 

also individual Members or individual committees are interested in 

exploring the effects of trying this or trying that or a third thing. 

So we do estimates of many alternatives, usually before one is chosen by a committee to proceed. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
187 

And I think again, as I mentioned in my remarks, just the complexity of these issues. So if you are thinking of trying to reduce 

health care spending, cutting payments to providers in Medicare by 

just passing a different formula, that is fairly straightforward. But 

if you want to know what happens if you change the way you pay 

providers, you pay them through groups, not individual procedures, 

well, that is a whole different sort of world that we have to understand, work with outside experts to model. And if you ask even if 

you cut payments to providers, well, what happens to the access to 

medical care? We do not model that very well yet either, and that 

is a crucially important question. 

So I think it is both the sort of state of the world, the legitimate 

interests on the part of Members of Congress in exploring alternative policies, and getting our views about the effects they would 

have, and then just the complexity of the issues that you are facing 

and we are trying to help you with. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. For instance, can an individual Member request 

you to do a study as opposed to a committee or subcommittee? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Individual Members can ask, and we will try. 

I think as a practical matter we almost never get to projects that 

are not requested by either the chair or the ranking member of one 

of the key committees. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. For instance the Architect of the Capitol has got 

a lot of projects he needs to get done, so he prioritizes them. Certain things are more important than others. And I am just wondering, if you are always pretty well pushed, is there a way that 

we can help you prioritize? 

Maybe it is a hard question to answer, but sometimes you might 

have an opinion as to how important the statutory requirement is 

as opposed to—maybe that is something you do not want to comment on in the sense that—but there are probably things that you 

see statutorily and say, well, that may or may not be as important 

as something else. And on the other hand, if you got a committee 

chairman, committee staff, or committees requesting those, you 

probably find some you would think are more important than others. But I know that is hard for you to make that decision. 

Is there a way that we can help you prioritize the projects that 

you are given so that you are not faced with just this overrun of 

requests? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. As you understand, we try hard not to make it 

our judgment as to what is important. It is the Members’ judgments of what is important. And we do look to the Budget Committees, who are our lead committees, for their guidance on that. We 

look to the leadership in some cases. And we just work our way 

down the order of the committees. 

We also, of course, are trying to balance majority and minority 

requests on both the House and Senate side. For example, I meet 

with our health managers once a week, more often at some points, 

and we have often a spreadsheet that has columns for the House 

Republicans and the House Democrats, and the Senate Republicans 

and Senate Democrats, and make sure we are making appropriate 

progress on all of those columns. 

I think the cases that are hardest for us are when there is sort 

of—when the doors are flung open for the purest sort of democracy. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
188 

So the process now in the House sometimes of allowing a vast 

number of amendments on the floor is very difficult for us because 

we estimated the effects of literally hundreds of amendments in the 

week in which the appropriations bill was being debated, H.R. 1, 

but we did not get to everything. 

And that is the hardest for us, because it is not obvious what the 

priorities should be. And we try; we want to sort of get to as many 

things as we can. But in the end we look to the committees, and 

we look to leadership. And I think we are mostly effective at hitting the highest-priority items, but nonetheless I get a lot of phone 

calls from legitimately frustrated Members of Congress with interesting ideas that we would love to work on that we just do not have 

a chance to. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. So it might be appropriate for us as Members, 

when we may ask you to do more with less, we might also think 

about how we can do more with less as well and not make the demands on you, recognizing that the resources may or may not be 

there. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 

BUYING DATA

In light of the inquiry, I guess, put another way, to become a little bit more thoughtful and responsible for information that we ask 

in light of the constraints that you may have. 

I was wondering, you said that at certain times you have to buy 

data. One question would be at what point—what kind of data do 

you go after when you have to buy something? And is it something 

that you could do if you had the equipment, the IT equipment, the 

technological equipment? And it seems to me that having the right 

kinds of computational power and the ability to come up with answers to complicated questions using technology must exist out 

there. And I was wondering whether you thought of ways to address that not only through CBO, but maybe a bank of equipment 

that a variety of agencies can use and access. Like in our area, Silicon Valley, we have a supercomputer that we go to, but it is open 

to folks from NASA and everybody else that we can reduce years 

of computations. Can you help me out with that information? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes. So one thing we used the supplemental appropriation for, the chairman mentioned earlier, was to buy faster 

computers so we could run alternative policies through our health 

insurance simulation models in less time. That made a real difference in the turnaround that we could give to the committees 

working on health issues. 

It did not so much save us time, though, in a way. What it meant 

was that an analyst who started something running at 6 o’clock at 

night could check again at 9:00 and get the answer instead of being 

able to go to bed and get up in the morning and see the answer. 

So we were able to analyze more variants on the proposals. I think 

that was useful. I hope it was useful for the congressional process. 

But it did not really substitute away from our needing the analyst 

to do the work. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
189 

I do not think we need supercomputers. We do look to whether 

we need faster computers in certain areas, and that helps. We are 

not doing things that are quite as complicated as that. 

We buy data of different sorts. We buy data in the health area 

on surveys the health care people get. We buy data on prescription 

drugs, which is obviously an important part of the Federal health 

programs at this point. We buy data in the financial area to do 

analyses. And as we do work on the costs to the government of 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or the cost of the FHA, the Federal 

Housing Administration, programs, we benefit from data we buy on 

mortgages. So there are a number of different areas. 

On many other areas, of course, we use data the government collects and publishes for free, but there are some areas where we 

need data that we buy. And if we have less money, then we put 

off the buying. And I am not going to pretend that for any given 

year that is the end of the world. Obviously, if you go out a number 

of years and do not do that, then you are operating off a base of 

information that is old, and that runs a risk of our producing misleading information for you. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mrs. Emerson. 

PROJECTING BUDGET NUMBERS

Mrs. EMERSON. Thanks so much for being here, and thanks for 

the work you all do. I know you are overworked all the time. 

Would you do me a favor and walk me through the process of 

projecting budget numbers for a 10-year period? Simply because 

given the way Congress works, we change our minds every 2 years. 

And so, you know, any analysis that you do is—I mean, it is going 

to change. So, I mean, I am just curious if you would not mind 

walking me through that process. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. So we start with an economic forecast. So we 

start by forming a judgment about what GDP growth will be, what 

inflation will be, what the unemployment rate will be, and we take 

that out usually a few years in the near term. It will depend a lot 

on the state of the business cycle that we are in; obviously bad 

now, booming at other times. Beyond the first few years, it generally depends more on what economists think of as the supply of 

goods and services in the economy. It is how hard people are going 

to work, how much saving there will be, and thus how much capital stock there will be for workers to work with and those sorts 

of things. 

Mrs. EMERSON. So is there some subjectivity in this, though, 

however, because it depends on from whom you are grabbing your 

data, if you will? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. There is a great deal of subjectivity. I worked 

in economic forecasting for the Federal Reserve for a number of 

years, and, you know, there is a lot of analysis that has been done 

that we build on, but tremendous uncertainty. We actually publish 

every year a report on the accuracy of our economic forecasts, and 

we are about as good as private forecasters. And whether one views 

that as an accomplishment or an admission of weakness, I do not 

know. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
190 

And then on the economic projections, then we build budget projections. And we build them with tremendous knowledge of individual programs. So we have a lot of analysts who know more than 

I could master in 10 years about how certain programs work. And 

we look at recent trends in spending. Medicare payments slowed 

last year. We are not quite sure why. So we have a little slower 

growth in the next few years, but then we have the growth rate 

rebounding to more of a longer historical average, and we will discover whether that turns out to be right or wrong. In fact, as you 

mentioned, we won’t really discover because you and your colleagues will have changed the law again. So we can’t actually do 

systematic analysis of the budget projections because they are all 

conditioned on current law, and the law almost always changes. 

Mrs. EMERSON. So if it is difficult to project what is going to happen within 10 years, how the heck can you possibly do it for anything beyond 10 years and even be able to look somebody straight 

in the eye and say, this is what is going to happen? I mean, how 

can you do that? I am not suggesting that you are doing it. I would 

not be able to say to my constituents this is what is going to happen in 10 years from now. Heck, they just blew the levee up in my 

congressional district last week. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. I am sorry. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Thanks. It is a horrible situation. But no one 

would have expected that. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. So I think that any forecast that we offer even 

within the 10 years, and certainly beyond that, should be taken 

with some grains of salt. You and none of your colleagues should 

become committed to any particular number that we write down 

because the uncertainty is very large. And almost always when I 

end up testifying about our analysis, I end up talking about the uncertainty of everything that we do. 

At the same time, I do not think it would be right for us to just 

say it is so uncertain, we should not tell you anything, because I 

think that you and your colleagues are worrying about the longterm consequences of plans that are being enacted now, and I think 

we can give you at least a qualitative sense—we often write down 

some kind of number, but you should take it as a qualitative sense 

of what certain policies would do. 

Mrs. EMERSON. I mean, heaven forbid that we could do this in 

the Congress, but would it be helpful for us to actually try to write 

laws—let us say we want to make some changes, we want to do 

tax reform, and let us just say we want to do it on a bipartisan 

basis. Would it be to our advantage, as hard as it might be, to actually do a 5-year bill so that we could make—you know, so that we 

did not—or we were not tempted to make changes every 2 years, 

so the businesses actually perhaps had 5 years to make a business 

plan, which is what I used to do the in the private sector? But it 

is impossible to do that anymore. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. I think from an economic point of view uncertainty about government policies is a problem. It is a problem for 

government bureaucrats like myself in trying to plan what our 

agency does, and it is certainly a problem for businesses and households to not know what the Tax Code will be like in a year or 2 

or 3 or 4. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
191 

I think traditionally, when you and your colleagues vote on tax 

policy, you vote on permanent changes that are meant to be lasting 

even if they are often revisited. I think the problem is even harder 

now because there are so many features of the Tax Code that are 

scheduled to expire at the end of this year, or the end of next year, 

or so on, or that have recently expired, and people are still hoping 

to continue them, and that has made the problem much worse. It 

is hard for us. You cannot vote in this Congress to bind the actions 

of a subsequent Congress. So the 113th and 114th and 115th Congresses will work their will. 

I think the biggest thing that you and your colleagues could do 

that would be good for the economy would be to enact fewer things 

that expire that you do not really intend to let expire, but that you 

are sort of admitting you are going to come back and revisit. 

Mrs. EMERSON. But given all of that which you just said, then 

how is it ever possible to even give us a projection knowing that, 

you know, every Congress has its idiosyncrasies, if you will? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. So one thing we are trying to do more of, I 

think, is to give you alternative projections with different assumptions. So our baseline has a formal meaning, and was originally 

written into law, will follow current law, and I think that is appropriate. But we are more and more offering alternative scenarios, 

not recommendations from us, not predictions of what you will do, 

but just to give you a sense of what would happen under some alternative policies that a lot of people in the Congress are talking 

about. 

So if you look at our budget and economic outlook from this past 

January, in addition to the baseline, we have a table which lays 

out a number of alternatives about tax policy and discretionary appropriations. And then we pulled a few of those items out and drew 

some pictures and summarized the effects. So we looked at what 

would happen to the budget over the next decade if the 2001 and 

2003 tax cuts were extended indefinitely, if the AMT was indexed 

indefinitely, if the Medicare payments to doctors were moved up 

from the big cuts that are in current law. We picked those items 

because those are the ones that most people talk a lot about wanting to extend. 

And so we show you two lines, and to give you a sense about just 

how sensitive the projections are of the choices that you will make. 

But certainly you will end up making choices that will be neither 

of those lines, and maybe in some different direction that we cannot foresee. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Right. Sorry to go off on that, but I just wanted 

a sense because it is tough to make decisions. And then I am looking through your budget justifications and all these things on 

which you are working, and lots of things which really interest me, 

but—— 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Good. We try. The problem is the world 

changes, and you and your colleagues’ interests change. And we try 

to move with that in the work that we do. 

Mrs. EMERSON. Well, you do a good job even if sometimes we 

don’t agree with the information that you give us. I know how difficult it is. I mean, we can be all realistic. It is like OMB. We don’t 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
192 

like what OMB does either in many cases, but that is because we 

are appropriators. An appropriator-OMB issue always. 

But seriously, I know you and your team are greatly overworked, 

and I just appreciate the long hours and sometimes probably crazy 

things that we ask you all to do. So thank you. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Thank you, Congresswoman. I will tell my folks. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

PRIORITIES

Dr. Elmendorf, I have listened to you with amazement. I have 

watched the operations of your office, and you do a phenomenal job. 

But I really appreciate the attitude with which you have come to 

the committee this morning, indicating that you are willing to take 

cuts just like everybody else, but these cuts also have consequences; and that if we do not have what we think we need to 

work with, it means that we will not be able to present the work 

product to you that you may have requested us to do, but we will 

do whatever you ask with what we have to work with. I appreciate 

that very much. 

But as a Congress that is made up of lay people who come from 

so many various walks of life, in order for us to do justice to the 

responsibilities that we have to the American people, we have to 

have some accomplice, some organization, some entity that can 

keep us grounded. And your office is, I think, one of those agencies 

that is there to help us do right by the American people, if we have 

the will to do so, by giving us as much information as we can to 

make good, real-time decisions. 

So I am of the opinion that we have got to establish priorities 

as we make our budget cuts, because we have got to have fiscal responsibility, and we have got to eliminate the crisis that we are 

facing now with the deficit. But in order for us to do that, we have 

got to have the tools. And it seems to me that CBO is an essential 

tool. And if we shortchange CBO and treat CBO just as we treat 

all of the other agencies which we expect to tighten their belts— 

and I remind you, I know that there must be some efficiencies that 

you can find. But by and large, I just do not feel comfortable 

dulling the sharp-edged tool that you are by failing to give you 

fully what you need to keep us responsible to the American people. 

And I am close to the opinion that it would be a dereliction of our 

duty to tie your hands, because you are the person that removes 

the blinders from our eyes that we can see clearly what the effect 

of our actions will be to the extent that you can make those prognostications. 

So I am very, very concerned. And this is not a question, but I 

am very concerned. And I am just saying for the subcommittee that 

maybe this is one place where we ought to say, no, we ought not 

to cut this agency as hard as we may initially have thought we 

should, because, I mean, this is the brains of the operation. This 

is the accomplice without which I think we would be lost. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I do not have any more questions. 

Mr. Honda, do you have any? 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
193 

Mr. HONDA. No, except to say that I believe the fact that the 

CBO and the police department has been the two departments that 

we see as very important in functions for us, that to push ahead 

as best it is. 

Just to piggyback on Mrs. Emerson’s comments, though, there is 

some real sensibility to looking at more than a 1-year budget process. And there will probably be ways to do a multiyear budget process where you have at least some targets and some understanding 

of where you want to be with our resources, and given changes in 

the landscape, that allows us to adjust accordingly. But the certainty is certainly something that I think the country needs. The 

people have to have some sense. And I think what she has talked 

about makes a lot of sense. 

I know that we cannot bind future Congresses, but we do. We do 

it in a lot of different ways. But I think trying to figure out how 

to put our monetary and fiduciary kinds of responsibilities in place 

so that it is predictable, and if we do make changes, we know the 

impacts of the overall plan when it does happen. So I think that 

is probably something that bears a lot more time to think about 

and think it through. 

The city of Sunnyvale, CA they have a 10-year plan in terms of 

budget. You want to make changes to it, you can, but you will 

know its impact on different parts of the city’s plan. It is probably 

one of the best-run cities. Of course, it is a smaller subject area, 

but certainly the concept is applicable. 

I just wanted to make a comment about Mrs. Emerson’s comments. With that, I just want to thank you for your service. And 

I align myself with Mr. Bishop and Mr. Crenshaw’s comments 

about the service that your organization makes. I still think that 

we are our brother’s keepers, and I am glad you are around. Thank 

you. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you so much for being here today, for 

your testimony, for all the work that you provide. I appreciate it 

very much. Thank you. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Thank you for your kind words and your support. 

[Questions for the record follow:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
194 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 486 here 65845B.019
195 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 487 here 65845B.020
196 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 488 here 65845B.021
197 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 489 here 65845B.022
198 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 490 here 65845B.023
199 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 491 here 65845B.024
200 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 492 here 65845B.025
(201) 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2011. 

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 

WITNESS 

JOHN G. PARE ́ , JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR STRATEGIC INITIATIVES, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. We are going to start now with our public witnesses. And I want to thank them all for being here, thank them 

for their interest in the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. I am 

going to ask everybody to limit your remarks to 5 minutes or less. 

Your full statements will be entered in the record. We are going 

to have six witnesses. 

Mr. Honda, let’s yield to you before we ask our first witness. 

Mr. HONDA. No, I just look forward to their testimony, and thank 

you very much. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Great. 

Well, Mr. Pare ́, we welcome you. 

As you may know, the first digital book players were distributed 

in 2009. More than 320,000 digital book players have been issued 

to date, and the Braille and Audio Reading Download Web site is 

also up and running. So we look forward to what you have to say. 

Thank you for being with us today. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PARE ́

Mr. PARE ́. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you members of the 

committee. My name is John Pare ́, and I am the Executive Director 

For Strategic Initiatives at the National Federation of the Blind. I 

appreciate this opportunity to appear before the committee and to 

comment on the National Library Service Talking Book Program. 

The National Library Service is the primary provider of books for 

over 800,000 Americans who are blind or who have physical limitations which prevent them from reading Braille. Patrons of the service include Wounded Warriors, older Americans losing vision, people in education, and blind professionals in all levels. 

The NLS is the only public library that serves the blind in the 

United States. In fact, it is more than a public library. If a public 

library cuts back on services or closes down, sighted readers can go 

to another library or possibly purchase books, e-books on the computer, or go to their favorite bookstore. On the other hand, blind 

readers have no other choice but the National Library Service for 

the Blind and Physically Handicapped. 

I was sighted for most of my life. In 1996, I began losing my vision. I was diagnosed with cone-rod retina degeneration, for which 

there is no cure. In 2001, I lost my job due to my blindness. I was 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
202 

depressed. I could not read regular print, and I did not know 

Braille. I soon learned about the National Library Service and became an avid patron. The slogan ‘‘You Are What You Read’’ had 

been drilled into me by my parents. My reading helped me reconnect with society and helped give me a sense of purpose. 

As a result of fortuitous events, I learned about the National 

Federation of the Blind, and was offered a staff position. I am now 

here today, honored to talk to you about the NLS service on behalf 

of the NFB. NLS has historically provided its services for a relatively small portion of the Federal budget, around $55 million per 

year. As you mentioned, the digital transition has been taking 

place, and has required an additional infusion of funds, but will 

only require an additional $12.5 million per year through fiscal 

year 2013. We urge Congress to maintain this level of funding. 

We understand that ways are being sought to reduce the Federal 

budget, and we believe that the Library of Congress budget might 

be reduced by 5 percent. Assuming that these cuts are spread evenly over all Library of Congress programs, we believe that NLS can 

take its fair share of cuts without reduction in services to its patrons. The Librarian of Congress has authority to reallocate funds 

within the agency. We urge the Librarian to make sure that the 

full authorized appropriation is available for the NLS program. 

We believe that the NLS is the most important Federal program 

for blind people today, and it is certainly the one with the broadest 

and deepest impact. In my role at the National Federation of the 

Blind, I talk to hundreds, if not thousands, of blind people every 

year. They all tell me how important the NLS service is to them. 

When I tell them that I will be testifying in front of Congress, they 

always ask me to thank you for the NLS program. For example, 

Joe Minicello from Jacksonville, Florida, asked me to say, quote, ‘‘I 

have used this service since I was 10 years old. I would not have 

obtained the good education and employment if I had not had access to Talking Books. Thank you for making my life as rewarding 

and fulfilling and productive as it is.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of myself, and Joe, and hundreds of 

thousands of other people, blind people in the United States, I 

want to thank you for this opportunity to appear and to thank you 

for the NLS digital Talking Books program. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you very much for your being here and 

being such an advocate. 

[The prepared statement of John Pare ́ follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
203 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 498 here 65845B.026
204 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 499 here 65845B.027
205 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 500 here 65845B.028
206 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 501 here 65845B.029
207 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 502 here 65845B.030
208 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 503 here 65845B.031
209 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 504 here 65845B.032
210 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 505 here 65845B.033
211 

FUTURE OF TALKING BOOKS

The Members might have a question or two, but when you look 

at the future of the Talking Books, how do you see that, and what 

would be your main priorities that we ought to be looking at as we 

move forward with that program? 

Mr. PARE ́. The transition to the digital Talking Book player has 

been terrific. And I compliment Dr. Billington and former Dr. 

Cylke, or Mr. Cylke, who used to be the Director, for doing that 

work. And blind people, I think, in your district and across the Nation are thrilled with how that is going. We are certainly very 

happy with the digital download, moving more into sort of into the 

electronic age with digital access to books. And in a sense, we keep 

encountering that knowledge is power, for blind people especially 

that certain physical jobs are more difficult, that getting a good 

education is the key to getting a good job and employment and 

raising a family. So that access to the information is key for us. 

And the library for the blind is very, very important. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Mr. Honda, any questions? 

Mr. HONDA. Yes. 

Mr. Pare ́, thank you very much for your constant reminding. 

There was a couple of phrases that you used: It is not only for the 

blind, but for those who for physical reasons cannot use Braille or 

anything else like that. But it seems to me that coalition building 

with other folks might be helpful to increase your support system 

to move this Talking Book forward, because people, whether they 

are sighted or not sighted, learn in different modes. Sometimes the 

auditory process is more powerful when it is coupled with other 

things. 

On top of advantages that provide or help to provide folks who 

have sight disadvantages, Talking Books sounds like something 

that we should be probably investing more in to finding other uses 

for it; that it is not only set for folks who are losing their sight, 

but also people who can learn quickly, more quickly, using the auditory approach, too. So you have helped us think things through, 

and maybe even have a greater purpose for expanding Talking 

Books. So I appreciate your work and your advocacy on this. Thank 

you. 

Mr. PARE ́. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. Let me just thank you—you pronounce that 

Pare? 

Mr. PARE ́. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Pare ́, for your advocacy. I am very, very empathetic and want to do everything that I can to be helpful. 

On a personal note, Mr. Max Parker from the Georgia Federation 

of the Blind, who happens to live in Albany, Georgia, bends my ear 

on a regular basis. I grew up in Mobile, Alabama, and from the 

time I was 7 all the way through high school, I had a playmate 

whose backyard touched mine. And as kids, we always would 

choose sides for who would play on the ball team or who would 

play on the basketball team, and nobody wanted to choose Marvin 

because Marvin had a problem catching. We did not know why. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
212 

After I left to go to college and my mother asked Marvin to pick 

up some of my chores, like pulling the weeds from her flower bed, 

Marvin finished the job and came to be paid. She said, ‘‘Marvin, 

there are weeds all over the place’’, only to finally get Marvin examined and to have his mother take him to the optometrist, who 

determined that he was legally blind. 

Fast forward, Marvin got his Social Security, and he did not 

make good grades in high school. But he was able to go to college 

with an interpreter and he finished college cum laude. He became 

a minister. And he is one of the most profound preachers that I 

have heard, never knowing that his disability as a child was preventing him from competing along with all of the rest of us. 

Fortunately, Marvin’s situation has a happy ending. But the advocacy that you are doing today is very meaningful, and it will help 

a lot of people. And I believe that it is responsible for us to take 

that into account for those many millions of people who have limited sight. So I appreciate your testimony very much. I very much 

empathize with the many people who experience that disability. 

Mr. PARE ́. Thank you. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Pare ́, thank you so very much for being here 

and the work that you are doing. We appreciate it, and I am sure 

it will have a big impact as we begin our deliberations. So thank 

you very much. 

Mr. PARE ́. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
(213) 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2011. 

GAO EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION 

WITNESS 

RONALD LA DUE LAKE, PRESIDENT, GAO EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Next we are going to hear from the GAO Employees Organization, Ronald La Due Lake. 

I think you will find this subcommittee is a pretty strong supporter of the GAO. The Comptroller General last month said that 

every dollar we spend on the GAO, there is a return on investment 

of about $87. So I suggested that we just spend a lot of money on 

the GAO, and we could solve this whole debt issue we have. Right? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. I would certainly not dispute that. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. The floor is yours. Please give us your thoughts. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RONALD LA DUE LAKE

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman 

Crenshaw, members of the subcommittee. I am Ron La Due Lake. 

I am a methodologist at GAO in the Applied Research and Methods 

Team. I am also the president of the GAO Employees Organization, 

IFPTE Local 1921. I am very pleased to be here, privileged at this 

opportunity to discuss GAO’s budget request for fiscal year 2012. 

The GAO Employees Organization represents approximately 

2,000 analysts and specialists at GAO. Analysts, specialists, and 

other employees at GAO provide a remarkable amount of important information to the Congress and the American people. During 

fiscal year 2010, for instance, GAO provided assistance to every 

standing congressional committee and almost three-quarters of 

their subcommittees. Our work yields significant results across government, including financial benefits of almost $50 billion. 

I am here before you today to request your serious consideration 

of GAO’s budget request for fiscal year 2012. Congress has come to 

rely upon GAO to help identify billions of dollars in cost-saving opportunities, to tighten Federal budgets, or to point out revenue-enhancement opportunities. Our mission is ever more critical when 

the Nation faces difficult financial times. GAO employees understand that we will need to operate within constrained funding levels, and that this poses challenges for the agency and for employees. 

We are committed to helping GAO reduce its own costs as much 

as possible without diminishing our traditionally high-quality work 

that lays the foundation for critical decision-making and oversight 

by the Congress. Employees have been very supportive of GAO’s 

cautious and deliberate measures to conserve expenditures in fiscal 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
214 

year 2011 so far. For example, employees have been contributing 

to savings in travel costs by developing creative alternatives in 

their engagement work, their audit work that minimizes travel 

while providing appropriate coverage in gathering critical information for the Congress. 

We hope to avoid the need for reductions in GAO’s workforce, as 

well as furloughs, which would be disruptive to agency operations 

and our ability to provide critical and timely information to the 

Congress. We also hope to avoid such disruptions for employees 

and their families. 

Finally, I would like to note that we have recently completed negotiations with GAO management on our first master collective 

bargaining agreement. We used an innovative and collaborative approach to these negotiations, providing the opportunity for the 

talks to meet the interests of all parties, including the agency and 

employees, in a collegial, and efficient and a productive manner. 

We are fully prepared to continue this collaborative and productive 

relationship in the face of the current challenging economic times. 

GAO employees are ready to work closely with the agency to provide support to the Congress as efficiently as possible. 

That concludes my prepared statement. Thanks again very much 

for the privilege of being here. I am happy to take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ronald La Due Lake follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
215 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 514 here 65845B.034
216 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 515 here 65845B.035
217 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 516 here 65845B.036
218 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 517 here 65845B.037
219 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 518 here 65845B.038
220 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 519 here 65845B.039
221 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 520 here 65845B.040
222 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 521 here 65845B.041
223 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 522 here 65845B.042
224 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 523 here 65845B.043
225 

TRAVEL SAVINGS

Mr. CRENSHAW. I have one quick question. It was interesting 

when you mentioned the ways to save on travel. Can you give us 

an example? This might be something we want to pass on to some 

other agencies, too. Just one or two examples of how the creative 

aspect of minimizing travel expenses that might be helpful for 

other folks. 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Well, certainly. If you think about the way we 

do our work, we are frequently in the position of wanting to go to 

understand what is happening at the program level at a particular 

site, at a particular program, or multiple sites. So there are always 

decisions to be made about how many programs, how many locations, how many sites, how many participants in a program are appropriate to interact with. 

Some of the examples, the creative alternatives that we have 

seen, have been where particular job teams or engagement teams 

will interact with programs or participants or appropriate officials 

at a location that might be closer to one of our field offices or our 

headquarters, and then from there finalize the work that seems appropriate; and then interact with other relevant officials either 

through electronic means, through video teleconferencing, through 

survey techniques, through telephone interview protocols, those 

sorts of techniques. So that is one way, one example, of how engagement teams have really thought this through very seriously, 

trying to think very deliberately and strategically about if we are 

going to use travel dollars, how, and then how can we leverage 

those travel dollars to get us the appropriate information that 

would best inform the Congress. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. I thought that was an interesting line of questioning, Mr. Chairman. People travel because they want to have a 

hands-on experience with a site and with the people. There is some 

visual stuff that you can do with teleconferencing. So there is a lot 

of prep work before you go so that when you do make the site visit, 

it is maximized with other activities before. So I think that is well 

worth pursuing, probably even having Members of Congress look 

into that, too, for our own benefit for our constituent work. I think 

we are going down the line where west coast Congress people can 

avoid flying 9 hours during the week. But, no, I guess we have to 

be here. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Thank you. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Bishop, any questions? 

Mr. BISHOP. I don’t have any questions. I appreciate your service. 

I appreciate what your agency does. And again, you are one of 

those very, very essential functions that help us to do what we 

need to do by way of oversight. I appreciate the examples of sacrifice that your organization has made in light of the fiscal challenges that you are faced with. So thank you very much for what 

you do. 

And also let me just say I appreciate the spirit with which your 

collective bargaining took place. You approached it from a win-win 

perspective on both sides. And that is, I think, very refreshing. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
226 

Mr. CRENSHAW. We certainly appreciate what your agency does, 

and you as an individual, and your fellow coworkers. When we are 

asking everybody to do something that is more efficient, more effective than ever before, obviously you have thought that through, and 

you are working to make that happen. So we appreciate it very 

much. Thank you for being here today. 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Thank you. My pleasure. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
(227) 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2011. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PROFESSIONAL GUILD 

WITNESS 

SAUL SCHNIDERMAN, PRESIDENT, THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PROFESSIONAL GUILD 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Next we are going to hear from the Library of 

Congress Professional Guild, Saul Schniderman, who is the president. We welcome you today and look forward to what you have to 

tell us. 

STATEMENT OF SAUL SCHNIDERMAN

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Honda, and members of the subcommittee, 

my name is Saul Schniderman, and I am president of the Library 

of Congress Professional Guild, AFSCME Local 2910. I am testifying today on behalf of 1,500 professional employees, not including 

employees of the Congressional Research Service, who thank you 

for the support of their work to make the Library of Congress a 

truly great library. 

With me today is an archivist, our chief steward for the guild, 

Nan Ernst; and an attorney adviser for the Copyright Office, Kent 

Dunlap, who is our chief negotiator. 

I want to begin my testimony by stating that we are respectful 

of Members’ concerns for the Federal budget deficit and the need 

to address the economic ills for the Nation. We support Dr. 

Billington’s modest budget request, and agree with the thoughtful 

remarks made by some members of this subcommittee who differentiated between spending and investment in the future. 

Mr. Chairman, at one time our Nation was rich in natural resources and the production of commodities, but today a new economy is being created. It is one which demands higher levels of education and innovation, and its success depends upon our Nation’s 

ability to nurture and cultivate our intellectual capital. In medicine, telecommunications, science, literature and the arts, information technology and the like, the Library of Congress plays a pivotal role. 

In my testimony today I want to highlight only two of the Library’s programs, which provide direct economic benefit to the Nation: our cataloguing operation, which assists thousands of communities, schools, and universities, and the work of the Copyright Office, which protects intellectual property and turns creativity into 

economic prosperity for our people. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
228 

Today America’s libraries are straining against a perfect storm. 

The storm is that there is a growing demand for library services, 

but State and local governments just do not have the budgetary resources. More people than ever are visiting their public library. 

They want to find employment and business opportunities, continuing education, and career development. Now the Library of 

Congress is filling the gap by providing a virtual library on the 

Internet, and it also helps by supporting local libraries by creating 

cataloguing records which we share with the Nation and the world. 

If I may, I can explain. Our cataloguing staff creates records, 

cataloguing records, for works in English and over 400 languages, 

and then shares these records with local, regional, and academic libraries. One study estimated budget savings to these libraries in 

the range of $200- to $400 million annually. Is this a good investment? Yes, I think so, because records produced by the Library of 

Congress are the gold standard of cataloguing. This means that 

any library in the United States just uses it as a copy for its own 

cataloguing record. 

According to the American Library Association, and I quote, 

every type of library and library user, from students to the general 

public, derives substantial economic benefit from the intensive specialization of the professional cataloguers at the Library of Congress. If I may say so, we represent those cataloguers. 

Now, another good investment in the Library, which provides 

value to the Nation, is the U.S. Copyright Office, which serves 

copyright owners and the copyright industries by maintaining a 

public record system. By clarifying ownership of copyright, and by 

litigating disputes, the Copyright Office at the Library of Congress 

supports an industry that in 2007 employed over 5 million workers 

and produced almost $9 billion in revenues. 

Because the United States is a world leader in producing copyright materials, in fiscal year 2010 the Copyright Office registered 

over 600,000 claims, which means that hundreds and thousands of 

books, films, sound recordings and other works were transferred to 

the Library’s collection, an added value of tens of millions of dollars 

for which you do not have to expend and pass appropriations for. 

And thanks to the Copyright Office, America’s authors and creators 

can combat the piracy of their own works both here and abroad. 

In short, America’s creativity has become an economic engine 

which fuels the production of new works and gives birth to new opportunities. 

I want to close my testimony by commenting briefly on the backlog of claims in the Copyright Office. Mr. Chairman, and Mr. 

Honda, and members of the subcommittee, good news is on the horizon. The backlog is being eliminated. Today it takes an average 

of 4 months or less for an applicant using the electronic filing system to receive a completed registration from the Copyright Office, 

and this is real progress. The guild looks forward to working with 

the new Register of Copyrights when he or she is appointed. 

I thank you for your support of the Library of Congress, the cornerstone Library of the United States and the information center 

for the legislative branch of government. 

[The prepared statement of Saul Schniderman follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
229 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 534 here 65845B.044
230 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 535 here 65845B.045
231 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 536 here 65845B.046
232 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 537 here 65845B.047
233 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 538 here 65845B.048
234 

COPYRIGHT OFFICE

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you for those thoughts. I think the subcommittee might be interested in knowing, and I would ask you, 

if you have got any suggestions about how we could streamline or 

achieve any additional efficiencies in the Copyright Office? Is there 

anything that comes to mind that you might tell us that you have 

seen that might be an additional efficiency or streamline that you 

have observed? 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. Well, to be frank with you, and the problem 

began in 2007 with the purchase of a software product that was designed to be a tool for the registration specialist to do their work 

more efficiently, and instead of being a tool, it became an obstacle. 

And in 2007 the backlog was up, frankly, at over half a million, 

and today it is about where it was before they purchased that particular product. 

The reason for that is because of efficiencies in the technology 

which our managers have implemented, and also the hard work of 

the staff, who has really, really been working hard over these 

years. So we have been advised that it will not grow. So that problem hopefully has been solved. And now that the backlog is gone, 

the staff is freed up to being more efficient in their work. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. That is good to hear. 

Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. The program that took place, what was it supposed 

to do? Why was it not accomplished in what it was supposed to do? 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. Well, prior to bringing on this new technology, the Copyright Office reorganized its functions, and it purchased a product that was off the shelf and not tailor-made to the 

work. And so the staff had to do workarounds; the staff had to figure out how to overcome hurdles. In other words, it was the wrong 

tool, frankly. And we testified before this committee about the 

backlog and about the use of the system over the last few years. 

So I would say that most of it has been fixed because of the interest expressed by Congress, and also because Dr. Billington, 

frankly, has directed staff to go into the Copyright Office over the 

last few years from outside of the office and clean up the backlog. 

I could send you more information. I am not a technology person. 

But apparently upgrades and fixes have been implemented, and it 

has just taken 2 or 3 years in order to accomplish that task. 

Mr. HONDA. I will address that at some other time. Thank you. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. 

Schniderman. 

I note that you represent the professional employees at the Library of Congress. 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. Except for those that work at CRS. 

Mr. BISHOP. They have a different bargaining unit? 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. Yes, a different bargaining unit. 

Mr. BISHOP. And an employee’s union, which I guess is local 

2477, represents the nonprofessional employees at the Library of 

Congress? 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. The technicians and the administrative staff, 

yes, both of whose presidents are here today. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
235 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you so much for your testimony and for 

being here today. 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. Thank you. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
(237) 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2011. 

THE EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 2477 OF THE LIBRARY 

OF CONGRESS 

WITNESS 

DARRYL CLARK, PRESIDENT, AFSCME LOCAL 2477, EMPLOYEES 

UNION OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Now we will hear from the Employees Union of 

the Library of Congress, Darryl Clark, who is president of local 

2477. We welcome you here and look forward to your testimony. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF DARRYL CLARK

Mr. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the other local that 

represents the employees with Mr. Schniderman that you just listened to. 

Mr. Bishop, good morning to the members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Darryl Clark, and I am the current president of 

AFSCME Local 2477, the employees union at the Library of Congress, and I, too, appreciate the opportunity to testify before you 

today. As an employee of the Library of Congress and president of 

the employees union, which represents over 800 Library of Congress employees, I am here to support the Librarian and the Library of Congress fiscal 2012 budget request. 

The employees we represent are dedicated to serve Congress as 

well as the Nation at large. We understand the tremendous fiscal 

challenges that our Nation is presently facing. What Dr. Billington 

has submitted in our fiscal budget represents a careful consideration to what we face as a Nation, while continuing our commitment to serve the Congress and the United States. 

In supporting our agency’s budget request, I will ask of this committee to consider that over the past 6 years, the Library of Congress has recognized the need to become more fiscally responsible 

by doing more with less staff. As president of the employees union, 

I have worked with Library management to ensure that all of the 

staff reductions would not adversely impact service as we as an 

agency provide to the Congress and the American people. 

The employees of the Library of Congress are truly dedicated to 

public service. If we were forced to incur major cutbacks with 69 

percent of the budget allocated for staff salaries, we would possibly 

have to furlough staff. In this day and age, with our economy in 

its fragile condition, furloughs of Federal workers will ultimately 

slow down our economic recovery. The families of Library workers 

will be adversely affected by furloughs. The employees who I represent, which are the lowest grade of employees at the Library, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
238 

cannot afford any furlough time. Many of our employees barely 

make enough to save for such an event. Our survival for our basic 

needs depend on the paychecks we bring home. 

I asked the Members of this great Congress to consider that the 

decisions that are made affect real Americans. These employees are 

not just numbers on paper. A significant number of our staff that 

I represent are single mothers. They provide the only means for 

their families. When many of our employees started working for 

the Library of Congress, they were filled with great pride. They 

had a sense of inclusion to the American dream. They were given 

an opportunity to invest in the future of America by providing support services to the Congress and the American people so they can 

effectively do what is needed to ensure that this very situation we 

are facing today will not become a reality. 

The employees understand that during this time in our history 

of our great country, we are facing the need to become more fiscally 

responsible. We are willing to meet that challenge. We feel that 

furloughs will not help meet this great challenge, but hinder real 

growth and strip away the pride that working Americans feel every 

day by coming to work at our great institution. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we 

ask that you continue your support of the Library and for your consideration for our fiscal 2012 request. We thank you. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Clark. And thank you for the 

work that you do at the Library, and thank you for the work that 

you do to represent the people that you are talking about today. 

[The prepared statement of Darryl Clark follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
239 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 546 here 65845B.049
240 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 547 here 65845B.050
241 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 548 here 65845B.051
242 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 549 here 65845B.052
243 

BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Honda or Mr. Bishop? 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BISHOP. No questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Clark. 

Well, tell me the jobs in your bargaining unit. 

Mr. CLARK. The jobs in our bargaining unit, we do a lot of the 

support staff work from public programs, to small-level cataloguing 

support that we also did. During this time I mentioned, in the past 

6 years when we had to sort of reduce staff, some of our technicians 

had to learn more professional-graded material and professionalgraded work so that we have now had to sort of step up and to increase our roles in the Library. So we do almost everything that— 

in some regard that the professional staff does. Also we still have 

to do our regular technician support: pulling books, materials; recataloguing; even helping with the preservation of our collection. 

Mr. BISHOP. One other question. Several years ago there was a 

massive discrimination lawsuit on behalf of the employees at the 

Library of Congress, which I understand was ultimately settled. 

How has the settlement been implemented, and are things there 

better than they were prior to the lawsuit, and are things working 

well for employees regarding equal opportunity at the Library? 

Mr. CLARK. I think you are referring to the Cook-class suit? 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. 

Mr. CLARK. Well, some of that sort of predates me, but I would 

have to say that we tried to make great strides in trying to improve 

the hiring practices. It is still a work in progress, but I feel as 

though that we are sort of going in the right direction with some 

of the initiatives that our union has negotiated with the Library in 

terms of career development. 

We have an excellent career development program at the Library 

of Congress now, and some of the detail opportunities to give our 

staff a chance to work and detail different offices so that they can 

acquire more skills to help our agency become more efficient. So 

that is part of what we have done in terms of working with more 

with less. 

Mr. BISHOP. And one of the elements of the lawsuit had to do 

with the conditions of the employment, the conditions under which 

the employees worked, and the atmosphere under which they 

worked. Obviously, since you are not sensitive to that, the atmosphere must, I presume, be much better than it was at that time. 

Mr. CLARK. I think it is. I think it is getting better. I think that 

the management has started to recognize that it is a lot easier to 

work with the labor organizations. So the atmosphere is sort of 

changing. And I just think that times are changing. So I am starting to see more positive results. Recently one of the members of our 

executive board now is detailing another service union, so the opportunities are increasing. So I would have to say they are improving. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Clark. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Clark. And thank you for all 

that you do to make the Library of Congress the unique place that 

it is. Thank you very much. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
(245) 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2011. 

SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION 

WITNESS 

DANIEL SCHUMAN, DIRECTOR, ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPARENCY 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Next we will hear from Daniel Schuman. He is 

with the Advisory Committee on Transparency, and he is policy 

counsel for the Sunlight Foundation. Is that right? 

Mr. SCHUMAN. That is right, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. We look forward to hearing what you have to 

say. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF DANIEL SCHUMAN

Mr. SCHUMAN. Well, thank you. Thank you, Chairman Crenshaw, 

Ranking Member Honda, Mr. Bishop. I appreciate the opportunity 

to speak to you today. 

As you mentioned, my name is Daniel Schuman, and I am the 

policy counsel for Sunlight Foundation, which is a nonpartisan, 

nonprofit organization dedicated to government openness and 

transparency. I am here to speak with you today about two issues. 

One is empowering the Congressional Research Service to better 

serve Congress and the American people, and the second is to encourage this committee to follow up on its languishing request regarding public access to the raw legislative information that powers 

THOMAS. 

Taxpayers spend around $100 million a year to fund CRS and its 

nearly 700 staff members. As an administrative unit of the Library 

of Congress. CRS often furthers the Library’s public mission, and 

its products help frame public debate on foreign issues. As an example, in the last 2 years alone, major newspapers cited CRS reports 779 times, and over the last decade Federal courts have cited 

CRS reports 130 times. 

All the while, the Library of Congress’ ability to pay for publishing costs has been restricted by legislative branch appropriations language for every year since 1952. This 59-year-old publishing rule was likely intended as a cost-savings measure, a leftover from the bygone era of expensive layout, printing and distribution costs. It also precedes CRS’ creation by nearly two decades. 

Times have changed, and these print limitations are a counterproductive anachronism in the Internet age. A coalition of 38 organizations recently wrote to you to urge an end to this restriction, 

and I am to do so in person today. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
246 

Congressional staff already google for CRS Reports. They review 

Cornell’s Constitution Annotated Website to learn about a Supreme 

Court decision. They search YouTube for briefings on Federal law, 

and they look to OpenCongress.org, and oftentimes not common, for 

legislative summaries. 

Unfortunately CRS has not kept up with the times and embraces 

an overbroad interpretation of this publishing restriction, transforming a speed bump into a roadblock, thereby syphoning its ability to innovate to meet your needs, the needs of its clients, and to 

fulfill its public responsibilities. This diminishes the value that we 

all receive for our tax dollars. 

In short, what I am asking is that you lift the publishing restriction and send CRS an unmistakable signal to modernize. Let me 

be clear, I am not requesting that all CRS Reports be made publicly available. I am a former attorney with the Congressional Research Service, and I know as well as all of you that one-on-one 

communications between CRS and individual Members of Congress 

or their staff are, and ought to be, confidential. Instead, what I am 

asking is that this committee grant CRS the flexibility to release 

general distribution products on line without excuse or fear of violating an antiquated publishing restriction. 

Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor recently encouraged the Clerk of the House to develop better on-line tools to make 

legislative information more open and Congress more accountable 

to the American people. CRS, the source of much legislative information, should be similarly open. 

And with respect to THOMAS, in 2009, this committee adopted 

a forward-thinking approach that required a report on the issues 

around granting the American people access to all electronic information at once through a method known as bulk access. And, of 

course, I have to mention Rob Pierson, who is fantastic to work 

with, with your office, Representative Honda. Unfortunately, nearly 

3 years later, as far as we know, no such report has been generated. A reason why is that the trigger for the release of this report was the launch of legislative information system 2.0, which 

has not happened and probably will never happen as envisioned. 

Of course, the world has not waited. In the interim GPO has 

published five data sets on line in bulk, including the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register. And data.gov was 

launched in May 2009 and now has hundreds of thousands of data 

sets. Technologists, including those up at Sunlight Foundation, are 

already using this information in new and exciting ways that enhance the public’s access to government information. 

In the same way, providing bulk access to THOMAS data will 

give technology innovators an opportunity to creatively use data to 

solve new problems and address unmet needs. It will put all of this 

important legislative information into the American people’s hands. 

We ask for your renewed attention to this new directive, and we 

urge you to make up for lost time. The committee should grant the 

public bulk access to legislative documents, bill status and summary information, and other legislative data no later than 120 days 

after the start of fiscal year 2012. We also ask for the immediate 

creation of an advisory committee composed of relevant legislative 

agency members and members of the public that will meet reguVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:05 Jul 13, 2011 Jkt 065845 PO 00000 Frm 00246 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A845P2.XXX A845P2

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
247 

larly to address the public’s need for access to this information and 

a means by which it is provided. 

And finally, as I mentioned before, we ask that you end this publishing restriction. This committee has an unparalleled opportunity 

to make government open and more accountable. We hope that you 

seize the moment. 

Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak with you today, 

and I welcome any questions that you have. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Daniel Schuman follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
248 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 559 65845B.053
249 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 560 65845B.054
250 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 561 65845B.055
251 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 562 65845B.056
252 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 563 65845B.057
253 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 564 65845B.058
254 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 565 65845B.059
255 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 566 65845B.060
256 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 567 65845B.061
257 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Honda, do you have any questions? 

Mr. HONDA. Much of the published restrictions, is that also digital information that is restricted? 

Mr. SCHUMAN. So it shouldn’t be. 

Mr. HONDA. But it is? 

Mr. SCHUMAN. But the way the Congressional Research Service 

has interpretive provisions as to apply to electronic publishing as 

well as print publishing, although, of course, there was no Internet 

in 1952 when this was inserted. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Schuman, the former CRS Director, Mr. 

Mulhollan, wrote in a 2007 memo that making CRS Reports public 

would, ‘‘cause analysts to become more conscious of the need to address views, methods, disciplines and expectations of a noncongressional audience and thereby shift the focus of our products away 

from their current emphasis on the congressional audience. As a 

result, our congressional clients, recognizing such a change in the 

content and protection afforded our work, would either request 

more confidential memoranda which are available only to the requester, or more significantly no longer have confidence in CRS’ 

ability to truly serve as their adjunct staff.’’ 

How would you respond to that concern? 

Mr. SCHUMAN. Well, I would say that it is simply not true. Actually, I hosted a panel discussion this past Monday as part of the 

Advisory Committee on Transparency where we brought in experts 

on CRS—Nye Stevens, who served at CRS for a number of years, 

including in a Director position—as well as having former members 

of CRS, including their admin law folks. 

Unfortunately, to Mr. Mulhollan’s point, the ship has already 

sailed. Ten thousand CRS Reports are already available on line, 

and any change that would have happened from the general distribution reports coming publicly available has already happened. 

So if there is any shift that would take place, it would have happened 5 or 10 years ago. So his point is simply no longer connected 

to reality. I mean, to his credit, he did start as Director before the 

Internet came about in 1993, so perhaps he may not be as cognizant as he should have of all the other means by which this information is publicly available. 

The only thing that would change is that currently the public has 

access to some reports that are outdated. So you all get phone calls 

asking questions based on misinformation because the most recent 

version isn’t publicly available, but iteration two or three, you 

know, a couple months old maybe. This would get rid of that problem in its entirety. The public would have access to the most reliable, most up-to-date information at once. 

So anyway, I am sorry, I went on a little. 

Oh, and there is one other piece to that as well, which I think 

you might appreciate. So oftentimes CRS needs to meet the needs 

first of Congress. And there are requirements in terms of you need 

to update reports on a regular basis and things along those lines. 

Well, oftentimes the reports don’t need to be changed much, if at 

all. So what some staff will do is they will simply change a word 

in the reports, or there could be a change for the date. So it looks 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
258 

like the report has been updated, but, of course, nothing has 

changed, except, of course, if this committee gets an increasing 

number of, oh, we have updated 10,000 reports or 5,000 reports or 

2,000 reports, but the actual substance is unchanged. So there is 

also a little bit of a shell game that may be going on that is not 

entirely obvious. 

Mr. BISHOP. And so that is something that CRS could utilize to 

eliminate duplication and to reduce costs? 

Mr. SCHUMAN. So to the cost planning, these reports are already 

generated in an electronic format. So the gentleman from GPO earlier was talking about 70 percent cost for publication and 30 percent. Well, the publication cost is already done. The reports are already formatted, they are placed on the congressional Internet. So 

all their work is finished. And, of course, if it is electronic, there 

is minimal to no distribution cost. And, in fact, people are already 

building free versions to make that information available already. 

So from a cost standpoint it would be minimal to nonconsistent. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I want to thank you very much for your testimony bringing this issue before us. I am sure we will take this into 

consideration. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SCHUMAN. Thank you, sir. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
(259) 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2011. 

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS 

DENNIS ROTH, PRESIDENT, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH EMPLOYEES 

ASSOCIATION 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Our last witness is Dennis Roth, who is president of the Congressional Research Employees Association. And he 

is here to talk about the Congressional Research Service budget request. So please, the floor is yours. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF DENNIS ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Honda, 

members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. My name is Dennis 

Roth, president of the Congressional Research Employees Association, IFPTE Local 75, the union representing over 500 CRS bargaining unit employees of which 266 are members. We thank you 

for the support given to CRS in the 2011 budget and request that 

you continue to do the same in the 2012 budget. 

Among the many responsibilities in the Legislative Reform Act 

of 1970 carried out by CRS, we believe three demonstrate why the 

Congress needs to maintain CRS at the highest levels possible. 

First, CRS analysts and attorneys are statutorily responsible for, 

one, analyzing, appraising and evaluating legislative proposals and 

aiding Congress in determining the advisability of enacting such 

proposals; two, estimating the probable results of such proposals 

and their alternatives; and three, evaluating alternative methods 

for accomplishing these results. No outside source can do this with 

the confidentiality and nonpartisanship demonstrated by CRS. 

Second, CRS professionals, information professionals, are statutorily required to prepare and provide information, research and 

reference materials and services to assist Congress in its legislative 

and representative functions. These CRS staff also assist analysts 

in their work. Again, this is done in strict confidentiality and without partisanship. 

Third, CRS legislative analysts are statutorily required to prepare summaries and digests of congressional bills and resolutions 

of a public general nature. Both the Legislative Information Service, which is dedicated to congressional use, and THOMAS, which 

is available to the public, aids Congress in its representative and 

legislative responsibilities by providing bill analysis, status of legislative action and other useful information. 

In addition, technical and support staff, editors and publishers, 

and other CRS employees assure that CRS is available and preVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:05 Jul 13, 2011 Jkt 065845 PO 00000 Frm 00259 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A845P2.XXX A845P2

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
260 

pared to meet congressional requests and needs in a timely and effective manner. 

Former Director Dan Mulhollan noted that the Congressional Research Service should be seen as a shared research. We agree, but 

CRS is even more. We are a resource with deep and unique institutional knowledge for Congress. We are also a resource that addresses the specific needs of Congress rather than other priorities. 

Often unrecognized is the depth and breadth of our research and 

information professionals and their ability to furnish committees, 

Members of Congress, their staff or their constituents with just the 

right information given the requester’s background in the area, and 

CRS can do this in a relatively short time. 

There are many sources to which the Congress can turn, but 

none are committed to the statutory requirement of, quote, responding without partisan bias most expeditiously, effectively and 

efficiently to the special needs of the Congress. 

I would now like to shift my remarks to the selection of a new 

Director for CRS. The subcommittee is aware that CRS Director 

Dan Mulhollan retired at the beginning of April. By statute a new 

Director will be appointed by the Librarian after consultation with 

the Joint Committee on the Library. Although this subcommittee 

has no direct statutory role in the Director’s selection, the subcommittee has shown an interest in the management of CRS in the 

past. 

Last year the House expressed a concern that CRS may have become less connected to the committees and Member offices it 

serves. Consequently, the Director was required to conduct a formal evaluation of how well its current staffing models and procedures met user needs. The committee also asked that CRS consider 

the creation of a new mechanism, such as a Member advisory committee, to allow routine discussions between CRS leadership and 

users. A similar finding of this evaluation was that, and I quote, 

CRS should develop an approach to proactively understand, target 

and address the unique needs of its diverse client segment, unquote. 

We believe that this can be best accomplished if the new Director 

has been intimately involved with the Congress for a significant period of time. Former Director Mulhollan noted it takes 3 to 5 years 

to train an analyst to understand and be responsive to the needs 

of Congress. We believe this also holds true for CRS leadership. A 

primary criteria for selecting a new Director should be a well-established familiarity with the Congress. 

CRS staff response to the 2010 employee survey administered by 

OPM identified areas as needing improvement. Among these were 

personal empowerment with respect to work processes and recognition for creativity and innovation. 

The new CRS Director must be willing to engage staff in meaningful discussions so they can offer suggestions on how to do their 

work. The new Director should be willing to create an environment 

that welcomes creativity and innovation and seriously considers 

employees’ inputs. 

CRS is a multigenerational organization, both baby boomers, 

Generation Xers and Generation Y/Millennials. The new Director of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
261 

CRS must be able to lead, engage and motivate these generations 

simultaneously. 

Finally, we believe that the selection process should be transparent, even though the Librarian, in consultation with the Joint 

Committee on Library, appoints the Director. We believe the Librarian should advertise for candidates and conduct interviews. By 

conducting the national search, the best candidates can be identified, and someone who can work both with the Congress and CRS 

staff will be selected. 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to testify today, and be 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dennis Roth follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
262 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 578 here 65845B.062
263 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 579 here 65845B.063
264 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 580 here 65845B.064
265 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 581 here 65845B.065
266 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 582 here 65845B.066
267 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 583 here 65845B.067
268 

RECRUITMENT SELECTION

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Honda, do you have any questions? 

Mr. HONDA. In the process of recruitment selection, of the interview of a new Director, you said it needs to be transparent. Define 

transparency and what portions of the process needs more exposure 

to transparency involvement so that the issue of transparency can 

be addressed. 

Mr. ROTH. Well, I don’t think nationwide people know there is 

a need for a new Director of CRS. And to advertise it saying we 

are seeking for a new—just like you would post any position. Right 

now it is just up to the Librarian to do an internal search in consultation with the Joint Committee on Library and then make the 

decision, so that it is not in the least exposed to potential candidates for filling the new position. 

Mr. HONDA. And then? 

Mr. ROTH. And then like any other job, the Librarian would go 

through a process, select X number to interview, and then make 

the selection. 

Mr. HONDA. I mean, are the people who are in the process of selection decisionmaking, is that a group of folks that will provide the 

best confidence that the outcome is going to be the best? 

Mr. ROTH. We don’t know who is making that selection. 

Mr. HONDA. Is this joint? 

Mr. ROTH. Well, the Joint Committee, they are to be consulted 

on the Librarian’s decision. And I do believe the Library is going 

around and talking to those Members, but I don’t know if they 

are—if that is the extent of it. 

Mr. HONDA. You said the distribution or the announcement being 

universal. Are there not steps where the applications are brought 

together and vetted, and who does that? 

Mr. ROTH. Normally that is done by our human resources part 

of the Library. Where they have criteria, they look at the vacancy 

announcement, they can see the responses to the questions that are 

asked, they determine the better qualified, they send those to the 

selecting official. Usually there is a panel of three people who interview that group, and then they make a recommendation to the selecting official. 

Mr. HONDA. And the panelists are coming from the stakeholders 

of the Library outside of the selection of the Librarian? 

Mr. ROTH. For our bargaining unit staff you mean, or—for, I 

guess, like the Copyright Director or the Director of CRS, there are 

no such mechanisms that they have to use. Or was the Register advertised as a position? Okay. So that would go through that process. 

The Director of CRS is not done that way. People on the panel 

have to be somebody who are very familiar with the position being 

filled, so they can bring in outside people, they can bring in the retired copyright people. 

Mr. HONDA. But are they required to? 

Mr. ROTH. Well, they have to be familiar with the subject area 

for which the person is being hired. 

Mr. HONDA. Who decides that? 

Mr. ROTH. Management, the Library. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
269 

Mr. HONDA. And you are confident that that is—— 

Mr. ROTH. Well, we don’t know what is going on, so—— 

Mr. HONDA. So I am asking you, what are the areas that need 

to be more transparent? That is another one? 

Mr. ROTH. It would be nice to know who is on the selection panel. 

That is the technical term for this. How are they going to go out 

and try to recruit people for the position; once they get the candidates, how they are going to be evaluated? Currently for senior 

level, which this position is, they have a different selection process. 

Mr. HONDA. Why? 

Mr. ROTH. The rest of the executive branch went in that direction, and the Library patterned what the executive branch did for 

senior-level hiring processes. We only have 10 senior-level people 

out of maybe 40 that used to exist. But since I have been president—or not since I have been president, but since probably in the 

late 1990s, we have not hired any bargaining unit senior-level people, so we are not familiar with the process and how it would work. 

They would still have to follow, I guess, what we have under the 

current merit selection agreement between the union and the Library. 

I don’t know if I am answering your questions. I see a little puzzlement. 

Mr. HONDA. Well, I am just trying to think of how to move 

through this issue of transparency. I mean, you could have a process that is published, but then each step may not be as transparent 

as you would like it to be. 

Mr. ROTH. Well, the transparency is opening up as wide as possible so people know that there is a position for the Director of the 

Congressional Research Service. It would be nice to know who is 

on the selection committee. 

Mr. HONDA. It would be nice to know what that process is and 

what it entails. The people who are involved in each step is going 

to be critical to the outcome. 

Mr. ROTH. For a regular position, a non-Director position, they 

put together a subject matter expert panel that goes through and 

looks at all the requirements they would like to have in the position for the Director of CRS. Then they whittle it down with the 

help of someone from CRS, and that becomes the vacancy announcement. And that is partially based on the position description 

for the Director of CRS. 

Mr. HONDA. Has the job description position announcement been 

put out already? 

Mr. ROTH. As far as we know, there is none. It is not a requirement for the Director of the Congressional Research Service. It is 

just an appointment made by the Librarian without any procedures 

specified. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, thank you so much for your testimony. We 

appreciate it. And this concludes the public witness portion. The 

committee will stand in recess until Thursday, May 12, when we 

will hear from the House of Representatives concerning the fiscal 

year 2012 budget request. 

[Additional statements for the record follow:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
270 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 589 here 65845B.068
271 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 590 here 65845B.069
272 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 591 here 65845B.070
273 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 592 here 65845B.071
274 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 593 here 65845B.072
275 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 594 here 65845B.073
276 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 595 here 65845B.074
277 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 596 here 65845B.075
278 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 597 here 65845B.076
279 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 598 here 65845B.077
280 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 599 here 65845B.078
281 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 600 here 65845B.079
282 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 601 here 65845B.080
283 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 602/700 here 65845B.081

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
(285) 

THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2011. 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WITNESSES 

DANIEL J. STRODEL, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF 

THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 

KAREN L. HAAS, CLERK OF THE HOUSE, OFFFICE OF THE CLERK 

WILSON ‘‘BILL’’ LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS, OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS 

MR. CRENSHAW’S OPENING STATEMENT—FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET

Mr. CRENSHAW. Welcome, everyone. The committee will come to 

order. 

Today, we are going to receive testimony from Officers of the 

House of Representatives: the Honorable Dan Strodel, Chief Administrative Officer; the Honorable Karen Haas, the Clerk of the 

House; the Honorable Wilson ‘‘Bill’’ Livingood, the Sergeant at 

Arms. 

We are pleased to welcome you here today. And we thank each 

of you and all your employees for what you do to serve the House. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The fiscal year 2012 budget request that we are going to consider 

is $1.3 billion and represents about a $22.3 million increase, or 1.7 

percent, above the current year. 

Many of you are aware the Appropriations subcommittee chairmen were given tentative 302(b) allocations yesterday for fiscal 

year 2012. The number, excluding the Senate, for the Legislative 

Branch Subcommittee is going to necessitate a reduction of about 

$227 million beyond the cuts that were already taken last year. 

6.4 PERCENT DECREASE FROM CURRENT FUNDING LEVELS

This is going to mean further reductions across the House and 

the Legislative Branch agencies. Having to cut roughly 6.4 percent 

from the current levels, I can’t imagine holding any of these agencies harmless. 

When you look at the distribution of the Legislative Branch funding, excluding the Senate, the House appropriation represents 

about 36 percent of this bill. So Members, committees, and leadership started tightening their belts in January, and we are going to 

have to do it again this year. And, we are probably going to have 

to do it again next year. 

As chairman of this subcommittee, my philosophy is to thoroughly review each and every line item of the budgets that come 

before our subcommittee and determine what we can afford and 

what we can’t afford with our limited resources. That is what 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
286 

Americans are doing across the country when they are faced with 

these tough economic times, and they expect Congress to do the 

same thing. 

So we look forward to hearing how each of you are going to approach bringing costs down while still delivering the services that 

are so required. So, again, thank you for being here. 

I turn to Mr. Honda for any remarks he might have. 

MR. HONDA OPENING STATEMENT—FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I also welcome the Officers of the House, Mr. Dan Strodel, 

Chief Administrative Officer; Mr. Bill Livingood—in Spanish, that 

would be Bill ‘‘Living la vida loca’’; I kind of like that—our Sergeant at Arms; and Ms. Karen Haas, the Clerk of the House. 

We also have several other heads of offices with us today that 

submitted testimony for the record. 

[The prepared statements of the General Counsel, Legislative 

Counsel, Law Revision Counsel, and the Inspector General follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
287 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 705 here 65845C.001
288 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 706 here 65845C.002
289 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 707 here 65845C.003
290 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 708 here 65845C.004
291 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 709 here 65845C.005
292 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 710 here 65845C.006
293 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 711 here 65845C.007
294 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 712 here 65845C.008
295 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 713 here 65845C.009
296 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 714 here 65845C.010
297 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 715 here 65845C.011
298 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 716 here 65845C.012
299 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 717 here 65845C.013
300 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 718 here 65845C.014
301 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 719 here 65845C.015
302 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 720 here 65845C.016
303 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 721 here 65845C.017
304 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 722 here 65845C.018
305 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 723 here 65845C.019
306 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 724 here 65845C.020
307 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 725 here 65845C.021
308 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 726 here 65845C.022
309 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 727 here 65845C.023
310 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 728 here 65845C.024
311 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 729 here 65845C.025
312 

CHALLENGES IN FISCAL YEARS 2011 AND 2012

Mr. HONDA. You and your staffs are the backbone of this institution that get here before us and leave well after us to ensure that 

this institution functions uninterrupted. We all appreciate your 

service to the Nation, and please pass along our thanks to your 

staffs that toil away without much recognition. My mom says you 

can never say ‘‘thank you’’ enough. 

With that said, your jobs are getting tougher as resources tighten. I am sure that today we will spend lots of time with you trying 

to figure out how to do more with less. But, at some point, my colleagues will have to accept the inevitable, that certain services will 

have to be cut as funding is cut. 

The House budget is a people’s budget, and nearly 80 percent of 

the budget supports staff that do everything from helping constituents fight for Social Security benefits and providing technical assistance in bill drafting to ensuring the safety of the House Chamber. And all of you are up for the challenge. You have all held these 

positions in previous Congresses, and I appreciate the continuity 

that exists with this team. 

The budget request for the House is the most modest we have 

seen in many years. The House request of $1.3 billion represents 

a 1.7 percent increase over fiscal year 2011, the recently passed 

omnibus continuing resolution. 

After your remarks, I plan to ask questions of the three officers 

as well as some of the other offices that are represented here. So 

today I want to thank all of you, and I look forward to your comments. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Honda. 

Before we hear from the witnesses, we reviewed your testimony 

and all your prepared statements. They will be made a part of the 

record. 

And I understand that everyone has made adjustments based on 

the recently passed CR. We have a lot of challenges in front of us. 

Each of you has served now for the first 4 months. We have been 

through this process once. And I just would appreciate, as you summarize your testimony, tell us what your approach is to bringing 

these costs associated with your office down, as you summarize 

those statements. 

So we will begin with the Honorable Dan Strodel. 

ACTIONS EXECUTED IMPLEMENTING FY2011 CONTINUING RESOLUTION

Mr. STRODEL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Honda and Mr. Bishop. And I am pleased to be here before the 

committee. 

I hear the message you have sent already. The actions we have 

taken, I provided further detail in the testimony; therEfore I will 

summarize very quickly. 

As a result of the Continuing Resolutions (CR) and the final CR, 

along with the initial reduction of 2.3 percent, we took immediate 

action to make recommendations to freeze 38 positions within the 

CAO’s organization and reduce contractor support in specific areas. 

Those areas were the sustainability area and certain IT initiatives 

that we felt could be deferred until another time. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
313 

ZERO-BASED BUDGETING

But it is really, sir, the beginning of a refocus on the critical and 

core mission of our organization. The CAO’s office provides the 

widest variety of services to the House, but our primary and core 

functions are finance, information technology, and logistical support. 

We are returning to a disciplined budget management approach 

called zero-based budgeting, which isn’t anything new, Mr. Chairman, but it is a time for which it has come here in this organization. Since February, we have been working internally with that 

management tool, and we have identified over 200 programs, 

projects, and activities of CAO and are going through the process 

of determining whether they fall within our core mission. And, if 

not, can they be done differently. We are absolutely looking at further reductions in services. And, absolutely, what is on the table, 

sir, are staff reductions. 

Our approach will hopefully show where we can make efficiencies, and where we can eliminate duplication. But, with the 

numbers that appear to be the mark, that is really where we are. 

[The prepared statement of Daniel J. Strodel follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
314 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 735 here 65845C.026
315 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 736 here 65845C.027
316 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 737 here 65845C.028
317 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 738 here 65845C.029
318 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 739 here 65845C.030
319 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 740 here 65845C.031
320 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 741 here 65845C.032
321 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 742 here 65845C.033
322 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 743 here 65845C.034
323 

SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you very much. 

It is encouraging to hear you talk about the core mission. I think 

sometimes in government things expand and grow, and when we 

have limited resources, we have to get back to the basics. It sounds 

to me like that is what you are working on. And I guess your core 

mission is to make life easier for the Members of the House, provide the information and support, et cetera. 

So one of my questions is about Greening of the Capitol, we have 

heard a lot of talk about that. Does that fit in to the core mission, 

or is that something that maybe is just outside the realm of the 

basic mission. 

Mr. STRODEL. Sir, that is, I believe, an example, whether you call 

it sustainability or Green the Capitol. I think there are cost efficiencies that can be made through looking at sustainability efforts. 

Whether it is in the House community or in the private sector, it 

is a way of doing business. 

But I think that, in analyzing the zero-based budget approach, 

does this program, project, or activity fit within the core mission, 

or has it a duplicative function with another entity in the House? 

The way I see it, going forward, it is the Architect of the Capitol 

that has had a sustainability program in place for years. Our 

Greening of the Capitol made, perhaps, enhancements as it relates 

to specifically the House community, and we worked in partnership 

with the AOC. 

However, I think the time has come, and I think to examine the 

process, we are going to see whether the duplication and/or core 

mission fits with the sustainability program. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Great. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Honda, do you have a question or two? 

COMPOSTABLE SERVICE WARE

Mr. HONDA. Let me start off with your comment here on the sustainability and duplication, things like that. I guess one subject 

matter was the switching of the materials we had in the cafeteria 

to Styrofoam. 

How does that fit in your equation? And how was that decision 

made? Can you just sort of—— 

Mr. STRODEL. Yes, sir, Mr. Honda. The serviceware issue, as it 

relates to the food service in the cafeterias and other House facilities are specific. As it relates to Styrofoam, I can elaborate on the 

greater connection to our sustainability program, but the 

serviceware was provided by the vendor, Restaurant Associates. 

They provide a range of serviceware options as a part of their package. 

The decision was made prior to me that compostable materials 

were preferred in the House community. The vendor said essentially, ‘‘Sure, we can provide compostable serviceware. However, 

there is a cost associated with that.’’ And the decision was made, 

at the time, to do so. The cost of the serviceware and the labor associated with it and the contract to haul it exceeded $600,000 in 

2008. In 2009 and 2010 it was slightly under $500,000 annually. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
324 

That money was offset against the gross receipts due to the House 

from the vendor. 

Let’s fast-forward to January of this year. One component of that 

program was the contract to haul the compostable materials from 

the House community which was separate from the Architect of the 

Capitol’s waste disposal program. The Restaurant Associates’ 

compostable serviceware provided had to be taken to a facility for 

composting. 

That contract expired in mid-January of this year. Since the contract related to the hauling of compostables, and we weren’t going 

to haul compostable materials, and we didn’t need to use a 

compostable facility. 

The cost-cutting measure was to look at the cost for these 

compostable serviceware options. And is there a more cost-effective 

way that would save money? And that decision was made. Restaurant Associates provided options, and the most cost-effective 

was their standard serviceware package, which is what we have 

today. 

Related to the part of your question about sustainability overall 

and where that fits, the Green the Capitol initiative incorporated 

many ideas that were cost savings, particularly in the area of IT 

support—that is, the movement of servers—to the Ford Data Center. I think the Architect of the Capitol would tell you that the 

House has saved money by consolidating servers, perhaps a significant amount of money. 

But there were certain programs that weren’t saving money. 

From work that the IG had done in looking at this very program, 

their determination was the cost benefit was not there. So, as it relates to the broader sustainability initiatives, this one didn’t appear 

to be fulfilling its promise. 

Mr. HONDA. So, briefly, bottom line, are we saving money because of this? 

Mr. STRODEL. Very briefly, yes. 

Mr. HONDA. And is the saving being passed on to our workers, 

the patrons? 

Mr. STRODEL. There has not been a change in price at the consumer end. The House is taking in more money on the contract. 

There is not a change in prices. 

Mr. HONDA. If you wouldn’t mind, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 

direct Mr. Strodel to have a written report on this issue and the 

cost savings and then an explanation of why we shouldn’t pass this 

on to our patrons and our workers rather than to the House. 

Let me ask quickly—— 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Honda, I am going to ask each of the other 

two witnesses to go ahead and make their opening statements, now 

that we are all here, and then we can ask individual questions. 

We have a lot to do today, so I am going to ask the Members to 

observe the 5-minute rule. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. But let’s go ahead and have Ms. Haas and then 

Mr. Livingood make their opening statements, and then we will 

continue the questions, if that is okay. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Ms. Haas. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
325 

FY2011 INITIATIVES

Ms. HAAS. Thank you. Good morning. 

As the newly reappointed Clerk of the House, I appreciate the 

continued support of the subcommittee. And I would like to briefly 

report on two initiatives that we undertook in our office over the 

last year. 

Thanks to the funding you provided, we successfully replaced the 

Member display boards on the electronic voting system. The new 

system uses LED technology, which is more dependable, ADA-compliant, has built-in redundancy, increased clarity and readability, 

and additional technological capabilities that can be explored in the 

future. This project was completed early and under-budget. 

The second initiative, HouseLive, is a Web-streaming service of 

the House floor proceedings that was launched last year. It provides increased access to the House community and to the general 

public of searchable video archives of the 111th Congress. We have 

enhanced HouseLive by adding a new video player, additional 

search capabilities, and the ability to view archived video on mobile 

devices. 

Over the next 2 months, we will be adding new video clip tools 

that will make it easier for Members to post videos to their Web 

sites and their Facebook pages. We will also be adding streaming 

video to mobile devices. 

As we move forward in 2012, the office of the Clerk expects to 

be very busy with increased committee activity, and, in addition, 

we expect to be integrally involved in advancing efforts to make 

House documents available electronically in a more open data format. 

FY2012 IDENTIFIED CUTS

I understand we are facing very difficult economic times, and I 

will work aggressively to meet these challenges. As we have been 

reviewing our operations over the last 4 months, there are clearly 

places that we can cut and efficiencies we can achieve. 

We have begun the process already by identifying approximately 

$2.8 million in additional reductions. The way we are going to approach those reductions, Mr. Chairman, is we have already identified current vacancies that we will not plan to fill; we have identified duplications within our organization and have already begun 

the reorganization process; and, finally, we have looked at all of 

our subscription services, both database and regular subscriptions, 

and we are beginning that process to consolidate some of those 

where we have some overlap there. So those are some of the additional areas we have looked at for savings. 

I want to thank the committee for your support, and I look forward to working with you. 

[The prepared statement of Karen L. Haas follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
326 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 751 here 65845C.035
327 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 752 here 65845C.036
328 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 753 here 65845C.037
329 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 754 here 65845C.038
330 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 755 here 65845C.039
331 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 756 here 65845C.040
332 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 757 here 65845C.041
333 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 758 here 65845C.042
334 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 759 here 65845C.043
335 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 760 here 65845C.044
336 

FY2011 COST CUTTING INITIATIVES

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Livingood, we will hear from you. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Honda, Mr. Price and Mr. Bishop and everyone. It is a pleasure for 

me to be here today to present our budget request for fiscal year 

2012. 

But before I start, briefly I would like to thank all of you for your 

assistance, because the assistance of the committees, this committee, really helps us provide a safer and more secure environment for Members, staff, visiting dignitaries and world leaders, and 

the thousands of visitors we have every day. 

As we recently underwent preparations for a potential government shutdown and made adjustments to our fiscal year 2011 

budget, I spent a considerable amount of time with staff looking at 

the entire Sergeant at Arms Office, its personnel and operations. 

As a result, I have implemented a freeze on future hires and continue to look for additional cost-savings measures. I will work with 

the committee and House leadership in accomplishing this task. 

INCRESASED COORDINATION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

The integration of the former Office of Emergency Preparedness 

into the Office of the Sergeant at Arms—and it is now called Office 

of Emergency Management—has brought far greater coordination 

to the House community overall emergency management effort. 

SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

I am pleased to report we are moving forward on a number of 

projects to improve occupant safety throughout the House complex. 

In particular, I would like to note the project to install emergency 

communications stations and closed-circuit television cameras in 

the stairwells of the House office buildings. That is on schedule to 

be completed by September of this year. 

This project will enable occupants of our House buildings to establish two-way communications with emergency responders should 

an evacuation route be blocked. It will also—the CCTV portion will 

allow the Capitol Police to monitor evacuations and more rapidly 

respond to resolve problems that might occur. Call boxes have also 

been installed at elevators for persons with accessibility needs. 

With the support and assistance of the Chief Administrative Officer, we have established a working group to reinvigorate efforts to 

integrate emergency notifications, such as the Roam Secure System 

already owned by the House. We are confident that this united effort will lead to an expanded and more integrated means of communicating emergency information in a very cost-effective means, 

because we already have the system. 

We are also engaged in discussions with other Capitol entities regarding the acquisition of a computerized modeling tool, with a 

view to requesting funding in future years. 

In closing, I would like to thank the committee once again for all 

that you do to help all of us. And let me assure you that my longstanding commitment is to provide the highest-quality support for 

the House of Representatives in the safest and most secure enviVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:05 Jul 13, 2011 Jkt 065845 PO 00000 Frm 00336 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A845P2.XXX A845P2

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
337 

ronment possible. It is my goal to remain vigilant and security-conscious, while continuing to maintain the fiscal responsibility expected by the House of Representatives. 

COST-SAVING EFFORTS

I am well aware and understand the climate that affects our 

country, the legislative branch, and the entire Federal community. 

Some of the cost-saving methods that we have been looking at and 

are going to institute: First of all, after the last CR, I implemented 

a hiring freeze and have not filled current vacancies and do not 

plan on that. Secondly, we do not plan on filling any future vacancies. We are going to look at the whole organization with the idea 

of, where can we reorganize to maintain maximum staff efficiency. 

We have reduced travel to support off-campus events. We have 

reduced other services, such as supplies, equipment, security contracts, and consultant services. And we are in the process of looking at potential door closings in every building, which will be a 

Capitol Police savings. 

Thank you for your assistance, cooperation, and guidance from 

all of you. 

[The prepared statement of Wilson Livingood follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
338 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 765 here 65845C.045
339 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 766 here 65845C.046
340 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 767 here 65845C.047
341 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 768 here 65845C.048
342 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 769 here 65845C.049
343 

WOUNDED WARRIORS PROGRAM

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank all of you for your testimony. 

We will continue now with questions and call on Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Let me ask two questions for Mr. Strodel. 

Mr. STRODEL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. As ranking member of the House Military Construction, Veterans Affairs Approps Subcommittee, I am very interested 

in the participation in the Wounded Warriors Program. 

Have you followed the careers of the 51 disabled participants in 

the House of Representatives Wounded Warriors Program since 

June of 2008? And how many of them have been able to transition 

into full-time civilian employment? And have any of those been offered employment by the House? 

Mr. STRODEL. Yes, sir. 

The question is about the Wounded Warrior Program. It was authorized in 2008 sir, at 50 positions. The administration of the program was assigned to the CAO, and we have a program manager, 

Patricia Orsini, who does a fantastic job. The elements of the program are a servicemember has to have less than 20 years of service, have a 30 percent service-connected disability, and have served 

post-September 11th. Participation has increased every year. 

And to your point about the follow-on, the intention of the program is a 2-year fellowship, with the idea of bringing these folks 

back into the workforce. We have placed 31 in Member offices and 

more are in the pipeline. Three individuals have gone on to be 

hired by a particular Member or Committee, so they are current 

House employees, no longer employed through the Wounded Warrior Program. 

Externally, I don’t have that data, regarding if they have moved 

on to other employment. I do know one or two have gone on to the 

Veterans Administration. But I can follow up with specifics on all 

of them. 

HOUSE FINANCIAL SYSTEM

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Thank you for that. 

Mr. Strodel, Member offices have long been frustrated about the 

length of time that it takes to get our purchase orders and our payment vouchers processed. I was pleased to hear that you have replaced your 15-year-old financial system with PeopleSoft, which 

promises to provide realtime updates on our orders and our voucher status. 

Could you tell the committee how many voucher transactions you 

process in a year and whether the number has increased over the 

last 5 years? And will the implementation of the PeopleSoft system 

necessitate additional staff, or will it reduce your staff requirements? 

Mr. STRODEL. The PeopleSoft system was several years in the 

implementation. It replaced a system called FFS, the Federal Financial System, which was a stopgap measure some 15 years ago. 

In moving toward state-of-the-art technology, there were several 

points along the way where it was delayed. But it did, sir, ‘‘go live’’, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
344 

on October 1 of last year. We are currently using PeopleSoft as the 

financial system for the House. 

It is an integrated system, so that other standalone systems can 

function through PeopleSoft. So whether it is inventory management or procurement, they all run through the same system, giving 

certain savings and efficiencies, reporting capabilities, and better 

internal controls. 

In terms of the number of vouchers since I have been in this position, I felt very, very strongly the frustration of Member offices. 

This subcommittee previously asked for a survey of the House community regarding our services, particularly in the areas of finance 

and voucher processing. One of the first actions taken was to meet 

with the financial points of contact in the Member offices, with a 

group called the Professional Administrative Managers, which your 

staff may serve on, and people whose job interacts with our organization. They were extremely frustrated, extremely frustrated. 

Additionally PeopleSoft has a transparency component. And what 

we hope to get to, Mr. Bishop, is a point where your office and 

other offices through the system, enter your own voucher and follow it along the process. We still pay it, but you control the submission and see how it flows through the process. 

That is where we hope to get to with PeopleSoft but we are not 

there yet. Currently, we do have a pilot program where offices can 

see where their financial data is in the process. However, they can’t 

enter it themselves yet. 

And that all sounds great, and there are going to be efficiencies, 

but the transition and the development of it needs to be methodical 

and programmatic to roll these out. So I am not suggesting that 

the current system is wonderful, but we are making incremental 

improvements. There is a long developmental process and we will 

work with the authorizing committee to make sure this is the direction we want to go. 

Getting to your point about numbers, I am so glad the CFO, 

Traci Beaubian, is here, because she can tell you the number of 

vouchers that are processed annually. It is in the thousands per 

week. 

Is that correct? About 250,000 vouchers annually. 

There will be efficiencies and less paperwork on both ends of 

processing. If that ultimately leads to the opportunity to streamline 

staffing, that would be a nice outcome. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, thank you. 

I don’t know, how is my time? 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I think it has expired. We will have time for 

some other rounds. 

Let’s go to Mr. Price. 

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to raise the issue of the pending House defense of 

the Defense of Marriage Act, a legal action that was voted on by 

the council of House leaders and which apparently is moving forward. 

And I guess, of the folks now sitting at the table, the Chief Administrative Officer would be the one to address, but if Mr. Kircher 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
345 

wants to chime in, I would be happy to have him join us at the 

table, as well. The General Counsel, is he here? 

Mr. KIRCHER. I am here. You want me to sit? 

Mr. PRICE. Yes. I am sure you will have something to say about 

this. 

Mr. STRODEL. He is much smarter than me. 

But I can say that, in terms of on the operational side, I have 

not received a request on this topic. 

Mr. PRICE. You have not received a request? There has been a 

vote taken by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, the group of 

five House leaders. And, as you know, well-publicized letters have 

been exchanged between the Speaker and the minority leader. 

Other Members, I am sure, will have questions about this. Let 

me just begin, though, with a question about the historical context 

of this decision. 

What kind of precedent is there for the House paying for litigation approved by the BLAG in previous Congresses? 

We are talking about substantial money here, maybe not as big legal endeavors go, but we are talking about $500,000 as the fee 

that has been apparently stated. That would be, of course, more 

than a third of the General Counsel’s budget. So we are talking 

about a substantial dedication of funds, either from this source or 

from some other. 

But my initial question has to do with the historical context. Is 

there precedent for this? Has this been done in the past? 

Mr. KIRCHER. I have been working in the General Counsel’s Office since 1995. There are two instances during that period of time 

in which my office has signed retainer agreements with outside 

counsel to provide legal representation to the House in one instance and advice to our office in another instance. 

In both of those instances, the General Counsel signed the retainer agreement with the outside lawyer. The agreement was approved by the chairman of the Committee on House Administration. And the funding to pay for those outside attorneys was provided from sources outside the General Counsel’s budget. 

So there were two instances, as I said, in the last 15 years. I am 

aware of one other, dating back to the early 1980s. You may be familiar with the Chadha case from the late 1970s, early 1980, which 

ended up in the Supreme Court. In the course of that, the House 

retained an outside attorney named Eugene Gressman, who, at the 

time, was a law professor at UNC, who represented the House in 

briefing in the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court. So that is a 

third precedent for this kind of arrangement. 

Mr. PRICE. Now, these precedents, do they involve the defense of 

statutes? How do they compare to the case we are talking about 

here, both in subject matter and in the cost involved? In other 

words, to what extent are these convincing precedents for the 

House undertaking this kind of legal action? 

And let me just also ask you, why private lawyers? Apparently, 

an attorney named Paul Clement has been retained. There has 

been a fee set of $500,000. Why a private lawyer? Why this fee? 

We are told that is a 25 percent discount; has that been reviewed 

by Ethics? How was that fee established? What kind of bidding 

went on? 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
346 

I am interested in the precedent, of course, but I am also interested in the terms of this agreement and how conventional it is. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Well, in terms of the numbers that were spent in 

the previous three instances that I described, I don’t have those 

numbers in hand. 

Obviously, the Chadha case was more than 30 years ago, so, you 

know, the absolute dollars simply wouldn’t compare. The Chadha 

case did involve the defense of a Federal statute that the Department of Justice declined to defend, which is directly analogous to 

the situation here. 

Another case in the late 1990s involved litigation over the census. The issue, at the time, was whether the Census Bureau could 

conduct—whether it was consistent with the Constitution for the 

Census Bureau to take surveys and to rely on surveys in order to 

come up with an enumeration of the population in time for the 

2000 redistricting. So that is a little bit different. 

The third instance is different in the sense that my office, at that 

time—the third instance involved fallout from the search warrant 

that was executed on Congressman Jefferson’s office in 2006. There 

were some efforts between my office, at the direction of the House, 

to negotiate some protocols with the Department of Justice pursuant to which warrants could be executed on the House consistent 

with the Constitution so as not to raise these kinds of issues. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. So it sounds like one of these precedents, 

one from decades ago, had something to do with defending a statute. 

Can you answer my other questions? Why the hiring of outside 

counsel? What kind of bidding process? How was this fee set? What 

is the story about the discount? And so forth. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Well, let me start with the discount notion. There 

isn’t a discount. If you take a look at the retainer, you will see it 

is actually a blended rate. That is simply a one dollar-per-hour rate 

for every lawyer who works on the contract. Some of those lawyers 

will normally bill at a rate below that hourly rate; some of the lawyers will normally bill at a rate above that hourly rate. It is a 

method to simplify the billing. Whether it will ultimately work out 

to the House’s advantage, in terms of savings, is—— 

Mr. PRICE. Excuse me. Doesn’t the contract state that the firm 

is assessing at 75 percent of the regular charges? 

Mr. KIRCHER. No. The 75 percent figure comes with respect to 

non-lawyer time. So that is essentially paralegal time and that sort 

of thing, which will be a very, very small fraction. 

Mr. PRICE. Okay, but a discount is a discount, right, in terms of 

the ethics rules? Or is it? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Well, my understanding of the ethics rules is that 

there is—if you view the 75 percent discount, which, as I said, is 

a very small fraction of the likely billings we are likely to receive, 

my understanding is that the ethics rules with respect to the defense or cases involving challenges to Federal statutes do not place 

a limit on pro bono assistance. 

So I think the fair reading of the ethics rule is that if you can 

take pro bono representation, which is zero, then you can take a 

discount. 

Mr. PRICE. And the Ethics Committee has confirmed that? 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
347 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Price, we have been pretty liberal. You can 

pursue that on your next round. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Just one final question. 

The Ethics Committee has confirmed this? 

Mr. KIRCHER. I do not believe there has been a committee signoff 

on that, an Ethics Committee signoff on that. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

IMPLEMENTING TRANSPARENCY

Mr. CRENSHAW. Ms. Haas, I know that the Speaker has made 

transparency a big issue, making the House more open. And I 

imagine you have a lot to do with implementing that. 

I wonder if you could just comment on what are your thoughts 

about that and what are you trying to do. Does that require additional resources? 

Ms. HAAS. Sure, absolutely. There are a couple areas that I could 

give you some examples of on transparency and some progress we 

are making so far this Congress. 

First, as you know, the House adopted a new rule this Congress 

making constitutionality statements a requirement when bills are 

introduced. As part of that rule, it also required that that information be made available electronically. As you know, we receive this 

information in paper form. So we worked together with the Library 

of Congress, the GPO, and our office to develop a system to make 

this information available electronically and also in a searchable 

format. 

I mentioned earlier in my testimony the HouseLive Web-casting. 

That is something that we are continuing to roll out improvements 

to. It will allow both the House community and the public community to receive the House proceedings on mobile devices. And we 

expect that upgrade to be rolled out in the next couple weeks. 

And then, finally, a project that I think we are going to be tasked 

with in the very near future is to develop a system for committees’ 

electronic documents to be made available in an open data format. 

And that is a project that the public has been very interested in 

because they want to receive this data in a format that they can 

use and that is very accessible. 

The HouseLive rollouts will require some additional resources. We have had some early estimates, about $75,000 or so. This third 

project on the electronic documents we think will be a significant 

project. We haven’t been tasked with it yet, but we expect to have 

it happen, and we have done some early estimates on that. Our 

early estimates are about $1.3 million. We assume that we will 

need to include a document management system, additional network capability and additional servers. 

So those are three examples of some things on the transparency 

side that we have either completed or are in the process of working 

on. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

INCREASED SECURITY

Mr. Livingood, along the same lines, in terms of increased resources, after the incident with Representative Giffords, there were 

a lot of Members who said, we might need more money in our office 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
348 

accounts to deal with security, et cetera. And you, at the time, it 

seems to me, came up with some really very commonsense solutions to some of those issues. 

And I know that you were working to establish a law enforcement coordination with the Members’ offices. And most of that was 

just thinking ahead and being smart and not costing a whole lot 

of money. 

Talk a little bit about how that is working out and what you 

have done there. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR PROGRAM

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Well, Mr. Chairman, when we came up with the 

idea of a law enforcement coordinator in the district offices, we 

were thinking that there are so many district offices in the House 

and that each Member needed in his or her district office a law enforcement coordinator who would go out to the police departments—and that means every police department in your area; that 

would be the local police, the county police, sheriff’s department, 

and the State police—and make contact with them at a higher level 

than just a patrolman or a trooper and be able to go to them when 

you have any security concerns. 

Plus, let them know when the Member is attending a public 

event. And then they would ask the police to go with them or ask 

the police to cover that event, but usually to go out and look at it 

with them first. And then request that they have a presence at 

that event, which the police would decide. And if they have a problem getting law enforcement presence, then they are to come back 

to the Capitol Police or to my office, and we will then start making 

calls ourselves. 

We, the Capitol Police Board—sent a letter to over 17,000 police 

agencies and asked for their cooperation in this effort. We did not 

hear a negative from anyone, but we heard over 50, 60 positives, 

that, ‘‘We will help you, don’t worry.’’ Several even said they are 

going to start a dignitary protection division in their department. 

So far, it has worked out very well. We are just finishing getting 

an LEC in every district office. There are a few offices that have 

not yet furnished us with a name, but we sent something out again 

this week asking them to please send us their name. 

And we have information on our Web site, intranet, for every office, district office, about security and what to do with the LECs, 

what to do to help the Member when there is a public event. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. So that is all working out, it sounds like, pretty 

well. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. So far, so good, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. That is good to hear. Thank you. 

Mr. Honda. 

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me get back to—I was going to ask, initially, a question on 

the Defense of Marriage Act, and then I would like to follow up on 

Mr. Price’s line of questioning. 

You said there were precedents before, three. In those days, did 

they have the Antideficiency Act in place at that time? 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
349 

Mr. KIRCHER. I believe the Antideficiency Act has been around 

since the middle of the 19th century, so, yes, I believe so. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. And the Antideficiency Act says what? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Not committing unappropriated funds? Is that 

what you are referring to? 

Mr. HONDA. Well, whatever the act says. 

Mr. KIRCHER. All right. 

Mr. HONDA. That is what it says? Cannot appropriate or spend 

money that you don’t have or that has not been allocated? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Something to that effect, yes. 

Mr. HONDA. Or spend money outside of the account area. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Well, I don’t have the act in front of me, so you 

are putting me at a little bit of a disadvantage. But I can certainly 

get access to it if you want me to discuss the act, itself, in detail 

with you. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. So, basically, it is about not spending money 

that you don’t have or you haven’t budgeted for, it seems to me, 

that is not within our account area. 

And what I understand is that there has been a price tag of 

$500,000 that is out there. Has that been committed in a contract? 

Mr. KIRCHER. The contract, as you may be aware, puts a cap on 

the spending. It puts a cap on the—— 

Mr. HONDA. So it is, you do not go beyond this amount of money. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HONDA. And this is with a private firm, outside firm. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Yes, it is with the firm of Bancroft PLLC. 

Mr. HONDA. For paralegals, we will be charged 75 percent of a 

standard charge of a paralegal. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA. And then I thought I heard you say that we would 

be charged a dollar per hour per lawyer. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Yes, $520. 

Mr. HONDA. I am sorry? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Five hundred and twenty dollars per lawyer hour. 

Mr. HONDA. Oh, I thought you said a dollar per hour. 

Mr. KIRCHER. No, no, no. I wish it was a dollar per hour. No, it 

is $520 per hour. 

Mr. HONDA. I didn’t hear the amount. 

Mr. KIRCHER. I am sorry, I am sorry. I meant a particular dollar 

amount per lawyer per hour. 

Mr. HONDA. Is that a discount? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Well, I don’t think it is a discount, Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. What does our legal counsel get per hour, more or 

less? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Oh, you are talking about me? It would be a figure 

below that amount. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. And so, having said all that, talking about 

precedents and costs, in order to effect the contract, is there not a 

process of approval where the Senate and the President’s office has 

a say in doing this? Or is that just in transfer of funds from one 

account to another? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Are you asking me how this particular contract 

will be paid? I am not sure I—— 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
350 

Mr. HONDA. No. I am asking how we effect a contract such as 

that with outside counsel using money that we don’t have. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Well, I understand that we do have—the House 

does have funds. 

Mr. HONDA. Where is it coming from? 

Mr. KIRCHER. My understanding is it is being reprogrammed 

from other sources in the House. 

Mr. HONDA. Reprogrammed by whom? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Well, by the appropriators. The Speaker’s office obviously will be involved in that process. 

Mr. HONDA. So it hasn’t happened yet. 

Mr. KIRCHER. I don’t know, Mr. Honda, whether it has happened 

or not. 

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Strodel, you say you haven’t received a request. 

Does a request have to go to you first before you effect a contract? 

Mr. STRODEL. At some point along the way, it would come to my 

office to be effected. 

Mr. HONDA. So, as of now, you don’t know what is going on? 

Mr. STRODEL. I do not have a request. 

Mr. HONDA. You don’t know what is going on. 

Mr. STRODEL. That is correct, I do not. 

Mr. HONDA. So you won’t even know whether it is coming out of 

your funds or not. 

Five hundred thousand dollars, I think it was said, is about 35 

percent of your budget, correct? 

Mr. KIRCHER. It is not coming out of the budget of the Office of 

the General Counsel. 

Mr. HONDA. Oh. 

Mr. KIRCHER. It is being reprogrammed from other sources. 

Whether it will be—— 

Mr. HONDA. Are you part of that negotiations or what? 

Mr. KIRCHER. No. I told you that I have been informed that that 

is what will happen. 

Mr. HONDA. Have you asked, where is it coming from? 

Mr. KIRCHER. No. 

Mr. HONDA. Is anybody curious? How is this being done? Does 

anybody know? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Well, I assume the appropriators know, I assume 

the Speaker’s office knows. It is possible that the Committee on 

House Administration also knows. I would think those would be 

the principal people involved in effecting the reprogramming—— 

Mr. HONDA. The contract has already been signed. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Correct. 

Mr. HONDA. How do you sign a contract without prior permission? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Permission of? I was directed by the leadership of 

the House to do this. It was approved by the chairman of the Committee on House Administration. 

Mr. HONDA. Is that the process? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Well, that was the process that was followed here. 

Mr. HONDA. Is that the legal process? 

Mr. KIRCHER. I am not aware that there is anything illegal or 

improper about that process. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
351 

Mr. HONDA. The Antideficiency Act says you can’t spend money 

you don’t have. You are not spending it out of your budget. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Uh-huh. 

Mr. HONDA. And, therefore—but you signed it knowing full well 

that it is not going to come out of your budget. Where is it coming 

from, and how can you sign something prior to—you know, with all 

those things in place? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Because, as I indicated, I was advised by the leadership of the House that the money would be reprogrammed and 

would be available to pay the contract. 

Mr. HONDA. Was that in writing? 

Mr. KIRCHER. No. 

Mr. HONDA. How do you know that is—how would I know that 

that is the way it is going to be? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Well, you are asking me. I am telling you what I 

understand. You are certainly welcome to confer with the Speaker’s 

office. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Mr. Bishop, it is your turn. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

MEMBER SECURITY

I would like to return to Mr. Livingood and ask him about the 

issue of security for Members and Member offices. 

Obviously, with the tension that developed around the healthcare debates and then the Giffords incident earlier this year, you 

developed a very thoughtful policy to have liaisons in each of our 

district offices, as well as in the Washington offices, for security, 

and to have them reach out to the local police organizations. 

You made recommendations for the physical security of our offices as well. In fact, I think ADT was contracted by the Sergeant 

at Arms Office to provide a security assessment for each of our individual district offices. There was, I understand, some problem 

with the reports that were coming back initially. These security assessments will require funds to do a number of physical alterations 

to the district offices. 

Given the shortage of funds and one reduction in our MRAs, is 

there a precedent—As to how the Senate handles providing security modifications to Member offices as compared to what we do in 

the House? 

Also, is there a recommendation that this committee could make 

in terms of providing for the added cost of security, given the fiscal 

constraints that we are under today? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. If I may. Just to give you a basis historically, we 

started years ago. Members were asking for security, physical security in their district offices. We then got with the police, the committees, this committee and the Committee on House Administration and figured out we would send somebody from the Capitol Police, and they would do a survey. Then that office—would send it 

back. The Capitol Police physical securities section would approve 

it, so there wasn’t some wild idea that was way over cost than 

needed. We would go back to the office and give their approval 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
352 

through the Committee on House Administration. That worked out 

well for years. 

Then, with a large influx of new Members, the Capitol Police 

were overwhelmed because there are only several teams that go 

out. And we didn’t want to wait 4 or 5 years, or 3 years to have 

it done. So Capitol Police came up with the idea from the Senate 

of the possibility of using as under contract, ADT, who was already 

under contract to the Leg—or not the Leg Branch, but to the Capitol Complex for the Senate. And we talked to some others and 

found out that ADT appeared to be the best or could handle. 

So we notified offices out that ADT is available. We also offered 

offices the option to use a local contractor if they don’t want to use 

ADT. That did not change. 

ADT got overwhelmed with a large number at once. We have had 

several meetings, particularly in the last 2 weeks. Since that, I 

have not heard any complaints. It seems to have been ironed out. 

My understanding is that it does come out of the MRA. And does 

the Senate do it differently? I have been told. I do not have confirmation. I am not exactly sure how, but that somehow the Senate 

pays for that. I don’t know if they have an MRA or if there is another way. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am talking about the physical security. For example, in our offices, the recommendation from your team was that 

we needed to have some doors installed and some cameras installed 

and position the doors in a certain way, which required physical alteration of the facilities, the buildings. 

And it is my understanding that the Senate has for a number of 

years provided each Senator’s office, through the—I guess—your 

counterpart on the Senate side is who? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. That is what I understand, that it—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Who is your counterpart—— 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. The Senate Sergeant of Arms—— 

Mr. BISHOP. The Senate Sergeant of Arms has a fund from which 

the Senate Sergeant of Arms can provide physical alterations for 

security purposes to Senate Member offices. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. That is what I was alluding to. There is—I 

haven’t followed up with them on how they do it or what they do 

or how much, because I know they have 100, and we have quite 

a bit more. And so far, at least until the period when ADT got behind, it had been working. I realize that everyone is concerned 

about the MRAs, but that is an area that is not in my expertise. 

Mr. BISHOP. What I am trying to understand is that on the Senate side, each Senator has an allocation for their physical offices in 

their respective States. Therefore, if alterations have to be made 

for security purposes, the Senate Sergeant of Arms—from that security fund—is able to make the necessary modifications and oversee that work such that it doesn’t have to come out of the Members’ 

allowance. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. That appears to be. I do not have the full story 

because I haven’t asked it. But it appears to be that the Sergeant 

of Arms of the Senate has a fund that he approves that I guess is 

a Senate fund. I don’t know where it comes from or how or what. 

Mr. BISHOP. Obviously, it has to be appropriated by Congress. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. By the Senate. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
353 

Mr. BISHOP. But there has got to be lighting. There has got to 

be wiring. There has got to be doors installed. There has got to be 

windows and bulletproof glass. 

It seems that if there were an allocation of X amount per Member district office that was put into your account for security, don’t 

you think that would assist Members and their staffs and their 

constituents in providing better security than we have now but at 

a reasonable cost? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. I will say, first, on the—on some of those major 

renovations, what we go back to the office and tell them, like doors 

moving and doing certain things that are more permanent fixtures, 

we tell them to talk to the building manager or whoever you signed 

your lease with and try to ask them to do it and include that in 

your rent. That is working with the CAO’s office. We discussed 

that. 

And as far as having a fund in our office, I cannot answer that. 

It would be a large, large number. And it still comes from the 

House Appropriations Committee. And to administrate that, quite 

frankly, on my part with a small office would be a large task. But 

it would alleviate possibly what you have been talking about having to use the MRA; there would be another way. But again I don’t 

have any answer to that because that is really not my area of expertise. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

I think you raise an interesting point. And I think a lot of this, 

when we stop and think that there are risks involved, it makes us 

all think about what kind of office space we are leasing, because 

I know it has come to mind to a lot of Members, you realize that 

there is maybe a better place to have an office or a more secure 

place. I think it is very legitimate to talk about it because I think 

it is all beginning to come to light. So thank you for that. Let us 

go now to Mr. Price. 

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me return to our line of questioning about the defense of the 

Defense of Marriage Act, first a loose end from my questions and 

then an additional question raised by the answers of the general 

counsel to Mr. Honda. But just quickly, can you fill us in on what 

kind of bidding process, if any, was utilized to choose counsel in 

this case? Did you or anyone else administer a search or a bidding 

procedure? 

Mr. KIRCHER. I wouldn’t call it a bidding procedure. We did talk 

with another law firm that had been identified as a possible candidate for this job. And we talked with those two firms, Mr. 

Clement’s original firm, King & Spalding and another firm. 

Mr. PRICE. So you did think about it and confer, but you did not 

do anything as formal as issuing a notice or receiving bids? 

Mr. KIRCHER. No. 

Mr. PRICE. Is that standard practice? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Well, I have given you the instances in which I 

know of that the House has done this, as I said, within the past 

15 years that I have been here. And in both of those instances, the 

House went out and identified the lawyers that it thought could do 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
354 

the job. Lawyers are different than widgets. There are lawyers with 

particular expertise. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, bidding processes, of course, take that into account. You are not bound to hire unqualified people. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Right. I will say what happened here is consistent 

with what happened in those other two instances I identified, 

which is we went and we looked for lawyers that we thought could 

do the job and had the expertise to handle it. 

Mr. PRICE. There was no public notice that this position was 

available? 

Mr. KIRCHER. No. 

Mr. PRICE. This was simply a private internal process to your office? 

Mr. KIRCHER. That is fair. Well, I should say not just to our office. Obviously, the Speaker’s Office and the leadership offices were 

involved as well. 

Mr. PRICE. But it was not a public process? 

Mr. KIRCHER. No, it was not a public process. 

Mr. PRICE. I am puzzled by your answer about the Antideficiency 

Act and by where this money is coming from. If I heard you correctly, you suggested that a reprogramming request would be forthcoming for a transfer of funds within the legislative branch. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Yes. 

Mr. PRICE. That is not my understanding of the Speaker’s intent. 

Perhaps you can correct me or perhaps there has been a change. 

I am quoting here from an April 18 letter from the Speaker to leader Pelosi and here is what he says quite straightforwardly: ‘‘Obviously, the Department of Justice’s decision [i.e., the decision not to 

defend this statute] results in DOJ no longer needing the funds it 

would have otherwise expended defending the constitutionality of 

DOMA. It is my intent that those funds be diverted to the House 

for reimbursement of any costs incurred by and associated with the 

House and not DOJ defending DOMA.’’ 

And then he says again later in the letter, ‘‘I would welcome your 

joining me in support for redirecting these resources, those resources from the DOJ.’’ Now, that sounds like something rather different from the internal reprogramming you had described, and it 

certainly raises Antideficiency Act issues, doesn’t it? 

Mr. KIRCHER. I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t want to presume 

to speak for the Speaker here, but I think what he is probably referring to there is I think he used the word reimbursement; that 

is, the House obviously is going to have to pay the lawyers to get 

started on this thing. 

The work has already begun, obviously. The cases were in litigation at the time the Department of Justice pulled the plug on them. 

I think what he is probably referring to there is diverting money 

from the Department of Justice budget to the House to reimburse 

the House for the moneys that the House will have to reprogram 

in order to pay the lawyers on a going-forward basis. I suspect that 

is what he is referring to. But as I said, I would like not to be presuming to speak for the Speaker. 

Mr. PRICE. The ultimate source of the reimbursement is presum- ably $500,000 from the Department of Justice. Has any request 

been made of the Department of Justice for reimbursement? Has 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
355 

any appropriations proposal been made to reduce the appropriations by that amount or has any other public or private request 

gone forward that would effect such a transfer? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Are you talking about from the Department of Justice to the House? 

Mr. PRICE. That is what he is talking about here, yes. 

Mr. KIRCHER. I am not aware of that, and that is way beyond 

the scope of my responsibilities. I don’t know if that is going to 

happen. I assume if it was going to happen, it would happen in the 

course of the appropriations. 

Mr. PRICE. Whether it has happened or whether it will happen 

in the future or whether it is just a hypothetical, in the meantime, 

you will be spending the money, is that not correct? Your office will 

be spending the money. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Well, yes. 

Mr. PRICE. This is money that maybe somebody has an idea 

somewhere where it is going to come from, but it is certainly not 

in hand yet: Is that correct? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Well, no, I don’t think that is fair. Again, the answers I am giving you are based on my understanding that there 

has been money appropriated to the House for various resources 

and that some of that money will be reprogrammed so as to be 

available to pay the lawyers. Exactly where it will be reprogrammed from and to, I do not know. In other words, I don’t know 

whether it will end up in a fund with OGC at the top of it, the Office of General Counsel, or whether it will be in a fund with the 

Committee on House Administration at the top of it or the CAO at 

the top of it. I don’t know where the money will end up. But it is 

my understanding and I have been led to believe that the money 

will be available to pay the lawyer fees when they begin to send 

the bills. 

Mr. HONDA. Will the gentleman yield? 

ZERO-BASED BUDGETING

Mr. CRENSHAW. Your time has expired. Let us go for another 

round and you all can pursue that. Mr. Strodel, you mentioned in 

your testimony zero-based budgeting. That is a concept that has 

been around—it is a good way to exercise fiscal discipline, and I am 

just curious, how did that work as you approached your spending 

from that? Because that is something that probably other people 

could learn about. I am sure there are some difficulties involved. 

Please talk a little bit about how you went through that process 

trying to implement a zero-based budgeting process. 

Mr. STRODEL. Yes, sir. As you mentioned, it is a concept that has 

been around for some time. But it is one that has advantages in 

terms of fiscal discipline. Instead of taking last year’s request and 

adding a percentage, you start with zero and you justify your programs, projects and activities. For our organization, as we talked 

about earlier, there is a lot. It is a wide range of services. So it is 

an opportunity to revisit as well the efficacy of a particular program, project or activity. 

But it involves internal management, developing a team within 

each area that meets on a regular basis. There are milestones that 

they are trying to achieve to determine whether this particular proVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:05 Jul 13, 2011 Jkt 065845 PO 00000 Frm 00355 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A845P2.XXX A845P2

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
356 

gram, project or activity is still viable. It has added an additional 

management requirement internal to CAO, but it is well worth the 

exercise. And to the extent we can find efficiencies and savings, 

that is what we have to do. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Is that the way that you put together your budget this year? Did you actually go through that from a zero base? 

Mr. STRODEL. In a modified way, Mr. Chairman, because we 

were operating based on the CRs and the way the budget has 

evolved this year. So absolutely we are doing it for 2013, but we 

thought we could capture information related to 2012 as well. So 

we are moving at a more truncated pace than we would like to. 

However my intention going forward is to do so. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And you found that it does in fact help you weed 

out duplication, helps you streamline. It helps you understand, as 

you started out your testimony going back to those core issues as 

you start at the very beginning, it really helps you go back to the 

basics. Is that true? 

Mr. STRODEL. Yes, sir. Absolutely. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Did you find it more difficult than maybe the 

normal process of just taking last year’s budget? It probably involves a little more work I would imagine, but you would say it is 

worth the effort? 

Mr. STRODEL. Yes, I would and it does involve more work and 

the professionals that I work with within CAO, they are versatile; 

and enthusiastic about their jobs. They come here to work not as 

a job but for public service and they love working for the House of 

Representatives. There is an esprit de corps about how we do our 

job. So the approach has been in a positive way to look back and 

say, why do we do this? What is yielded from it? Is somebody else 

doing it? Is another element doing it? Can we find some duplication 

to reduce? So it is a management tool that is well worth it. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Would probably recommend it to other people? 

Even though it involves more work, it is a good exercise to go 

through from time to time, would you probably say? 

Mr. STRODEL. Yes. And I believe my counterparts are doing that 

as well. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Great. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Honda. 

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kircher, I am on the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee on Appropriations. You mentioned that the funds will be 

appropriated through that process, the funds for covering the contract with—— 

Mr. KIRCHER. I think what I said was—we are talking about 

moneys that have been appropriated for the House and are simply 

being reprogrammed for another purpose, something which I understand happens on a regular and ongoing basis in the House. 

Mr. HONDA. So reprogramming appropriations still has to take 

committee action or subcommittee action first, does it not? 

Mr. KIRCHER. I do not know how the reprogramming process 

works. I understand that it goes through the Appropriations Committee. I don’t know specifically how that process works. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
357 

Mr. HONDA. It would seem that it would be an appropriate pathway. I sit on the subcommittee, and maybe I missed it. But I 

haven’t—I don’t remember ever attending a subcommittee meeting 

on this item. So I would imagine that if that is the case, one, we 

would have been notified; two, if that is the intent, we should be 

notified so that we can have that debate; and, three, the contract 

was signed. Now, that is a legal document, and we are committed 

to it. And so someone is liable for that for $500,000. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA. It doesn’t seem like it is your office, although you 

signed it. 

Mr. KIRCHER. I did sign it. 

Mr. HONDA. And who else signed it? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Well, Mr. Clement signed it, obviously, and the 

chairman of the Committee of House Administration approved it. 

Mr. HONDA. They signed it? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Yes, Mr. Lungren signed it. 

Mr. HONDA. Did that take committee action also? 

Mr. KIRCHER. I do not know how the committee handled that. I 

do not know how CHA handled that process. 

Mr. HONDA. So the chair of the authorizing committee signed it 

along with yours and the—— 

Mr. KIRCHER. The attorney. 

Mr. HONDA. The attorney. 

Mr. KIRCHER. I have a copy of the retainer if you would like to 

see it. 

Mr. HONDA. That would be helpful. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Can I—— 

Mr. HONDA. No. I can get it later. And again, refreshing my 

memory, the CAO still doesn’t know what the process—where that 

process is right now? 

Mr. STRODEL. As far as I know, sir, our office, the CAO’s office 

has not received a request for reprogramming or other document. 

Mr. HONDA. Or has any knowledge of the proceedings that we 

just discussed? This is all new stuff? 

Mr. STRODEL. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. HONDA. It is new to me. I am just following—and trust me. 

It is uncomfortable for me to ask these kinds of questions. 

Mr. KIRCHER. It is quite alright. 

Mr. HONDA. But it is something that—— 

Mr. KIRCHER. I will do the best I can to answer them for you. 

Mr. HONDA. You are doing fine. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I don’t have any more questions. Mr. Honda do 

you have any further questions? 

SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM

Mr. HONDA. Well, getting back to sustainability—I would like to 

see the paperwork as far as the sustainability versus the amount 

of money that we saved. It seems to me that if we have been saving 

money, that funds should be passed on to the consumers, our staffers, our Members who patronize the cafeteria. 

I disagree that in terms of sustainability that transferring over 

to Styrofoam from compostables is the smart move in terms of the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
358 

larger picture. And so what I am hearing is that the extra cost 

comes from the hauling of compostables to another site and that is 

cost on top of hauling trash and garbage and wet garbage and everything else from our site to another site; is that correct? 

Mr. STRODEL. Yes, it is. And if I could elaborate a little bit, there 

are two costs associated with the compostable serviceware program: One is the serviceware itself that the vendor provided, which 

the cost they incurred reduced the payment to the House from 

their gross receipts. The other cost was for the hauling of the 

compostable serviceware. This was a contract between CAO and a 

specific hauler who would take it to a compostable facility, if that 

helps to clarify. The totals of those equalled a little over $650,000 

in 2008; and in 2009 and 2010, somewhere between $450,000 and 

$500,000. Those were the specifics related to the programs. The Architect has the larger campus-wide responsibility for recycling and 

trash removal; and their hauling was not to a compostable facility. 

But that is where a little bit of an overlap occurred in terms of 

what CAO was doing versus AOC. 

Mr. HONDA. Did folks get together to try to figure out how you 

bring these two activities together to reduce the cost? That is one. 

Two, by whose direction did we change this practice? Was it the 

negotiations or were they directed—did we just renegotiate another 

contract and say this is the way we want it and the contractors 

complied? 

Mr. STRODEL. If I understand it, the coordination of what the Architect does or has been doing versus this particular serviceware 

and the compostable program is separate. I don’t want to speak too 

much for them, but they have a campus-wide focus. They had contracts in place before this initiative and to this day. I believe they 

are working with this committee and House Administration on future opportunities to recycle or go to a waste energy type model. 

Within the House community itself, the decision was made in 2007 

to ask the vendor to provide compostable serviceware. 

It had to go to a compostable facility to effect its purpose. There 

was some discussion with AOC, and there is a partnership between 

our offices that focused on sustainability. But we were a smaller 

player in the larger campus decision making process. 

Mr. HONDA. Well, my question was, did we renegotiate it, and 

was it our action rather than the contract? Because it seems to me 

a contractor would be perfectly happy to keep it the way they were. 

So did we make that decision, or did they? 

Mr. STRODEL. Yes, we made that decision. The two components 

of the costs were the hauling of the compostable material and the 

serviceware. The hauling contract expired, and the question arose, 

in this budget environment, is there a better way to have 

serviceware in place that does not cost the House money. So that 

was a driver for the decision making, the end of the contract and 

then the budget environment. 

Mr. HONDA. The $500,000 or $400,000, that is over and above 

our normal charge? That is in addition because of that one particular activity? 

Mr. STRODEL. It was a cost that was incurred to do the 

compostable serviceware program. The fee received by the House 

was offset or reduced by using the compostable serviceware. Less 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
359 

money came into the House to operate the program. Based on an 

Inspector General report about the efficacy of this particular program, the concern was in the end, the energy savings wasn’t what 

was intended. 

Mr. HONDA. Energy savings to the Capitol? 

Mr. STRODEL. Yes, as an initiative of sustainability, this wasn’t 

cost-effective. 

Mr. HONDA. But sustainability and the greening were part of a 

larger carbon footprint, are we not, so it seems like maybe the Inspector General was very focused on his conclusions, and it would 

have been good to have a little bit more discussion on that. But 

this change was initiated by us, not by the contractor. Did we try 

to work with the contractor to renegotiate for them to absorb—in 

order for them to continue business with us? 

Mr. STRODEL. Yes, discussions took place with the vendor. There 

are many versions of serviceware with costs associated to them, 

from full compostability to standard serviceware, and, the most 

cost-effective is their standard serviceware, which is not an additional cost to the House. Therefore, a decision was made to use the 

standard vendor serviceware at no additional cost. 

Mr. HONDA. When is the contract up? 

Mr. STRODEL. The overall contract with Restaurant Associates as 

the current food service vendor is approximately 3.5 years into its 

first 7-year option. So it is a 21-year contract with three 7-year option periods. 

Mr. HONDA. You have to negotiate this every year? 

Mr. STRODEL. Pardon? 

Mr. HONDA. With the ability to renegotiate every year? 

Mr. STRODEL. No. It is a 7-year contract. Price changes are subject to consideration and may or may not happen. But the contract 

itself is not. 

Mr. HONDA. I suggest that we initiate that price change considering the savings that have been incurred and pass that on to our 

customers and let us make it known that we have done that on behalf of the consumers if that happens. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Honda. 

And thank you all for being here today. Thank you for the service that you and your colleagues provide to the House. 

This meeting stands in recess subject to call of the chair. 

[Additional questions submitted for the record by Ranking Member Honda follow:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
360 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 811 here 65845C.050
361 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 812 here 65845C.051
362 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 813 here 65845C.052
363 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 814 here 65845C.053
364 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 815 here 65845C.054
365 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 816 here 65845C.055
366 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 817 here 65845C.056
367 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 818 here 65845C.057
368 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 819 here 65845C.058
369 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 820 here 65845C.059
370 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 821 here 65845C.060
371 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 822 here 65845C.061

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
(373) 

THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 2011. 

U.S. CAPITOL POLICE 

WITNESS 

PHILLIP D. MORSE, SR., CHIEF OF POLICE, UNITED STATES CAPITOL 

POLICE 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ANDER CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Today we are going to hear testimony on the fiscal year 2012 budget request for the United States Capitol Police. 

I want to welcome Chief Phil Morse, the Chief of the Police, along 

with Chief Dan Nichols and Mr. Braddock, correct? 

Mr. BRADDOCK. Correct. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. The request this year is for $387.6 million. That 

is an increase of $47.5 million, or 14 percent, over the fiscal year 

2011, which is $340 million. I think everybody in the room knows 

that we are operating under some pretty difficult financial restraints. Our subcommittee has been given an allocation that is 

going to require that we spend $227 million less than we spent last 

year, which is about a 6.38 percent reduction. So these are tough 

times, and we are all going to have to go through this together. 

My philosophy, as I have said before, is to thoroughly review 

each and every item of the budgets that come before this subcommittee, and determine what we can afford and what we can’t 

afford, what we need and what we want. Sometimes those are 

tough decisions. And I think we all know that just spending more 

money doesn’t necessarily mean that we are going to be more secure. It doesn’t necessarily translate into better security. 

We are trying to balance fiscal responsibility and security, that 

is what we are trying to do, and that is why we are here today, 

to hear from you all. And I don’t think those objectives are mutually exclusive. So as we begin, I want everybody to keep in mind 

that we all know government needs money to provide services, but 

right now we are going through a difficult time as a Nation to say, 

we need something even more than money, we need some discipline 

to kind of rein in spending. We need courage as Members to make 

tough decisions, and I think we have got to make sure what we are 

trying to do is to make sure every agency that we deal with does 

everything they are supposed to do, and they do it more efficiently 

and more effectively than they have done it before. So that is what 

we are going to talk about this morning. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MR. HONDA

Mr. Honda, do you have something you would like to say? 

Mr. HONDA. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
374 

And I want to thank Chief Morse for your insight at the subcommittee we had last week. It was clear from that meeting that 

you have scrubbed your budget and anticipated tough budgetary 

constraints at that time. However, some of the fiscal year 2010 

budget mistakes by your Department left this subcommittee with 

a big hole to fill in fiscal years 2011 and beyond, which is why the 

Capitol Police was the only legislative branch agency to receive an 

increase in the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. 

The chairman and I came to Congress about the same time, in 

2001, 9 months before the September 11 terrorist attacks. And I 

agree with the chairman that security remains a priority, that we 

need to keep the officers on board to keep the visitors to the Capitol safe and keep it open to the public. With that said, there are 

limits to what the subcommittee can do without impacting other 

agencies, like the House itself, the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office. We cannot do our jobs 

without their contributions too. So I think a little bit more—I guess 

we will call it—putting a couple more holes in our belts is what 

will be needed by your agency to ensure that we have a balanced 

approach to funding the legislative branch. 

One of your core responsibilities to provide a safe and secure environment is the evacuation of the Capitol and the House and Senate Office Buildings. I am concerned that flaws remain and that 

adequate plans and systems are really not in place as of yet. 

Since joining the subcommittee, it has become apparent to me 

that one major issue is the lack of a singular point person. The 

House and Senate Sergeant at Arms are the point people for their 

respective bodies; however, most people look to the U.S. Capitol Police as the lead. So I need to know, where does the buck stop? And 

maybe you can help us today to figure out who is in charge. 

I look forward to your testimony, and I also want to set it up so 

that some of the questions that we will be asking will be about 

some systems that we want to have in place relative to moving our 

people through our buildings safely in a time of emergency, a time 

of evacuation. Perhaps that could be embedded in our 2012 budget 

impacts. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF PHILLIP D. MORSE

Mr. CRENSHAW. Chief, your statement will be submitted for the 

record. But if you would like to summarize that or make whatever 

remarks you would like to make, please, we look forward to hearing it. 

Chief MORSE. Well, first of all, I thank you for the opportunity 

to be here. It is an honor to be here today. I want to thank my 

Chief Administrative Officer Richard Braddock for the hard work 

he has done this year, as well as my Assistant Chief Dan Nichols, 

to my right, and the wonderful work he has done in our operations. 

I would also like to thank this committee for its unwavering support for the men and women of the United States Capitol Police. 

Specifically, I would like to express our appreciation to the committee and the Congress for providing the necessary salaries and 

general expenses funding for 2011 to support our personnel and 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
375 

our operations. The 2011 appropriation level has allowed the Department to address critical salary requirements as well as the 

radio modernization in the fiscal year 2011 budget. It has resulted 

in a reduction of those items from our 2012 budget request. 

As I continue, I would like to emphasize that the management 

team and I are keenly aware of the economic situation our Nation 

faces today. I understand the responsibility I have to submit a 

budget request that is not only accurate, but one that is reasonable 

and based not only on critical requirements necessary to mitigate 

and address threats and risks. The Department’s fiscal year 2012 

request, after adjusting for the fiscal year 2011 appropriation levels, totals $380 million and represents an overall increase of 12 

percent, or $40 million, over the fiscal year 2011 enacted-with-rescission funding level of $340 million. 

To operate within our current budget, we are currently carrying 

out our mission requirements with 1,775 of our 1,800 sworn positions, the utilization of overtime, a reduced civilian staffing level 

and with only limited training. We have received funding in 2011 

to increase our sworn levels to 1,800 as an authorized strength and 

to staff the total of 393 of our current civilian authorized strength. 

But this is partial-year funding for these positions, and we need to 

be annualized for 2012 in order to maintain this staffing level. 

Much of our overall increase allows the Department to operate 

at our current overall staffing level. With that in mind, our requested 2012 personnel costs support the current authorized staffing levels of 2,243 positions, as well as a request for three new civilian positions for the Office of Inspector General. We are requesting an overall increase for salaries of 8 percent over 2011 enacted 

funding levels with rescission. 

We have been very strategic in the hiring of civilian positions to 

best align our resources to our needs. In particular, we identified 

through a position review 22 existing vacant civilian positions for 

reallocation to meet additional mission requirements, such as the 

9 sworn officers needed for the security of the new Federal Office 

Building 8 and 13 civilian dispatcher positions needed for the 

Radio Project mirror site requirements. 

The Department’s current authorized sworn strength does not 

entirely provide the necessary resources to meet all our mission requirements. Mission requirements in excess of available personnel 

must be addressed through the use of overtime; identification of efficiencies, such as post realignment or reductions; technology; and 

cutbacks from the availability of our officers, such as a reduction 

in the number of hours provided for training. 

At current staffing levels, the Department’s fiscal year 2012 overtime projection includes support for the 2012 political conventions 

and pre-Inauguration security planning, support for Library of 

Congress nonreimbursable events, and overtime necessary to secure multiyear projects for the Dome skirt and utility tunnel 

projects. 

The second area of detail is an overall net increase in our requested general expense budget, which is an overall increase of 29 

percent over fiscal year 2011 levels. The majority of the increase 

request is for new initiatives to address identified threats and 

risks, and for support of 2012 political conventions and Presidential 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
376 

Inauguration planning. The increase in the request just for the normal annual needs of the Department, excluding these new initiatives and convention and pre-Inauguration support, is about 5 percent. 

Finally, with the direct assistance of the Capitol Police Board, 

who have provided advisors to assess financial management risks 

and provide recommended improvements, as well as the oversight 

and recommendations of the Inspector General, we have the foundation for sound fiscal practices to include sound budget formulation that we are actively implementing and we will continuously 

seek to improve upon. 

In particular, I am pleased to report that we have recently closed 

all eight audit findings related to the USCP Inspector General’s 

audit of the Department’s budget-formulation process. Further, we 

are working on a resolution of a number of our recommendations 

in order to achieve efficiency and effectiveness in our administrative programs. 

At this time I again would like to say I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Phillip Morse follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
377 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 910 65845D.001
378 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 911 65845D.002
379 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 912 65845D.003
380 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 913 65845D.004
381 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 914 65845D.005
382 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 915 65845D.006
383 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 916 65845D.007
384 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 917 65845D.008
385 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 918 65845D.009
386 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 919 65845D.010
387 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 920 65845D.011
388 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert graphic folio 921 65845D.012
389 

CAPITOL POLICE MISSION

Mr. CRENSHAW. We will try to observe the 5-minute rule as we 

go around. And let me start, we have had, I guess, two informal 

meetings, and I appreciate the time that you have taken to do that. 

I have to tell you, I have learned an awful lot, an enormous 

amount, about what you all do and how complicated it is. 

We have talked some about the efforts that you have made on 

the administrative side. We are all talking about being more efficient and doing more with less. And I have heard you talk about 

that. One thing that I have always wondered about is, when you 

look at the numbers, starting in 2003, the budget of the Capitol Police has gone up, I think, about 40 percent until now. When you 

took over in 2006, starting in 2007, it has gone up about 28 percent. So it has gone up every year. I don’t know the exact numbers. 

But part of that is when we talk, I always hear you talk about 

mission. I am curious because when we are trying to find cost savings—can you help me help the committee understand what the 

mission is? Does the mission change? I guess after 9/11, things 

changed a lot. But some of those increases year to year, are they 

driven by a change in a mission. Maybe you could talk about how 

you see the mission. And actually, does somebody set a mission? 

Help us understand that in this context of how we find cost savings. 

Chief MORSE. Well, in my 27 years here at the Capitol Police, I 

have seen significant change. Obviously I have seen significant 

change with not only the way the institution runs, but also in security, which has been the most significant. 

So when we talk about missions, we talk about the number of assignments associated with running security operations. So the access points for pedestrians, vehicle access points, garages, some of 

the basics, but we also have additional requirements that have 

come about because of the need for security enhancement. With the 

new barrier systems to prevent large vehicles from entering the 

complex, which are a risk, it takes people, it takes technology, and 

it takes physical barriers to do so. We have merged with the Library of Congress, so that is a mission increase for the police department. We opened the beautiful CVC, the Capitol Visitor Center, which is not only a welcoming center for the people around the 

world, but it also makes our complex safer. 

So those are some initiatives that have come about with regard 

to security to make the complex safer which have required the Capitol Police to increase the number of officers, increase the number 

of—the types of technology that we use, and as that grows, we continue to grow. 

What we have done with respect to mission instead of constantly 

asking for more is we have tried to be as efficient and effective as 

we can be with what we have, and I think the 2012 budget represents that. We have done a number of things to reduce the 

amount of money or cost to the taxpayers and at the same time 

make us more efficient. One is our vehicle fleet, something that did 

not have a life cycle replacement. We could never replace the fleet 

that we had over time, and we would have ended up having an outdated fleet that was inoperable, which would adversely affect our 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
390 

ability to control the campus or do other assignments. So with the 

help of the committee, we went to leasing with GSA, which saved 

a significant amount of money. It also enabled us to have a refreshed fleet and one that can be sustained over a period of time. 

In the 2012 budget, when we were asked to staff for security reasons the new Federal Office Building 8, which would require us 9 

new positions, instead of asking the committee to increase our police department, we scrubbed our civilian side and we said, these 

are positions that we no longer need. We took 9 of the 22 positions 

that we abolished and reallocated them to our sworn side to use 

them for security for the building. We are however asking for an 

increase in salary to pay for that, but we did not increase the size 

of our force. The remaining 13 we reallocated to use for the opening 

of our new radio modernization project, where we can staff civilian 

dispatchers. 

Those are things that we have done to show that we constantly 

scrub our programs. 

Another great example of that was we scrubbed a program that 

was very robust after the anthrax and ricin incidents. Based on the 

mitigation strategies and technologies that we were currently 

using, we saw that we could restructure that and meet the current 

needs while addressing new risks and saved 11 positions. We took 

those 11 positions and got rid of a very expensive alarm-monitoring 

contract, using our own employees now where we can supervise for 

better efficiency and effectiveness in response to alarms, and we 

looked at our DOL, our Department of Labor workers’ compensation list. We brought back officers who could not perform the functions of police officers anymore, but now could perform those civilian duties and responsibilities, which saved us money. 

So those are just a few of the things that we have done within 

our agency to show that we are not about having more, but we are 

also about scrubbing what we have and utilizing what we have. 

DEFINE THE MISSION

Mr. CRENSHAW. During the anthrax, is there some advisory 

board that helps you define your mission? Or does somebody say, 

now you have to go deal with anthrax; or, now that we are going 

to fix up the Dome, that is an expanded mission. Is that something 

that you all decide or some broader metamorphosis or change in 

your mission? 

Chief MORSE. Well, what we instituted when I became Chief was 

a business process for everything. We wanted to be able to come 

to the committee and justify and validate everything that we were 

doing. So we instituted a business development, a force development process for the agency that is built on the risks that we face. 

So our budget is directly toward mitigating risk. 

Now so what we would do is we do an environmental assessment, 

what is the intelligence, what are the threats that we face, what 

are the current operations, what are the gaps, and we look at each 

one of our bureaus, and we scrub the programs to see if they meet 

that requirement. If we don’t need them anymore, or if we need 

something new, we put those business cases forward, we review 

them within our organization, we prioritize them. And then we 

prioritize them in our budget, and then we turn to our Capitol PoVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:05 Jul 13, 2011 Jkt 065845 PO 00000 Frm 00390 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A845P2.XXX A845P2

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
391 

lice Board who support us in what we do, and we make final decisions with respect to what is most needed within the budget restraints. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. And if you had less money you would have to reexamine your mission. You could always say if we didn’t have as 

much money, we couldn’t do our mission. But that is something, 

that could be driven financially, as you say, in terms of priorities. 

If you have less money, you have got to go back and look, just like 

you assess them 1 through 10, what is more important than the 

other, and that would go into your consideration. If, for instance, 

there wasn’t enough money to do everything you would want to do, 

you would have to say, as much as we would like to do that, we 

can’t. 

Chief MORSE. That is correct. And the 2012 budget reflects that. 

With our new initiatives we believe those are our highest priorities. 

Those are the things that make us run most efficiently and effectively and the one that mitigates the most risk. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I have got it. Thank you. 

Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

BOTTOM-UP INPUT ABOUT CHANGES

Along that line, I guess we talk about mission, mission statements and objectives that we set up. All these things should be observed, and we have to evaluate those. So if that is the case, then 

when we ask that you add a couple more holes in your belt and 

tighten up your trimming of the budget, I think that we Members 

need to know for all those bucks that we don’t have, that we are 

cutting back on, what is it that we are not going to get? People like 

to know what kind of a bang do we get for the buck. We are asking 

you to trim the budget. It is going to impact your mission statement, your mission, your objectives and things like that. 

We talk about being more efficient and move folks around and 

reconfigure how people are going to be moving around, and that is 

going to take some coordination with your own staff, the line staff 

and everybody else. Do you get feedback from the line staff in 

terms of, ‘‘this is what we have to do, folks?’’ Do you have any ideas 

to bring forward to share with us so that we can sort of reflect 

what it is that we need to do in a more efficient way, but it is coming from everybody, but not just from the top downward? 

ROLE OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD DURING CHANGES

And then the Board, I would like to know where the Board sits 

on effecting those plans, coordinating our two houses, whether they 

are—perhaps we need to have a private discussion on this, but 

whether our barriers are—how this can be improved, because every 

once in a while I get frustrated about the coordination or lack of 

coordination or cooperation. But that concerns me. 

ADDRESSING LINES IN THE BUILDINGS

One of the things that constantly keeps coming up—and all of us 

bear some responsibility—it comes from staff, visitors, and Members alike—that the lines into the House office buildings and the 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
392 

Capitol, it is constantly a source of irritation and things like that. 

But this subcommittee has gotten reports from your agency and the 

Sergeant at Arms, and we have talked about the problem at hearings, yet the lines seem to remain. On the good side, the CVC 

lines—trees are being planted to provide shade for those who are 

lined up during the hot days, and that is good. But I constantly get 

concern about the elderly and the babies who stand out in the line 

for too long in the sun. And this may sound silly, but have we ever 

thought about setting up these little misting black tubes, setting 

out the spray so that it reduces the temperature by 10 degrees? 

Those don’t have to be on constantly, but just—and since this occurs all the time, and we get comments from Members, some of us 

don’t want to wait in line, some of us don’t want our staff to wait 

in line, yet you have a duty to perform. So we put you in a Catch– 

22. That is not fair. 

But I would like to know whether you have a practice of taking 

a census of each point that appears to have some problems, a census of when these things happen; do you have a need to have more 

information from Members when we say we will have 20 folks coming through to our office rather than to CVC? Does that information come through? Is there sufficient time? Do you coordinate with 

the CVC in terms of knowing what groups would come through the 

building? Because they have a format where people have to register, preregister what they are going to do, blah, blah, blah. Information sharing so that you have real-time information so you can 

anticipate different surges of—do you know when lobbyists come? 

Lobby groups, special-interest groups come in droves. And it is 

their right, and it is their responsibility, and it is their obligation 

to come. Yet our system is not set up so we can take care of them 

in a timely manner. 

TSA had terrible line problems before, but they have sort of 

worked out over time how to move people through the lines, but it 

is still not perfect because we have put them through 

magnetometers. Are there other ways to coordinate so that you can 

move staffers, officers to the most high points and increase your 

staffing so you can move people through while other points are not 

affected? 

So it may require a lot of communication, a lot of planning, 

preplanning to do that, but it seems to me that that kind of planning, census taking, getting information from different groups, including Members, because if we want to be able to do certain 

things, then we have a responsibility to share information in a 

timely manner so that we can move our people through, too. So I 

want to make sure that we partner with you and not constantly— 

a point in time that irritated a lot of that will have to be shared 

responsibility. So I would be interested in what your thoughts are 

and if you think that this is going to be a necessary step in order 

to have a plan that is going to be responsive, because our airports 

have more staff at Easter, Christmas and all those points where 

people know they will travel. I think we should be able to do that 

ourselves, too. 

Chief MORSE. All right. On the first item, with respect to input 

from—at all levels, part of our business process is inclusiveness. So 

everything that we do involves input at the lowest levels and is deVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:05 Jul 13, 2011 Jkt 065845 PO 00000 Frm 00392 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A845P2.XXX A845P2

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
393 

veloped all the way up through the chain of command until it gets 

into a business case development and then, as reviewed by the 

higher levels of the police department, are then prioritized. 

Mr. HONDA. Let me interrupt you for a second. If I talk to the 

officers on line, they will say, yeah, we do. Okay. And they are 

pretty honest. But if they say, we do, but it is through our stewards or through our representative supervisor, that is not really 

enough because it is not coming right down to the line staff that 

experiences it on a daily basis. That refinement I would like to 

know. I hear what you are saying. 

Chief MORSE. Well, there are certain projects. For instance, we 

will actually pull line officers off. But the chain of command is a 

way to have direct interaction between our sergeants and the officers if there are any problems or issues that can be pushed up 

through the chain of command. But there are projects in which we 

utilize them. 

Mr. HONDA. This is not about affecting a crime. It is about creating a plan and getting input from the bottom up. 

Chief MORSE. Yes, sir. With respect to Board input, when it 

comes to security, the Capitol Police and the Capitol Police Board, 

who has oversight with respect to security, will review and assess 

the information that is provided and make the determination based 

on what we believe is most important to the safety and security of 

the campus, with the current or emerging threats that we know of. 

Mr. HONDA. Is that meeting run by agenda? 

Chief MORSE. Yes. Capitol Police Board meetings are run by 

agenda. 

Mr. HONDA. Minutes are taken? 

Chief MORSE. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA. Is it public? 

Chief MORSE. No, sir. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. 

Chief MORSE. The lines in the buildings—and Mr. Crenshaw 

talked about mission—the lines at buildings are related to mission 

requirements because we work with them. We use as much efficiency as we possibly can. Lines come and go. So we try to staff 

them at the level that we can sustain a healthy flow of people 

throughout the day without exceeding an extraordinary amount of 

overtime. So we don’t have enough officers to staff every single 

magnetometer post at every single building all the time, nor is it 

always necessary. 

Mr. HONDA. Sir, if I may. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. You may want to let Mr. Calvert ask a couple 

questions. 

Mr. HONDA. Just on that point quickly, and then I will wait for 

the rest to get a response later. 

I am not asking that you have staff you can additionally put on. 

It is not at every point you have security that you need full staffing. 

Chief MORSE. Right. 

Mr. HONDA. So to be able to know where pressures are, move 

staff through the day to that. 

Chief MORSE. We do that. Yes, sir. We have a response plan, a 

screening response plan, for each one of our buildings that includes 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
394 

our supervisors, who will respond to doors if they are overwhelmed 

and staff all the posts in order to alleviate the lines. 

Mr. HONDA. It is not respond; respond anticipatory or respond 

when things happen? 

Chief MORSE. It is responsive to when it happens. We get a 

heavy line, we respond to it and try to clear it. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Mr. Calvert. 

POLICE FUNDING

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Chief Morse, thank you for taking the time to be here 

today. I commend you and the men and women of the U.S. Capitol 

Police, for your dedicated service. For us here in the Congress, the 

Library of Congress, obviously, the staff, and the millions of visitors we have here every year, you do a commendable job and secure 

and protect the Congress and the Capitol complex, which allows us 

here in the United States Congress to be the most open, accessible, 

and productive legislators in the world. And you are certainly partially responsible for that. So thank you. 

Unfortunately, as Chairman Crenshaw has pointed out many 

times, and many other chairmen of various committees, as we go 

through this appropriation process here in 2012, we have a funding 

issue. It is obvious to everyone in the country and the world, we 

are in a difficult economic environment. It is Congress’ responsibility, and specifically this committee’s responsibility, to make hard 

decisions and to exercise spending discipline across the Federal 

Government so that we can reclaim some fiscal order. And that includes our own activities here in the legislative branch, and, by extension, the Capitol Police is a significant part of that budget. I 

don’t know what percentage of your budget is personnel. Approximately—what is it? I am curious. 

Chief MORSE. About 80 percent. 

Mr. CALVERT. About 80 percent. 

Your fiscal year 2012 budget request states that the Department 

used a force development process during your fiscal year 2012 

budget process. Some of your fellow legislative branch agencies, as 

you probably are aware, are using a zero-based budgeting process 

where the agency starts from a zero base on all program projects 

and activities. It analyzes for its needs and rebuilds that budgeting 

process every year. I used to do that in my business life. 

I know that security is a different world, and certainly the government is a different world, but have you considered using a similar budgeting process as you go through this process—I know it is 

a very complicated process of putting together your budget. 

Chief MORSE. Yes, sir. We used a zero-base for our budget. The 

force development piece is to ensure that our budget is in direct 

line with the threats that are out there. So in other words, we are 

not asking for the want; it is more the need to address the current 

threats. 

So our budget is zero-based. We start at zero, and we build. We 

either develop new initiatives, or we scrub new initiatives through 

our environmental assessment, which is threat-based, to determine 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
395 

if the resources that we have are what we still need, or do we need 

to make it more efficient, or do we need a new piece of technology 

to take the place of people, or are we missing any gaps in security? 

So we use zero-base. Our force development is to keep us on track 

with a threat-based budget. 

COORDINATION WITH OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

Mr. CALVERT. Okay. One thing that I am curious about as you 

go through your budgeting process and try to determine how to 

maintain the best security within the parameters that the budget 

will allow, there are probably more police or security here in Washington, D.C., than in any city in America. We have the Capitol Police, we have the D.C. Police, we have the Secret Service, and on 

and on. What kind of coordination or force flexibility, I would call 

it, is there between these various security forces that you can use 

that help to optimize the efficiencies of all these various security 

forces? It seems, you know, you take certain areas of D.C., they are 

practically tripping over each other, and you wonder what kind of 

coordination is taking place between these various agencies and 

various folks that we can optimize them efficiently to use the personnel that we have efficiently without having to continually add 

more people for more missions. Is there communications with these 

folks? 

Chief MORSE. Yes, sir. There are actually several means of communication that we have with the multiple agencies here in the 

District of Columbia. As an example, we have liaison officers in 

most of the primary jurisdictions within the Washington, D.C., area 

to include intelligence services. So that is one way that we stay 

connected within their agencies. And another way that we do it is 

we have agencies who are with us within our command center on 

a daily basis so there is no overlap in mission requirements. If 

there are assets and resources that we can share, we, in fact, do, 

and often do with respect to motorcades, demonstrations and large 

events. 

Mr. CALVERT. The point I am getting at, of course, is there a way 

to save on your personnel costs? Especially on your overtime costs, 

as we are looking at that, it is a significant number. I guess there 

is no predicting when you need to use overtime. But whether or not 

you can utilize other operations that are taking place, other folks 

that are in security operations nearby to help out, to help become 

more efficient, because I have seen and you have or you see a Park 

Police officer passing a Capitol Police officer or, others, and you 

wonder if there is any kind of real coordination. Is it just folks 

doing their job? 

Chief MORSE. For our specific mission, there is no cross-utilization, but there are events, demonstrations, and activities in the city 

where we do cross-utilize, which saves each of us resources. And 

many times an agency will have a resource that we may not have 

or vice versa, and that is always communicated, and that is always 

utilized. And it works very well. 

Like I said, we have people embedded in those organizations. 

They are with us. So that communication is pretty quick and pretty 

rapid response if needed. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
396 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Chairman. 

SAFETY IN DISTRICT OFFICES

Chief Morse, let me just say that I commend the Capitol Police 

for your work around the clock to ensure that the Capitol complex 

as well as the House and Senate office buildings are safe and secure. You have a tough job, and I commend you for your efforts at 

doing that. 

A longstanding concern of mine has been the safety and security 

of our district offices and staff. Of course, that was heightened by 

the recent incident involving our colleague Gabby Giffords. Now it 

is obvious that it is more vital that we put into place the necessary 

security measures to make sure that we have an appropriate balance between having our constituents have access to us and having 

security for them as well as ourselves and our staff. 

It seems, however, that the resources that are necessary to make 

that happen are not being appropriately put in place for the physical security for our district offices, for example. Like everybody 

else, we are having to tighten our belts in terms of fiscal needs. 

But at the same time, some priorities I would think would have to 

be established. Just as you are having to ask for additional funds 

because of your mission requirements, it would appear that as part 

of your duties in protecting us in conjunction with the Sergeant at 

Arms, that we will have to have some additional resources in order 

to have security for ourselves and our constituents. 

Do you recommend that we need to have additional resources so 

that we can improve the physical security of our offices? I know it 

is a real challenge, but don’t you think that the Congress as an institution needs to address that issue more closely? Should we be 

asking each Member to pony up out of their Member’s representation allowance, or should there be some institutional security funds 

available for protecting Members and their constituents and staff? 

Chief MORSE. Well, first I want to say that the Members of Congress and their staff are very important to us, whether they are 

here on the Capitol campus or whether they are away from here. 

And I think that we—especially since the tragic incident in Arizona—have done everything that we can possibly do as an agency 

to assist you and your staff with means to safeguard yourselves 

and your offices. 

We are continuing to develop ideas and things for you to safeguard yourselves. And I think the House Sergeant at Arms here on 

the House side—and not to speak as if he is not in the room. He 

is right behind us here—but Mr. Livingood has spent an extraordinary amount of time and hard work in ensuring that the information is provided to your staff and district offices and that communication is there to achieve success and safety. So with the law 

enforcement coordinator program, with the ability to send someone 

very quickly to do an assessment of your district office, and then 

whether that meets your needs or not, it was a rapid response to 

do so. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
397 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate that very much. I think that the assessment was timely, and it needed to be done. But now that we have 

gotten the assessment reports, invariably they require the expenditure of funds to put in place many of the security measures. Many 

of them don’t require money, they just require good practices. But 

some of them will require erecting physical barriers and other 

things like lighting that will require funding. 

Chief MORSE. My approach to that, being in the fiscal environment that we are, would be very similar to how the police department and the Capitol Police Board for the safety and security of 

the campus has to weigh what is the highest priority. In order to 

do a thorough assessment of your office, the list will be excessive, 

and our list is excessive, too. But because we can minimize the risk 

significantly with only one or two, we don’t have to do everything. 

We would all like to be able to do everything, but we simply can’t. 

So to be more helpful to you, and I think to be more helpful to 

the district offices, as a part of our assessment or review of those 

assessments, to perhaps give you a priority: If you had 20 items, 

which would be the most effective and efficient without draining 

your fiscal resources. So erecting a fence may be a wonderful idea 

around your district office, but there may be some less expensive, 

more quality safety and security things that we could do with your 

district office that wouldn’t cost as much. So we would be happy 

to offer that as an agency to help prioritize those things. 

Mr. BISHOP. I recently received an assessment for my offices, and 

after some period of consternation with ADT, we did get a good recommendation from the Capitol Police, who actually came down and 

did the assessment. They did prioritize it as well. But even the 

number one and the number two priorities often will require expenditures of money when our budgets have been restricted 5 percent as a result of the fiscal constraints that we are under. 

Should there be a separate legislative branch line item for security for Members and their constituents that is separate and apart 

from the Member’s representation allowance? In other words, based 

upon recommendations by your professional staff and the Sergeant 

at Arms, should there be a fund—a minimal fund, of course—that 

should be available to upgrade security, such as lighting required 

in district offices or erecting barriers or doors or window glass in 

district offices that could be paid for as a security measure as opposed to our MRA? 

I would just really like to get some insight and some suggestions 

from you, because I think that as an institution, we have got to 

grab this issue and deal with it because of the reality in which we 

live. 

I will save my additional questions for the next round. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. So many things were pointed out with those assessments, that pointed to just our sense of common sense about 

where we locate. I know in our office, we have had that kind of assessment, and it probably makes us think that there are some office spaces more secure than other office space. And I think we all 

have to take that into consideration. Rather than if we all went out 

and leased the least secure space, and then somehow expected 

somebody to come in and fix it all up, it would make more sense 

to say, let us go find a place that may be more secure to start with. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
398 

And I think we will all start thinking about that, that maybe we 

didn’t think about that before this year. 

NEW INITIATIVES

Let me ask a question, Chief. When we have these informal conversations, we talked about some new initiatives that are somewhere between $12- and $14 million. Mr. Honda was here. If you 

had to absorb those new initiatives and you didn’t have any additional revenue—how would that impact what you do? 

And I would like to even take that one step further and say, if 

last year you got $340 million, and you ended up with, just hypothetically—3 percent less, which is about $10 million, you would 

have that much less money. And when you talked about zero-based 

budgeting, tell us about how you would go through that. If you had 

$10 million less next year than you had last year, as you kind of 

plan how you are going to spend that money, how would that impact you? And what would be some of the considerations you have 

made? 

I know you have talked, again, informally about some of the 

things you all have done from an administrative side. You all have 

certainly addressed this whole cost containment and cost effectiveness. But tell the subcommittee what impact would that have? It 

would probably impact your mission. But go through that, if you 

had absorbed some of the new initiatives that you had asked for, 

but also you had less money than you had last year. 

Chief MORSE. Well, doing the zero-based budgeting and keeping 

the budget strictly threat-based, a risk-based budget, it makes it 

very, very tight with respect to when you make cuts and how that 

adversely affects security. So when we look at what types of savings would be derived from making cuts, they can be significant, 

but they adversely affect security. So we can defer, for instance, life 

cycle replacement costs, but what happens is you continuously 

defer that, eventually you don’t have a piece of equipment that is 

operable. You don’t have a piece of equipment to repair it. You 

don’t have a contractor to repair it. Or you have to take it off line. 

Then that adversely affects accessibility to the buildings, and it adversely affects security. It also sets you up for a long-term larger 

amount of money, which is something we have tried to avoid. And 

that is why when I became Chief, we looked at everything that 

wasn’t on a life cycle plan. We looked at vehicles. We looked at 

technology. We looked at vests, our ballistic vests, and motorcycles, 

uniforms, all those things; and we got them into a life cycle plan 

so that we would not have to come and ask for large amounts of 

money to replace them in our budgets, so that we would incur 

these costs over a period of time. 

So when you cut that deep into the budget, the way we have it 

designed now, zero-based and threat-based, when you cut that 

much, you are cutting people, which actually increases the amount 

of overtime, because if you don’t change your mission, you don’t reduce your mission, and you cut people, the overtime bill just keeps 

growing. Or you have to cut physical securities or technologies 

which are also adverse to security. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
399 

So it is very significant. That amount of cut is very, very significant to our budget. It is not to say we can’t do it, but there are 

significant impacts that come with that. 

With respect to the new initiatives, we look at these new initiatives as some of which belong to us solely. For instance, the 

Maximo system upgrade. That is an upgrade to our asset management system. Now, that helps us alleviate an audit finding, a 

weakness within our agency. But that Maximo could also be used 

or integrated by other legislative branch agencies. So there is an 

overall cost savings to the legislative branch. But with respect to 

our agency, that is something that we would forgo. A travel management system is a solution to an audit item based on a weakness 

within our agency. That is something we could forgo. 

When you look at Dome skirt, you look at utility tunnels, these 

are necessary restorations that just cannot—they must happen. 

The infrastructure has degraded to a point or the facilities have degraded to a point where they need to be repaired. But when we get 

to that point, they also require security. So that is something that 

we absolutely need to be able to do. And then when you look at garage security, that is a vulnerability. That is risk-based and something that is very necessary. 

And then when you look at creating new missions, I guess we all 

have to be cognizant of that. Every time that we create something 

new—and this is not to be critical of any of the decisions, because 

certainly they were good decisions, but when you have mergers, 

when you have openings of facilities, when you have continuous 

openings to new facilities, the agency will grow. And any time we 

grow, that has a tail to it, and that tail could be facilities, it could 

be people, overtime, salaries, general expenses, and all that has to 

be weighed in whenever we grow. 

So when you talk about cuts, we have to cut that mission, and 

that would be one of the first things I would do is cut mission. And 

now that we know what mission is, that means door closures, that 

means access points for vehicles, that means changing the way that 

we do business on the Hill. And we are here to try to facilitate that 

business and make it as orderly and easy as possible for the Congress and the visitors. But security versus mission load, we would 

cut mission first, not security. I hope that answers the question. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I think that is very helpful. And I think we all 

recognize, security, it is hard to ever be 100 percent secure. We 

have talked about that before in all kind of different ways. Even 

now on the floor, we are doing Homeland Security, so we are dealing with the security of America. And we are doing things differently. There is always the possibility that we are not as secure 

as we wish we were. And I appreciate you thinking that through 

and trying to find some balance, because there is this sense of fiscal responsibility on the one hand that there is only so much 

money, but on the other hand we want to be secure. 

But, I guess it is relative in the sense of just how secure we can 

be. And as long as you are thinking that through in terms of what 

the mission is, then that is helpful. But you recognize, like we do, 

that these are times when we don’t have the luxury of doing all the 

things that we might like to do, and we have got to find some balance in there. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
400 

Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 

EVACUATION PLANS

In my opening comments I talked about security also. And in 

terms of life safety for our visitors, our staff and our Members, ambulatory and those who are physically challenged, handicapped, I 

have been trying for a few years now to understand and have a 

master plan, for lack of a better word, evacuation. But I think it 

is more than just evacuation, because to have a plan for evacuation, you have to know who is where, how many, what buildings, 

and have all that data present and be able to watch that in real 

time and be able to communicate not two ways, but multiple ways 

in real time so that folks who are responsible for buildings and everything else like that will have immediate information. 

So is there a plan for that kind of data and knowledge and function to have the security of knowing who is coming through, and 

having that number, and understanding in times of evacuation, 

know how to move people from floor to floor, from exit to exit, and 

move them in an efficient way in real time? Is there a master plan 

to do that? Is there a cost to that? And is there a timeline for which 

you are looking at making sure that these things come into place? 

And then who decides on the evacuation protocol, what would it 

look like? Who decides that? We have you, the Sergeants of the 

House and the Senate, the Architect. There doesn’t seem to be a 

point of ultimate responsibility unless it is this committee. If it is 

this committee, then I sure want to know the answer more quickly. 

But, you know, who is ultimately responsible for that kind of planning and response? And is there ultimately a master plan that has 

been developed and designed that will do that? 

Chief MORSE. Okay. With respect to who is in charge, the Capitol 

Police and the Capitol Police Board, with their emergency management agencies. 

Mr. HONDA. They are ultimately responsible then? 

Chief MORSE. I think so. I think we are both. You know, me 

being an ex officio member of the Board, the Capitol Police Board, 

with their entities of emergency management. We work collectively 

together to ensure that we have evacuation plans, and that those 

evacuation plans and other safeguards are communicated and 

trained within the Capitol community. 

Mr. HONDA. So they are the ones asking for this and ultimately 

get it and have that master plan for the movement of people in and 

out of our buildings and for evacuation. 

Chief MORSE. Well, I think the plan that we have is one that we 

have collectively. 

With respect to technology, we have looked at technology. We 

have looked at a way to integrate that into our—if you will, our 

manual plan. And you know, we could certainly let you see that 

and, you know, the costs associated with that and how it would be 

integrated. But right now we emphasize the training to our congressional community, our police officers, and we practice that. And 

that is where we are right now. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
401 

I don’t think we have a master plan then. I respectfully disagree, 

because, one, it doesn’t feel like there is someone ultimately responsible for coming up with the costs, ultimately responsible for 

coming up with the plan. We may have two Houses, and the responsibility is dissipated in a Board or in this committee. 

So I would like, if it is a closed-session type of a meeting that 

we need to have because of security, I think that that is something 

that we should have, because every year we become more and more 

not lax, but, you know, vulnerable in thinking that every year we 

are getting by without major incidents. I want to make sure that 

we are providing sufficient resources for that to happen. And I 

guess I am just asking what does that plan look like and what is 

it going to cost, outside of what the budget that you have, because 

if we know, if an incident happened and we don’t pay for it, then 

it is our problem. 

Chief MORSE. I would be happy in a closed session to show you 

what that is and give you the costs associated with it. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you. 

Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And having this discussion makes me more appreciative of the 

job that you have, the challenges that you have, and the challenge 

we have, based on the resources that we are dealing with. 

And the discussion was about our district offices. I had an assessment like everyone else, and went through the priorities, and 

made some commonsense decisions. It didn’t cost a lot of money, 

but I think it significantly improved the security of our district office and just the way we operate, using common sense and going 

into public forums and utilizing the local police. And I think in 

most of our districts, our local police forces are very receptive to the 

fact that—and to accommodate Members of Congress if they are in 

a large venue to provide security. And so we prioritize. 

And I guess I come back here to Washington, D.C. and you are 

in the same dilemma. You would like to create perfection, but there 

is no way to create that perfection. If we double your budget, you 

are still not going to create perfection. 

USING TECHNOLOGY TO BENEFIT THE CAPITOL POLICE

We are in, as you know, a couple of wars in the world. I serve 

on the Defense Appropriations committee with the chairman, and 

we see these challenges that we have. And unfortunately, that 

enemy that we are fighting is here also in the United States, and 

you have to secure yourself against the potential terrorist attack 

and the rest. And so you have a challenge. 

But we need to make sure that we use our personnel as efficiently as possible, because that is where most of your money is. 

And technology is a wonderful thing nowadays. You know, you go 

to a Las Vegas casino, and they are probably one of the most secure venues in the world today. Or you go to Disneyland, and you 

don’t think of an amusement park having significant security, but 

you have probably one of the most secure areas in the world in Disney World in Florida. If you look at the security operations there, 

it is just phenomenal, because they are concerned in many respects 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
402 

with exactly what you are concerned about, millions of visitors, and 

they have limited amount of resources that are out there in business to make a profit, but yet they cannot tolerate anything because that affects their business plan. 

So I wonder if you get outside help on technology, people that advise, say, those types of operations that handle millions and millions of visitors. They have limited resources because it is based 

upon how much profit they can derive. They have to put together 

a certain amount of money aside for security operations, but, yet, 

there is a concern, as we are, if any of their customers are killed 

or injured, that can destroy their business. So they are trying to 

get as close to perfection as they can, based upon the budgets that 

they are allocated. 

And I guess that is what the chairman is asking you. I mean, 

I know it is a challenging job, but, you know, many of us know a 

lot of these people that are involved in these business communities, 

and you may know them also, and in many respects, just out of 

their patriotic duty, may volunteer to come over and tell you what 

they do with technology today. It is absolutely amazing what they 

are doing in some of these venues. It is just striking technology. 

So I just put that on the table. And maybe you are already doing 

that. But certainly that is a way to save on personnel costs is to 

stay up with the technology that is available out there and be able 

to look at large groups of people, identify individuals that are suspicious or carrying things they shouldn’t be carrying. And if anyplace should be on top of technology, it is us. And it can certainly 

save you, I think, on personnel costs, especially in the garages and 

things like that. When you are talking about technology, cameras 

are cheap nowadays, one-tenth of the cost they were 10 years ago. 

So I would just put that on the table and hope you are looking at 

that and ways to save money in the long term. 

Chief MORSE. Yeah, if I could, I would like to highlight just one 

of those examples where technology, and finding technology, a different way to do something, has—will benefit our police department. And with the help of the committee, we were able to be funded and complete the project at the end of this fiscal year, and that 

is our truck interdiction and monitoring program, where technology 

with cameras and the ability to control intersections will allow us 

to reduce the number of people and the number of vehicles that we 

have for our diversionary and warning systems for deployment of 

our barrier systems. So it is a great example of reaching out for 

technology and another security model and bringing it here and 

safeguarding the campus and at the same time reducing the number of people, vehicles, which equates to gas and maintenance and 

purchases and all the general expenses. So we are very happy 

about that. We are also very appreciative of the committee’s support with that project. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Bishop. 

STATUS OF RACE AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS

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

Chief Morse, I understand that the Capitol Police has been and 

currently is the subject of allegations of racial discrimination and 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
403 

gender discrimination, and that there have been some complaints 

of reprisals, hostile work environment, and denials of promotions 

in the upper ranks. Of course, I am, along with a number of Members, very concerned about these allegations. 

In 2001, the Blackmon-Malloy case versus the Capitol Police 

Board involved 250 African American officers who filed a lawsuit 

alleging discrimination. Just recently, 50 African American officers 

filed a complaint in April of this year with the Office of Compliance. It is my understanding that that complaint is still pending. 

In 2008, the Inspector General pointed out in his assessment 

that the agency lacked a formal diversity program or an equal employment opportunity function. The IG highlighted that the same 

office that represents the Department in defending the EEO complaints also determines whether or not the complaint has legal 

merit once that complaint is filed and reviewed. The IG also recommended separating those two functions back in February 2010. 

The Department responded by hiring a diversity officer, Mr. 

Marcus Williams, whose job really was to try to eliminate the barriers to workforce diversity. Less than a year later Mr. Williams resigned, stating that the Capitol Police were not committed to abiding by a meaningful diversity program. The Department says that 

he left to pursue other opportunities. My understanding, however, 

is that there has been no replacement for Mr. Williams, and there 

is no diversity officer. 

Can you tell me what the status is in resolving these complaints? 

I understand some of them were settled, but what the status is of 

the most recently filed 50 complaints and what the status is of replacing Mr. Marcus Williams as the diversity officer? 

Chief MORSE. Sure. First of all, as Chief of Police for the United 

States Capitol Police, I don’t tolerate discrimination, harassment, 

retaliation at all, nor do our policies reflect that. And we are holding true to that. 

With respect to the diversity officer, we have an entry date of 

July 5 for our new diversity officer. 

Mr. BISHOP. You have hired one? 

Chief MORSE. Yes, sir. And may I also add, you know, that the 

idea of a diversity officer was one that we created and are leading 

the forefront in as an agency here in the legislative branch, so we 

believe that we should have a program where people can vet their 

concerns and where we can review and validate everything that we 

are doing to make sure that it is fair and equitable. 

And the Chief of Operations has led us in this effort on the operations side to do exactly that. We look at every selection process 

that we have. The Chief Administrative Officer looks at every selection process that we have. We have outside vendors who validate 

and justify these processes to make sure they are fair and equitable. Our promotional processes are done with an outside vendor, 

one who ensures fairness and equitability. 

Mr. BISHOP. How is that reflected through transparency? What 

were the specific qualities of that person’s background that made 

them suited for the position of diversity officer? Have you already 

named the person? 

Chief MORSE. I haven’t publicly named it yet. We are waiting on 

the entry date. But I think for us, and for me, the person who— 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
404 

the ultimate decision in hiring her was not only the education, 

background and experience, but her passion for helping organizations ensure that, you know, there is transparency and that perception issues are addressed. And her passion had to be one that was 

consistent with my passion, and it is. And to show that we are sincere about this, I thought it was important for her to work directly 

with me and out of my office to show a partnership and to ensure 

that people know that we are serious about our programs, we are 

serious about equality and fairness, and that we don’t tolerate discrimination, harassment or retaliation. 

Mr. BISHOP. Are there any goals? Because I noted that in 2007, 

which was the last year for which statistics were available, that 

14.3 percent of the Department’s executive-level positions were 

filled with minorities. Governmentwide that number was 16.6 percent. In 2002, no minorities were in the developmental pool, but I 

noticed that there was some improvement in 2007 so that 22 percent of the positions were filled by minorities. 

You have made some progress, but I am very interested in having some kind of reporting to this committee, as well as to have 

some demonstration of transparency so that the progress can be 

documented, because I think it is something that, under the Compliance Act, the Congress is obligated to comply with all of the 

EEO laws. I think that we ought to, as you suggest, be a model. 

We ought to be the drum major in implementing diversity and 

equal opportunity. And certainly you, as law enforcement, I think, 

would be stellar in leading that effort on our part. So we look forward to your continued work on that and some positive reports. 

Mr. NICHOLS. If I could just clarify a point. 

Mr. Williams is a consummate professional, and we were lucky 

to have him in our agency. He had a career opportunity to advance 

his career outside of this agency and took it. The remark that you 

referred to was attributed to him. It was not a quote by him, and 

I think it is important that we make that distinction. Thank you. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. I have got some questions I will submit for the 

record. But I don’t have any more at this time. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Honda, do you have any more questions? 

BICYCLE THEFT IN THE GARAGES

Mr. HONDA. Yes. A couple of quick ones, and then I will submit 

the rest of them for the record and response in writing. More recently, I understand there has been some complaints about thefts 

of bicycles in our garages, and it is a question in my mind is if we 

have officers at points of access, ingress, egress—I probably know 

the answer to my question—how is it that these bikes are being 

stolen from the garages? 

And some of the folks would like to take their bikes, with their 

Member’s permission, into their office. So some Members are able 

to do that because they are Members. But if the Members are willing to have the staff do that, is there a problem with that? And 

what is the policy on that? Or is that a recent phenomenon that 

you are looking at in terms of resolving it? 

Chief MORSE. Well, first of all, I think that statistically this is 

not a persistent problem, and this was a spike for a short period 

of time. And our investigators are working very hard to identify a 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
405 

suspect in these particular thefts. But what I can say is that I don’t 

know the particulars of each case, but in one example the bike 

wasn’t even locked. But also, I know as a person who has worked 

the street that bike locks can be easily defeated and very 

stealthfully defeated. 

But I think that Capitol Hill is very safe for people to bring their 

bikes, enjoy their bikes and place them here. And I can tell you 

that if you are a thief, we will eventually catch up with you, and 

we will prosecute you. 

I remember most recently we had within the last year a theft 

from an auto situation that was ongoing, and we identified a suspect, and we arrested a suspect, and that person has been recently 

incarcerated for a long time. But I can also say that he probably 

should have been incarcerated when we caught him because of his 

history. 

So we work very hard to close these cases, and whenever we see 

a spike like this, our investigators take a very hard look at it, and 

we try to close them very quickly. 

Mr. HONDA. Are garages by floors covered by cameras? 

Chief MORSE. In some cases the bike racks would be within camera view, but that is not the primary goal of the systems, which 

are to focus on the access point itself. So unless the bike rack or 

the bike or whatever property is being taken is in that camera 

zone, then it wouldn’t be seen, obviously. But the focus of the cameras are stationary at the access points. 

Mr. HONDA. Like doors to the building and beside the garage? 

Chief MORSE. Right. 

Mr. HONDA. The racks can be placed in those areas? 

Chief MORSE. If they could be placed in those areas, which is, 

you know, an architect’s question, or a facilities question, then, you 

know, that might certainly be one way to see someone take something. But I don’t know that—personally know that there is a camera watching them all the time. 

Mr. HONDA. Well, I would hope that there would be a recommendation. 

By the way, for the record, I support Mr. Bishop’s concern about 

pursuing of diversity and making sure concerns that he has are addressed also. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Bishop. 

PRIORITIES

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

I don’t have a specific question. I just want to make a sort of a 

closing statement to you. You have requested $387,600,000 for fiscal year 2012, which is an increase of 13.9 percent over the enacted 

level for fiscal year 2011. You have a tremendous challenge that 

you are faced with, and as we look at our fiscal challenges, we have 

to establish some priorities. I believe that the safety and security 

of the people in and around the Capitol—the people that you are 

obligated by mission to serve and protect—ought to be of the highest priority. I think that your increase is a very modest request. I 

think it reflects fiscal realities, but I think it is something that we 

ought to support. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
406 

I don’t know if ultimately we can or we will, but my view of it 

is that your function and your mission area is of the highest priority not because Members of Congress are here, but because the 

people who come to meet with and to interact with Members of 

Congress and people who come just to see their Capitol deserve it. 

I think that in a free society, in a democracy, that we ought to have 

the security that allows them to do just that. I therefore would advocate very strongly for the amounts that you are requesting in the 

budget, even though I personally don’t think it is sufficient to discharge the mission that you have on your shoulders. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, thanks to the Members. And thank you all 

for being here today for your testimony. I think we all have a better understanding of just how difficult and complex the job that 

you all face every day. But we thank you very much for what you 

do. 

The committee now stands in recess subject to the call of the 

chair. 

[Questions submitted for the record by Chairman Crenshaw follow:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
407 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 964 here 65845D.013
408 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 965 here 65845D.014
409 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 966 here 65845D.015
410 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 967 here 65845D.016
411 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 968 here 65845D.017
412 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 969 here 65845D.018
413 

[Questions submitted for the record by Ranking Member Honda 

follow:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
414 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 971 here 65845D.019
415 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 972 here 65845D.020
416 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 973 here 65845D.021
417 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 974 here 65845D.022
418 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1Insert offset folio 975/1050 here 65845D.023
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Ayers, S. T ................................................................................................................ 93 

Billington, J. H ........................................................................................................ 1 

Boarman, W. J ......................................................................................................... 145 

Clark, Darryl ............................................................................................................ 237 

Dizard, Robert, Jr .................................................................................................... 1 

Dodaro, G. L ............................................................................................................. 55 

Elmendorf, Doug ...................................................................................................... 179 

Haas, K. L ................................................................................................................ 285 

La Due Lake, Ronald ............................................................................................... 213 

Livingood, Wilson ‘‘Bill’’ .......................................................................................... 285 

Marcum, Deanna ..................................................................................................... 1 

Morse, P. D., Sr ........................................................................................................ 373 

Pare ́, J. G., Jr ........................................................................................................... 201 

Roth, Dennis ............................................................................................................. 259 

Schniderman, Saul .................................................................................................. 227 

Schuman, Daniel ...................................................................................................... 245 

Strodel, D. J ............................................................................................................. 285 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
(iii) 

I N D E X 

Library of Congress 

Page 

Asian Division of the Library of Congress ............................................................. 10 

Centralized Versus Dispersed Budget Function ................................................... 16 

Chinese Collections .................................................................................................. 11 

Closing Remarks ...................................................................................................... 22 

Collection Development Efforts in China .............................................................. 11 

Congress as Greatest Patron of the Library .......................................................... 3 

Constrained Budget Requests ................................................................................. 4 

Copyright Costs and Revenues ............................................................................... 16 

CRS Funding Request ............................................................................................. 12 

Cutting Funding for Core Services ......................................................................... 5 

Cuts at Other Libraries ........................................................................................... 14 

Essentials Versus Non-Essentials .......................................................................... 9 

Explosion in Publishing ........................................................................................... 15 

Federal Research Division ...................................................................................... 16 

Fiscal Challenges ..................................................................................................... 4 

Flat Budget Versus Reduction ................................................................................ 14 

Ft. Meade, Module 5 ................................................................................................ 5 

Impact of Cutting Subscription Services ............................................................... 13 

Information Sharing by the Library ...................................................................... 21 

Innovative Infrastructure in the Information Age ................................................ 5 

Investing in Information ......................................................................................... 13 

IT Security Request ................................................................................................. 17 

Japanese Collections ................................................................................................ 11 

Library’s Budget Request ........................................................................................ 12 

Library of Congress Caucus .................................................................................... 21 

Mandatory Pay for Library Staff ............................................................................ 12 

Mandatory Within-Grade Increases ....................................................................... 12 

New Russian Library System ................................................................................. 19 

Open Source Intelligence Repository ..................................................................... 14 

Opening Remarks: 

Chairman Crenshaw ........................................................................................ 1 

Mr. Honda ......................................................................................................... 2 

Opening Statement of the Librarian of Congress ................................................. 3 

Open World Alumni Network ................................................................................. 18 

Open World Leadership Program ........................................................................... 17 

Pacific Rim Asia Representation in the Collections .............................................. 11 

Partnering with the Government Printing Office ................................................. 20 

Personnel as Substantial Component of Library Budget ..................................... 10 

Preservation of Digital Content .............................................................................. 22 

Preservation of Original Content ........................................................................... 21 

Promoting Congressional Awareness of the Library of Congress ........................ 19 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
Page

iv 

Questions for the Record: 

Chairman Crenshaw ........................................................................................ 39 

Mr. Honda ......................................................................................................... 43 

Mr. Price ............................................................................................................ 47 

Mr. Bishop ......................................................................................................... 50 

Questions for the Record from the Chairman: 

Congressional Mandates .................................................................................. 40 

CRS’ Research Expertise .................................................................................. 41 

Pay Increases .................................................................................................... 39 

Universal Collection Duplication ..................................................................... 39 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Bishop: 

Digital Talking Book Program ........................................................................ 50 

Impact of Continuing Resolutions on Copyright Office ................................. 53 

Promotion of a Diverse Workforce .................................................................. 52 

Veterans History Project .................................................................................. 50 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Honda: 

Books for the Blind ........................................................................................... 43 

Copyright Backlog ............................................................................................ 46 

Office of Opportunity, Inclusiveness and Compliance ................................... 43 

Overseas Offices Safety .................................................................................... 45 

Private Funding ................................................................................................ 44 

World Digital Library ....................................................................................... 45 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Price: 

Open World Program ....................................................................................... 47 

Retirement of CRS Director Dan Mulhollan ......................................................... 3 

Role of Overseas Offices .......................................................................................... 10 

Staff Furloughs........................................................................................................... 5, 10

Statement of the Director of the Congressional Research Office ......................... 32 

Statement of the Librarian of Congress ................................................................ 6 

Statement of the Acting Register of Copyrights ................................................... 23 

Strategic Importance of Overseas Offices .............................................................. 10 

Suicide Missions Described in Federal Research Division Study ........................ 15 

Telework Progress ................................................................................................... 20 

THOMAS Budget ..................................................................................................... 20 

Value of Copyright Deposits to the Collections ..................................................... 16 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Page 

Chairman Crenshaw’s Opening Remarks .............................................................. 55 

Collection and Use of Rental Receipts ................................................................... 74 

Duplication and the Role of Government .............................................................. 77 

Fiscal Year 2012 Request ........................................................................................ 79 

Follow-up Briefing to Members .............................................................................. 77 

Funding Model for Reimbursements ...................................................................... 76 

GAO’s Strategy for Addressing Mandates ............................................................. 73 

Improving Efficiency ................................................................................................ 71 

Leasing of Space Within GAO’s Headquarters Building ...................................... 73 

Legislative Branch Security .................................................................................... 75 

Legislative Mandates .............................................................................................. 80 

Mr. Dodaro’s Opening Remarks ............................................................................. 70 

Presence in Iraq/Afghanistan ................................................................................. 81 

Professional Development Program ....................................................................... 81 

Questions for the Record—Mr. Bishop ................................................................... 87 

Questions for the Record—Rep. Emerson .............................................................. 91 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
Page

v 

Ranking Member Honda’s Opening Remarks ....................................................... 55 

Recovery Act Monitoring ......................................................................................... 76 

Role of GAO Field Presence .................................................................................... 72 

Staffing ..................................................................................................................... 84 

Statement of the Comptroller General .................................................................. 58 

Technology Assessments ......................................................................................... 82 

Training and Development ..................................................................................... 83 

Update on Disparities in Performance Appraisals between African American 

and White Employees .......................................................................................... 56 

Architect of the Capital (AOC) 

Capitol Dome Repair ............................................................................................... 114 

Capitol Power Plant ................................................................................................ 117 

Chair Opening Remarks .......................................................................................... 93 

Challenges ................................................................................................................ 95 

CVC Tours ................................................................................................................ 122 

Energy Reduction Program ..................................................................................... 116 

Fiscal Responsibility ................................................................................................ 94 

FOB–8 ....................................................................................................................... 121 

Garage Projects ........................................................................................................ 119 

Garage Security ....................................................................................................... 119 

Joint Responsibilities .............................................................................................. 114 

Life-Safety Priorities ............................................................................................... 115 

Measuring Energy Program Results ...................................................................... 117 

Meeting Priorities .................................................................................................... 113 

Need-Based Budget ................................................................................................. 95 

Opening Remarks—Congressman Honda .............................................................. 93 

Operational Budget/Staffing ................................................................................... 120 

Prepared Statement—Stephen Ayers .................................................................... 97 

Prioritizing Mission Goals ....................................................................................... 120 

Priority Ranking ...................................................................................................... 113 

Questions for the Record—Chairman Ander Crenshaw ....................................... 124 

Capitol Building Presidential Inaugural Stands & Support Facilities ........ 129 

Energy Savings ................................................................................................. 128 

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) ............................................ 124 

Green the Capitol Office under the House Chief Administrative Officer .... 127 

House Office Building Federal Office Building 8 (FOB 8) ............................ 128 

House Office Buildings West Underground Garage ...................................... 128 

Power Plant Collections ................................................................................... 130 

Questions for the Record—Ranking Member Michael M. Honda ........................ 131 

Cannon Office Building Renewal .................................................................... 131 

Compliance Issues ............................................................................................ 132 

Recycling in the Capitol Complex ................................................................... 133 

Senate Reception Room .................................................................................... 133 

2011 and 2012 Projects .................................................................................... 134 

Combined FY 2011 FY 2012 Potential Study, Design, and Construction Funding Requests .......................................................................... 135 

Questions for the Record—Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson ............................. 138 

Green the Capitol Initiative ............................................................................ 138 

Questions for the Record—Congressman Sanford Bishop .................................... 140 

Continuing Resolution Impact ......................................................................... 142 

Deferred Maintenance Backlog ....................................................................... 143 

Fiscal Year 2012 Budget .................................................................................. 142 

House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund .................................... 141 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
Page

vi 

Questions for the Record—Congressman Sanford Bishop—Continued 

Radio Modernization Project ........................................................................... 140 

Small Business Participation .......................................................................... 140 

Utility Tunnel Improvement Program ................................................................... 123 

Government Printing Office 

Chairman Crenshaw’s Opening Remarks .............................................................. 145 

Congressional Printing ............................................................................................ 165 

Delivery Schedules .................................................................................................. 157 

Discrimination Complaints ..................................................................................... 160 

Diversity ................................................................................................................... 168 

Financial Mediation ................................................................................................. 162 

Inspector General .................................................................................................... 160 

Management Levels ................................................................................................. 167 

More With Less ........................................................................................................ 156 

Mr. Honda’s Opening Remarks by Mr. Bishop ..................................................... 145 

Opening Statement—Mr. Boarman ........................................................................ 146 

Overhead .................................................................................................................. 158 

Paper ......................................................................................................................... 169 

Personnel Guidelines ............................................................................................... 168 

Prepared Statement—Mr. Boarman ...................................................................... 148 

Printing Equipment ................................................................................................. 166 

Printing for the 2013 Presidential Inauguration .................................................. 164 

Questions for the Record from Chairman Crenshaw ............................................ 172 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Honda ............................................................ 175 

Security ..................................................................................................................... 159 

Space ......................................................................................................................... 158 

Unused Office Space ................................................................................................ 163 

Web Site ................................................................................................................... 170

Congressional Budget Office 

Opening Statement—Chairman Crenshaw ........................................................... 179 

Opening Statement—Mr. Honda ............................................................................ 179 

Opening Statement—Mr. Elmendorf ..................................................................... 180 

Statement of Douglas W. Elmendorf ...................................................................... 182 

Recent Funding History ................................................................................... 183 

Some Details of CBO’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request ............................ 184 

Statutory Requirements .......................................................................................... 186 

Buying Data ............................................................................................................. 188 

Projecting Budget Numbers .................................................................................... 189 

Priorities ................................................................................................................... 192 

Questions for the Record ......................................................................................... 194 

Statutory Requirements ................................................................................... 194 

CBO Supplemental Funds ............................................................................... 195 

Scoring of Bills .................................................................................................. 196 

Staffing .............................................................................................................. 200 

Public Witnesses 

American Association of Law Libraries ................................................................. 278 

American Bar Association ....................................................................................... 270 

Congressional Research Employees Association ................................................... 259 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Crenshaw ..................................................... 259 

Opening Statements of Dennis Roth ............................................................... 259 

Recruitment Selection ...................................................................................... 268 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
Page

vii 

GAO Employees Organization ................................................................................ 213 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Crenshaw ..................................................... 213 

Statement of Ronald La Due Lake .................................................................. 213 

Travel Savings .................................................................................................. 225 

Library of Congress Professional Guild ................................................................. 227 

Copyright Office ................................................................................................ 234 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Crenshaw ..................................................... 227 

Statement of Saul Schniderman ..................................................................... 227 

National Federation of the Blind ........................................................................... 201 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Crenshaw ..................................................... 201 

Future of Talking Books .................................................................................. 211 

Statement of John Pare ................................................................................... 201 

Sunlight Foundation ................................................................................................ 245 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Crenshaw ..................................................... 245 

Opening Statement of Daniel Schuman ......................................................... 245 

The Employees Union Local 2477 of the Library of Congress ............................. 237 

Bargaining Unit Employees ............................................................................. 243 

Opening Remarks of Chairman Crenshaw ..................................................... 237 

Opening Statement of Darryl Clark ............................................................... 237 

House of Representatives 

Actions Executed Implementing FY2011 Continuing Resolution ........................ 312 

Challenges in Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012 ............................................................ 312 

Compostable Service Ware ...................................................................................... 323 

Cost-Saving Efforts .................................................................................................. 337 

Defense of Marriage Act .......................................................................................... 344 

Defense of Marriage Act Continued ....................................................................... 348 

Defense of Marriage Act Continued ....................................................................... 353 

Defense of Marriage Act Continued ....................................................................... 356 

FY2011 Cost Cutting Initiatives ............................................................................ 336 

FY2011 Initiatives ................................................................................................... 325 

FY2012 Identified Cuts ........................................................................................... 325 

House Financial System .......................................................................................... 343 

Implementing Transparency ................................................................................... 347 

Increased Coordination of Emergency Management ............................................ 336 

Increased Security ................................................................................................... 347 

Law Enforcement Coordinator Program ................................................................ 348 

Member Security ...................................................................................................... 351 

Opening Statement—Daniel Strodel ...................................................................... 312 

Opening Statement—Karen Haas .......................................................................... 325 

Opening Statement—Mr. Crenshaw ...................................................................... 285 

Opening Statement—Mr. Honda ............................................................................ 286 

Opening Statement—Wilson Livingood ................................................................. 336 

Prepared Statement—General Counsel ................................................................. 287 

Prepared Statement—Legislative Counsel ............................................................ 289 

Prepared Statement—CAO ..................................................................................... 314 

Prepared Statement—Clerk .................................................................................... 326 

Prepared Statement—Inspector General ............................................................... 305 

Prepared Statement—Law Revision Counsel ........................................................ 300 

Prepared Statement—Sergeant at Arms ............................................................... 338 

Questions for the Record ......................................................................................... 360 

Safety Improvement Projects .................................................................................. 336 

Sustainability Program ........................................................................................... 323 

Sustainability Program Continued ......................................................................... 357 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1
Page

viii 

Wounded Warrior Program ..................................................................................... 343 

Zero-Based Budgeting ............................................................................................. 313 

Zero-Based Budgeting Continued ........................................................................... 355 

United States Capitol Police 

Addressing Lines in the Buildings ......................................................................... 391 

Bicycle Theft in the Garages .................................................................................. 404 

Bottom-up Input about Changes ............................................................................ 391 

Capitol Police Mission ............................................................................................. 389 

Coordination with Other Law Enforcement Agencies .......................................... 395 

Define the Mission ................................................................................................... 390 

Evacuation Plans ..................................................................................................... 400 

New Initiatives ......................................................................................................... 398 

Opening Statement of Chairman Ander Crenshaw .............................................. 373 

Opening Statement of Chief Morse ........................................................................ 374 

Opening Statement of Mr. Honda .......................................................................... 373 

Police Funding ......................................................................................................... 394 

Priorities ................................................................................................................... 405 

Questions for the Record ......................................................................................... 407 

Role of the Capitol Police Board During Changes ................................................ 391 

Safety in District Offices ......................................................................................... 396 

Status of Race and Gender Discrimination Complaints ....................................... 402 

Testimony of Chief Morse ....................................................................................... 377 

Using Technology to Benefit the Capitol Police .................................................... 401 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING_P1