LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida, Chair 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

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

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

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

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

SHALANDA YOUNG and SHAWN CHOY, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 2 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011—Part 2 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida, Chair 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

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

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

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

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

SHALANDA YOUNG and SHAWN CHOY, 

Staff Assistants 

PART 2 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

56–678 WASHINGTON : 2010 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

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

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New 

Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

BEVERLY PHETO, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Testimony of Members of Congress and Other Interested Individuals and 

Organizations ....................................................................................................... 1 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................... 117 

Fiscal Year 2011 Budgets of the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Office of Compliance ................................... 189 

Fiscal Year 2011 Budget of the Architect of the Capitol and Infrastructure 

Needs ..................................................................................................................... 261 

U.S. Capitol Police Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request .......................................... 307 

Library of Congress ................................................................................................. 372 

Open World Leadership Center .............................................................................. 423 

U.S. Government Printing Office ........................................................................... 443 

(III)


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2011 

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER 

INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good morning. If I could call the first 

hearing of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations for the 2011 fiscal year to order. It is a 

pleasure to be back and starting the appropriations season once 

again. 

Before we start, I want to just do a little bit of housekeeping. 

At the end of the last appropriations cycle, I am not sure that 

we actually got to acknowledge Mike Stephens and his retirement 

on his way out. But Mike Stephens has started his well-earned retirement; and, as a result, we have a new clerk who was already 

with the subcommittee, Shalanda Young. She has already proven 

very capable and is doing a fantastic job and has got us well on 

our way to having a productive appropriations season. 

So welcome, Shalanda, we look forward to continuing to work 

with you. 

I also want to introduce Shawn Choy, who comes to the Committee from OMB and has done a stint with the House in the past 

and is now back as a member of the Committee staff. 

And in addition to that, I want to welcome back Matt Glassman, 

who is again on loan to us from CRS, a glutton for punishment. I 

guess we didn’t torture him too much last year, so he decided to 

do another stint. So thank you very much, Matt. 

It has really always bothered me in the last couple of appropriation cycles that we were hearing from the public witnesses, from 

the employees essentially of the legislative branch agencies at the 

end of the hearing process and when I really felt like our hands 

were pretty tied when it came to incorporating any of the input 

that you would provide. So, essentially, when the budget was just 

about to bed, then we were hearing from you. And it just seemed 

very token, and I don’t want this hearing or your input to be considered in a token way. So I thought we should start the hearing 

process with the public witness hearing so that we can incorporate 

your comments and concerns into the end product—as well as the 

Members’ concerns into the legislative branch budget as we dealt 

with it. I know that it has compressed the time in which a lot of 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 

you usually expect to have to get your testimony ready. So I appreciate the accommodation, but know that it was done in your interest. 

I also appreciate the Members who have joined us this morning 

and their interest in giving the Subcommittee some input. 

In addition to Congressman Holt and Congressman Heller, the 

public witnesses today will be Dr. Ronald La Due Lake, President 

of GAO’s Employees Organization; Dr. Francesca Grifo, the Director of Scientific Integrity Programs in the Union of Concerned Scientists; Ms. Mary Alice Baish, a veteran of the public witness hearing, the Director of Government Relations Office and the American 

Association of Law Libraries; Mr. Dennis Roth, the President of the 

Congressional Research Employees Association; Mr. Carl 

Saperstein, Guild of Professional Tour Guides of Washington, D.C.; 

Alvin Hardwick with the GPO Police Labor Committee; Jesse 

Hartle with the National Federation of the Blind; Saul 

Schniderman, President of the Library of Congress Professional 

Guild; and Mr. Jim Konczos, Chairman of the Fraternal Order of 

Police Labor Committee. 

In a moment, we will begin with Mr. Holt, but I would ask each 

of the individuals testifying in front of the subcommittee to limit 

your remarks to 5 minutes and provide a summary of your statement. Your statements will all be entered into the record without 

objection. 

As you can see, we have a line for the first time in my experience 

with this committee. It is not that we don’t love spending time with 

you, but after you are done testifying, since we are in a relatively 

small room, if you could depart the room so that another person 

can take your seat, that would be incredibly helpful. 

With that, I look forward to hearing from everyone; and I yield 

to Mr. Aderholt for his remarks. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I just want to say I am looking forward again this year to working closely on this legislative branch appropriation bill. This will be 

a little bit different from last year because last year was my first 

year on the committee and first year as ranking member. So I have 

got a little bit of training now, so I am ready to hit the ground running. I am looking forward to working with the 2011 budget in a 

bipartisan way. I want to try to make sure that we get our bill 

passed, get it to the floor and get it to the President’s desk. So 

thank you very much. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Great. 

Do any other members have any opening remarks? No. 

With that, Congressman Holt, you are welcome to summarize 

your 5-minute statement. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
3 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (OTA) 

WITNESS 

HON. RUSH HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

TESTIMONY OF REP. HOLT ON RE-ESTABLISHING THE OFFICE OF

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the 

committee. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you again 

to express my strong support for the refunding of the Congressional 

Office of Technology Assessment, formally and popularly known as 

OTA. 

I have shared my views with you in the past, as have others, and 

I would like to try to put my thoughts in the context of some of 

our recent work. I don’t intend to repeat how OTA was organized 

and funded. 

I do call your attention to—I notice a witness today, Francesca 

Grifo, will be talking about some of the nuts and bolts of the Office 

of Technology Assessment. 

I would like you to consider some of the issues that have come 

before Congress recently: health IT, clean coal, carbon sequestration, climate monitoring, cybersecurity, financial derivatives and 

whether they distribute or concentrate risk, ultrafast securities 

trading, nuclear proliferation, bioterrorism, including anthrax, 

transportation safety, the reliability of voting procedures, pharmaceutical contamination of drinking water, screening of meat for contamination, plant security, the role of technology and job creation, 

remote sensing, drone surveillance and security of no-fly databases. 

And the list could go on all day. Each of these issues and almost 

every other that comes before Congress has scientific and technological components. 

A point I want to make is that often I hear people say, ‘‘OTA, 

oh, yes, that dealt with science issues.’’ What we need in this Congress is help not so much dealing with the issues that are referred 

to the Science Committee or even to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce but the myriad of other issues that come before us that 

have scientific and technological components. Each deserves careful 

scrutiny for Congress to take action; our challenge is to find ways 

to gauge the validity, credibility, usefulness of the overwhelming 

amount of information we already receive. 

OTA did that. We need it badly. OTA didn’t make legislation or 

provide the wisdom to make legislation. The political wisdom comes 

from you, from us, from the people whom we represent. OTA illuminated and informed the legislating. 

Now, consider a few of the ways that OTA contributed to the 

business of Congress during its existence: 

A report called Losing a Million Minds became essential in development of Alzheimer’s policy in America. That was not considered 

a ‘‘science-y’’ topic. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
4 

An early report on genetics in the workplace sowed the seeds for 

the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act. Again, that is workplace protection. 

A report on life after the Cold War was used to shape the Defense Authorization and Appropriation Acts for several years in the 

mid 1990s. 

A report on electronic delivery of Federal services contributed to 

the Food Stamp Fraud Reduction Act. 

That OTA almost certainly was a cost saver is well documented: 

A report on the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor was explicitly 

cited by the Appropriation Committee’s decision to discontinue 

funding. 

The House Appropriations Committee cited findings in the OTA 

report that led to changes and upgrades in the computer systems 

of the Social Security Administration, resulting in savings of $360 

million. That would pay for OTA for quite a while. 

Studies on the Synthetic Fuels Corporation raised important 

questions, and the subsequent abolishment of a program that was 

not yet ready for prime time saved billions of dollars. 

Also consider the enduring relevance of some of the studies that 

OTA produced before it was shuttered more than a decade and a 

half ago, I guess: 

In the area of health care, OTA provided at least 11 reports on 

cancer, 14 on HIV/AIDS, 6 on women’s health. There were reports 

about bringing health care on line—remember, this was before 

1995—financing hospitals, drug bioequivalence, the impacts of antibiotic resistant bacteria. 

Now, in every case, did it lead to wise legislation? No. But in 

many cases it did, and in many cases it would. 

In the energy arena, a 1995 report entitled Renewing our Energy 

Future included assessments of fuel sources, including corn ethanol 

and other biofuels. Most Members of Congress hadn’t heard of 

these things until a decade later. There was an entire report dedicated to potential environmental impacts of bioenergy crop production. Our debate with Cash for Clunkers would have been informed 

by a likely update we would have had, if OTA had been in existence more recently of a 1992 report on saving gasoline and reducing emissions by retiring old cars. 

Similarly, our efforts to boost our economic competitiveness 

might benefit from a re-reading of OTA’s report entitled Innovation 

and Commercialization of Emerging Technologies. 

In light of our current work, perhaps some other titles will interest you: The Effectiveness of Research and Experimentation Tax 

Credits; Information Security and Privacy in Network Environments; Testing in America’s Schools: Asking the Right Questions; 

Selected Technology Uses in U.S. Aquaculture; Making Government Work: Electronic Delivery of Federal Services; Export Controls and Nonproliferation Policy; and Electronic Surveillance. 

OTA helped keep Congress a little bit ahead of where it would 

be otherwise. And over the last 15 years, we have not been ahead 

of the game. I would remind you that each of these reports was 

written prior to 1995. One of OTA’s greatest strengths was that it 

helped provide long-term, forward-looking perspective to an institution that so often must focus almost exclusively on the here and 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
5 

now. Wireless Technologies and the National Information Infrastructure, a report prepared before you owned Blackberries. 

Madam Chairwoman, members of the Committee, you stated in 

last year’s appropriations bill that you were providing a ‘‘got-tohave’’, not ‘‘nice-to-have’’ appropriation. Like you, I appreciate our 

current economic situation and the budget constraints. Yet I also 

know that in OTA’s absence in this institution of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate—because OTA was a creature of 

Congress—the institution’s need for its work has only grown more 

acute. In recent times, we, legislators, have not brought great credit to ourselves in our ability to deal with science and technology 

issues or to recognize emerging trends or implications of technology. Our constituents understand that the work done here involves subtlety and complexity. They know it is consequential. 

I think we have all heard their concerns about our capacity to 

deal with the great challenges. It is time that we try to put the 

public’s faith back in our work and our ability to represent them. 

It has been clearly shaken. We have an opportunity to restore some 

of the American people’s confidence that we have the information 

to make informed, well-reasoned decisions in a complex world. OTA 

is in the got-to-have category. 

Thank you. 

[Representative Holt’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
6 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 56678A.001
7 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 56678A.002
8 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 56678A.003
9 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 56678A.004
10 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 56678A.005
11 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 56678A.006
12 

OTA AUTHORIZATION

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

Congressman Holt, the only thing—and we talked about this yesterday, but I wanted to make sure I said it on the record as well. 

I think it would be really helpful if as a member of the Science 

Committee you encouraged the chairman to take a look at the underlying authorizing law which is still on the books. It established 

OTA, and we simply don’t fund OTA at this point because it probably needs to be updated and refreshed for the 21st century. 

And I think that would add—as you know, I totally agree with 

you and believe that we should begin to ramp up OTA again and 

it would be incredibly helpful. We do have arguably a paltry 

amount of $2.5 million in GAO for the current studies that you are 

talking about, but I know it is dramatically different than the way 

OTA used to handle them. This being difficult economic times, it 

is hard for me to characterize OTA at the level that it was in its 

heyday, $20 million, as a got-to-have. I would like there to be some 

momentum behind it so that I can have other members be also saying that it is a got-to-have, and then I think we will have some 

wind at our backs and more impetus to be able to include a rampup of OTA in our budget and future budgets. 

So if you could do that and take that up with Chairman Gordon, 

that would be incredibly helpful. 

Mr. HOLT. I will take this up with every Member of Congress 

who is willing to listen. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And I am happy to talk to Chairman 

Gordon as well. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

BASIS FOR OTA’S ESTABLISHMENT

Mr. ADERHOLT. I was just wondering—you may have mentioned 

this before, but I have forgotten. It was 1972 is when the office was 

first implemented? 

Mr. HOLT. That is right. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What sparked the inception at that time of the 

office of OTA? 

Mr. HOLT. There have been several things written about it. I 

don’t have the references here right now. 

It was a general recognition that, as I was trying to lay out in 

my remarks, that almost everything we did here in Congress was 

affected by or had facets of technology; and we did not have, partly 

by the typical background of legislators and partly by the organization of the House and Senate that had grown up over centuries, the 

ability to really assess the technological components of these issues 

before us. And it was designed to do really what it did. 

So partly in answer to the Chairman’s remarks, I would say the 

authorized structure of OTA worked remarkably well to accomplish 

what it was intended to do. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. Well, thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Cole. 

BUDGETARY OFFSETS FOR OTA

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
13 

Convincing case as always. But one question, and I don’t mean 

to be contrary because I do think you make a very convincing case. 

But we are going to have one tough budget decision after another 

at every level on all of these committees; and so, if we were to refund this program, where would you suggest the things that we do 

now that you would reduce money so we could fund it? 

Because I think we are going to run into this again and again, 

and I know I will be putting this question—I think all the members 

will—if anybody is coming to ask for more money, where would you 

cut so we can get you more money, redeploy the resources, as opposed to going back for an increase that would be hard to get? 

Mr. HOLT. A couple of times in the past when we have tried to 

find funding at the time of floor consideration we just kind of sort 

of grabbed at funding that, well, has made some people sore; and 

that was because it was not built in at the beginning as the appropriations bill was put together, as is always the case when you try 

to do something on the floor. 

I think there is no one place that I see that is a tradeoff, where 

I would say, well, if only we put a few million dollars in OTA instead of this we would be able to make up for all the work that 

would have been done in that other category. So my recommendation is a more general reduction in a variety of areas, but that is 

the committee’s challenge. 

Mr. COLE. I think it will be Congress’s challenge as we go forward really across the board. And it doesn’t mean to me if you were 

to pick something that it would be a waste of money here. It is just 

a question of competing values in many of these cases and tough 

choices. So I will give it some thought, because it is always easy 

to say we will just cut everything else by a quarter of a percent 

or something. 

Mr. HOLT. We are talking about a very small fraction of the allocation to this subcommittee. 

Mr. COLE. But if you said that, then you could say that it should 

be very easy for you to find something. 

Mr. HOLT. I also do want to make the point that I made in passing, that there are demonstrated savings in the past that are directly attributable to the work of OTA in the hundreds of millions 

of dollars at least. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. COLE. I certainly will. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Cole, if there was interest—first 

of all, I would actually ask that all the Subcommittee members, if 

there is interest in trying to begin to ramp up OTA—we can’t do 

$20 million overnight. 

Mr. HOLT. If I may interject. You wouldn’t want to. You wouldn’t 

want to do it overnight. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We would need to gradually do it. But 

I would ask you to help examine our budget and see where we 

might. Because I think there is value and we have been talking 

about it since the subcommittee was reconstituted. 

I have some ideas on where we might make reductions. And if 

you want to help scrub the budget, that would be great. That would 

be incredibly helpful. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
14 

Thank you so much. As always, you are a passionate advocate on 

this issue—and unrelenting, I might add. 

Mr. COLE. Persistence. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

THE REDUCTION OF IRRESPONSIBLE MRA OR TRIM 

GROWTH ACT 

WITNESS 

HON. DEAN HELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF NEVADA 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Heller. 

Mr. HELLER. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You may proceed with your 5-minute 

statement, and your statement will be entered into the record. 

Mr. HELLER. Thank you. Maybe I can help solve some of the 

problems here. 

TESTIMONY OF REP. HELLER ON MEMBER REPRESENTATIONAL

ALLOWANCES

I want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for having me here 

today at the committee. Ranking member, thanks for your time 

and allowing me to spend a few minutes with you. 

As mentioned, I am Dean Heller from the Second District of Nevada; and I don’t have to tell this Committee how families are 

struggling financially across this country. I have a district right 

now that some of the counties are at 16 percent unemployment; 

and that is pure unemployment, not the underemployed. You start 

looking at some of the underemployment numbers, we are probably 

at around 18 to 20 percent. Some of my counties, the statewide 

number is hovering at 13 percent, well above the national average 

which is at 9.7; and the current unemployment rate is the highest 

joblessness rate since we began keeping records in 1976. 

It is tough out there. And, again, I don’t have to tell this Committee how rough it is out there. But for those who know Las 

Vegas and the rest of the State of Nevada, foreclosures have hit us 

pretty hard. I think we are the number one State in foreclosures 

right now. 

So I guess my point is that those who are lucky enough to have 

a job are having to make some pretty tough decisions. Across the 

country, moms and dads are sitting across the kitchen table now 

trying to make the necessary decisions with their current budget 

restraints to figure out how to pay their own bills; and, meanwhile, 

our Nation as a whole is facing a debt of more than $12 trillion. 

If you take this budget that came from the White House, we are 

going to increase that by $1.6 trillion. So closer to a $14 trillion 

debt. 

I don’t believe that these financial challenges that we have can 

be solved in one day or with one appropriations bill or even one 

presidency, but I do believe that we as individual Members of Congress must lead by example and demonstrate fiscal responsibility 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
15 

just like those families that have to make these tough decisions at 

the kitchen table. Until this Congress addresses the fundamental 

challenges facing our economy, I believe we need to start feeling 

the same pain as the American people. 

When it comes to our own office budgets, Congress has spent 

without regard for our constituents’ hardships. For example, our 

MRA, Members Representational Allowances, have increased 49 

percent since 2000 for a total of $202 million in the recent decade. 

$202 million doesn’t sound like a lot of money when we talk trillions in these halls. But to give you an example, Nevada went into 

a special session yesterday to fill in an $800 million hole in their 

budget, and obviously the 202 would be 25 percent of the problem. 

So for what may not be a lot of problem for Congress, it is certainly 

a lot of money for the State of Nevada. 

I can tell you that my office could easily use an MRA increase. 

My district is 105,000 square miles. It takes me 15 hours to drive 

from one end of my district to the other. I have about 95 percent 

of the entire State, including portions of Las Vegas. Traveling my 

largely rural district, staying in touch with my constituents takes 

a significant amount of MRA funds. But many of my constituents, 

and many of yours, are making do with less than they had last 

year; and as public servants I think we have a responsibility to do 

the same. For this reason, I strongly urge the subcommittee to 

maintain level MRA funding for fiscal year 2011. 

I also would like Congress to consider legislation that I introduced, the Reduction of Irresponsible MRA or the TRIM Growth 

Act, to prevent the MRA from increasing during times of high unemployment or public debt. The TRIM Growth Act would prevent 

the MRA from increasing unless national unemployment is 6 percent or less for at least 6 months, consistent with the unemployment levels of the 1990s, or Congress reduces the national debt to 

less than $5.5 trillion, which was a reduction of 20 percent at the 

time this bill was drafted. 

Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, I hope 

that you will consider the economic realities of this country that we 

are facing as you craft the fiscal year 2011 legislative branch appropriations bill. Give this Congress a chance to lead by example 

with commonsense fiscal responsibility. Let us tell those Americans 

who are figuring out their family budgets at the kitchen table 

today, let us tell them that they are not alone. 

I thank the subcommittee for its time and the opportunity to 

speak on behalf of my constituents. Thank you. 

[Representative Heller’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
16 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 56678A.007
17 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 56678A.008
18 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HELLER. You are welcome. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do any members have any questions? 

I don’t have any questions. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HELLER. You are welcome. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We appreciate your dedication. 

Mr. HELLER. You are welcome. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Now that concludes Panel 1. 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

GAO EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION 

WITNESS 

RONALD LA DUE LAKE, PRESIDENT, GAO EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We will begin with the public witnesses from Panel 2; and Dr. Ronald La Due Lake, who is the 

President of the GAO Employees Organization, will be first. 

I know you have to get back to the negotiating table, so we appreciate your accommodating our schedule. You can proceed with 

a summary of your 5-minute statement, and your statement will be 

entered into the record. Welcome back to the Subcommittee. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. RONALD LA DUE LAKE

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Thank you. Thank you very much. It is a 

pleasure to be here. 

I am Ronald La Due Lake. I am a methodologist in GAO’s applied research and methods team. I am also the President of the 

GAO Employees Organization, IFPTE Local 1921. I am pleased to 

have the opportunity to appear here before the Subcommittee. 

Thank you, Madam Chair Wasserman Schultz, for your genuine 

support of Federal employees. 

This has been a demanding year for GAO employees. GAO has 

been charged by Congress with oversight of the Troubled Assets 

Relief Program, as well as of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Employees at GAO have not only met the vast demands 

of this oversight work but have nimbly adapted to conduct their 

regular work to meet the needs of Congress. I am very proud to be 

representing them here today. 

We are very grateful for the generous support provided to GAO 

in the fiscal year 2010 budget. We are very sensitive to the fact 

that this committee and the Congress will be faced with extremely 

difficult decisions regarding the 2011 Federal budget. We ask that 

as the Subcommittee moves through the appropriations process 

that GAO receive sufficient resources to continue the important 

work for Congress and for employees to be paid comparable to their 

colleagues in other Federal agencies. 

Our first master contract negotiations at GAO are currently 

under way. As you mentioned, we took a break this morning so I 

could be here today. We are pleased that the agency agreed to our 

proposal to use an alternative interest-based process in these negoVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
19 

tiations, where we share our interests with each other and work 

collaboratively to develop solutions that meet the needs of both parties. 

GAO management has repeatedly expressed satisfaction with the 

tenor of the negotiation and the value of having a facilitator assist 

with the process. We hope to continue with this facilitator for the 

time necessary to complete the contract. 

Not all negotiations have gone as well. The GAO Human Capital 

Reform Act of 2004 delinked GAO pay from the General Schedule 

and provided the Comptroller General the authority to set pay. As 

a result, since the union was established, pay is a matter for collective bargaining. 

We are concerned that recent pay negotiations have been decidedly one-sided. In the case of the negotiation over this year’s merit 

pay for employees, after a few hours at the bargaining table it 

seemed to us that management had made its final offer and was 

not interested in continuing and in the subsequent weeks of negotiation and even in mediation refused to offer any concessions. 

We believe that we have made every effort to be proactive, reasonable, and willing to listen to GAO management’s concerns. We 

have demonstrated this by having made significant concessions in 

our original proposals in an effort to reach agreement. 

It appears to us that GAO management has not engaged us as 

an equal partner during these pay negotiations. Both parties have 

agreed that this year’s pay negotiations are at an impasse, and it 

is now before the Personnel Appeals Board. The Personnel Appeals 

Board, or the PAB, is the independent entity that is charged with 

handling negotiation impasses and matters of negotiability for 

GAO management and the union. We are concerned about the PAB 

process for handling the impasse in merit pay negotiations. 

The PAB has yet to establish the rules or processes for conducting impasse or negotiability procedures for the parties. This is 

of particular concern to us because the impasse process for other 

Federal employees at the Federal Service Impasses Panel is well 

established, well tested, it is predictable, and it may be accomplished in a timely manner. 

What should be a routine and predictable process is now, for 

GAO employees, a highly uncertain one. This matter to go to the 

PAB is a critical one. It is the first one that has gone to the PAB, 

and GAO employees in the bargaining unit are anxiously waiting 

for this issue to be finalized so they can see their merit pay increase reflected in their paychecks. 

In closing, I would like to reiterate our appreciation for the opportunity to testify today. All of my colleagues at GAO are very appreciative of the recognition and support by this Subcommittee. I 

would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other members may have. 

[Mr. La Due Lake’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
20 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 56678A.009
21 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 56678A.010
22 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 56678A.011
23 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 56678A.012
24 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 56678A.013
25 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 56678A.014
26 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 56678A.015
27 

MERIT PAY NEGOTIATION IMPASSE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Dr. La Due Lake. 

You are saying the PAB hasn’t even established procedures for 

which they are going to consider the impasse? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. There is an order, the equivalent of a regulation, that lays out a general policy for how impasse will be handled. 

So we have a general framework that is spelled out in an order 

that was developed in the early 1990s, but there are no specific 

procedures or regulations for what the steps will be in going 

through that process. So, for instance, how people are notified, 

when they are notified, whether there are opportunities to request 

extensions and time to provide information, how a committee might 

be assembled, when it will meet. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. When are they planning to establish 

those procedures? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. It appears to us they are developing these as 

they go. 

We first sent a joint e-mail—management and the union sent a 

joint e-mail to the PAB the end of January, I believe January 29th, 

saying the parties believe we are in impasse and we should begin 

this process. A month later, we have been asked to submit names 

for a committee that will work with the PAB in determining whether there is impasse and making decisions about moving forward. 

We have been asked to provide some basic information about the 

matters at impasse and—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is management as concerned about 

the fact that there aren’t procedures in place? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. I cannot speak for them. I think so. Absolutely. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. How can we help the process along? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. That is a difficult one. The PAB is very concerned about moving carefully since we have not gone through this 

process before. However, there is well-established processes for this 

that are very routine for other Federal employees. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. And then I am glad that the 

contract negotiations are going well. But what is the holdup on the 

pay raise? That is a long time without—— 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. It is a long time. Now, remember, there are 

two types of pay that we receive at GAO. We receive an across-theboard and then we receive merit pay, which we call performancebased compensation. The across-the-board is also negotiated, and 

this year we agreed that it would be the equivalent to the GS 

across-the-board raise by locality. That has been implemented in 

the first pay period. 

The performance-based compensation we did not reach agreement. It seems to us that from the beginning GAO—and this may 

not be unusual when we consider other kinds of negotiations—GAO 

had a target number in mind. We certainly did as well. And we 

went into this with room for a lot of movement to reach agreement. 

It has worked well the last 2 years, the first 2 years, actually, 

that we had negotiated pay. We have been able to reach an agreement that we felt was reasonable, appropriate, met everybody’s 

need, et cetera. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
28 

But in this instance, after a very short time at the table, GAO 

said we think we are at impasse, we don’t think it makes sense to 

meet any further; and they took the unusual step, based on our 

last 2 years of experience, of saying, as a matter of fact, we are 

going to make a determination and pay all of the employees not in 

the bargaining unit the 1st of January. And they went ahead and 

did that and also let the other employees know that if there is a 

different agreement as a result of this negotiation process they 

process their—any additional corrections to their pay retroactively. 

So that step was a very new one but definitely in our view was 

a strong message to us that this is not a matter we consider negotiable this year. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The retroactive piece? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. The fact they went ahead and made a determination for the amount of merit pay other employees would receive without reaching an agreement with us. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And just why is this you are so different when the previous 2 years you have been able to—are they 

proposing something dramatically different from the way merit pay 

has been treated in the past? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. They are proposing something that is significantly lower than the last couple of years. That has been surprising 

to us considering the generous appropriation for 2010 for GAO and 

particularly since, as a result of the GAO Act of 2008, the agency 

receives increased income through reimbursement of certain audits. 

So this has been very surprising to us. It was a significant appropriation last year, and it is almost the lowest raise for performance-based pay that has been offered in the last 6 years. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. So to us it seems out of whack with the budget reality, and we have not been able to understand it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am sorry. 

Just one more question. And have they explained to you why 

they are proposing such—— 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. They certainly explained concerns about the 

overall economic conditions that the U.S. faces today. Beyond that, 

we have not understood that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But internally they got a significant 

increase? So their economics hasn’t suffered so much. 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. We understand that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Mr. Aderholt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. When did you say the impasse came to a head? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Well, we met through the beginning of January. We jointly agreed to bring in a mediator. Through that process, we made large concessions to reach agreement. GAO did not. 

They remained firm with the position that they had prior to the 

holidays on December 22nd. Later in January, we jointly agreed to 

bring in a mediator. We did that the last week in January and— 

but, again, there was no concession or movement on the part of 

GAO. We then agreed to go to the PAB for impasse, and I believe 

that was January 29th that we approached them. It was that last 

week. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. It has been that way ever since? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
29 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. We are in this holding pattern while the PAB 

determines how we move forward. It is in their ballpark. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. That is all I have. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Just a couple of things. 

First of all, just thank you for what you do. I mean, I think GAO 

is unbelievably effective, and I voted for the appropriations last 

year because I thought it was merited. And you continue to do good 

work, and we certainly ask lots of tough questions. 

GAO PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFECTIVENESS

I don’t want to be drawn into the case. I don’t know that much 

about it. But I am curious either in your capacity representing the 

employees, what suggestions would you direct to management and 

would you direct to our committee in terms of where efficiencies 

could be made? 

I think, again, we are going to have this issue across the board. 

Nobody in America got a Social Security COLA. I am sure everybody here got hundreds of letters. So it is going to be really tough 

even in areas where we need increases to justify without some sort 

of offsetting efficiency or what have you. So do you have any things 

that we ought to be looking at that would make you even better 

at what you do? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. That is an interesting question. We very much 

appreciated over the last couple of years the appropriations that 

have allowed us to increase our FTEs, to increase our staff size in 

order to help address and keep up with meeting the work of the 

Congress. And that is very important to us. 

We also have a relatively younger workforce where we—I believe 

in the last few years this has significantly changed, where over half 

of our workforce has been at GAO I think fewer than 5 to 6 years, 

which is very unusual. So people are earlier in their salary structure than they might be if they had been in a Federal career 

longer. 

We are really aware of the challenges certainly because of the 

work we do as well as the overall environment of the challenges 

moving forward with the current budget limitations that we are 

facing. 

I guess the way we are thinking of it and the way we thought 

of it this year is that the across-the-board, the annual pay increase 

is an appropriate place to reflect economic conditions and budget 

realities. I mean, obviously, for all Federal employees, this was a 

very different year than recent years, but it makes sense and we 

understand that. 

The thing that has been very difficult and troubling for us is 

that, as important to the agency as pay-for-performance is, to have 

a rather remarkable and difficult like our year this year and then 

have an appropriation that could accommodate pay-for-performance 

in an appropriate way, there seems to be a disconnect. It has been 

very difficult for us. 

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

Mr. COLE. Just one additional question. Thinking about going 

forward, in terms of the quality of the workforce, you haven’t menVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
30 

tioned there has been a great deal—or some turnover and a younger workforce coming in. Are you comfortable that you are able to 

attract and hold the people you have? 

I mean, one of the upsides of a down economy is, obviously, people are pretty conservative about moving. But, again, you need very 

skilled people that will stay for a considerable period of time for us 

to get the information we need. Are you comfortable right now that 

you are able to hold the people you need right now and attract the 

types of people you need? 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. There doesn’t seem to be any question that 

in most cases we can attract the people that we need. Retention is 

a different question, and that is something that we are looking 

into. We requested data—actually, after last year’s hearing, we requested data and have received some of that data last month that 

will allow to us look at that over a period of time, that question 

of retention and whether there are issues that come into play in 

terms of retention, perhaps related to diversity and what I talked 

about last year, the potential for disparity and ratings based on 

ethnic background. So that is something we are concerned about. 

We don’t have the evidence that we would like to know exactly, 

but we have some concerns about some of our midlevel people who 

have developed the experience that we need to retain. They have 

learned our work, they have learned how to do our work, and 

they—it appears that there are other opportunities where we can 

lose them for a variety of reasons. We don’t have a handle on that 

exact evidence, but it is something we are very concerned about 

and looking into. 

Mr. COLE. Let me see it as you develop it. 

But thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. LA DUE LAKE. Thanks for your time. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good luck. 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (OTA) 

WITNESS 

FRANCESCA GRIFO, DIRECTOR OF SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY PROGRAM, 

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Dr. Francesca Grifo, welcome to the 

subcommittee. Your full statement will be entered into the record 

and you can proceed for 5 minutes. 

Ms. GRIFO. Great. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

today. 

As Congressman Holt so eloquently stated, Congress must have 

a source of credible advice in science and technology in order to responsibly manage the taxpayers’ money and enact laws that keep 

our Nation safe and healthy; and the best agency for the job I 

think is the Office of Technology Assessment. 

From 1972 to 1995, OTA helped Congress assess complex issues 

and make wiser legislative choices. OTA reports addressed issues 

before almost every Congressional committee. The analyses proVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
31 

duced by OTA set boundaries for debate, ruled out scientifically incorrect arguments, and helped to frame political decisions in technically defensible ways. 

The OTA model honed over 23 years was incredibly successful. 

What is more, the 1972 Technology Assessment Act is a flexible 

document and any needed modernizations could be achieved within 

its scope. 

We are currently engaging the best thinkers on OTA to develop 

a commonsense proposal for restarting OTA that takes into account 

fiscal realities. We plan to submit a detailed fiscal year 2011 funding proposal within the next 2 weeks. Renewing OTA is a 

multiyear project, and we do not believe the taxpayers and American families should wait any longer. 

I am here as a mother and a daughter, as much as I am here 

as a scientist, to tell you that OTA, while designed to serve the 

needs of Congress, also in reality served the needs of our Nation. 

Members of Congress do not lack for input, but in many situations 

they do lack credible and nonpartisan information that is structured in a way they can easily use. 

OTA was uniquely positioned to provide accurate information in 

the following areas: unnecessary expenditure of taxpayer money on 

unproven technologies or other scientifically indefensible policies, 

early identification and analysis of technological issues before they 

became national crises, and evaluation of executive branch initiatives to aid Congress in its oversight role. 

OTA more than earned its keep by identifying ineffective, wasteful programs and suggesting improvements to others. The savings 

from just two OTA studies, one on Alzheimer’s disease and one 

that exposed the flaws in the Social Security Administration computer system, would have nearly paid for OTA for the last 15 years, 

just two studies. 

What is more, policies based on OTA studies saved lives and reduced the need for future medical intervention. A 1988 study pointed out the vulnerability of low birth weight infants to physical and 

mental disability. The study then helped change Medicaid eligibility rules by expanding access to prenatal care to millions of 

women in poverty. 

A 1987 study predicted that Medicare coverage of mammograms 

for senior women could cut breast cancer deaths. 

A 1990 study concluded that older women undergoing routine 

PAP smears were much less likely to develop cervical cancer than 

unscreened women. 

A number of OTA reports also proved to be years ahead of their 

time on many of the critical issues that Congress is debating today, 

and Congressman Holt I think gave you a great list of those. 

Finally, in recent years, Congress has approved a number of expensive yet troubled programs that could have been identified and 

averted by a timely OTA assessment. 

The Department of Homeland Security spent nearly 3 years 

pushing for a costly radiation detection system for smuggled nuclear material that did not work as promised, while neglecting to 

upgrade existing equipment that could have improved security. 

The GAO, the National Academies, and the Congressional Research Service are all very good at what they do; and they should 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
32 

continue to do it. But none of them can fill OTA’s shoes. OTA studies were technically accurate, analytically sound, and balanced. In 

its reports, OTA made no policy recommendations but presented a 

range of policy options that were consistent with its technical findings. OTA also informally aided Members and their staff in how to 

think about an issue by inquiring into the foundations of claims 

made by technology and paying close attention to its consequences. 

The world has changed since the OTA was authorized 40 years 

ago, and undoubtedly the OTA that might open in 2011 would need 

to be modernized. A revitalized OTA in the 21st century would take 

full advantage of electronic communication to boost its educational 

capacity, be more responsive to both parties, and establish strong 

working relationships within similar agencies. 

Today, for example, OTA could assess technologies designed to 

protect our children from lead poisoning, evaluate technologies designed to help seniors and the disabled stay in their homes longer, 

and assist Congress to make accurate links among investments in 

various technologies and their potential to create jobs. 

I bring with me today a letter signed by 41 diverse organizations 

supporting the revival of OTA, and I hope this is the beginning of 

a dialogue that will lead to the restoration of this important agency. 

[Dr. Grifo’s prepared statement and support letter for OTA follow:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
33 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 56678A.016
34 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 56678A.017
35 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 56678A.018
36 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 56678A.019
37 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 56678A.020
38 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 56678A.021
39 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 56678A.022
40 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much for your commitment, Dr. Grifo; and we will take that letter and shall enter it 

into the record. Thank you very much. 

[The information provided for the record follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
41 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 56678A.023
42 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 56678A.024
43 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 56678A.025
44 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 56678A.026
45 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 56678A.027
46 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Any questions? 

RATIONALE FOR OTA

Mr. ADERHOLT. Going back to 1972, do you know what sparked 

the inception of the OTA? 

Ms. GRIFO. I was not in Washington at that time. I was in high 

school. But the historical accounts discuss that we were coming out 

of a very strong executive branch era, namely the Nixon administration, and that there was a thought on the part of Congress that 

indeed more technical information in this branch would allow you 

to more carefully evaluate executive branch initiatives. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. 

Ms. GRIFO. Always a good thing. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. That answers my question. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. COLE. Just one quick question. First of all, I wish I had been 

in high school in 1972. 

But I am going to ask a similar sort of historical type question. 

I am just curious, the range of studies that are cited by you and 

the Congressman really is impressive in terms of the how much 

money you are talking about saving. How were decisions made as 

to what topics would be chosen, what the focus of the resources 

would be, which is congressionally driven by Member request? Was 

there a strategic overview? These are areas that clearly Congress 

is going to be dealing with. 

Ms. GRIFO. There was a bicameral, bipartisan group of Senators 

and Congressmen that were managing the day-to-day operations 

along with an executive director. So there were topics that would 

come in from committee chairs. Typically, they also had a ranking 

member on them, not always. It was not a requirement. But typically they did. 

Those topics would come in and then that bicameral, bipartisan 

board would discuss them and they would help OTA to make those 

decisions about which things to go ahead on. 

Mr. COLE. Are you comfortable that would be the mechanism, assuming that it would continue to work that way? 

Ms. GRIFO. It worked really well. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman would yield, one of 

the criticisms I heard about the way it operated at the time and 

that I think would be important in terms of an update was that 

it was too exclusively controlled by chairs and ranking members 

and that rank-and-file members who had an interest in having 

studies done by OTA were essentially shut out and that, even further, it was more specifically controlled—there is a board for OTA, 

a certain number of members. So that if we did consider this it 

would I think need to be reconstituted in such a way that it would 

be accessible to more members and there would be a broader array 

of studies with a broader array of input. 

Ms. GRIFO. If I could just address that. I think there are different 

size OTA reports. There are smaller and bigger. And I think extending the very large, long-term reports to every Member of Congress might be difficult. But there are certainly smaller ones that 

could be done that would lead to larger ones. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
47 

The other thing that happened in the past was the director of 

OTA was frequently contacted by other Members and had a director’s kind of discretionary set of reports that they could do. So they 

tried to respond. But I agree. More responsiveness would be definitely a modernization that we need. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I have one more question. You mentioned the 

OTA board. Who makes up the OTA board or who made up the 

OTA board? 

Ms. GRIFO. It was Members of both Houses. It was, I think— 

what was it—three or four from each—six. Sorry. Thank you. Six 

from each House. Three of each party from each House. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. House and Senate. 

Ms. GRIFO. Uh-huh. And there was also a technical advisory committee that was outside people, and that could be constituted in 

many different ways of experts. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Dr. Grifo. 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES 

WITNESS 

MARY ALICE BAISH, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS OFFICE, 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Next, we will hear from Mary Alice 

Baish, the Director of Government Relations to the American Association of Law Libraries. 

You can proceed with a summary of your statement, and your 

statement will be entered into the record. 

OPENING STATEMENT—MARY ALICE BAISH

Ms. BAISH. Thank you so much. It is great to be back. 

Yes, I am indeed a veteran, Madam Chairwoman Wasserman 

Schultz, Ranking Member Aderholt, and Mr. Cole. 

I just wanted to point out before I begin my statement that I am 

one of the 42 signatories of the letter in support of the OTA. I don’t 

want you to take money out of the Public Printer’s budget for fiscal 

year 2011, but I did want—I was very impressed with the laundry 

list of important reports. 

I just wanted to say they did a groundbreaking report in 1988 

or 1989 called Informing the Nation, and it was all about moving 

to new technologies to improve access to government information 

and how the government should do their IT. So I think it really 

helped the government move forward. 

So, good morning, again. On behalf of AALL, I want to applaud 

you, Madam Chair, for changing the order of these hearings. I was 

initially stunned when I received the call to testify. But in thinking 

about what it did is it gave me an opportunity to talk about—to 

members of AALL and other depository librarians. 

First of all, we urge you to fully support the congressional printing and binding fund for Congressional print materials, because we 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
48 

do believe that depository libraries should have the option of receiving your records of congressional action in print. 

It was reported to me over the summer that the Library of Congress accepts only paper or microfiche as the only recognized archival formats. And while the Library of Congress through AMVETS 

is making some excellent progress in collaborative research on how 

to preserve the vast amounts of electronic information, there is 

really no guarantee today that today’s government information 

available only electronically will be preserved and available in 5, 

10, 50 or 100 years. 

Second, we strongly supported the first release of GPO’s FDsys 

of public data about a year ago. We are delighted with the improved search capabilities and additional collections that have been 

added since then. 

We believe that the complete migration of the GPO access system 

into the FDsys, must be a top priority for the Government Printing 

Office. We are especially anxious to have the entire electronic code 

of Federal regulations, which unfortunately is available through 

GPO access to be migrated into the FDsys because it is an important title for legal researchers in the public. They are asking, the 

Public Printer is asking, for $8 million for FDsys in fiscal year 

2011, and we strongly urge you to approve that number. 

We also urge you to provide funding for GPO to replace old legacy systems with new technologies for the 21st Century. There was 

a very unfortunate incident in late August when GPO’s PURL server had a significant failure. It took many weeks for GPO to restore 

the hardware, the system configuration and URL resolutions. Fortunately, none of the data was permanently lost, but during those 

several weeks, depository library patrons were unable to access 

thousands of electronic documents, which they had linked to in 

their library catalogue because the titles had not been made available to them in print. 

My purpose in mentioning this incident is to urge you to make 

sure that GPO has in place a mirror site, a high security backup 

system or other scheme so that we know that the entire content of 

information available through the FDsys will be permanently available to the public. 

Third, that the digitization of historic government information 

for no fee permanent public government access is a very important 

initiative. We are pleased to see that GPO is becoming more active 

in encouraging depository libraries to partner with them to digitize 

to historic materials. 

Ideally if the files meet GPO’s high preservation standards, they 

could be ingested in that FDsys. We believe that also as the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee it would be a great 

deal for you to urge the Government Printing Office to partner 

with the Library of Congress on a number of—into a formal MOU 

to digitize, print Congressional materials. The Law Library is already digitizing entire content, for example, of the U.S. Statutesat-Large and other titles. If GPO would create the necessary 

metadata for these files, they could be ingested into the FDsys as 

well as made available through LOC’s Thomas system. We think 

this is a great deal for the American public. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
49 

GPO and LC are already collaborating on digitizing the pre 1994 

Congressional Record. GPO donating some of the print, missing 

copies that the library doesn’t have and LC is doing the digital 

scanning. We would like to see this important partnership between 

two legislative branch agencies formalized by an MOU and expanded. 

Fourth, as part of their mission to provide access to current government information we would like GPO to begin to capture content from agency Web sites to be ingested into the FDsys. It is a 

fact today that agency-born digital materials are those that are 

most at risk of disappearing and being lost forever. We believe that 

capturing agency content that is within the scope of the Federal 

Depository Library Program is, in fact, the digital equivalent of the 

GPO’s print, publishing role since the agency was established in 

1860. 

Thank you so much for the invitation to appear before you today. 

I will be happy to answer any questions and I will be submitting 

a longer statement. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

[Ms. Baish’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
50 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 here 56678A.028
51 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 here 56678A.029
52 

DISCUSSIONS WITH THE LIBRARY AND GPO

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. On the Memorandum of Understanding that you are encouraging, are there any ongoing discussions between the Library and GPO toward that goal? 

Ms. BAISH. There absolutely are, my sense is that the Library of 

Congress is most anxious to enter into these formal partnerships 

and that we haven’t gotten as timely a response from the Government Printing Office as we would like. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, see that is why we are doing 

these at the beginning. 

Ms. BAISH. I applaud you for that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I will be able to help encourage that 

process along. 

Ms. BAISH. Thank you so much. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome. And thank you for 

your passion. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

FDSYS

Mr. ADERHOLT. You mention the FDsys in your comments. Just 

briefly explain to the committee here how that system operates. In 

the last year it has been put online? 

Ms. BAISH. Correct. 

I will be happy to. Congress enacted the GPO Access Act in 1993 

which really was a mandate for the Government Printing Office to 

move into the electronic world. And they began it in the text of the 

Act it gave GPO the authority to provide electronic access to the 

Federal Register, the Congressional Record, the core documents of 

Congress. In fact, it was this committee, and I brought along a copy 

of the report because I had many letters of support and one of the 

appendices, but this subcommittee had asked for a study for a GPO 

accomplished in 1996 to identify how to move strongly into the 

electronic world as they had been the historic publisher for the 

Federal Government. 

The former Public Printer Bruce James had a vision to update 

the technology, the old technology of GPO Access, again, which was 

created back in 1994 to bring it up to date with 21st Century’s 

technology. Fortunately, your Subcommittee and Congress funded 

the development on the Federal digital system. 

The plan is for GPO to migrate all of the old content off WAIS 

server, which was not quite state-of-the-art back in 1994 into a 

21st Century technology, so a beta test which was finally launched 

about a year ago, about a year behind schedule, but it was worth 

waiting for is actually the new system that GPO has developed. 

And they have already migrated all of the Congressional materials, 

the Federal Register, the Code of Federal Registration Regulations, 

the Presidential compilation into FDsys. The searchability is excellent. 

What GPO is also doing through the system is authenticating 

digitally signing bills from the House and the Senate. So they are 

doing a level of authentication. They also, as this article from July 

in Government Computer News says, FDsys stays current, it aims 

for permanent. I think that aims for permanent is exactly the point 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
53 

I was trying to make earlier, that we really do not have the solution for digital preservation. GPO aims to provide permanent public access, and we hope that the technology will be there for them 

to make it permanent. So if you haven’t taken a look at it, I just 

urge you to google FDsys and I think you will be very pleased as 

we are with the improvements. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you for your insight. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you have any questions? 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. No, I do not. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Cole. 

NEED FOR PAPER COPIES

Mr. COLE. Thank you for the emphasis on the placing of core documents in published form in libraries. As an old historian, I love 

all this electronic stuff, it is great but there is nothing like real documents in your fingers and the accessibility is really important. 

Ms. BAISH. Well, I appreciate it. In my longer statement, I get 

into how AALL has become an international leader on the need to 

retain print primary law for the reasons I mentioned about the inability to ensure permanent public access and preserve them. I actually brought this report that was at the request of the Subcommittee, it was published in June of 1996 under the attachments 

you will see the wonderful AALL logo. We have copies of this print 

report in every depository library around the country, and I have 

multiple copies in my office. I wrote the letters that are in the appendices way back in the spring of 1996 on my work computer, on 

my old laptop and remember these? How many of you can put this 

into your office PC and get content? I can’t. 

Fortunately I received that old laptop that I purchased in 1995. 

I can read the content if the file hasn’t been corrupted which it 

may have had, but fortunately my home laptop in 1995 only had 

that old clunky dial-up access, do you remember that and how slow 

that would be. So really even if I could read the letters in this print 

publication on my laptop, I really wouldn’t have a way because now 

we save everything to these flash drives, and my old laptop can’t 

read anything from this flash drive. So that is just an example 

why. And thank you so much, Mr. Cole, for your comments. Print 

is very important, we know it will be here in 50 to 100 years. We 

are really pressing the government and the National Archives is 

ticking a roll and really the Library of Congress, GPO and NARA 

must work all together in resolving, or at least making progress to 

guarantee the preservation. I know that is an important issue for 

you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is, most definitely. Thank you very 

much. 

Ms. BAISH. You are so welcome. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Next, we have Mr. Dennis Roth. 

President of the Congressional Research Employees Association. 

Welcome, you can proceed with a 5-minute summary. Your full 

statement will be entered into the record. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
54 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS 

DENNIS ROTH, PRESIDENT, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH EMPLOYEES 

ASSOCIATION 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. ROTH

Mr. ROTH. Good morning Chairman Wasserman Schultz, Ranking Member Aderholt and members of the Subcommittee. I am 

Dennis Roth, president of the Congressional Research Employees 

Association, the union representative of over 525 employees of the 

Congressional Research Service. I must begin by thanking the Subcommittee for its support of telework in CRS. We have been meeting with CRS management since October 2009 trying to negotiate 

a system that meets the needs of the Congress and CRS staff, and 

fulfills the needs of the Congress and CRS staff. Resolution has 

been difficult because CRS management took the Library’s existing 

system and made it unacceptably restrictive and inflexible. 

In order to address additional issues within my time limit, I will 

be happy to give more specifics during the question-and-answer period. 

Last year, the Subcommittee also requested a formal evaluation 

of how well CRS’s current staffing modules and procedures meet 

user needs. CREA learned last week that the contract of the evaluation had just been awarded. The success of the survey rests 

heavily on Congressional participation. We urge the members of 

this Subcommittee and its staff to encourage its counterparts in the 

House and Senate to participate fully when the survey gets implemented. 

Two years ago, we also brought to the Subcommittee the tension 

about the dismantling of the Office of Workforce Diversity, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Complaints Office and the 

Dispute Resolution Center. The situation has improved only marginally. The replacement Office of Opportunity, Inclusiveness, and 

Compliance remains woefully understaffed, and we do not find any 

monies to support the Office in the 2011 budget submission. At current staffing level, the Library’s demonstrating this lack of support 

for equal employment opportunity, diversity and dispute resolution. 

The OIC suffers from other major deficiencies, while the librarian states that the Library will follow the EEOC management directive 715 which is the policy guidance governing equal employment opportunity in executive branch, the Library continues not 

yet to do so. Major MD 715 deficiencies include the failure to elevate the OIC director’s position to a direct report to the Librarian, 

which disregards the position’s authority. It allows participation of 

the Office of General Counsel in the complaint process, which negates neutrality and introduces conflict of interest, and it lacks 

management support for alternative dispute resolution to resolve 

cases. 

Furthermore, while the OIC has been given their responsibility 

for fielding complaints regarding reasonable accommodation issues 

of library patrons, it has no authority to address them. In light of 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
55 

the recent removal of Morris Davis, the assistant director of foreign 

affairs in trade division, CREA had to reassure our staff of their 

right to engage in outside speaking and writing. 

That was attached to my prepared testimony. As with the 

issuance of the 2004 director statement on outside speaking and 

writing, the termination of Colonel Davis has had an intimidating 

and chilling effect. 

CRS employees want to be able to continue participating in their 

fields of expertise outside of CRS, but now they are uncertain about 

possible negative consequences. This is unfortunate because outside 

speaking and writing are a necessary, obligatory part of their duties, i.e., it is a promotion criterion. The Library has also requested slightly over $1 million for student loan repayment support and tuition support. We have been requesting funding for several years in this area and support this request wholeheartedly. 

CREA also supports the Library request for 2 FTE career planning specialists. We feel this indicates a commitment to career development within the Library. In 2009 identify the needs for the 

Library to complete its Library-wide succession plan, it is still unfinished. The need to fill positions continues and staff are available 

to be trained; bridges must be built to connect the two. 

We ask again that the Library, including CRS, develop an internal selection policy so they will be ready to fill positions identified 

in succession plan with within. 

The Director has requested funding for an additional 17 FTEs in 

fiscal year 2011 and another 17 FTEs in 2012. Because we have 

not been briefed on how this was determined, we will neither support nor oppose this request. However, all FTEs requested are for 

analyst positions. CRS needs to include more than analysts and attorneys. We have staff librarians, library technicians, editors, bill 

digesters, technology staff, programming congressional relations 

specialist, support staff and so forth. Evaluate the needs for the 

service as a whole before it can make any endorsements. In the 

event the Subcommittee does fund these positions, we would raise 

two considerations; the first is the commitment to diversity and the 

second is a commitment to making CRS’s workplace policies more 

flexible and family friendly. 

In December 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 

13522—creating labor management forums to include delivery in 

government services, which is attached to the testimony. Its intent 

was to create a non-adversarial forum by which managers and employees and union representatives could discuss government operations. Management was instructed to discuss workplace challenges and problems with labor and to attempt to solve them jointly rather than advising the union on predetermined solutions to 

problems. 

Implementation procedures were also included. We would like to 

have the Congress instruct the Library and other support agencies 

that have unions to create similar forums as soon as possible. 

CREA will be a happy to assist the Subcommittee in developing implementation ideas for strategy. This concludes the testimony and 

I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[Mr. Roth’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
56 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 56678A.030
57 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 56678A.031
58 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 56678A.032
59 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 56678A.033
60 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 56678A.034
61 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 56678A.035
62 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 56678A.036
63 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 56678A.037
64 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 56678A.038
65 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 104 56678A.039
66 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 105 56678A.040
67 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 106 56678A.041
68 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 107 56678A.042
69 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 108 56678A.043
70 

TELEWORK

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Roth. I am concerned 

about your inability to get an agreement on a appropriate telework 

policy, especially since this committee directed CRS to establish 

one based on the Library of Congress’s policy. You alluded to being 

specific about the restrictive nature of their proposal. Can you 

elaborate, please. 

Mr. ROTH. I can give you some of the areas where we have differences. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Please. 

Mr. ROTH. One major difference is that we currently have a flexible work schedule in past work weeks. In order to do telework CRS 

management would like to cut back on that policy by binding the 

number of days it wants to be on a compressed workweek schedule. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They want to limit your number of 

days you can be—— 

Mr. ROTH. Currently, on a compressed workweek schedule, you 

work eight 9-hour days and one 8-hour day. So you still put 80 

hours in, but in 9 workdays as opposed to 10 workdays. In order 

to get telework, they would like to cut back on that ability to take 

that compressed workweek day. Initially it was not offered and 

then there has been proposals back and forth to which management considers as compromises but they have it in what we consider reasonable compromise. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So are they saying you can’t have a 

flexible schedule if you are going to telework or more restrictive 

about the number of days. 

Mr. ROTH. Right now more restrictive. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So instead of 9 days—— 

Mr. ROTH. The Library allows both, in its Library of Congress 

regulation; in the union agreements with different parts of the Library, there is no restriction. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Mr. ROTH. Just CRS wants to have restriction. I think this goes 

back to the initial concern I raised before you reacted last year that 

I think the Director still thinks he needs to be on campus in order 

to serve the Congress. That has shifted from not giving us telework 

to trying to limit the time that we might be off. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What else besides that? 

Mr. ROTH. There is a concern that they want to do one-size-fitsall. As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, CRS is made up of all 

different types of occupations, and certain types should not be restricted to—1 day would be per pay period, per week per pay period 

for analysts, which makes sense. But somebody who is in the technology office who can do most of their stuff remote from home, we 

are saying why don’t we give them an additional day to see if it 

works out. They don’t like that, they want to have one size. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They want everybody to pick 1 day. 

Mr. ROTH. One day. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Are they saying it always needs to be 

the same day? 

Mr. ROTH. Yes, they want it to be a fixed day. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
71 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Fixed day. So let’s say you have an 

emergency, your child is home sick, if that happens on a day that 

is not your day to telework, you couldn’t do that? 

Mr. ROTH. No. We had proposed that on an ad hoc basis. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That sort of defeats the purpose of 

telework, doesn’t it? 

Mr. ROTH. They don’t consider that telework, but work off site. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. During the blizzard, obviously 

employees weren’t able to get to work. I assume there was not an 

established telework policy in place. 

Mr. ROTH. There is not. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Were CRS employees able to access 

their work from home during that period? 

Mr. ROTH. Certain things they couldn’t. I mean, I have talked to 

one employee who says they actually got a call because they are 

working on an issue that is very topical in the Congress, and they 

could not access material so they told me what they would normally do in probably 15 minutes to do to respond to the request, 

it took them the full day. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay, we are at a year since we directed this agency to establish a telework policy with the employees. 

Mr. ROTH. It was June when the report came out. Maybe you— 

the report came out in June. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Approximately a year, close enough. 

We are long past the amount of time that I think it should have 

been to work something out. 

Mr. ROTH. We didn’t get their first proposal until October of last 

year. 

OIC RESTRUCTURING

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Again, that is another reason I wanted to have this hearing at the beginning so that I could address 

the concerns as we go through each legislative branch agency hearing. You mentioned also you are concerned about the OIC’s restructuring and you brought that to our attention 2 years ago as you 

mentioned. They are going to testify here in a minute, but The 

Guild for the Library of Congress actually seems pleased with the 

direction it has gone in. So what is it that is a pretty significant 

difference of opinions. 

Mr. ROTH. I am not saying we are not happy with the direction, 

but with only three professional people that is not enough to handle the workload and to do what they need to do. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So you are saying—— 

Mr. ROTH. I think the new Director’s real concern is moving in 

the right direction, but can’t accomplish what needs to be done by 

not having the staff to do it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is that all the office plans to have is 

three staff? 

Mr. ROTH. I think they might be allowed to have six based on 

last year’s budget. We expected to see funding in this year’s submission, and there is no—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And they didn’t add funding? 

Mr. ROTH. No. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
72 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Well, we can take that up with 

the Library when we hear from them. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I think you addressed it. Thank for your testimony. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Ruppersberger. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you, no. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you for your dedication. And 

please send our appreciation to your fellow employees. 

Mr. ROTH. Will do. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Carl Saperstein, Guild of Professional Tour Guides of Washington, D.C. A 5-minute summary of 

your statement and your full statement will be entered into the 

record. 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

UNFAIR AND UNNECESSARY RESTRICTION OF TOUR 

BUSES ON CAPITOL HILL 

WITNESSES 

CARL SAPERSTEIN, GUILD OF PROFESSIONAL TOUR GUIDES OF 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. SAPERSTEIN

Mr. SAPERSTEIN. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Carl Saperstein, and I represent the Guild 

Professional Tour Guides, a group of more than 450 members of 

the tourism industry. My topic is the unfair and unnecessary restriction of tour buses on Capitol Hill, which discriminates against 

a large group of American citizens. It is important to remember 

that not all visitors have time to take a tour of Capitol buildings 

and walk around the Hill. They are here for a short period of time, 

perhaps some business or some limited vacation. They take a tour 

bus to see some of the sights of the Nation’s Capitol. After 9/11, 

security was necessarily tightened, until June 2007, this was not 

a problem. Tour buses could still take visitors to the east front of 

the Capitol to show them the beautiful Supreme Court building, 

which houses a branch of government. They could also point out 

the east front of the Capitol with the stature of freedom on top, the 

Library of Congress. 

As we approach the part of the Hill, the tour guides typically 

pointed out where the senators and representatives had their offices. It was exciting to visitors to feel that where the action is, 

they were very satisfied. 

Today the only thing we can point out to visitors is the far west 

side of the Capitol from the bottom of the hill. It is not fair to your 

constituents who come to Washington, D.C. We estimate that in 

2009, there are approximately 240,000 visitors denied that drive 

around Capitol Hill buildings. We assert that this restriction is 

completely unnecessary. 

Our second area of concern is the drop off of visitors to the Capitol, the Garfield Circle, because tour buses can’t go up the hill to 

the east front. They are required to drop their passengers at the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
73 

bottom of the hill. They then must climb to the top of the hill, walk 

over to the entrance the Capitol Visitors Center. This is a major 

concern because so many of our visitors are veterans, senior citizens and persons with mobility problems. 

The current inadequate solution is to parts transport them up 

the hill. This drop off at the bottom of the hill is awkward, timeconsuming and splits groups into walking and those riding and it 

irritates them. A special concern for the many veterans who visit 

the Nation’s Capitol. I believe you are aware of Honor Flights, 

World War II Vets in their 80s and 90s who were coming to see 

the World War II Memorial and other sites. Last year, about 800 

Honor Flights that visited Washington with 40,000 vets with their 

guardians, medical personnel. 

We know that most of these groups do not visit the Capitol because of the bus restrictions. They can’t even do a drive around the 

east front of the Capitol because of bus restrictions. The hassle of 

trying to offload at the Garfield statute, wheelchairs, walkers, 

canes, canisters and the accompanying medical personnel into electric carts is impractical for large groups of veterans and their sponsors. 

We propose all tour buses that come into Capitol Hill drive up 

Constitution Avenue, stop at the existing Capitol Police checkpoint, 

the police will then do their inspection and the buses will then be 

free to drive up Constitution Avenue, turn right on 1st and drive 

past east front of the Capitol, turn right Independence Avenue and 

then exit Capitol Hill. This is one of the routes that was followed 

for years by motor coaches that toured the Capitol. 

I would equate this required bus inspection to the inspection the 

Capitol Police routinely do for the thousands of visitors entering 

any of the Capitol buildings each day. In this case, it is for a drive 

around Capitol Hill. The drop-off at the Garfield Statue is also unnecessary. The minute they drop off their passengers at the entrance of the Capitol Visitors Center on East First Street, they can 

easily walk the short distance to the CVC entrance which is completely handicapped accessible. Of course, we are not proposing the 

tour buses remain on First Street, just they be allowed to drop off 

and pick up as it was a practice for years and years. 

Somehow tour buses have become the bogeyman, but of course, 

it just depends on the tour bus. Tour buses that bring commuters 

in the morning and pick them up in the afternoon are permitted 

to go up Capitol Hill. After they drop their passengers, these same 

tour buses, same driver, once they leave the Hill and pick up tourists, are now forbidden to go up the Hill. They have the same bus, 

same driver, the difference is the tourist. 

The Guild strongly recommends the motor coach loading its compartment inspection procedures be returned to those considered 

sufficient from 9/11 to June 2007 and that tour buses for your constituents be permitted on Capitol Hill. We are not aware of any incident that caused the police to recommend this ban, but it was a 

question of resources. And we recommend the subcommittee address this also. Thank you and I am glad to answer any questions. 

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

[Mr. Saperstein’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
74 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 129 56678A.053
75 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 130 56678A.054
76 

TOUR BUS ACCESS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We have been dealing with this issue 

for a number of years, and I can appreciate your concern. We have 

repeatedly tried to address the concern and that is why as a result 

of direct pressure from the subcommittee last August 28th, the 

CVC received six brand new shuttles that are specifically designed 

to address the concern that you have of transporting disabled, as 

well as elderly, and frail individuals who have trouble walking up 

that hill. As someone who represents a district in South Florida, 

which has a disproportionate amount of senior citizens, many of 

whom visit our Nation’s Capitol, I obviously have a particular sensitivity to that. 

But with all due respect, the train has left the station on whether or not we are going to be able to have drop off in front of the 

CVC. That is not going to happen, that has been decided, it is done, 

we have examined it. We have had the Capitol Police chief here in 

front of our subcommittee. We have had many committees go over 

it back and forth, there have been internal discussions and that 

has been decided. 

So I appreciate your concern, but it is just not something that 

security in this day and age is going to allow us to change because 

the risk outweighs our preference for being able to drive in front 

of the east front. There are solutions to that, we have endeavored 

to come up with workable solutions. 

My question for you is are you aware that the six shuttles that 

we have now have a combined capacity to move 180 passengers and 

36 wheelchair passengers per hour, and that includes the time it 

takes to load and unload the passengers and round trip travel time. 

AVAILABILITY OF SHUTTLE BUSES

Mr. SAPERSTEIN. We are aware that all six are available. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, all six are going to be available, 

they are brand new. There is not reason why they shouldn’t be 

available. Why wouldn’t that be sufficient in meeting the needs of 

the elderly and disabled individuals who have trouble walking up 

the hill? 

Mr. SAPERSTEIN. When we get these Honor Flights and there are 

maybe 3, 4, 5 buses in addition to the city buses, there could well 

be 10 or 15 buses requiring service at the same time with tight appointments on the CVC necessary. It breaks the groups up, they 

get up there, they may be there for their appointments—— 

ADVANCE COORDINATION WITH THE CVC

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But Mr. Saperstein, you do have the 

ability to, in advance, coordinate with the CVC in order to be able 

to make sure that those break-ups and the large group can be accommodated, don’t you? I know you do because we have had the 

CVC director here and she said that that is possible. You just have 

to make the extra effort to make the arrangements in advance. 

Mr. SAPERSTEIN. That is correct, except if we make the arrangements in advance and another bus comes and it takes precedent 

over ours. They don’t reserve these for us. So even though we do 

make arrangements—— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
77 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They don’t reserve the slots? 

Mr. SAPERSTEIN. They do not reserve the carts, the mobility 

carts, golf carts or whatever. If another bus or another several 

buses show up, even though—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If you have made arrangements in advance, why wouldn’t they reserve them or hold them for you if you 

are showing up at a specific time and you they are going to know— 

have you tried? 

Mr. SAPERSTEIN. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You couldn’t have tried because we 

have just begun to use them, we are not even in the season. 

Mr. SAPERSTEIN. We have had arrangements in advance, we have 

asked the question and they have told us specifically. I am basing 

this on what they have told us, we will not hold those carts for you, 

it is first come, first served. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Mr. SAPERSTEIN. I am just quoting what they are saying. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, what I would ask is that 

through this next tourist season, because this will be the first full 

tour season that we will have the carts and it seems like they have 

the capacity, a pretty good capacity to move people both frail and 

disabled individuals up and down the hill to the CVC entrance. If 

we get to the end of the season and it is still a significant burden— 

we have discussed in the subcommittee whether or not we would 

need to possibly purchase larger vehicles that would shuttle more 

individuals, but I would strongly suggest that you examine other 

means of addressing your concerns, because the drop-off at the 

CVC is just not going to happen. Mr. Aderholt. 

RESERVATION OF BUSES

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you for your testimony. I have a lot of 

groups who come up to Washington as well. I am also especially 

sensitive to those on our Honor Flights. I try to meet with them 

while they are in town. I guess we are caught between a rock and 

a hard place because of security concerns that have been mentioned or been discussed by the Capitol Police, and also the concern 

that people have access to the Capitol. You want people to have access to the Capitol. 

When Madam Chair was asking you some questions you mentioned the buses being reserved and you get there and a bus gets 

there before you. If that could be resolved where you could make 

arrangements where if your bus is supposed to be there at 2:30 in 

the afternoon and one gets there at 2:15 and takes your slot, if 

those could be reserved in advance, and held so that they wouldn’t 

be for the first person that comes up. Would that be something that 

would be of help? 

Mr. SAPERSTEIN. It would be a great help if, indeed, we could reserve these in advance and have them there, but we have been 

strictly told that it is first come first serve. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. Let me say—would that be the CVC? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It would be the CVC. You can check 

with Ms. Rouse. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. We can check with the CVC and find out if that 

is something that could be accommodated. I think it goes back to 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
78 

what the Chair is concerned about and that is the security of the 

people here at the Capitol and other visitors. Certainly, I think, we 

want to try to accommodate the elderly or anyone who is disabled. 

You know, maybe there is something we could work out as far as 

doing a reservation on these. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. When we have them come in front of 

us for their hearing, we will be happy to discuss it with them. 

Mr. SAPERSTEIN. Appreciate it very much. Thank you very much. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Additional information from the Guild of Professional Tour Guides follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
79 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 56678A.055
80 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 56678A.056
81 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 56678A.057
82 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 56678A.058
83 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 56678A.059
84 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 56678A.060
85 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 56678A.061
86 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 56678A.062
87 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 56678A.063
88 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Ruppersberger. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. You did a good job. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Alvin Hardwick with the GPO police labor committee. 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

GPO POLICE LABOR COMMITTEE 

WITNESS 

ALVIN HARDWICK, GPO POLICE LABOR COMMITTEE 

OPENING STATEMENT—MR. HARDWICK

Mr. HARDWICK. Morning Madam Chairwoman and Ranking 

Member Aderholt and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Alvin Hardwick and I am here as the immediate 

former chairman of the Government Printing Office Police Labor 

Committee for the Fraternal Order of Police of DC Lodge 1. The 

GPO police force is now comprised of 26 rank and file officers who 

protect the GPO buildings in Washington and Maryland. We have 

done a fine job protecting the vital and sensitive documents at 

these locations which are needed for this country to function. They 

are also charged with the safeguarding HAZMAT vehicles that are 

stored at the GPO building by the U.S. Capitol Police in case of 

emergency. The mission of the GPO police force is crucial to the security of Washington, D.C. 

Last May I testified before the Subcommittee about the extraordinary gaps in security at the GPO in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately these concerns have largely been unaddressed. For example, 

the area where the Capitol Police stores a number of HAZMAT vehicles in the GPO building in case of an emergency, there are still 

no GPO police officers present to provide a modicum of security 

there. 

In some cases, it seems that the GPO management is attempting 

to roll back recent measures which greatly increase security at the 

GPO. Currently, the passport building in Washington D.C. is protected by sworn Federal police officers in compliance with the Public Law 110–161 which prohibits the use of contract security guards 

in the building. 

The Public Printer held a meeting with our union in attempt to 

negotiate and allow the use of contract security to protect the passport building. In doing so, in attempting to replace the sworn Federal officers with contract security guards flies in the face of GPO’s 

management claim that they wish to turn the GPO force into a traditional police department. As a matter of fact, the actions of management over the past few years seems to imply a desire to phase 

out the GPO police completely. It should be noted that at the meeting mentioned above by the Public Printer made several comments 

to the officers that they were overpaid. This is quite remarkable 

when the salary of the GPO police officers are compared to those 

of Capitol Police. As you can imagine, management’s attitude has 

not been good for the officer morale. Training security guards to do 

the job of Federally trained officers doesn’t save money and weakens security considerably. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
89 

The security aides do not have the training or the experience or 

wherewithal to protect that building. They cannot assist law enforcement agencies in the case of an emergency and have no authority to protect the perimeter GPO complex. The ramifications of 

this are considerable. There have been attempted rapes and murders outside the complex which GPO officers have assisted in preventing. Furthermore, if there was an attack on an installation 

within a few blocks of GPO such as the Capitol and Union Station 

or in a myriad of buildings within a few blocks the GPO, there 

would be few GPO officers and no security aides to assist. 

Officer morale is further lowered by the significant lack of staffing at the GPO. The current number of 26 rank-and-file officers is 

too low, especially considering the urgings of this Subcommittee in 

the past to hire more officers. Officers continue to get work backto-back shifts on any given day without notice. The repeated practice is creating a burnout situation. 

The GPO police officers are dedicated to the security of GPO and 

to personnel. During the recent blizzards officers volunteered to 

stay on site for days, some even resorted to sleeping in chairs when 

there were no cots available. GPO officers are willing to extend 

themselves beyond the call of duty by repeatedly working double 

shifts. Lack of staffing creates many problems which threatens 

both security and officer safety. The GPO would need to hire about 

17 new officers as it was directed by the Subcommittee in 2007. 

This will fill the security gaps when six officers were hired but 

7 have since left. There have been at least 400 applicants since 

2007, so there is no security for management not to hire more officers. The GPO police force has not received its full financial support the officers deserved in the past few years. The Public Printers 

have completely ignored your requests and have repeatedly sought 

to undermine the agency. It is important that the subcommittee 

provide the funds for the GPO to hire enough officers to fully carry 

out their missions. Furthermore, the Subcommittee must end the 

privatization of security at the GPO complex by reducing the 

amount of funds that are available for contract security guards. 

Finally, it is important that the Subcommittee earmark funds for 

the police department separately for the general funding of GPO. 

Currently, GPO police budget is part of the entire GPO funding 

and they are at the whim of whatever the Public Printer seeks to 

earmark them for. The GPO police budget should be separate from 

the main GPO budget if we are to ensure proper funding for these 

officers. Thank you for allowing me to testify. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

[Mr. Hardwick’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
90 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 56678A.064
91 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 56678A.065
92 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 56678A.066
93 

USE OF CONTRACT SECURITY AT GPO FACILITIES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Hardwick, if you recall the reason 

that there is a law that says the passport facility can’t be guarded 

by security officers is because this committee insisted that that not 

happen any longer, and it was from your testimony of this public 

witness hearing. What additional facilities has GPO proposed 

swapping Federal officers for contract security officers? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Just recently in the past 10 days in the main 

passport facility here that the public printer proposed. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But they can’t have security officers. 

Mr. HARDWICK. I understand that. That didn’t stop them from 

having a meeting and putting on the table before the officers to 

sign an agreement which they wanted to be presented to this committee as if the union proposed it—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Oh, I see. 

Mr. HARDWICK. To have the contract security take over the passport facility. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Any other facilities besides that one? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Other than that one, the one facility in Mississippi still has contract security there. 

FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL OFFICERS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right, that is not part of the law. Are 

you saying that we funded 17 additional officers for GPO’s police 

force and GPO didn’t hire? 

Mr. HARDWICK. They dragged their feet, they have created situations where it has become harder and harder to hire officers. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. How so? 

Mr. HARDWICK. They raised the bar well beyond what we would 

consider people would be hired for Capitol Police, Secret Service, 

deputy marshals or air marshals. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In terms of qualifications? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Aren’t the qualifications that they are 

asking for just the standard—— 

Mr. HARDWICK. No, they are well above what we require or what 

anybody else requires compared to any of the other agencies. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What are they looking for, officers 

that have previous experience or—— 

Mr. HARDWICK. We have requested that they look at officers with 

previous experience working currently with other agencies or new 

recruits. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And what are they insisting on? 

Mr. HARDWICK. They insist that there is always an issue with 

background or an issue with work ethic. We think they have instituted this specialized PT program which requires that officers must 

take it every year and pass it. If not, they will be terminated. No 

other agency requires such an action to take a PT to get the job, 

but you certainly don’t have it every year to keep your job. We 

have talked to officers from other agencies—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is that in your contract? 

Mr. HARDWICK. That is not in our contract, that is in their proposed issue with new hires. We have spoken with people interested 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
94 

in working but they say they were discouraged by GPO’s new mandate. 

POTENTIAL MERGER WITH USCP

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Why shouldn’t we just absorb GPO’s 

police into the Capitol Police? 

Mr. HARDWICK. We think you should. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Has that ever been proposed 

previously? 

Mr. HARDWICK. There is currently some talk about it now recently. There was some paperwork—there were some articles in the 

paper in reference to that by Mr. Brady from Pennsylvania. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Mr. HARDWICK. So we are in the middle of trying to formulate, 

sit down and find out where that is. We think that a merger would 

be good for the department. It would eliminate irregularities and 

the security gaps, everything would be uniform as it is now. Currently we have some Capitol assets at GPO, HAZMAT stuff and 

equipment, we have internal affairs, a whole supply. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It seems to me now we now have absorbed the Library of Congress’s police force and they are all Capitol Police, and this is the only other police agency in the legislative 

branch, and I am just not sure why we shouldn’t have the Capitol 

Police covering all the legislative branch agencies where there is a 

police force necessary. 

Mr. HARDWICK. Currently you have a blueprint for that library 

merger. 

SWORN VS. CONTRACT OFFICERS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We certainly do. The only other question I have is I don’t want to knock contract security officers, because I am sure they do a good job and are well intentioned and 

well qualified, but where there are contract officers or security officers there instead of sworn officers, what risk—what problems 

have there been that are addressed by the difference between having a sworn officer guard a particular facility at GPO versus—— 

Mr. HARDWICK. In recent past? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Recent. 

Mr. HARDWICK. Recent past we have had some officers, some of 

the security officers have been involved with government service, 

parking on the parking lots for free, parking here in the government area. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The security officers themselves? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Yes, to include the project manager. We have 

issues with their backgrounds. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Their own backgrounds? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But have there been any crimes? You 

made reference to attempted rapes and murders. 

Mr. HARDWICK. Those were perpetrated by citizens in the street. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Were sworn officers too far away from 

security officers? 

Mr. HARDWICK. The security officers couldn’t respond to it, but 

our GPO officers—— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
95 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Are they armed? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Yes, but they can’t go in public space. We had 

recent issues where one of the security guards was involved in a 

theft, theft of a visitor’s property coming through the Visitor’s Center. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Has there been any jeopardy to the 

GPO property as a result of security officers? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Not this year. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. How long ago? 

Mr. HARDWICK. I would say 3 years ago. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And what was that? 

Mr. HARDWICK. That is where they had lost their weapons in 

bathrooms and whatnot. We had one of them involved with drug 

dealing outside the agency and they worked at GPO as well as contract security. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Mr. Aderholt. 

NEW OFFICERS

Mr. ADERHOLT. Your proposal would be for 17 new officers? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Well, the Subcommittee proposed that they hire 

17 people, and it is now close to 3 years and 17 people have not 

been hired. That is a clear indication to us that they have been 

dragging their feet. And I think because they were not given a 

deadline to hire those people, they felt that they could do that 

when they wanted to. If they were asked questions they could say 

we are in the process of doing it. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. But 17 would still be sufficient? 

Mr. HARDWICK. Well, right now, no, it would only replace the 

people we have lost by retirement or attrition to other agencies. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

STANDARD FOR USCP AND GPO POLICE

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Is there a standards issue between the two 

police departments? Is there a standard for the Capitol Police than 

the others, is that why—— 

Mr. HARDWICK. The standard is pretty much the same, we attend 

the same schools in the same classrooms. The standard is no different. GPO, the new management has implemented a new standard where the officers are required to be better qualified. We have 

even had some officers who wanted to leave Capitol and transfer 

over to GPO and they were told that they were not eligible to 

apply, and that is because of retirement issues. And we think that 

it is on purpose. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. To save money? 

Mr. HARDWICK. To either save money or not hire. If you look 

every day, you have more security personnel on the list than you 

have police officers. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. No questions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Hardwick, 

we will spend some time addressing your concerns and at this 

point, we have a couple of minutes to vote and there are three 

votes on the floor so with that, the Subcommittee stands in recess 

subject to the call of the Chair. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
96 

[Recess.] 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I call the Subcommittee back to order. 

At this time, I would like to recognize Jesse Hartle with the National Federation of the Blind. You can proceed with a 5-minute 

summary of your statement and your full statement will be entered 

into the record. Welcome. 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 

WITNESS 

JESSE HARTLE, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. HARTLE

Mr. HARTLE. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Jesse Hartle 

and I work in the Department of Governmental Affairs at the National Federation of the Blind. And I am a patron of the National 

Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped. I want 

to thank you and the Ranking Member and other members of the 

Subcommittee for two things: first, for allowing me to testify today 

concerning the importance of the Digital Talking Book Program of 

the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped and for the work that you have done to ensure that this 

transition occurs without interrupting the service of the Talking 

Books Program for the 800,000 patrons who rely on this service as 

their primary source of reading material. 

One of the greatest problems facing blind Americans today is not 

the blindness itself, but it is the misunderstanding of the capabilities of blind people which lead to low expectations by society for us 

to participate on terms of equality with our sighted counterparts. 

The Digital Talking Book Program helps to level of playing field by 

providing access to information for blind people. If you were reading a book in print, on the American Revolution, and I was reading 

the same book by using audio we would both find that Lord Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown. The information contained in 

books is the same regardless of whether it is in print or on audio. 

The NLS has done a remarkable job of providing a wide variety of 

materials for use by its patrons. I have come across blind people 

who are reading books on many topics from best practices of barbecuing, the latest science fiction bestsellers, information on famous 

air battles of World War II and books on parenting. 

Because blind people are a cross section of society, our library 

needs to be able to provide a diverse collection of materials. Part 

of the digital transition has allowed the patrons of the NLS program in several pilot States to download books onto blank cartridges, which they would use in their digital Talking Book player. 

This allows blind patrons on-demand access to information making 

our Library even more effective. The rollout of the new digital 

Talking Book players continues as 20,000 new machines are produced each month. 

And currently over 85,000 new machines are now being used by 

library patrons. On behalf of America’s blind, I want to take this 

opportunity to thank you and this Committee for all of the work 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
97 

you have done to make sure that this transition is adequately funded. We believe that knowledge is power. And your work on this 

project is protecting the right of blind Americans to access that 

power. I also want to take the opportunity to commend the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington and the director of the NLS 

program, Frank Kurt Cylke, for their hard work and commitment 

to providing quality digital talking books to NLS patrons and for 

bringing this transition to fruition so that the viability of this program is assured throughout the 21st century. All that is needed for 

the transition to be completed on schedule in 2013 is for the fiscal 

year 2011 appropriation of 12.5 million to be included, as I said, 

in fiscal year 2011, 2012 and 2013. On behalf of blind Americans 

served by this critically important program, I urge this subcommittee to make sure that this happens so that there will be no 

disruption in service for any NLS patron. Thank you very much. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Hartle. 

[Mr. Hartle’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
98 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 166 here 56678A.067
99 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 167 here 56678A.068
100 

CONVERSION OF NON-NLS MATERIALS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. This entire Subcommittee appreciates 

your testimony and also appreciates the efforts of your organization. They would be hard pressed to find an organization with more 

passionate advocates than those of the National Federation of the 

Blind, and you always make sure that we understand the issues 

that are important to blind Americans. And I can assure you that 

over the next 2 fiscal years, as long as I chair the subcommittee, 

that we will be focused on making sure that we can complete our 

commitment to making sure that we can fully fund the transition 

for digital books for the blind. 

I do have one question, though. And that is, it has come to my 

attention recently that not all reading material is—that there are 

materials that serve blind Americans that are not covered by the 

NLS. And I am wondering if the Federation has a plan for ensuring 

that those materials are accounted for in the conversion? 

Mr. HARTLE. And the—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. For example, there are Jewish—there 

are Jewish documents that are not part of the NLS that I am concerned are not going to make the transition. 

Mr. HARTLE. The National Federation of the Blind has also run 

into this problem as far as providing materials. We, like many 

other organizations, piggy-backed on the cassette technology that 

was used by NLS because the idea was that this technology has 

been used for the past 43 years for the Talking Books Program, 

cassette technology. So the belief was that if you want to get information to blind people, most blind people have cassette players and 

so you kind of use the same technology. And now that that has 

come to an end, we have had to adapt our delivery system to—we 

have moved to kind of a downloadable format from the Internet. 

You can also—some of the things we have also done are e-mailed 

audio files. For Braille materials that are in hardback, or even— 

as technology has advanced, it is possible, and I don’t know the 

technical parameters of how they do this, but the NLS does have 

a format in which you can get a Braille file in an electronic format 

which is called a BRF file. And a user could download that to a 

note taker and it would be up here on a refreshable Braille display 

so they could still have the material in Braille, but that PDA type 

device would also be able to read it in an electronic synthesized 

voice. 

So this is another way that we are working to ensure that materials are still being provided and that nothing is left behind. And 

the National Federation of the Blind would be happy to work with 

any organization to work out ways of providing that information. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would like to help encourage that 

and make sure that while we are trying to—because the whole goal 

is to get all of these materials converted. And if we leave some 

folks behind, then obviously they are not going to have access to 

those materials and may never. This is our one shot. So I just want 

to make sure that we get those, that everything is coordinated. Mr. 

Aderholt. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
101 

DIGITAL TALKING BOOK

Mr. ADERHOLT. In doing this transition, is the latest version 

what is called the Talking Book? 

Mr. HARTLE. The book would be on a cartridge which then goes 

into the player. So we are replacing the old format which was the 

book on a cassette tape and now it is on a cartridge. There are two 

things that can happen. One, you would contact your local library 

for the blind, physically handicapped and request the book and it 

would still be sent to you through the mail as was done in the old 

Talking Book program. But you could also receive a blank cartridge 

which then you could download the book through your computer 

onto that cartridge. You would have that book on that blank cartridge. Then when you finished that book and wanted another 

book, you could go download it to that cartridge and the new book 

would take the place of the old. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. It would be erased? 

Mr. HARTLE. Yes. 

USE OF AUDIO BOOKS

Mr. ADERHOLT. Of course, I know now it is very common for people who actually have 20/20 vision to use audio books. Has there 

been a discussion of a way to try to provide audio books for the 

blind that could serve both purposes? 

Mr. HARTLE. Some commercial audio books are part of the Talking Book program, not—certainly not all. And I am not sure how 

those decisions are made of which comes into the program and 

which is not. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I just wondered—because like I said, it is very 

popular now to do audio books for people who can see 20/20. So I 

just wondered if there was a way that would even be a way to 

produce even more. Like I said, I don’t know how that works either, but that may be something to look into as far as actually 

checking with the Library of Congress when they come to testify 

before us. Thank you for your testimony today. 

Mr. HARTLE. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Hartle. 

Thank you. You did a great job. Next, Mr. Saul Schniderman, 

President of the Library of Congress Professional Guild. You can 

proceed with a summary of your statement and your full statement 

will be entered into the record. Welcome. 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PROFESSIONAL GUILD 

WITNESS 

SAUL SCHNIDERMAN, PRESIDENT, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PROFESSIONAL GUILD 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. SCHNIDERMAN

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. Thank you, Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz 

and Ranking Member Aderholt and Members of the Subcommittee, 

my name is Saul Schniderman, and I am President of the Library 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
102 

of Congress Professional Guild, AFSCME Local 2910. And I am testifying this morning on behalf of over 1,500 professionals at the Library of Congress, excluding CRS who thank you for your support 

of the Library and of their work to help make the Library of Congress a great institution. I am here this morning with our chief 

steward, Nan Ernst, who is an archivist at the Library, and our 

chief negotiator, Ken Dunlap, who is an attorney advisor in the 

Copyright Office. 

Last May when I testified before you, I reported that the EEO 

and the dispute resolution program at the Library was in administrative turmoil. Today I am pleased to report that the OIC, the Office of Opportunity and Inclusiveness and Compliance is being restructured. And to date, we are pleased with the results. Last summer a new director of OIC was appointed and we can attest that 

she is committed to fairness, diversity and resolution of disputes 

and EEO complaints. She has hired competent contract mediators, 

she has met with the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Staff and has initiated a series of educational brown bag teaching sessions. 

I want to make it clear that the OIC is in a rebuilding phase 

right now and its programs—the success of its programs is dependent upon the level of institutional support needed to address discrimination in the workplace. We think it is important that the 

OIC succeeds and we ask that this subcommittee also take a look 

at it and urge it in the right direction. And here is why. 

EEO at the Library of Congress is different from almost anywhere else in the Federal Government. It is peculiar because at the 

Library, employees are not subject to the jurisdiction of the EEOC, 

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. For most Federal 

agencies, the EEOC is responsible for enforcing the EEO laws. This 

makes sense as it would be foolish for an agency to enforce EEO 

laws against itself, but this is exactly the case at the Library of 

Congress where the Librarian is both the employer respondent and 

the administrative official charged with making the final decision 

on an EEO complaint against the Library. In short, its roles are 

in conflict. For the very same reason, the Library’s EEO process is 

neither impartial nor fair because the Librarian rarely, if ever, 

rules in the employee’s favor. 

Regarding EEO, we at the Library always try to contrast ourselves with our colleagues in the legislative branch who come 

under the Congressional Accountability Act and have the right to 

counseling and mediation and procedures that are administered by 

the Office of Compliance, which is independent of those leg branch 

agencies. 

We would like to see the law changed and we would like to have 

those same rights of independent review that our colleagues in the 

legislative branch have. Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Aderholt, we 

only recently were able to review the budget, Dr. Billington’s fiscal 

year 2011 budget, and we have not yet been provided with a briefing on that. But we are generally supportive of his request, except 

for one in particular and that is the establishment of a more centralized workforce performance management program in human resources, particularly the 2 FTEs which the library’s human resources office has requested to manage staff performance. And the 

reason why we don’t support this, we believe that maintaining high 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
103 

performance for professionals at the Library of Congress begins 

and ends on the shop floor where the work is done, not on the sixth 

floor of the Madison Building. 

Ms. Young asked me what do I mean by the sixth floor. Here we 

refer to that as being the sixth floor. That is where all the top management has their offices in the Madison building. On that shop 

floor where we work, if the supervision is good, performance tends 

to be excellent. If it is poor, performance tends to be spotty. And 

now my colleague and fellow President, Dennis Roth, made mention of these 2 FTEs in his testimony, so I wanted to be clear. If 

these FTEs are designed for career development or staff development or supervisory training, that is terrific and we can support 

it. But if it is only to lead to a greater bureaucracy centralized on 

the sixth floor with somebody pushing paper from here to there, we 

are not supportive of it. 

I want to very quickly comment on the crisis in the Copyright Office. To management’s credit, a more realistic view has been emerging regarding the shortcoming of the electronic system which was 

implemented in August of 2007. Currently, the Copyright Office 

has approximately 500,000 claims waiting for processing and this 

is down from approximately 545,000 a couple of months ago. These 

reductions stem from the temporary reassignment of supernumerary staff rather than a clear improvement in the system. 

In December of 2009, 20 staffers were detailed to the registration 

program of the Copyright Office. And in January, 50 additional employees were detailed for a 2-month period. These additional workers have increased registrations a few thousand per week. And for 

the first time since implementation of the new system, the backlog 

is declining, but it remains to be seen whether this progress can 

continue once the 70 workers return to their normal duties. 

And finally, I would like to just end my testimony with two other 

matters which we believe merit support from the Subcommittee. If 

you remember, the guild has testified in the past—we were in favor 

of the recently completed merger of the LOC and the Capitol Police 

to better coordinate campus-wide security. But staffing shortages 

are causing delays for Library employees coming to work, especially at the C Street entrance to the Madison Building where long 

lines on the sidewalk are all too common. 

So more police are needed to provide access to Library buildings. 

And also, as I am sure you are aware, the Library has run out of 

space for its collections on Capitol Hill. We support funding for Collection Storage Module 5 at Fort Meade, because there is, frankly, 

no place for hundreds of thousands of books that are on the floor 

today and we feel that number will grow. This ends my testimony. 

I do hope to be able to submit something in write later on. I thank 

you for this opportunity. 

[Mr. Schniderman’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
104 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 178 here 56678A.069
105 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 here 56678A.070
106 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 here 56678A.071
107 

COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION BACKLOG

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. Mr. 

Schniderman. The progress that has been made in the Copyright 

Office, I am pretty happy about it as well. We, as you know, 

pushed for there to be a very specific commitment on the part of 

the Library to address the backlog. I get a weekly report now on 

their progress, making sure that we hold their feet to the fire so 

that we can get that backlog cleared out is important, and I think 

it is part of the reason that they have now shifted those 50 employees, is to get that job done. I did not hear in your testimony, which 

you did complain about last year, about the electronic processing 

process. Are you still uncomfortable with that process? Or have 

those concerns subsided? 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. No, we are still uncomfortable with it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But it is what it is. 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. It is what it is. We are going to have this 

problem in the Copyright Office for the next few years. The electronic system which they purchased again was designed to help the 

workers do a more efficient job and there have been some small improvements, but when you have a backlog this size it is going to 

be a long time before it is worked out. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What is the Guild’s estimate as to 

how long realistically it would take to clear the backlog? 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. We are not experts in that, but it is going to 

be years. But we do know to put a human face on this, these are 

American citizens who are registering their works with the Copyright Office and sometimes have to wait up to 2 years in order to 

get a certificate. Our support for the Copyright Office is to support 

the copyright industries and small authors. So you can imagine the 

frustration that is out there in the land. I think we are going to 

be living with this crisis for quite a while, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

EEO ISSUES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. This is on the EEO issues. Do you 

have the same concerns that your colleagues at CRS have about 

the small number of employees in the office and their inability to 

address the EEO problems with that small of a shop? 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. That office was basically abolished last year 

and it is now in a state of reconstruction. So in that process, there 

are bound to be different experiences. And I want to say that we 

actually have had to file grievances in order to make sure that mediation services were provided. We are pleased with the director 

and I understand they have recently hired a GS–15 on staff. But 

we have not yet met her. So we have the same concerns. The story 

isn’t over yet. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But you are willing to give it a little 

more time? 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. Yeah, in the sense it is going through a reconstruction phase. And I hope you will look into this and prod 

them in the right direction. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
108 

LIBRARY ENTRANCES

Mr. ADERHOLT. The interesting thing that you mentioned as far 

as the long lines out on the sidewalk in your testimony—has there 

been such discussions about in the mornings to—well first, is it basically in the mornings where this is the problem? 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Have there been discussions about opening up alternative doors? 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. Yes. On our part. Yes, there have been. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What has been the—— 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. In fact, we met with an official from the police, Inspector Morse, 2 weeks ago about this. As you know for the 

Madison Building, there are only 2 entrances. There is the C Street 

entrance and the Independence Avenue entrance. And we have spoken over the last couple of years and convinced the Library to open 

up a door on the First Street side of the Madison building for staff 

only, only in the morning and at lunchtime on the Second Street 

door, which some people call the Pete door, because it is right 

across from Pete’s, if you know that little shop there. Again, for 

staff. Because what happens is—this is an access issue for us. You 

have the staff and the public trying to get into the building at the 

same time, especially off the subway. 

So we have been trying—and he has responded. But it is iffy. 

Sometimes it is open and sometimes it is not. But that is the key 

to the solution is to open up the two side doors just for staff. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. For staff only. So what is the current feedback 

did you get when you—— 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. Here is the feedback. They put a sign—if it 

is closed, specifically for people to come down out of Capitol South 

so they can look up the Hill and see whether it is open. Today it 

was open. Yesterday it was open. But tomorrow it might be closed. 

What has happened is it depends on the supply of officers because 

now that we have merged—now that the police have merged with 

the Capitol Police, those staffing problems have gotten larger. So 

he is aware of our concerns and it has to do with exactly the matter you brought up, the side door. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. And again, 

please, also send our thanks to your fellow employees for all the 

work they do. 

Mr. SCHNIDERMAN. I will certainly do that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Last but not least, Mr. Jim Konczos, 

chairman of the Fraternal Order of the Police Labor Committee. 

Welcome to the Committee and you can proceed with a 5-minute 

summary of your statement and your full statement will be entered 

into the record. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
109 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010. 

UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE LABOR COMMITTEE 

WITNESS 

JAMES KONCZOS, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE LABOR COMMITTEE 

OPENING STATEMENT—MR. KONCZOS

Mr. KONCZOS. Good afternoon. I want to thank the distinguished 

members of this Committee for allowing me this opportunity. My 

name is James Konczos and I represent the United States Capitol 

Police Labor Committee and I serve as the chairman. Our union 

represents the men and women of the Capitol Police. These are the 

officers you see on a daily basis who provide a safe environment 

in which the legislative branch can function without interruption. 

On behalf of these officers, I am here to discuss our current retirement system. As most Federal employees, we are covered under the 

Federal Employees Retirement System known as FERS. 

FERS is a three-tiered system based on a government pension, 

Thrift Savings Plan, and Social Security. This system would allow 

an officer to retire after 25 years of covered service at any age. This 

officer would be eligible for 39 percent pension based on the average of his 3 highest years of his basic pay. This system also subjects an officer to mandatory retirement at age 57, as long as they 

have completed their 20 years of covered service. If an officer can 

only complete 20 years of service due to age, they would receive approximately 34 percent of their salary as pension. Again, based on 

the formula, the 3 highest years of basic pay. 

You start to see the effects of this system regarding pension. Officers who are now eligible to retire choose not to because the pension percentage is so low. And it has come to the union’s attention 

that at least one officer forced to retire at age 57, because of his 

low pension percentages, has submitted for unemployment benefits 

and has been approved. The Thrift Savings Plan, while a good idea, 

also has its drawbacks. Many of our new officers begin their career 

with outstanding student loans which prevents them from contributing the maximum amount into the system. Other officers are 

coming to terms with their first mortgage and school-aged children. 

They face the same dilemma. 

At what time can you contribute the maximum to Thrift Savings? 

For most the answer is never. While Social Security under FERS 

is designed to bridge the gap from the time you separate from the 

agency, you receive your full Social Security benefits at age 62. Because of the low pension percentages and the Thrift Savings uncertainty, it is not meeting its intended goals. While we are aware 

that the pensions were designed to be less than individual’s annual 

compensation when they retire, we have officers retiring at age 57 

needing full-time employment at an age when most employers 

want a younger workforce. I know my time is limited here today, 

so if possible, I would like for my executive board and myself to 

meet at a future date and discuss some options. 

[Mr. Konczos’ prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
110 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 56678A.072
111 

RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Absolutely. We would be glad to do 

that. And we thank you for your testimony. The concerns you expressed over the retirement system, I mean, it is designed so that 

police officers who obviously face a particularly gruelling job and 

particularly gruelling job conditions have an opportunity to retire 

when physically they may be deteriorating, differently than someone who isn’t working in law enforcement. Is there a model in the 

Federal Government that—a model retirement system that you 

think is more appropriate? 

Mr. KONCZOS. Basically, two of the options we have looked at is 

either have the officers contribute more on our end and maybe 

have the department add a little bit more. We have—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. More contribution from the officers 

and more—— 

Mr. KONCZOS. Yes. We have also had a meeting with Terry 

Gainer this morning and we discussed maybe the possibility of 

compressing our pay scale. At its current rate right now, at year 

21 and 26 we get a substantial increase. But if this pay scale can 

be compressed, say just off of the top to, say, 15 to 20, this would 

give officers more time to invest in the Thrift Savings Plan and 

other options they may have. And there are other current retirement systems called the LEAP, which is Law Enforcement Availability Pay. And with that, 25 percent of our basic salary is added 

in their retirement. It reduces overtime and that 25 percent is actually included in the retirement. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. Chief Morse is going to 

testify in front of the Subcommittee in the next 2 weeks. Are there 

any issues that you think from a workforce perspective are important for us to raise with him? 

Mr. KONCZOS. We have had a few wishes which we believe that 

the department might not be using the resources to the best advantage. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And those are issues that you prefer 

to raise—— 

Mr. KONCZOS. I would rather raise them privately because they 

deal with security issues. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS POLICE MERGES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No problem. We can do that. And just 

lastly, how does your union and your fellow officers assess the transition of the Library of Congress officers and—— 

Mr. KONCZOS. For the most part, I have gotten positive feedback. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. From the Capitol Police officers? 

Mr. KONCZOS. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And the former LOC officers as well? 

Mr. KONCZOS. Yes, except for the ones that were forced out due 

to age limitation restrictions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right, right. Obviously they wouldn’t 

be very happy. 

Mr. KONCZOS. No. And one of the things too, the gentleman that 

testified before me raised the issue of manpower, and we have been 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
112 

addressing that over at the Library of Congress and we have hit 

a stalemate with that too. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Well, I look forward to spending some time with you on those issues. Maybe we can even do that 

with Mr. Aderholt together so we can try to—Mr. Aderholt? 

RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Mr. ADERHOLT. You mention in your testimony about the Thrift 

Savings Plan and some drawbacks on that and you mentioned in 

your testimony about the fact that a lot of people, or a lot of the 

officers coming in have student loans. What is it about the Thrift 

Savings Plan that you would like to see changed? I need to clearly 

understand what the problem is. 

Mr. KONCZOS. I believe the problem is if I was hired under the 

civil service plan, I would be putting—I believe it is 71⁄2 percent of 

my retirement. New employees under FERS only put in 1.7. So I 

don’t believe that there is enough funds being contributed by the 

employers and the employees. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Under the current—— 

Mr. KONCZOS. Under the current system. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Does this apply just to you all or does this pretty 

much—— 

Mr. KONCZOS. I believe it is most Federal agencies. Like I said, 

we did invite the officer to come here today just to stand witness 

to this, but we have one of the officers who apparently has applied 

for employment benefits and they won’t accept it because he was 

forced out at age 57 and had a drop in his salary. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. That is all I have. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, thank you very much. And 

thank your fellow officers for your service to the Congress and to 

the American people. Thank you very much. 

Mr. KONCZOS. Thanks for your time. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. With that, we don’t have any additional witnesses to testify. And the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The following statement was submitted for the 

record by the American Bar Association:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
113 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 56678A.073
114 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 56678A.074
115 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 56678A.075
116 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 56678A.076
(117) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010. 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WITNESSES 

HON. LORRAINE C. MILLER, CLERK OF THE HOUSE 

HON. DANIEL P. BEARD, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 

HON. WILSON S. LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay, good morning. I would like to 

call the meeting of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the 

House Committee on Appropriations, which is a really long name. 

This is our hearing on the House of Representatives, and each 

of the officers will read an opening statement. And this is our opportunity to review each of your proposed budgets for this year for 

the House of Representatives. 

I appreciate the effort, given the tight economic situation that we 

are facing and the difficult fiscal year, that, at least in most cases, 

there was an effort to rein in the budgets and even not ask for as 

much as there was last year. So that is really incredibly helpful. 

We will have a number of questions for you after your statements. We are, you know, yet again facing a tight year, and we always face a tight year, particularly in the Legislative Branch because this is a gotta-have type budget as opposed to a nice-to-have. 

And, you know, I have consistently been focused on trying to make 

sure that we deal with the life safety and security issues; that we 

make sure, in the case of your budgets, that we take care of our 

staff, who are our most important assets. 

So we look forward to hearing from you this morning, and your 

full statements will be entered into the record. And after Mr. 

Aderholt, you can proceed with a 5-minute summary. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Once 

again, it is an honor and a pleasure to be with you here this morning for this hearing. I look forward to continue working in a bipartisan manner with this subcommittee, with you and the other 

members, to make sure we get the work of the House done. 

We certainly have our work cut out this year for us. As we go 

through this hearing process and begin to mark up the House bill, 

we will have challenges. And that will be, of course, very difficult 

as we try to fit all of the needs that are demanded by the House 

of Representatives and by the budget. But we will work through 

that. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
118 

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

of the House this morning. I look forward to hearing the progress 

that has been made over the past year since our hearing a year ago 

about their plans for the up and coming fiscal year. 

So, again, thanks for calling this hearing this morning, and we 

look forward to hearing our guests. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

And just to give a couple brief highlights: The Office of the Clerk is requesting $29.2 million, which is 2.26 percent below fiscal year 

2010. The Chief Administrative Officer is requesting $133 million, 

which is 1.9 percent above fiscal year 2010. And the Sergeant at 

Arms is requesting $19.6 million, which is a $10 million increase 

above fiscal year 2010, but that is reflective of the fact that the Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations is finally being moved over to the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 

where it is more appropriately housed. And so $4.5 million of Mr. 

Livingood’s budget request is due to the absorption of that office. 

So, Ms. Miller, welcome. You can proceed with a 5–minute summary of your statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT—LORRAINE MILLER

Ms. MILLER. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Aderholt, and Subcommittee Member Mr. Honda, it is always a pleasure to come before you to give you an overview of our cumulative legislative work 

of the House and to give the subcommittee our justification for the 

fiscal year 2011 budget request. 

We have some ongoing and upcoming projects that I want to report on. For the 111th Congress, as of March 5th, legislatively we 

held 2,190 hearings. We had 991 roll call votes. In the second session of the 111th, we had 255 hearings so far, with 91 roll call 

votes. We have in the 111th bills and resolutions that were introduced, 6,254; bills that were passed in the 111th, 1,085. And public 

laws, we have 145 bills that were enacted into law; 103 of those 

bills were initiated by the House. So the Office of the Clerk supports your legislative activities. 

As to the fiscal year 2011 budget request, our budget reflects the 

growing demand of the services provided by the Office of the Clerk. 

For fiscal year 2011, the Office of the Clerk is requesting a total 

of $29,299,000, a 6.6 percent increase over our fiscal year 2010 

operational budget. On the personnel side, we are requesting $23,284,000, which is 

a 5.4 percent increase over our fiscal year 2010 budget request. 

This includes a request for two new FTEs, which will be software 

development specialists that will help bring our FTE total to 263. On the non-personnel side, our request is $6,015,000, a 2.5 increase over last year. This will support some of our ongoing 

projects, which will include the electronic voting system, lobbying 

disclosure, record storage, and the House Library. 

As to our electronic voting system, I would like to thank the subcommittee for your generous support of our electronic voting system, EVS, upgrade project. As you will remember, in August of 

2009 our summary board displays were replaced with a denser, 

higher-resolution LED technology. We are moving forward with the 

replacement of the main display using the same vendor that inVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
119 

stalled the new summary boards. We anticipate the installation to 

take place later this year, contingent upon the House schedule. 

And we will continue to work with the subcommittee and the staff 

on the logistics and details of the installation. 

As to lobbying disclosure and electronic records, as a result of the 

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, the Office of the 

Clerk implemented a new disclosure system. There are approximately 5,000 lobbying registrant entities representing some 20,000 

clients currently registered with the Office of the Clerk. Furthermore, there are about 15,000 individual lobbyists now registered in 

the Office of the Clerk’s new lobbying contribution system. 

The new law requires that each lobbying registrant, as well as 

each individual lobbyist, file a quarterly report with the Office of 

the Clerk disclosing certain contributions. In the second half of 

2009, we received over 50,000 electronically filed forms submitted 

to our contribution and reporting system. As a result, our office has 

added, with the subcommittee’s support, additional servers and one 

additional FTE to manage these additional responsibilities. 

Secondly, we are consulting with the Committee on Standards 

and hope to implement full electronic reporting of financial disclosure and gift travel reporting during the 112th Congress. 

Records of the House: In 2009, the archival staff processed 

3,150,400 official House records. In addition, the first large-scale 

transfer of electronic records was completed in 2009, and we had 

a committee that transferred all of those records of the 110th Congress, some 19.7 gigabytes, electronically. 

The Office of the Clerk is working with the AOC to find a suitable space for a full and functioning library reading room. When 

the space is acquired, it will need to be retrofitted in order to function as a state-of-the-art digital library. 

Our new projects: The Clerk’s Office has three new projects in 

fiscal year 2011 we would like to bring to the subcommittee’s attention: HouseLive; Document Room shelving; and our Legislative 

Computer Systems server farm improvements. 

HouseLive is a new service the Office of the Clerk will be offering 

to the House community and general public. This new Web streaming video service will offer an online realtime video of the sessions 

of the House of Representatives. We started purchasing the equipment and software in fiscal year 2009, and the live service will 

begin as a beta project. 

Document Room shelving: During fiscal year 2011, the first of a 

two-phase project is planned to purchase and install a high-density 

mobile shelving system for the House Document Room. This new 

shelving is needed to help us increase existing storage capacity in 

the House Document Room, and the new shelving will help us provide additional space to accommodate the increased materials in 

the House Library. The first phase will cost approximately 

$260,000. 

As to our Legislative Computer Systems server farm improvements, the funds will be used to purchase additional hardware and 

software to meet the increased demands on the Clerk’s server farm. 

More than ever, people rely upon the Clerk’s Web site for legislative information and updates. Our Web site currently averages between 300,000 to 500,000 hits per week, depending on the legislaVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
120 

tive schedule. This number will certainly increase. And with that 

increased traffic and expanded information of the new services we 

are making available, we must work to ensure that our hardware 

and software meet the sufficient need. 

In closing, although our expenses have increased marginally, we 

continue to work diligently to contain the costs and to be wise 

stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars. We make every possible effort 

to negotiate the best price for the services and contracts by combining services and, when possible, looking inside, in-house to control our costs. And please be assured that we will be vigorous in 

our efforts to control spending. 

In conclusion, I want to offer the Clerk’s semiannual report for 

your review of our entire operation. I thank the subcommittee for 

allowing me to testify and welcome your questions. 

[Ms. Miller’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
121 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 56678A.077
122 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 56678A.078
123 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 56678A.079
124 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 56678A.080
125 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 56678A.081
126 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 56678A.082
127 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 56678A.083
128 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 56678A.084
129 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 56678A.085
130 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Ms. Miller. 

And really, all the Members thank you for your commitment to the 

institution, as well as the individual Members and staff. 

Mr. Beard, you can proceed with a 5-minute summary of your 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT—DAN BEARD

Mr. BEARD. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Honda, I am pleased to appear 

before you to discuss the budget for the Office of the CAO. 

As the Chair mentioned, the budget request for the CAO for next year is $133 million, which is a 1.9 percent increase over last year. 

We are not asking for any increase in employee positions. Our 

budget reflects a commitment to enhancing information technology 

applications in security, increasing transparency, and a commitment to improving services to the Members. 

I would like to go through some of the highlights for you. First 

and foremost is in the area of information technology. We are requesting $4.2 million to undertake a series of improvements in our 

information systems security efforts, as directed by the Speaker 

and the Republican leader. These improvements include enhancing 

our centralized patch management and improving laptop and data 

encryption. We are now scanning devices before and after international travel. And we have blocked peer-to-peer software intrusions into the system. 

In addition, the joint leadership will direct us to undertake a series of actions to tighten cybersecurity protections over House public Web sites. We will be briefing the subcommittee next week on 

the actions that we will be taking as a result of the directive. 

On November 30, 2009, we posted the third-quarter statement of 

disbursements by the House, which is a document that consists of 

three volumes on house.gov. Subsequent copies, on a quarterly 

basis, of the statement of disbursements will also be put up on the 

Web. This action was taken to increase transparency of House activities and also to reduce the number of printed copies that we 

make of this document. 

The government contributions account for the House provides the 

funding for the House’s portion of current employees benefits, as 

well as benefit enhancement. In 2011, our request will fund programs for the student loan repayment program, child care affordability assistance, and the tuition and professional dues reimbursement programs. The last two, we are working with CHA now to 

work out the final regulations for implementing these programs. 

We are requesting $2.5 million for the Speaker’s Wounded Warrior program. To date, the House Members have hired 30 wounded 

veterans. There are currently 50 funded fellowships, and 28 are 

filled and 22 are in process. The success of the program can be 

pointed out by two fellows who have moved on from the program. 

Scott MacDonald was hired originally by former Congressman 

Chris Shays in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and then subsequently rehired by Jim Himes. He has now found a position with the Department of Veterans Affairs. And Ismael Vazquez, with Congressman 

Ciro Rodriguez, left the fellowship program in January to accept a 

position with the Department of Defense. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
131 

We are requesting $5.5 million to continue the next phase of 

House committee room upgrades for audio and videotape capabilities. To date, we have done 15 committee hearing rooms. The five 

remaining are currently in the design phase, with installation 

dates determined by the Chairs of the committees and by the availability of funds. 

Our request for business continuity and disaster recovery in- cludes $1.8 million—and I wanted to highlight—to purchase software and hardware required to meet the directives of the joint 

leadership to improve the reliability of our IT systems. These funds 

will allow us to replace some aging equipment in our alternate 

computing center. 

Along with the Architect of the Capitol, we have been working 

to implement the Speaker’s Green the Capitol program. The program seeks to reduce our energy consumption by 50 percent over 

10 years. This is an aggressive goal, but we are pleased to report 

we have exceeded our 5 percent annual reduction in energy consumption each year for the past 3 years. 

We also have under way a House-wide effort to consolidate computer servers that has dramatically altered our main data center 

by consolidating 300 CAO servers into 30 high-capacity servers. 

Energy consumption has been dramatically reduced in the data 

center. These energy savings have enabled us to provide a new 

computer server hosting program for 162 Member offices. 

In the past year, my staff, along with the Architect of the Capitol, has conducted more than 225 My Green Office consultations 

on the House campus and 130 district office consultations across 

the country. The goal of these consultations is to have every office 

commit by the end of this Congress to implement 15 recommended 

best practices to save energy, water, and promote reuse. 

We have moved forward with our demonstration project effort in 

cooperation with the Architect of the Capitol, Lawrence Berkeley 

National Lab, and the Department of Energy. We have reviewed 

and ranked 40 proposals to demonstrate innovative energy efficiency and conservation technologies on the House campus. We are 

now awaiting authorizing legislation. No year funding provided 

during FY 2010 will cover the majority of the anticipated costs for 

fiscal year 2011. 

The budget request for 2011 will ensure we remain committed to 

our mission of providing sustainable solutions and maintain a level 

of commitment to providing Members with the quality service support and business continuity that they deserve. 

I would be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate 

point. 

[Mr. Beard’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
132 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 56678A.086
133 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 56678A.087
134 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 56678A.088
135 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 56678A.089
136 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 56678A.090
137 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 56678A.091
138 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 56678A.092
139 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 56678A.093
140 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 56678A.094
141 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 56678A.095
142 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 56678A.096
143 

OPENING STATEMENT—BILL LIVINGOOD

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

Sergeant Livingood. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Good morning, Madam Chairman, Mr. Aderholt, 

Mr. Honda, and Mr. Ruppersberger. It is an honor to be here this 

morning to appear before you to present the Sergeant at Arms 

budget request for fiscal year 2011. 

Before I can begin my statement, I would like to begin, as I have 

the last year or 2, by expressing my sincere gratitude to each member of this committee and the Members of the House for their past 

and continued support throughout the year. Your support and assistance enable us to provide a safer, more secure environment for 

Congress, staff, constituents and all the visitors we have here and 

world leaders. 

Events in 2009 remind us of the real threat from terrorism which 

we face in today’s world. It is still here; it has not changed. As the 

chief law enforcement officer of the House of Representatives, I 

continue to focus constantly on all aspects of security and life safety. My office reviews emergency plans, schedules evacuation drills 

for the Capitol and the House office buildings. We coordinate ongoing security enhancements as necessary and work on a daily basis 

with the U.S. Capitol Police in order to ensure that the safety of 

Members, staff, and visitors remains at the highest possible level. 

Total funding for the Sergeant at Arms Office in fiscal year 2011 

is $19,623,000. This includes $9,800,000 for personnel expenses 

and $9,823,000 for non-personnel items. This amount also takes 

into account funding for the additional duties that the Sergeant at 

Arms Office will require to operate its new Office of Emergency 

Management, formally known as OEPPO, which was transferred to 

the Sergeant at Arms Office on February 1st, 2010. 

This is an overall increase of $5,669,000, or 40 percent, from fiscal year 2010, including OEM’s budget. Excluding the OEM budget, 

the Sergeant at Arms overall budget request is $2,000 less than fiscal year 2010. 

Personnel funding in 2011 is requested for salaries of 131 current 

employees as well as for expenses related to the request for three 

new FTEs. Of these three new FTEs, two will serve as Chamber 

support service staff, and they will be used in the CVC for visitors 

going to the Gallery; they will be used up in the Gallery; and they 

will replace some of the Senate people who have been helping us 

in the past in our House elevators that travel up to the Gallery, 

because they offered to help us as we didn’t have enough people to 

put there. So that would relieve that situation. Then the other FTE 

is in the Office of House Services, and that will be used to enhance 

communication with Member offices on their classified materials. 

I mentioned that OEPPO was transferred to us as the Office of 

Emergency Management on the 1st of February. And I just want 

to tell you that I welcome this opportunity and challenge and assure you that I intend to aggressively pursue the goal of assuring 

the continuity of operations of the House and safety of Members, 

staff, employees, and visitors to be a full-time job and will pay particular professional attention to that. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
144 

And I particularly welcome the opportunity to work with the 

three House officers and the three of us working together, with the 

Senate and other entities in the House and Senate operations. 

In closing, I would just like to thank all members of the committee for the opportunity to present our budget for fiscal year 

2011. And I remain vigilant and committed to ensure the safety 

and security of the Capitol complex and its occupants, while maintaining fiscal responsibility during these difficult economic times. 

As always, I will continue to keep the committee aware of my activities. 

At this time, I am happy to answer any questions about the 

budget or any other questions you may have. 

[Mr. Livingood’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
145 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 56678A.097
146 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 56678A.098
147 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 56678A.099
148 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 56678A.100
149 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 56678A.101
150 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 56678A.102
151 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

I have a question for all of you, but we will start with Mr. Beard. 

COST OF FOOD IN CAFETERIAS

Mr. Beard, we discussed at the hearing last year the really huge 

uptick in prices in the cafeterias. Restaurant Associates charges 

about 30 percent more for food than the previous vendor. And we 

had language in our bill—I don’t remember whether it was in the 

2009 bill or the 2010 bill—yeah, in last year’s bill, we discussed it 

at the hearing—so that you could take steps to make sure that affordable options were available for staff and for visitors to our cafeterias. 

And I know that value meals were instituted subsequent to our 

hearing and subsequent to that language being in the Legislative 

Branch Appropriations bill. But the way the value meals have been 

instituted, it is one meal per day for the whole cafeteria. There are 

about 10 or 11 different stations. 

In order to make sure that there isn’t only one affordable option 

if that is not something that a staff person or a visitor likes or is 

interested in eating that day, I still think that there needs to be 

a push on Restaurant Associates to provide a larger variety of affordable options. Maybe a value meal at every station, maybe a 

value meal at a number of stations each day. 

But I don’t think they have gone far enough. And especially in 

these difficult economic times, and our staff already earn a deflated 

salary compared to if they were working in the private sector, what 

steps do you think can be taken to address that? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, we have not looked at the possibility of offering 

value meals at each station. We would be happy to do so. The most 

important thing for you to understand is—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And the reason I am asking is because I am still getting—we get a lot of complaints from staff. 

Mr. BEARD. I get them, as well. 

Well, first of all, Restaurant Associates hasn’t increased their 

prices since October of 2008. And they ask on almost a monthly 

basis. We have monthly discussions, and they have been denied requests to increase their prices since 2008. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good. 

Mr. BEARD. But in the meantime, they have provided a 40–centper-hour wage increase to their employees under the union contract 

in December of last year and the year before. And it isn’t as if costs 

are going down. 

We are to the point now, it seems to me, where we have to look 

at some other options, and we have to look at some of those seriously. For example, our hours of operation, are they too long? That 

is a great expense too—and should we reduce those? My guess is 

people won’t want to do that. But whether or not we ought to reduce the number of menu items. You know, in Longworth, we provide eight or 10 different stations. The question is, should we specialize and have only five or four? 

As we move down the road to consider other options, there is 

pain involved with each one of those options. And—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But I find it hard to believe that adding a few more affordable options for our staff than the one affordVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
152 

able option that is available now in the whole cafeteria is an either/ 

or proposition: Either we do something like that or we condense 

from 12 to five stations or we cut the hours back. That is—and, I 

mean, to be honest with you, last year you said you didn’t really 

know what could be done to address the expense of food in the Capitol. And when we put language in the bill, you were able to come 

up with something. 

So I don’t want to have to put language in the bill again to make 

sure that something is done. And I certainly don’t think it is appropriate to suggest that we cut back on hours or reduce the choices. 

It seems very simple that there are some steps that we can take. 

I would be glad to sit down with Restaurant Associates and talk 

to them about it, if you don’t think it is something that you are 

able to address with them in any other way except reducing hours. 

But something has to give. They aren’t providing enough affordable 

options. 

Mr. BEARD. Okay. Be happy to do that. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.— A further explanation by the House CAO follows:] 

In response to the Committee’s direction to develop specific proposals for reducing 

food service costs, the CAO directed Restaurant Associates (RA) to develop new concepts focused on creating more affordable options for the House community. There 

are 3 basic concepts in the program. 

MEAL DEALS—This program is designed to offer a variety of simple prepackaged 

sandwiches, side salads and desserts/snacks at very affordable prices. These items 

will be available in all House buildings and in the Capitol. On a daily basis RA will 

offer 5 sandwiches, 6 side items including a yogurt parfait and fresh fruit and 5 

small simple side dishes such as potato salad and macaroni salad. Pricing for these 

items will be as follows: 

Sandwiches ............................................................................................................. $3.00 

Complex Side Salads/Desserts .............................................................................. $2.00 

Small Side Salads .................................................................................................. $1.00 

$4.95 SUB PROGRAM—This program will be offered in the Rayburn Deli and 

Cannon Cafe ́. The central item in this concept is an affordable $4.95 sub. RA is proposing a menu consisting of 6 standard subs offered daily along with a rotating 

daily hot sub. Each sub is $4.95. There is also a $6 Value Meal which includes a 

fountain beverage or milk. The focus of this program is to offer a favorite Hill menu 

item at a great price. 

‘‘RED TAG GREAT DEALS’’—This program revolves around reinvigorating and 

rebranding the meal package program RA has offered in the past. Although RA has 

offered meal packages in the past, it has been very difficult for customers to identify 

the meal deals at each station. The new program will feature an aggressive outreach 

program including new signage and props to support the new tagline ‘‘Red Tag 

Great Deals’’. This branding will also be used to convey any limited time value offerings throughout the dining outlets. All ‘‘Red Tag Great Deals’’ will focus on bundling 

a primary menu item with a beverage. 

The CAO asked RA to implement a variety of other programmatic changes that 

provide value for customers while enhancing the overall food program. These 

changes include: 

• Cannon Cafe ́ will offer a $6 meal package every day that includes either a hamburger or cheeseburger along with French fries and a choice of milk or a fountain 

soda. The burger served at Cannon is reputed to be the best burger on the Hill. RA 

has developed a package price to further enhance the appealing nature and value 

of the burgers served in Cannon. 

• RA will be modifying the Value Meal station so that its offerings change daily 

rather than weekly as in the past. RA feels this change will offer more value-driven 

options each week. 

• In Longworth, RA will be revamping the wrap station menus to add some fresh 

new wrap choices to this already popular program. 

• As the local growing season approaches, RA will again bring in local farmers 

to Longworth to sell their produce directly to the House community. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
153 

To support this program RA has committed to launch an extensive marketing program that will include new taglines, signage, advertising, media releases and visual 

presentations. Additionally, they are developing a customer outreach program that 

will include focus groups and a strong emphasis on soliciting customer feedback on 

these new programs. 

HOUSE STAFFING AND DIVERSITY

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

In terms of the House compensation study, you know, the results 

were pretty disturbing. We are at, like, 7 percent African American 

chiefs of staff, 7.5 percent African American chiefs of staff; 7 percent, legislative directors; 12 percent, office managers; about 6 percent of legislative assistants are African American. And then if you 

look at Hispanics, the numbers are much worse, 2 to 3 percent, 4 

percent, 6.8 percent. 

What steps do you think need to be taken to, number one, educate the potential staffing pool, both inside the House and beyond, 

about the opportunities that are available here so that—because I 

assume a lot of it is that there aren’t enough applicants. But beyond the applicants, what do we need to do to increase the diversity in the leadership of the staff of the House and in the lower levels? Because we all know that that is a pipeline to staff leadership. 

Mr. BEARD. Well, I think the first thing is to recognize that the 

House is a very decentralized institution. We have 504 separate 

employing entities, and each one hires according to its own set of 

rules and procedures. 

The House compensation study was done to try to provide the 

data and the background. We have some of the groups, such as the 

group that Mr. Honda has been involved with, that have been trying to reach out to those. Congressman Becerra has offered up the 

idea of an Office of Diversity and has been working with the leadership to try to put together a series of efforts. 

The Speaker has charged the Committee on House Administration to come up with a series of steps that can be undertaken to 

try to address diversity issues in employment and hiring in the 

House. So, the main charge is going to be led by the Committee on 

House Administration. 

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

Mr. Aderholt. 

ENERGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Beard. Thanks for your testimony this morning. 

Last year, when we had this hearing, your written statement indicated that you have sought proposals for energy demonstration 

projects, which were funded last year. And I understand by this 

year’s written statement that around 40 proposals have been accepted. Is that correct? 

Mr. BEARD. Were evaluated. Forty were evaluated. We have tentatively selected three. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. Tentatively. We were under the impression 

that the program was tied to the Lofgren-Wamp bill, which is 

pending in the House. Is that what it is tied to? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
154 

Mr. BEARD. It is. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. What authority do you have to move forward with the request? Because I understand that legislation has 

not been approved. 

Mr. BEARD. Funding was made available subject to authorization, and so we have been waiting for the authorization bill to pass. 

The short answer to your question is: What authority do I have? 

We don’t have authority to award the funds and proceed until we 

get the authorization legislation passed. 

So these were no-year funds, and they will carry over to the next 

year if the legislation is delayed, however long the legislation is delayed. 

DISTRICT OFFICE ENERGY CONSULTATIONS

Mr. ADERHOLT. In your written testimony, it indicated that the 

staff had provided consultation for over 130 district offices across 

the country over this past year regarding the greening issue. And 

it is your hope to provide consultations to at least one district office 

in each of the 441 districts. Your testimony indicates there have 

been savings of at least $50,000 in reduced electricity and procurement costs, and the savings continue to grow. 

What is the cost-benefit analysis of the associated staff and travel costs projected with the savings of these district visits? And 

could you provide some analysis of that, or have you all looked at 

that? And then if you haven’t, could you have those records brought 

to us so we can take a look at them? 

Mr. BEARD. Sure. We would be more than happy to provide that 

to you. 

We undertake district office consultations on two subjects. One is 

on Internet and IT security. We have a staff who have regularly 

gone out to district offices to advise them on how to improve the 

security of their IT systems. We have simply joined up those two, 

and we send out usually one individual, and try to hold group 

meetings. In other words, we went to the San Francisco Bay area 

and we had 12 offices meet. We set up meetings in Dallas and Ft. 

Worth and had about 10 offices there. And what we try to do is 

meet with them as a group. 

We are also using videoconferencing. There is a quarterly meeting that the Library of Congress holds for district offices. And we 

are now on their agenda and providing that information there. 

But I would be more than happy to go back and do the calculations for you as to—— 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Yeah. Well, if you could provide the committee 

with the costs, including travel expenses, staffing, associated with 

these visits, just so we could take a look at it. 

I will go ahead and refer now to the other side of the aisle. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.— A further explanation by the House CAO follows:] 

The one-time cost to date (through April, 2010) to visit 155 District Offices is 

$73,855. The potential savings for the 15 greening business practices discussed in 

the consultation and what the office agrees to implement is estimated at $140,760 

annually for reduced electricity and procurement costs (assumes 100% participation). These savings are calculated based on the 15 greening business practices that 

the District Offices agree to complete. Additionally, there are savings in electricity 

of approximately 534,060 kWh, waste reduction of approximately 323,610 pounds, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
155 

and CO2 emissions (carbon dioxide equivalent) of 1,292,370 pounds. Each succeeding year will have similar savings with minimal annual costs associated with 

the District Office outreach program. 

The Green the Capitol office is continuing to refine the best available way to complete the District Office consultations. To date we have used four different approaches to reach District Offices: 

• Regional workshop consultation 

• District Office consultation 

• Video consultation 

• Quarterly Congressional Research Service District Management Institute 

presentation. 

To get each District Office started in the program it is important to meet with 

District Office staff that will be responsible for continued monitoring of the green 

business practices. The objective is to make one greening consultation to a staff representative from each District Office prior to the end of the 111th Congress. If this 

is achieved, the estimated savings, if all offices achieve at least the minimum of 15 

greening business practices, would amount to $267,240 (assumes 100% participation), while the cost through December, 2010 is projected to be $136,274 (using average for real costs through April 2010). 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Mr. Honda. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And then I may come back later for some questions. 

PASSWORDS ON BLACKBERRYS

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 

A couple of quick questions, Mr. Beard. Recently we have just 

been required to have passwords on our BlackBerrys. And I assume 

that that is because of security and folks breaking into our security 

system. 

The question I had was, those folks that were contracted, aren’t 

they required to have and keep up with the technology and coming 

up with—what do they call that—a program, programming, so that 

things can be done more securely so that we don’t have to keep 

inputting our passwords every time you pick up a BlackBerry? 

I don’t want to seem lazy, but it is pretty irritating that every 

time I have to input my password in order to access my BlackBerry. Are you guys working with our vendors to have them come 

up with a program where we can get around that? 

Mr. BEARD. I do not know of any efforts to currently do that. 

The recommendation to implement passwords on BlackBerrys 

came as a result of the intrusion that occurred last August. The 

Speaker and Republican leader asked for our recommendations as 

to how we could improve security. We sent recommendations up, 

and one of the directives that they provided to us was to implement 

passwords on BlackBerrys. 

Mr. HONDA. I am sorry, who? 

Mr. BEARD. The Speaker and the Republican leader. 

It was thoroughly debated with them that this was not going to 

be the most popular recommendation that would come out. But the 

feeling on their part and our part, as well, is that if you just leave 

your BlackBerry somewhere and somebody picks it up, they have 

all of your contact information, all of your personal information on 

that BlackBerry. And that is a risk to everybody here in the House 

of Representatives. 

Our system is only as safe as its weakest link. You know, we 

have had intrusions. A lot of our intrusions come as a result of 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
156 

through district offices. And it is a very diverse, decentralized system that we have, from Pago Pago and Guam and the Northern 

Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico and all the 50 States. So it is a 

challenge to keep that security level high. 

The intrusion that we had in August, and the one we had in January as well, point out the costs that are associated with these 

vulnerabilities. 

Mr. HONDA. So we didn’t task our vendors to come up with a program to provide the security that we need, in spite of the fact that 

we have some folks who forget their BlackBerrys? 

Mr. BEARD. We have tried every possible way to put the controls 

on at the enterprise level so that the individual doesn’t have to do 

it. For example, the peer-to-peer software, which was the reason 

why some documents were divulged from the Ethics Committee, 

was added to a machine a staff person. We now block that at the 

enterprise level, and it can’t be used by people on our system. 

We try wherever we can to block—to put controls at the enterprise level so that it doesn’t make an effort for you. 

Mr. HONDA. Peer-to-peer, using a PIN? Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. BEARD. Peer-to-peer is a swapping for records and for music 

and other documents. 

Mr. HONDA. On a BlackBerry? 

Mr. BEARD. On a BlackBerry or on a computer, yes. And it is 

very common—you and I are too old. All the younger people in this 

room know exactly what it is. And it opens up your computer to 

access by just about anybody anywhere. And so the contents of 

your computer can be sent out to the Internet. That is what happened in August with the individual that—— 

Mr. HONDA. This is not a closed issue yet, though? 

Mr. BEARD. Oh, no. It is not a closed issue. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—A further explanation by the House CAO follows:] 

Just like a desktop computer is a tool for processing information, a BlackBerry 

is a device for processing email. The makers of these devices, along with third-party 

vendors, can and have created a suite of protections such as encryption to assist in 

securing the information stored on the devices. As advanced as the devices have become, they cannot tell if the person who is using them is actually authorized to do 

so. The only way to ensure that the person using the device is in fact the correct 

individual is to enable a protection known only by that person, such as a password. 

Using a password protects the device from a malicious or just a casual user from 

accessing information he or she should not have. 

EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Livingood, I want to thank you for having put 

the staff together to discuss more fully the emergency evacuation 

plan and bringing in a speaker from the Pentagon. 

The Pentagon is a little bit different building, but the issues are 

the same: being able to make sure that our staff are safe, our visitors are safe, and that we find a way where we can guide people 

in and out of the building safely, choosing routes that are safe in 

real time, two-way communications. 

I look forward to further reports on this. It is something that we 

should be doing as we look at renovating all of our buildings and 

are doing one thing after the other. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
157 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You and Ms. McCollum have been 

real leaders on that issue. And I look forward to—— 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. And we are going to be presenting a plan, too, 

on each of these items we talked about, the four or so items, or 

five, and then keep looking at others too, not just stop with those. 

Mr. HONDA. Somewhere along the line, Madam Chair, the leadership, at least at this end, should be brought up to speed so that 

they understand that this building also needs to be thought about 

in terms of safe evacuation procedures while folks are here. And it 

seems like we have a problem with the Senate side in terms of cooperation and coordination. But be that as it may, I am most concerned about our staff and our visitors. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. And we are going to continue working on that, 

sir. And I will bring it to leadership, as you and I talked also. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

Oh, I am sorry. Why don’t we go through all the Members that 

haven’t asked, and then I will come back to you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Yes, let’s do that. Fine. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Ruppersberger. 

FOOD SERVICE CONTRACTS

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. First, most of my questions will be to you, 

Dan. Because I think you all do a good job at what you are doing. 

I think the police department does a great job, they are very professional, and it continues to get better and better each year. 

And, Lorraine, you are not allowed to say—— 

Ms. MILLER. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I am going to give you a compliment. Since 

you have been in your position, I think that you have really focused 

on service. And your style is you get things done, you get good people and hold people who aren’t doing their job accountable. And I 

think you have made a lot of good decisions in a lot of different 

areas, in our office management and the things that you deal with. 

The two areas I want to get into, Dan, and I keep bringing it up 

when I see you on the street, and that is the issue of food. And why 

I bring it up, because I like food. 

The key issue is, you know, we are only as good as our team and 

our staff. And we have good staff. And when our staff, that we can’t 

pay what we would like to pay—but they are working and they are 

dedicated employees, and they just can’t afford to eat every day 

downstairs. 

Now, I know there are issues of contracts and how long you have 

a contract and the other side has to make money. But I have 

known a lot of people in the food business, and there are some that 

do well and some that don’t. And I think you probably can’t do it 

pursuant to a contract, but we should probably have just one vendor like a Subway, as an example. Five-dollar foot-long, whatever. 

But that is important, because when you have that it gives options. 

I mean, they have passed the nutrition test, I think. But that gives 

options on where we need to go. So a lot of our people are either 

going out someplace else or they are brown-bagging every day. 

And I don’t know if you have a responsibility for this, but I think 

it is outrageous what is going on in the Capitol Visitor Center for 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
158 

these families that come in and get a $9 sandwich. Now, maybe if 

that is not a part of your contract, we should pull it all together. 

Maybe more volume would be less cost. I don’t know. 

But I think that has become a public relations issue. This is the 

Nation’s Capitol. We want our students from all over the country 

to come here. And—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield? 

Just to follow up on the issue of the cafeteria in the Capitol Visitor Center, I was told when I inquired about the prices way back 

when the Visitor Center first opened why they were set so high, 

I was told it was because we were trying to discourage—they didn’t 

want staff eating at the Capitol Visitor Center cafeteria, that they 

wanted to reserve it for visitors, and that if they set—they set the 

prices higher deliberately so the staff would stay away, as if the 

distance of walking there wasn’t enough of a hassle to start with. 

I thought that would be a deterrent, without the bread crumbs, you 

know, leading you back to where you came from. 

But beyond that, they also—let’s say a staff person decides, okay, 

I am going to pay the higher prices, the food happens to be better 

in the cafeteria in the CVC than it is—and that is a matter of opinion. But from my own anecdotal survey, the food choices seem to 

be better and tastier in the CVC cafeteria than the ones we have 

in the rest of the complex. They won’t give a carryout container unless you show that you have a staff ID. So if you want to bring food 

out—now, the argument is that they don’t want visitors eating in 

other parts of the Capitol Visitor Center. That seems easy enough 

to enforce without requiring a staff ID for a carryout container. 

But, you know, just the whole idea that we aren’t being stafffriendly when it comes to the care and feeding of our employees is 

really obnoxious. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I agree. That is the issue, that more than 

anything else. We have to deal with that. We are seeing it. And I 

don’t know—how long is your contract with this food service company right now? 

Mr. BEARD. It is a 7-year contract. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. So what year are we in now? 

Mr. BEARD. Third year. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Any modifications in there? 

Mr. BEARD. Sure. We can modify it as we go forward with them, 

and we don’t have to wait 7 years, if there is something in particular. We modify the contract several times a year for minor 

issues that we deal with. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. It is almost like you go on a train, it costs 

more money. So we would just say this. You can’t solve it here at 

the table. We are going to ask you to look at it. Try to get a Subway or someone that has the ability to be able to give the prices 

that we need, and then you have competition, and then you have 

other areas. 

I think also having a value meal—the value meals cost a lot, too, 

when you fill it up. I mean, you are spending over $10, $12, $15 

for lunch when you get your potato chips and your Coke or whatever you are going to get. 

Mr. BEARD. Right. Right. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
159 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. We are finished with food now, okay? Do 

you get our message? 

Mr. BEARD. Well, I get the message. The message comes through 

loud and clear. I do want to—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. This is for employees, believe me. 

Mr. BEARD. No, I know that. But I do want to supplement something the Chair said. Look, this contract was negotiated before I 

got here. But it is not my understanding—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Okay. 

Mr. BEARD. What? Oh, okay. No, you know, we have the ability 

to change it, should we so desire. But the pricing model for the 

CVC was not based on trying to discourage—as far as I know, not 

trying to discourage staff. It was based on, the pricing there would 

be the same as the pricing for any of the Smithsonian Institutions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But it is actually much more expensive than the Smithsonian Institution, because we have checked. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Look at a Five Guys hamburger versus a 

hamburger here. 

Mr. BEARD. Well, but Five Guys is different than—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. It is not an apples comparison. 

Mr. BEARD. No. And the pricing for the House and the Senate 

is lower, both the House and the Senate pricing is lower than the 

CVC. Now, it is not as an incentive to keep staff from going there. 

I just wanted to make sure that is the case. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, I was misinformed, then, when 

I required as to why the prices were different. 

COMMUNICATION IN CAPITOL AND CVC

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. The other thing that is important, because 

it affects Members and their ability to communicate and also to 

vote—and you alluded to it in your testimony—is wireless access. 

I feel there are some areas that really need to be prioritized. The 

area of the Capitol cafeteria or the Capitol—what do they call it 

downstairs? The Capitol—— 

Mr. BEARD. The Capitol Market, right downstairs? 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. But there is an issue that there is no communication. And a lot of times, a lot of Members go there because 

you are there, you are voting, and then you don’t hear anything. 

And there is no—even a system. Our staff can’t communicate with 

us there if we go there. You know there is going to be a vote in 

half an hour, so you go downstairs. There is no communication. I 

think it is really a high priority to do something in there, or to get 

the staff there to notify Members on a regular basis every time 

there is a vote. We do that in committee hearings and whatever, 

but we have—I mean, I have missed a vote in there. It is my fault. 

But I just think communication is really important there because 

a lot of us use it. 

The other issue, those of us on the Intelligence Committee, when 

we go into our SCIF at the Capitol Visitor Center, you know, we 

can’t take BlackBerrys and we can’t take cell phones, so we have 

to keep them outside. Now, we have had—and I have asked the 

NSA to go in and make sure that we can have access in the hallway so when we come out of the SCIF, we can get to our BlackVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
160 

Berrys, look at it and go back in again, because of the communication with our staff. 

If you could focus on—I don’t know, Mr. Livingood, if you are 

working the issue together—and see what we can do in that hallway area. You have Admirals, you have CIA, NSA, they are all in 

there, and they can’t take any of their equipment. That hallway is 

very important for us to be able to communicate, come out, go back 

in with our staff. 

Let me ask you this. You talk about Rayburn cafeteria is another 

issue for Members. Mainly for the issue of votes, more than anything, trying to make that a priority. And I see in your testimony 

that that is going to be the next priority on access. 

How are we doing on the tunnel, when we walk through the tunnel from Rayburn over to the Capitol? Have we improved that pretty well? 

Mr. BEARD. We have, as far as I know. That portion, addressing 

it, has been resolved. 

And Mr. Livingood and I, with the help of the Chair, we now 

have an agreed-upon, step-by-step approach to improve BlackBerry 

access in the CVC, particularly the caucus rooms that are above 

the SCIFs. But it wouldn’t be a problem at all to add the hallway 

there. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And I know it has to be certified by the 

NSA. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes, we will have to look at that with the intelligence community—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I guess I also wanted to tell you that, 

because of the sensitive nature of the issues that they are addressing, we are going to have a closed-door briefing for the subcommittee on the plans and when that process will be implemented. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Can you make that Capitol cafeteria, whatever you call it, a high priority? Because people—— 

Mr. BEARD. Sure. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you. I have to go to another hearing. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—A further explanation by the House CAO follows:] 

The Office of the CAO is addressing this high priority initiative for wireless coverage and the following plan outlines these efforts. 

CVC House expansion space meeting rooms design 

• The National Security Agency (NSA) has provided a redacted radio frequency 

(RF) survey document to the House Sergeant-at-Arms (SAA). The House SAA provided a copy to CAO and the Wireless Consortium representative (Verizon). 

• Verizon, House SAA and CAO are now working out specific design details and 

antenna placement issues. Draft design completion target is the end of April 2010. 

Approval and licensing modification 

• Draft design will then be reviewed and approved by CAO and House SAA. 

— Verizon estimates the project will take 3 to 4 months from this step. 

• The CAO and Wireless Consortium modify the current In-Building Cellular License to add the CVC House space. The approved design is an exhibit for the license 

modification. 

Installation and initial testing 

• The Wireless Consortium procures and installs the antennas, cabling and cellular support equipment. The CVC cell system is then placed into initial service. 

— The Wireless Consortium funds the entire project to this point. 

• House SAA coordinates a security review of the installed system and wireless 

coverage. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
161 

• Verizon is directed to modify the installation as necessary to meet security and 

coverage requirements. 

— CAO may help address modifications with Verizon. 

Capitol Market, Rayburn tunnel, other areas and hallway outside SCIF 

room 

• CAO/Wireless Consortium will start Capitol design discussions after the CVC 

House side is completed. 

• At the request of the CAO, Verizon is looking into providing near-term, InBuilding Cell/BlackBerry (BB) service in: 

— The Capitol Market 

— RHOB tunnel near the Capitol entrance 

• Other areas: 

— The CAO is working with the AOC’s Capitol Superintendent to build out the 

Capitol/CVC In-Building Cellular ‘‘head end’’ room HVC–126. The head end is the 

nexus point for cabling and cellular control equipment. AOC has completed the design and has the construction funding. This effort is expected to take two months 

(concurrent). The CAO is reaching out to the AOC to see when this can start. 

— An additional request to provide cell/BB service in the hallway outside of 

House Permanent Select committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) CVC. House SAA discussions with HPSCI raised some security concerns regarding this request. The hallway area is problematic from a security point of view. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

NUMBER OF ROLL CALL VOTES

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

Ms. Miller, you had mentioned in your testimony about the number of roll call votes that had been cast this year. Now, what did 

you have the number down again for the first session of the 111th 

Congress? 

Ms. MILLER. The first session of the 111th, 991 votes, roll call 

votes. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. What did you say? How many? 

Ms. MILLER. 991 roll call votes, first session. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. How does that compare to the first session of the 

110th Congress? Do you know offhand? 

Ms. MILLER. I believe it is a little lower. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. Because I knew I had heard at one time 

that some of the votes historically have been cast and that—— 

Ms. MILLER. Yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. So when you said those numbers, it reminded me. 

HOUSE LIBRARY

You mentioned about the modernization of the House Library. 

Could you give us an update on that, what the progress being made 

on that is? 

Ms. MILLER. Sure. Well, for a number of years, the subcommittee 

has been very generous in helping us support trying to do a library. 

And what we were wanting to do is to make our library digital and 

focus solely on the House. We are not trying to duplicate anything 

that the Library of Congress does. 

For instance, we are working with the Archives legislative center 

that houses all of our records. I will give you a quick example. During the health care debate, there was a staffer from the Ways and 

Means Committee who was looking for an old piece of legislation 

back in 1938 that had to do with health care. Well, subsequently 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
162 

he had to fill out a form, we went to the Legislative Resource Center over at the Archives to get it. We found it out in the College 

Park center. Took them a couple of days to get it to him. 

What we are trying to do, though, is have new finding techniques 

that we could have found that much easier, make that information 

available not only to committees but to all House staff in a much 

easier, simpler format. And we think the library would be the portal. 

And one of the arguments against that is, well, why don’t we just 

make that available at every laptop for every staff person? Licenses 

are involved. That would be cost-prohibitive. We wouldn’t want to 

put that kind of expense. So we have purchased the licenses and 

we are about to do that, so that we can make that accessible. We 

would be the portal, the House Library would be the portal, and 

it would be available and accessible there. 

So we are moving. We have, over the last couple years, gathered 

a lot of Web sites and a lot of things, finding tools, that will help 

the library be the kind of digital place. We are not talking about 

a large place, but just enough to house all of this. 

HISTORICAL SERVICES—MEMBERS’ PAPERS

Mr. ADERHOLT. One of the other things that was mentioned in 

your remarks was the historical services and how you worked with 

the archives in trying to make sure that Members’ offices keep 

proper records. What currently do you have in place for offices? 

With the amount of information and the amount of paper that 

comes through Members’ offices, as someone who values history 

quite a bit, I think it is important that we do try to archive as 

much as possible. 

Of course you can’t save every piece of paper that comes through 

a congressional office. But I think better training staff on which 

things to keep, which things to throw away would be very helpful. 

Ms. MILLER. Right. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Because a lot of times, we are so limited on space 

in our offices, the goal is just to throw it away and get it discarded. 

And I think sometimes there is a lot of valuable information and 

stuff that future generations could look back at and would find 

very intriguing when they are studying the operations of the 

House. 

And so I just wonder what process right now do you have to 

move forward in trying to train or try to give advice to staff on how 

to sort through this stuff for historical purposes? 

Ms. MILLER. We have in the Office of History and Preservation 

an archivist for the House. We recently hired another assistant archivist to help her. 

And what we do now, if there is a new Member coming aboard— 

we really focus on the new Members—we have 44 Members that 

have indicated that they will be leaving the Congress. So we have 

already sent them letters and offered archival services. Any Member, if they want it, we have kind of a guideline, a listing of things 

they should be looking for to preserve and things that they could 

discard. That is available to any Member now. 

But we are making the visits. So far, I think Robin Reeder, the 

House Archivist, has visited this year, well, 2009, about 130 offices 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
163 

just to say, ‘‘This is what you ought to keep.’’ Especially if a Member dies, retires, or for some reason leaves the House, we offer our 

archival services to them from the beginning. 

So, with that and with the new Members coming in—and then 

we have targeted some Members who have been here quite a while, 

who have voluminous records. We have just proactively contacted 

their offices and gone in to talk with them. We have even had the 

opportunity to meet with the chiefs of staff to just give them an 

overview of what they should be looking for as Members try to figure out what they are going to do with their records. 

So we have a package that is available for any Member’s office, 

and we are trying to proactively get that out. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. You mentioned that you focus in on a lot of the 

new Members that come in to try to give them information. 

Ms. MILLER. Yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. One thing that you may want to consider doing 

that I think might be helpful is to reach out to older Members. I 

came in the 105th Congress, and I have actually talked to the archivist and had them come over, but I think most Members don’t 

even know this exists. 

Ms. MILLER. The new—our archivist in our office? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. People that have been here for several years like 

myself. People that maybe have not been here 30 or 40 years that 

have all of these records that you are talking about, but people that 

have been here for, say, 8 years, 10 years, 15 years, and to notify 

their staff and inform their staff of what is available out there. 

So, again, the new Members, I understand, are getting this information. But I don’t think, when we came in, we were ever informed 

of what we need to do. And so if you could try to focus on some 

of the mid-Members that have been here for, you know, say, over— 

whenever this program was implemented, going back a few years, 

I think it would be very helpful. 

Because, as I say, a lot of this information—you say when a 

Member retires or announces they are going to retire, you talk to 

them—but a lot of information has already been thrown out and it 

is already gone and it is in the garbage heaps and it has been deleted from the computers. And so, there needs to be something ongoing so the Members who are not ready to retire, but who on a 

day-to-day basis—and, again, it is not a criticism; I am just saying 

it is something I think we need to look at because I think there 

is a lot of information that would be very valuable for future generations and for historical purposes that we would like to preserve. 

Ms. MILLER. I agree with you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. But with the amount of space that we have and 

what all goes on, I think a lot of it is thrown away that maybe 

could be preserved. And so—— 

Ms. MILLER. I agree with you, and that is one of the reasons we 

are working with House Administration. They have been very helpful in trying to incorporate some of these archival materials in the 

orientation for not only just new Members but for rank and file. 

And then, as we go to electronic records, that is why we are so interested in the Members trying to—the committees, in particular, 

submitting their records to us electronically, but the same kind of 

archival requirements are involved in that, too. So we hear you. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
164 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. Thank you. 

RESPONSIBILITIES OF CURATOR & HISTORIAN

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Just on the heels of Mr. Aderholt’s question, I wanted to just 

raise with you the issue we talked about in my office about the 

overlapping of the curator’s and historian’s responsibilities. It 

seems like there are a few different offices who have some responsibility for keeping historical records and artifacts. 

Can you describe the steps that are in the works or the discussions that are in the works about possibly combining those offices? 

Ms. MILLER. Well, we try to work closely together. That is not 

only House and Senate—because Farar Elliott, who is our curator, 

works very closely with the Senate curator and the Architect of the 

Capitol. And we try to do this with the History and Preservation 

Office so we don’t duplicate efforts. And it is difficult. 

But I understand there is an effort afoot to try to restructure the 

Office of the Historian and to merge some of our efforts so we don’t 

duplicate. And so we really make a concerted effort not to duplicate, so that means we have to communicate a good bit together. 

So that is under way. And I think that you will probably hear some 

announcement from the leadership about it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just keep us informed as we go forward—— 

Ms. MILLER. Yes. Sure. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing]. Because we are obviously 

trying to be as efficient as possible. 

Ms. MILLER. Absolutely. 

STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Beard, I wanted to ask you a few 

other questions. 

The student loan repayment program, you have requested an increase of $2 million for that program. And I appreciate your advocacy for benefits for the staff, but is that increase to expand the 

benefits or expand the number of people that qualify? 

Mr. BEARD. Expand the number of people. We have the guidance 

now from the Committee on House Administration to provide up to 

$10,000 a year in the way of benefits. And we did take a reduction 

in that last year when the committee was looking for savings, and 

we would like to restore those funds so that we can make the benefit available to as many employees as possible. 

HEARING ROOM EQUIPMENT UPGRADES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. For the standing committee 

hearing room equipment upgrade requests, in the past you said the 

press has paid for the types of audiovisual upgrades that are being 

requested that at least cover their press coverage needs. Does your 

hearing room upgrade request reflect any anticipated contributions 

from the press consortium since it is directly related to meetings? 

Mr. BEARD. The press consortium has only contributed money— 

or contributed and assisted in the House Radio/TV Gallery. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
165 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Uh-huh. But these upgrades are to 

connect them to the House Recording Studio, aren’t they? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes, they are. But they have not in the past. And we 

have not received any funds from the press consortium or from the 

members of the radio and TV galleries, is what it would be. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is that something you could consider 

exploring? 

Mr. BEARD. We would be more than happy to work with the gallery staff and the committee that oversees the radio and TV gallery 

to see about the possible contribution of costs. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—A further explanation by the House CAO follows:] 

A House resolution authorizing the acceptance of a gift from the Consortium 

would be needed to allow for the Consortium to pay for Committee Broadcast Audio 

Visual equipment or services in House buildings. If the Committee rooms are located in the Capitol, the U.S. Capitol Preservation Commission can accept a gift of 

funds. 

It is necessary to renovate the balance of the main hearing rooms to provide the 

latest audio/video technology with equipment commonality across all main hearing 

rooms. The remaining Committee hearing rooms are considered ′′hybrid systems′′ 

and do not meet the House adopted audio/video standards approved in 2004. These 

standards ensure a compatible infrastructure: equipment that can readily be supported by the CAO, and connected to the House Media Center, Rayburn B313, 

where the hearing room cameras can be remotely operated for broadcasting. These 

Committee systems are starting to fail during hearings and will progressively worsen until such time as an interim repair will no longer suffice. Renovated Committee 

hearing rooms will provide state-of-the-art audio and video technology that will give 

the Committee Chairpersons different options to broadcast their hearings. 

Remaining main Committee hearing rooms to be renovated include Oversight and 

Government Reform (2154 Rayburn), Budget (210 Capitol), Education and Labor 

(2175 Rayburn), Financial Services (2128 Rayburn), and Energy and Commerce 

(2123 Rayburn). 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The other issue on the upgrades is, 

how many hearing room upgrades have been completed and how 

many are left? 

Mr. BEARD. Fifteen have been completed. Five are left. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So this is beyond just the media? I 

know that the—— 

Mr. BEARD. These are the actual committee rooms. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The committee rooms themselves. So 

there are five left? 

Mr. BEARD. There are five left. And it is an ongoing process, because the first committee rooms that we did, we are going to have 

to go back pretty soon and upgrade that because of new developments in technology, to improve the technology. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. All of the upgrades, in general, 

whether you are going back to the ones you first started or the 

ones that are remaining, would you call those necessities? Or if this 

were a tighter year and we needed to slow them down or halt them 

for a year, would the world come to an end? 

Mr. BEARD. The world wouldn’t come to an end. I think you 

would have to deal with five—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Grouchy chairmen? 

Mr. BEARD [continuing]. Grouchy chairmen. 

We do have alternatives. This program was zero-funded in 2010 

when we were looking for savings because we had carryover from 

2009. So we had essentially zero in last year’s budget. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
166 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, that is because you didn’t need 

it. 

Mr. BEARD. We didn’t need it, yes. But we want to finish the five 

rooms—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We are not in the habit of giving you 

money you don’t need. 

Mr. BEARD. The directive I received from the leadership was finish at least one room for every committee as soon as possible. So 

that is why we have been moving on the agenda that we have. 

But if we did not fund those, we would then have to use what 

we call crash carts, which are the carts out in the hallways that 

you see during the hearing, and there is somebody in there, you 

know, working it. We can use crash carts. 

Do we purchase crash carts? 

Yes, we purchased an additional two in FY09 to add to the three 

we already have. And we would have to purchase crash carts, and 

then there is a higher labor cost associated with using crash carts. 

We use temporary employees. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Staff corrected. You got a million dollars for upgrades last year. 

Mr. BEARD. Did we? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yeah. 

Mr. BEARD. Okay. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So, obviously, crash carts are not the 

preference. We want to eventually work towards making sure we 

upgrade all the hearings rooms because, obviously, the access to 

the public is better and the information that the Members can get 

is better. But I am just, you know—we are going to be hunting for 

savings. 

Mr. BEARD. Right. 

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS LEASED SPACE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The Office of Congressional Ethics, we 

had—I just signed a reprogramming request to cover their expenses for their move to leased space. And I am confused because 

there is also $400,000 in the budget that you have requested to 

move them to leased space. So should that money be transferred 

to the Architect? 

Mr. BEARD. I guess I am going to have to get back to you—— 

Ms. PERDUE. Yes, we asked for it in our budget, but—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay, so we are not going to need to 

do both. It will be just one or the other. 

Ms. PERDUE. Correct. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Mr. BEARD. And I wanted to introduce, this is Kathy Perdue, my 

chief financial officer. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—A further explanation by the House CAO follows:] 

AOC confirms that realignment of the OCE FY11 lease request from the House 

budget to the AOC budget is anticipated during markup. The projected cost of the 

FY11 lease is $268K. 

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

I just am going to clear up—if you don’t mind, I am going to clear 

up my CAO questions, and then I will turn it back over to you. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
167 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Sure. 

CELL PHONE COVERAGE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We went over the BlackBerry cell 

phone coverage issue, and we are going to have a closed-door briefing so you can bring us up to speed on that. But nearly every single 

day, Members complain to us about the fact that you go into a 

black hole when you are in the CVC expansion space and you are 

unable to be reached. 

Obviously, because we are holding more meetings in that room 

now that HC–5 is not available for several months, it is incredibly, 

incredibly difficult to be in no man’s land when you are in the expansion space. So we look forward to hearing from you on the plans 

for that. And I know we don’t really want to go into a lot of detail 

on that at this point. 

WEB SITE SECURITY

The last one I wanted to cover with you was Web site security, 

to go back to the issue that Mr. Honda raised. You mentioned in 

your testimony that you have an enhanced information technology 

security program that was launched by your office. And you said 

that that program validates that each computer, server, and printer is compliant with House security policy and technical standards. 

And the concern that we have is that only 85 percent of Member 

offices are participating in that program. Is the program voluntary, 

or is it just that you haven’t gotten to all the offices yet? 

Mr. BEARD. The program is both. The program is voluntary. We 

have—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. How can a security program be voluntary? 

Mr. BEARD. We have adopted in the House the approach that we 

try to encourage Members to participate in our programs to the 

maximum extent possible. We have avoided, if you will, the directives that you must comply. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But we did require them to—we 

passworded everybody’s BlackBerry as a requirement. 

Mr. BEARD. We did. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So how are we choosing which security is voluntary and which isn’t? 

Mr. BEARD. The decision as to whether or not to participate in 

the program is made in consultation with the Committee on House 

Administration and with the leadership. 

But, in this particular case, the 85 percent I think is—participation by Members is approximately 95 percent. We chose to work 

with Members first. Some of the servers in the CAO haven’t been 

moved over yet. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But a security system is only as 

strong as the weakest link. 

Mr. BEARD. That is correct. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So with 15 percent of Members’ offices 

not participating, it is, you know, a very big opening that leaves 

us vulnerable. So I would appreciate, as I always underscore, that 

you remember that this is one of your oversight committees as 

well, and that in working with House Administration that you also 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
168 

work with us, so that we can coordinate the decision-making on 

that since we have to fund it. 

Mr. BEARD. Okay. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That would be great. And can you follow up with us on that? 

Mr. BEARD. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—A further explanation by the House CAO follows:] 

The CAO has a certification and accreditation program that requires adherence 

to security policy for Member, Committee and Leadership offices. Part of the program employs Secure Configuration Management as a central service to maintain 

compliance with policy. Secure Configuration Management is a program that allows 

the CAO to proactively ensure Member office, Committee and Leadership IT assets 

are in compliance with House Security publications and policies. The technical controls within the program provide a continuous audit of IT assets. Some Member, 

Committee and Leadership offices have deployed an independent system specifically 

to meet security policy. We are expanding the central Security Configuration Management service as we progress through policy driven the two-year audit cycle. 

THIRD-PARTY VENDORS

And then the third-party vendors, the issue of third-party vendors hosting Members’ Web sites. The security failures that we 

had, at least one of them, through a Member’s Web site was from 

a private vendor, correct? 

Mr. BEARD. That is correct. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So what are the rules for Members to 

select vendors? And are there security features that are required 

for vendors to provide when a Member goes outside the House 

backbone? 

And I know you can’t go into specifics about security information, 

but obviously that is another weak link. If Members are continuing 

to be able to use private companies to host their Web sites, do they 

all have the same very secure protocol that we have in a Housesponsored Web site? 

Mr. BEARD. I think the best way to describe the current situation 

is that we are in a catch-up mode. The questions that you asked 

me were addressed to me in a letter from the Speaker and the Republican leader February 1st. I have sent them our recommendations. They are currently evaluating those, but I have been told 

they will have an answer as to what they want to do in the next 

few days. We have scheduled with the subcommittee a briefing 

next week to discuss that internally. 

I think the short answer to your question is any Member can 

pick any Web site designer that they want to. They then come in 

here and bring in the design work and so forth, and then we have 

to work with them at that point. There aren’t any standards that 

Members have to achieve. In many cases, Members wanted to use 

a local—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There are no security standards? 

Mr. BEARD. There are none. Once they get here, we then tell 

them what they have to do to live to our standards. But in terms 

of, have we—and that is one of the corrective actions that we want 

to take in this area so we will be able to go through with this. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
169 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Well, I will look forward to 

hearing more about it in the briefing next week. Thank you. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.— A further explanation by the House CAO follows:] 

At this time, Members may select any vendor they wish. However, security policies are in place and apply to all web vendors. These policies include a requirement 

that all vendor servers be located in a House data center. In order to install a server 

in a House data center and operate a Member site, the server, web tools and code 

are subject to complete audit and must be in compliance with all applicable security 

policy and regulations. 

The phased plan to protect House public websites includes hosting of vendor 

websites on House-provided servers and providing a site development environment 

for vendors to use to design and build new sites. Because the existing security review process is a barrier to entry for many companies that cannot afford the effort 

necessary to pass the audit, providing a hosted environment increases the number 

of vendors available to Members, and the cost and time to complete new web sites 

will be significantly reduced. At the same time, the industry standard hosted environment improves security over Member websites and provides for greater control 

over the vendor websites for CAO Information Security staff if an issue does occur. 

The plan also calls for the development of procurement guidance for Member offices in the selection of web vendors, including recommended contract language. 

Clear guidelines for working in the House environments will be available for prospective vendors. 

Proposed Four-Phase Plan for Protecting Member and House Public 

Websites 

• Phase I—All web vendors will be required to accept enhanced security procedures. CAO Information Security monitors for suspicious activity. 

• Phase II—Initiate hosting of existing vendor websites onto House servers. Develop procurement guidelines for Web vendors. 

— Establishes a secure industry-standard operating environment with recovery 

protections for Members 

— Provides additional controls over server administration and compliance with 

security policy 

• Phase III—Develop House-wide web standards for public websites to include the 

operating environment, database, content management system, and development 

tools. Provide vendors with a site development platform. 

— Improves security posture by focusing hardening efforts on an industry standard set of tools, and associated maintenance and update procedures 

— Improves recovery time for websites 

— As the standards will include open-source tools, this will allow a greater number of vendors to participate, reducing costs to Members and making it easier for 

Members to switch vendors as they choose 

— Significantly reduce the time to develop, undergo security reviews and publish 

websites 

— Improve the scalability of the website to accommodate large volumes of web 

traffic 

• Phase IV—Migrate existing House websites to the new environment 

— Includes House.gov and Member and Committee sites currently run by the 

CAO 

— Will be completed over time, on a schedule that works for each affected House 

Office 

Mr. Aderholt. 

Thank you very much. 

HOUSE ID SYSTEM

Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Livingood, last year this committee funded 

a new House ID system. And I just wanted to ask you about the 

status of that and that conversion that is taking place and how 

that is going. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. The system that you are talking about, the new 

ID badging system—— 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Right. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
170 

Mr. LIVINGOOD [continuing]. Is currently, as of today, being installed and configured. We expect the new system to be on line at 

the end of next month, end of April. 

Phase two of the project will include an online request for offices. 

And that means from your office you can input to the House ID Office requests for a badge and all the information of that individual 

that you would like a badge issued to. The date for the implementation of that phase is the end of August, this year. 

We have looked at—just for information, we have looked at the 

Government Printing Office to assist us in mass production, like 

the AOC, of their IDs. And the way we would have to do that is 

to have a CD filled out with all their information, which is very 

feasible, and send it to them. And they can mass produce the 

badges the same way we are doing, the same system, and have it 

back in 2 days. So we are looking at that. 

The problem with doing all of the badges is taking the pictures, 

and it would take a little more time—most of the staff need a 

badge fairly quickly when they come. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Will all this conversion and new House ID system be ready for the 112th Congress? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And at what point do you expect that to be in operation? Will it be right up to the point of the next Congress? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. We start in early summer with staff offices and 

get the pictures up to date. That saves us quite a bit of time. And 

the current information, addresses and whatever. We then start 

producing some of those badges right then. Then we start AOC 

early, people like that that we know aren’t going to change much. 

With the Member offices, as I said, we start some of those early. 

But then again, right after the elections, we are in full force. And 

it takes us 3 or 4 months to complete. We have been trying each 

year to make that—and we have been very successful, meaning a 

month or 2 at a time, we have been able to increase the time frame 

when they would be finished. And we are going to continue to do 

that. 

And this new badge system will help with that. Plus, it has an 

ability to print smart cards, if the day ever comes when we are 

going to need smart cards. There are some offices, district offices, 

that are in Federal office buildings and will probably need us to 

print their cards in a smart card format because that is what they 

are accepting at those GSA buildings. And someday we may. We 

have the ability to do that. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. This new ID system, what is one of the things 

that will make it better than the old system? What do you see as 

the—— 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. It is a better, clearer, more distinct picture, 

which can be done quicker. And it has this conversion ability so we 

don’t have to start from scratch again, which we are going to probably need someday and we will need in certain cases, for certain 

offices. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. All right. Thank you. 

STAFF ACCESS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thanks. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
171 

I just have a couple questions for you, Mr. Livingood, and then 

I will be finished. 

I am struggling, as one Member, to figure out what is the consistent policy for staff access when walking with a Member to the 

Capitol because, depending on the door and depending on the time, 

depending on the entrance, it is different, every day of the week, 

every hour of the day. I mean, I have experienced different direction at the east door than I have at different times during the day 

when I am racing to a vote and walking with one of my staff and 

going through the Cannon tunnel. 

I completely understand that we need to have more restrictive 

access to the Capitol. But we don’t have consistent enforcement of 

that. And when you are bobbing along, trying to get through your 

day, and you are clotheslined at a door that some days you have 

access with staff and some days you don’t—well, that is what it is 

like—and some days you don’t, it is frustrating and it impedes the 

progress of your day. 

I understand we have to be focused on security, but we also have 

to focus on consistency so that Members and staff and visitors don’t 

constantly have to readjust to different people’s directions. 

So can you explain the policy, number one? And, number two, 

can you—and I will follow up with Chief Morse on this, as well— 

follow up on making sure that the policies are consistently enforced? 

And, thirdly, particularly when it comes to Cannon tunnel, if are 

going to now have a policy going forward of staff has to go through 

the magnetometer in every instance, then the second magnetometer, particularly as we enter the spring break season, has to 

get opened up. And we need to move one of those officers from the 

front door of the CVC to that spot, like we did last season, so that 

they can get things moving. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. First of all, I am very aware that there are inconsistencies because I hear it from Members and staff in the security screening process. 

The policy is that all staff entering the Capitol are required to 

go through the mags whether or not they are with a Member of 

Congress. I have reviewed this with the Capitol Police officials, 

Chief Morse, and reiterated that there is no change in the current 

policy. But there are inconsistencies, as you said. 

Our officials have started reminding already as of about 3 or 4 

weeks ago, Capitol Police Officers regarding the screening process 

and it may not have gotten everywhere because I am aware you 

have to do it more than once, but they started addressing the officers at roll-call. And we are going to continue that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But can we also, while we do that, 

make sure—there needs to be another informational outreach to 

the Members. Because Members don’t know, and neither does staff. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. And we have also—to answer that question, in 

the near future the screening policy will be sent to all offices and 

Members. In addition, we have asked the officers to be more 

proactive, and that is to pull people—if they are staff and we only 

have one mag, to move them up to the front. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
172 

The second thing is to, if there is a second mag, start manning 

that, as we did last year. We robbed Peter to pay Paul, as you 

know. But that is—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Why would you want to describe it 

that way? Because you have eight mags outside the CVC entrance, 

when it isn’t really most of the time necessary to have eight mags 

open at the CVC and one at the Cannon tunnel. I mean, we still 

have staff-led tours that come through there. That really lengthens 

the lines. So, between those two issues, it is going to be very important. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. We are aware of it, and we are going to take action. We will let you see the policy when we are going to send it 

out. 

CAPITOL POLICE BUDGET SHORTFALL

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That would be great. Thank you. 

And my last question deals with the really disturbing Capitol Police budget shortfall. You know, when I became Chair of this subcommittee, Chief Morse had just become the chief a few months before that in October. I took over the subcommittee in February, and 

he came on board in October. So I felt like he deserved a considerable grace period to get things in order, to get the fiscal house in 

order of the Capitol Police. 

The grace period is over. I mean, I am done. It is inexcusable 

that we are still experiencing the ridiculous fiscal mismanagement 

that occurs in the Capitol Police. 

At least partially in their defense, they are not budget policy 

wonks; they are police officers. And that is their primary—protecting us, keeping the Capitol secure is their primary mission. 

Is it time to just take the budget function away from the Capitol 

Police, not have it continue to be handled internally, and give it 

back to a legislative branch agency so that we can make sure that 

we have people who have that expertise and who aren’t distracted 

by other issues who are supervising their budget? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. If I could just give you sort of a—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And I am going to take this up during 

their hearing also. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes, ma’am. I will tell you where we are today. 

I agree with you 100 percent, and so does the Capitol Police 

Board and the department, the chief, that we all realize the gravity 

of the continuing financial management issues within the department. 

Upon learning of the problem at a quarterly review period, Chief 

Morse, to his credit, took immediate action, got access to the issue, 

coordinated with the board, got a hold of them immediately, and 

developed a plan to address the problem, the current problem, and 

reviewed the underlying reasons behind the miscalculations—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But I have to find another $9 million 

now for their 2011 request because—— 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. I know. Because of that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. And that is not going to be easy 

in this budget, the smallest budget of all of them. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. The big thing we want is to make sure this is 

not going to be repeated. And what we did, the board provided the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
173 

Capitol Police their members with their financial and technical 

teams to review the budgets and came up with recommendations. 

And after an initial review of the situation, it appears the calculation errors resulted from human error. And you have to call it like 

it is. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, that is just inexcusable. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. I know. I agree. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Human error is unacceptable. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. And maybe some lack of direct oversight. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Human error, one time. You know, 

human error by a different person, okay. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. I am with you. I understand you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Repeated human error tells me that 

there is a systemic problem in that organization that seems to me 

to indicate that it is not something that they can continue to be 

able to be responsible for and still for me to consider that we are 

being good stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. And the chief has asked the inspector general to 

review the entire process, formulation, the execution for the 2 years 

that we are having problems—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Have you formulated an opinion yet 

on whether or not the Capitol Police should continue to be responsible for their own budget? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. I have some ideas. I think we need to look at potential costs, servicing opportunities with other leg branch entities 

or with even qualified consultants who are familiar with Federal 

budgeting. And—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am at the point where the legislative branch bill will be removing the responsibility from the Capitol 

Police. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. But what I would like to ask for, I would like 

us to wait until the IG finishes, which will be quick, and let us 

come to you with various options available. Because we feel your 

pain, quite honestly, too. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am happy to review options. But 

just so you know where I am, I am at a point where I would have 

to be convinced that some other way, other than to keep the folks 

that I know, so I don’t have to wring my hands worrying about 

whether the budget is going to have a deficit or not, are going to 

handle this budget going forward. I am a show-me kind of person. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. I think all of us are in agreement with you. We, 

the board and the chief and the department, have one object in 

mind, and that is to have the best budget formulation, and correct, 

and input from the Capitol Police. We will have to keep—no matter 

what we do, we have to make sure the police input is in there—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Of course. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD [continuing]. Heavily, whether it goes outside or 

not. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Whatever process is established. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. And we started that when we put that one deputy chief in the CAO office. That is the reason we asked for that 

position, which you were so—everybody was very, very kind to give. 

And that is going to help. It is not the complete answer at all, but 

it is going to help. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
174 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. But we are committed, everyone, so that we 

don’t have this situation occur. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Well, I look forward to working 

with you to correct the really serious problems that are continuing 

there. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Aderholt, do you have anything 

else? 

USCP IG INVESTIGATION

Mr. ADERHOLT. On the IG investigation, you mentioned it would 

be quick. What time frame are we looking at on that? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. I don’t know. I can’t answer because I don’t 

know. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Will it be expedited so that all the facts are available to this committee before the markup? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. I think we will have a lot more information before maybe even the Capitol Police hearing. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. We need it before the markup. 

Before the Capitol Police hearing is essential; absolutely before our 

markup. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Okay. 

SCREENING PROCESS

Mr. ADERHOLT. One last thing on the security issues. A lot of 

times I have school groups that come into the Capitol Building. Is 

there a new screening process for visitors coming in, like if a Member brings groups into the Capitol, that is beyond what it normally 

has been? Is there any new process? 

The reason I ask that is I had a school group a couple of weeks 

ago that came through the door, I guess it was at the south door. 

And they had mentioned something about it was taking a really 

long time to get about 80 students through the security. Usually 

they walk through the magnetometers and they check that, but 

they were doing some kind of check where they take a swab of 

every student. And I didn’t know if that is a new policy that has 

been implemented. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. That has been a continuing policy. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So that has always been the case? 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. Yes, sir. And that is why we particularly request 

that they come through the south door. Some of the groups are 

large. I have 300, as you know, 50—— 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Yeah. The reason I asked that is it took about 

three times as long as it normally takes last week. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. The main thing is to let us know ahead of time, 

if you can, and let us know how many. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Yeah. Okay. Well, I didn’t know if there had been 

a heightened security that I hadn’t seen in the past. Because, usually they walk through the—— 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. And occasionally there is. I mean, there is a little noise. A lot more doing a few more things if there is some additional security information. And I don’t know when the period was. 

And it could be. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
175 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Yeah. Okay. We just, like I said—and I am like 

the Chair, the security we know is important. We are not trying 

to—— 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. I understand. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. But if there are new security provisions that are 

implemented or something, it would be helpful for us to know so 

we can let our constituents know, especially those large groups, 

that there is going to be an extra security precaution. 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. So they can come a little bit earlier or something. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Exactly. So if—— 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. And we really do try to accommodate every one 

of them, even on weekends. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Yeah. I just had not remembered or seen every 

8th grade student that went through, that was swabbed and 

checked through that security in the past. And I—— 

Mr. LIVINGOOD. I just don’t want to talk about that particular 

one, but I can talk to you off line. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay, I don’t have any additional 

questions at this time. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. That is all I have. 

ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT FROM THE CHAIR

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just have homework. 

Mr. Beard, your office is responsible for business continuity and 

the disaster response office, and Mr. Livingood’s office is now responsible over the whole umbrella of the Office of Emergency Management, which used to be the Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations, which was in the Speaker’s office until 

just recently. 

The Congress, particularly after Katrina, really fought hard to 

make sure that disaster preparedness and response were all 

housed in the same agency, FEMA, because we thought that made 

sense and was the best way to coordinate the effort of preparedness 

and response. So I want to make sure that we have the right format here in the House of Representatives. 

So if you could provide a report to the subcommittee on what 

both offices do in general terms. Both of you, if you could coordinate on that report together. Include in the report any overlap that 

exists between the two offices. And also in the report I would like 

to know if and when these offices work together and how you coordinate your activities. Okay? 

Mr. BEARD. Okay. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—In response to the Chair’s Homework Question, 

the CAO and SAA provided a general overview of their offices. The 

response does not detail how these offices coordinate or do not, as 

requested. The Committee will publish a complete response once 

submitted by the House SAA and CAO.] 

The Office of the CAO is responsible for the effective and continuous delivery of 

almost every administrative and operational service to Members, Committees, and 

staff during and after any disruptive event. We have prioritized these services into 

Essential Support Services in order to give the Office of the CAO the ability to proVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
176 

vide needed services regardless of the situation. Our Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery function (BC/DR) manages a portfolio program that allows my office 

to make the right decisions and manage limited resources under what is sure to be 

a difficult operating environment—all geared solely toward maintaining essential 

services to the House. 

In 2001, the CAO developed and implemented the portfolio based program we call 

the Continuity Assurance Program (CAP)—a comprehensive program to ensure we 

can provide the right resources, when, and how they are needed to support House 

Leadership, Members, Committees, and staff under any operating conditions, no 

matter the disruptive event. We have previously briefed the Leadership, other 

House Officers, the Subcommittee, and the Committee on House Administration on 

this program. 

In this BC/DR capacity, we are responsible for all operational and Information 

Technology Infrastructure for House-wide response capabilities to serve the Alternate Chamber, alternate House Office buildings, and the Member Briefing Center— 

as well as all direct services to Members and staff in Washington, DC and District 

offices (payroll, procurement, food service, etc.). Additionally, since the CAO is responsible for the House Emergency Communications Center, we provide those alert 

and notification messages needed to activate the teams responsible for setting up 

and activating these House-wide capabilities. Per a recent direction from the Committee on House Administration, my office is also the lead office for the coordination 

of House-wide exercises for these House-wide capabilities (e.g., Alternate Chambers, 

Alternate House Office Buildings, etc.). 

Because of the daily services my office provides to the Members and Staff in District offices, we also maintain daily and constant situational awareness of the 

threats and hazards to the operational stability of every District office. We assist 

District offices in preparing for major disruptive events (e.g., hurricanes, floods, tornadoes) and assist with the operational recovery following events that damage their 

infrastructure (providing office equipment, computer equipment, and loaner communications resources), and we do this every day of the year. When the aforementioned 

services must be augmented, our BC/DR operations are available to deploy on the 

ground to provide in-person support to Members and staff with dedicated capabilities, including our mobile communications resources. 

The role of the Office of Emergency Management vis-a-vis the CAO and Clerk’s 

Office has yet to be finalized. The office is in transition, and the exact nature of 

their duties will be worked out in meetings among House Officers and Joint Leadership. The goal in all these consultations will be to eliminate any possible duplication, and to insure that all essential services are being provided by the appropriate 

organization. Each of the three House Officers is accountable for unique responsibilities in support of the Members, Committees, and staff, and we regularly coordinate 

on day-to-day issues. The recent transition of OEPPO to the HSAA OEM does not 

present a difficult challenge and should be finalized quickly. 

Over the years, my office has matured the Continuity Assurance Program and has 

successfully utilized our portfolio of resources to support recovery after disruptions. 

Our responsibility to ensure House recovery is something that is understood by 

every employee throughout my organization. I am committed to continuing my responsibilities, as assigned by House Leadership and this and other committees, to 

ensure the continuation of House Essential Support Services, whether on campus, 

at alternate facilities, or within District offices. 

With that, this subcommittee stands adjourned. And we will reconvene next week for the next hearing. Thank you. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
177 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 313 here 56678A.103
178 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 314 here 56678A.104
179 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 315 here 56678A.105
180 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 316 here 56678A.106
181 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 317 here 56678A.107
182 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 318 here 56678A.108
183 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 319 here 56678A.109
184 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 320 here 56678A.110
185 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 321 here 56678A.111
186 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 322 here 56678A.112
187 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 323 here 56678A.113

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(189) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2010. 

FY 2011 BUDGETS OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE AND THE OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE 

WITNESSES 

GENE DODARO, ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED 

STATES 

DOUGLAS ELMENDORF, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

TAMARA CHRISLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good morning. Today we will hear 

from three of our legislative branch agencies: the Congressional 

Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office and the Office 

of—the OOC. I know them by their acronyms now, and before I 

never used to know their acronyms. So Office of Compliance is the 

third agency we are hearing from today. 

We will start with CBO. We are joined by Douglas Elmendorf, 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. We are also going 

to spend some time with the other two agencies going over their 

budget requests. CBO’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2011 totaled $47.3 million, 

which is a 4.7 increase above the fiscal year 2010 level. I want to 

remind the subcommittee members that the CBO was also a recipient of $2 million in supplemental funds in fiscal year 2009 that the 

agency is using into the current year to support staff hires. We balanced that out once that happened in their budget in 2010. 

Dr. Elmendorf, we will have a number of questions for you, but 

your full statement will be entered into the record. After Mr. 

Aderholt, you will be able to proceed with your 5-minute statement, 

the summary of your statement. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I just want to welcome all of our guests here this morning to the 

committee and look forward to hearing from them regarding the 

fiscal year 2011 budget request. I think I have met with everybody 

before, but it is good to hear from everybody again this morning, 

and I look forward to your testimony. 

OPENING REMARKS—DR. ELMENDORF

Mr. ELMENDORF. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member Aderholt. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today about 

CBO’s budget request for fiscal year 2011. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
190 

CBO is celebrating the 35th anniversary of its founding this 

year. Since 1975, our mission has been to provide the Members of 

Congress and their staffs with information that you need to make 

effective budget and economic policy. In fulfilling this mission, 

CBO’s most important asset has always been its staff. We are 

about 250 people, mostly with Ph.D.s in economics or master’s degrees in public policy. 

When I was an analyst at CBO 15 years ago, I was very impressed by the tremendous knowledge and deep commitment of 

public service of people at CBO. In the year and a quarter since 

I have been back at CBO as the Director, I have become even more 

impressed. This has been, as you know, a very challenging year for 

us, and we have produced hundreds of written cost estimates and 

reports, and had uncounted conversations with congressional staff 

about the analysis we are doing of proposed legislation and the 

analysis that we are doing of a large number of budget and economic challenges facing the country. In particular, as you know, we 

devoted a vast amount of time and energy to analyzing proposals 

for reforming the Nation’s health care and health insurance systems. 

In all of that work, the people who are the Congressional Budget 

Office have maintained and enhanced CBO’s reputation as a provider of analysis that is objective, insightful, timely and clearly explained. Fiscal year 2011, we are requesting appropriation of $47.3 million, as the Chair said. I brought along some pictures to put that 

request in the context of the past few years’ appropriations. For fiscal year 2009, you appropriated $44.1 million to CBO. That is the 

left-hand bar. Last year I came before you and requested $46.4 million. While that request was working its way through the appropriations process, the Senate proposed a supplemental appropriations for CBO of $2 million. This was not our idea nor, I recognize, 

yours. It was intended to bolster, I think, our ability to complete 

health estimates more rapidly. Because that amount came late in 

the fiscal year, we spent just $300,000 in fiscal year 2009 and are 

spending the remaining $1.7 million in fiscal year 2010. That is the 

middle set of bars. 

With this supplemental money on the table, our regular appropriation was cut back to $45.2 million. We entirely understand that 

the supplemental should not be a mechanism for CBO to have a 

permanently higher level of appropriations; however, we are concerned that if this year’s appropriations process begins from last 

year’s regular appropriations amount, which was reduced in light 

of the supplemental, then we might end up with a permanently 

lower level of appropriations. So in order to remove the distorting 

effect of the supplemental, our own perspective on this year’s request was to begin with our request to you last year. Relative to 

that request, the $46.4 million, this year’s request of $47.3 million 

represents an increase of $900,000, or about 2 percent. 

Apart from the complications introduced by the supplemental, we 

view this year’s request as the culmination of a multiyear plan presented to you 2 years ago by my predecessor to increase the size 

of the agency by roughly 10 percent. The goal as he described it 

to you was to enable CBO to better meet the needs of the Congress 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
191 

for information and analyses related to health care, the financial 

system and a broad range of other policy areas. Indeed, the increase in staffing has been critical to our ability to provide sufficient analyses of health reform proposals, financial issues, and 

other topics in the past couple of years. 

Our aim now in completing this plan is to increase our FTEs 

from 254 to 258, roughly in line with the 259 my predecessor suggested to you 2 years ago. 

The following pages in the packet summarize the changes in our 

staffing during the past decade and since our founding, but I will 

not discuss those pictures specifically unless you have questions 

about them. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Dr. Elmendorf presented the following slides 

during the hearing:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
192 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 330 here 56678A.114
193 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 331 here 56678A.115
194 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 332 here 56678A.116
195 

One might wonder why we are not reducing our staff if essential 

rationale for the increase was the demand of analysis of health proposals. And the current cycle of health reform efforts seems to be 

drawing to a close one way or the other. One reason we are not 

doing that is that we think congressional interest in this subject 

will surely persist. If legislation is enacted, CBO will need to make 

regular budget projections for the new programs and will need to 

estimate the budget costs and other consequences of contemplated 

changes in those programs. If legislation is not enacted, and even 

if it is, CBO will surely need to respond to congressional interest 

and other possible changes to the health system. 

The other reason that our need for help staff is not declining is 

that our current staff level is simply not sufficient to maintain the 

quantity and quality of analysis that we have provided in the past 

year. The extraordinary pressure and 7-day-a-week almost roundthe-clock workload over the past year will soon drive good people 

away and diminish the effectiveness of those who stay. 

In closing, I would like to thank the Chair and the Ranking 

Member and other members of the subcommittee for your strong 

support for CBO’s work in the past. Your support of our budget request for next year would help us to continue to meet our responsibilities to the Congress to the high standards that you and we expect. Our colleagues and I are happy to answer your questions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Elmendorf. 

[Dr. Elmendorf’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
196 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 335 here 56678A.117
197 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 336 here 56678A.118
198 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 337 here 56678A.119
199 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 338 here 56678A.120
200 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 339 here 56678A.121
201 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 340 here 56678A.122
202 

REVISIONS TO SCORES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I actually want to start with a difficult question right off the bat. Recently one of our subcommittees 

obtained a score for legislation from CBO, and then 2 days later 

CBO changed the score. That is obviously of deep concern to the 

committee because we are supposed to have the utmost confidence 

in your scores. CBO is widely quoted as being the neutral arbiter 

and the most reliable, bipartisan—recognized in a bipartisan way. 

Can you be sure in the future that that is not going to happen 

again? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I wish, I wish we could be sure of that. I am 

aware of some of the details, not all of them. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, at least if you can identify what 

the problems were with that particular episode, and why it happened, and what we can do to almost always ensure that that won’t 

happen again. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So I think the issue in this particular case is 

that there was a complicated piece of legislation. We had an analyst who made an initial assessment of it and then reported that 

assessment to the subcommittee staff. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Did they report it as an initial assessment? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think it was an e-mail message. I have not 

seen the text of it myself. I talked to the analyst briefly yesterday, 

and I think her view is that she could have and should have made 

that clearer, that it was an initial assessment. In her mind it was 

initial; she was proceeding with further phone calls to other parts 

of the government as we often do to get more information. I think 

the first e-mail was on a Friday. I think then on Monday she had 

obtained her information and realized the initial assessment had 

not been correct. 

Is hard for us, so on one hand we try to provide information as 

soon as we can and not wait to check every possible thing. On the 

other hand, if we have made a mistake, we don’t want to just pretend it away forever. So I think we do try very hard and I think 

mostly have a very high percentage of getting initially the estimate 

that will be the final estimate. That doesn’t always work, and I 

wish I could guarantee it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I can appreciate that, and I know that 

there is tremendous pressure on CBO to get us scores as quickly 

as possible, especially when there is legislation that Members really want to act on. But I really believe that having confidence in 

your numbers is more important than speed, and in order for you 

to preserve the integrity of your organization, and your organization’s numbers, and the Members, and the country’s belief in their 

integrity, speed should be deemphasized. Especially if you have to 

change a score, and it changes slightly, that is one thing, but this 

was a dramatic change. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. It was a large percentage of the number involved. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, it was. That is not an anomaly 

that happens that we can chalk up, well, that happens every once 

in a while. That should be avoided at all costs. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
203 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I couldn’t agree more. We do try when we can, 

and we need to make sure we do this all the time, to be clear when 

things were preliminary analyses, which we do sometimes communicate in the interest of the policy process, and how that is different from things that we call final estimates. 

DIVERSITY AT CBO

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Just a couple more on diversity, and that is something that I 

have asked you and your predecessor each time you have come before us, diversity both in terms of racial and ethnic diversity, but 

also in terms of gender. We have discussed it in my office. 

What efforts are you making to ensure diversity on your staff, 

and, of particular interest to me, of ensuring that we are able to 

hire more women in positions of importance at CBO? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Congresswoman, as I have said to you before, 

we at CBO think and have thought for a long time that achieving 

a diverse workforce was an important objective of our recruiting efforts. Also, as you know, achieving that diversity is challenging because of the academic qualifications that we require for much of 

our work and the demographic composition of the people obtaining 

the demographic qualifications. So, for example, for people getting 

Ph.D.s in economics, which is a very significant set of our staff, our 

recent survey showed that about 30 percent are women, newly 

minted Ph.D. Economists, and well less than 10 percent for identifying women within minority groups. 

What we do and have done—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thirty percent women? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. About 30 percent women. Well less than 10 percent members of minority groups. 

What we do, and I have done for some time under the leadership 

of our Human Resources Director Stephanie Ruiz, is to reach out 

in a grassroots way wherever we can. We visit—‘‘we’’ meaning she 

and her staff—visit a large number of colleges around the country, 

including Historically Black Colleges and universities and 

Hispanically-serving institutions. The Associate Director of Economic Analysis went to the American Economic Association’s minority program in the summer in California to talk with the students there about what they could do at CBO and other government agencies. I gave a talk at Spelman College a couple months 

ago again to try to make connections and have people become more 

interested in working for us. 

We also do work to some extent for people at younger stages in 

their careers which can be very important. Our Deputy Director 

serves on an advisory board of a group which is trying to develop 

high school curricula around budget and economic policy. 

I think we can do more. In the discussions with you, we have 

talked about trying to collaborate with some of the other congressional agencies in a speakers program perhaps. My daughters are 

in high school. They are learning about the Congress, and they are 

learning about public policy. That class will get me—my daughter 

has volunteered me—but there is no reason it should be just that 

class. I think together our agencies can reach out and do more of 

that. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
204 

We talked with you a bit about what is on our Web site. A number of government agencies in Washington have pieces of their Web 

site that are either accessible to kids or designed for teachers to 

use in getting students interested. We don’t have that now, but 

CBO has actually hired a new Web editor with a view of improving 

our communication principally with the Congress through the 

Internet, but also with the public. I think we can deploy that in 

this way as well. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Like we talked about in my office, I 

appreciate your efforts and the efforts of your agency, but you wait 

until high school, and we are so far past a kid’s decision on whether they think math and science are sexy or cool. You have to reach 

down much further into the elementary school grades. I have a 10- 

year-old and a 6-year-old daughter. I told you the story about how 

I had spent the whole year making sure my daughter understood, 

yes, she is good at math. It is not just my daughter. Girls end up 

being discouraged from being good at math, told that math is icky, 

that it is not cool, and it is not feminine. 

I understand that you are all about scores and economics, but I 

think it would be incredibly helpful; and, I would like to publicly 

talk to you, as we did in my office, about finding a way for CBO 

to take a leadership role in reaching down further into our schools 

to help girls and minority kids and grab them and get them interested in science and math, math in particular in your case, and economics as early as we can. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. We look forward to working with you on that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Aderholt. 

OFFICE SPACE AND CAPACITY

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

Again, thanks for being with us this morning. 

I’d like to start with an issue from las year—office space and accommodating more staff members. Could you give an update on the 

situation there and what has been done to try to resolve the space 

problem? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes. Certainly. CBO occupies all of the fourth 

floor of the Ford House Office Building. We have done that for a 

little while now. We did not have offices to the extent of the number of people that is in this plan to hire. We have now over a period 

of a couple of years systematically worked our way around trying 

to make more space in the footprint that we have, taking space 

that is not being as well utilized as it could, and with extra walls 

and a little help from the Architect of the Capitol, we have been 

able to create more offices in the space that we have. 

We also have had conversations with general House representative management about obtaining more space elsewhere. We were 

received politely, but space is tight everywhere, and we were given 

no illusion that our request would be acted upon. 

We do think we have been able to, in the space we have, identify 

additional space that we are turning into offices that will be sufficient for the number of people in this plan. And this is the number 

that we plan with your support to go to and to hold that. So I think 

we have been able to solve that problem ourselves through a little 

ingenuity on the part of our staff. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
205 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And accommodate those that are reflected in 

those numbers. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. The 258 people, we have identified space for all 

of them if we are allowed to hire them. 

CBO’S RESPONSIVENESS TO MAJORITY AND MINORITY REQUESTS

Mr. ADERHOLT. The Chair mentioned in her remarks or her first 

question about the fact that CBO is nonpartisan, and the credibility of your office. And, of course, I think you would agree, and 

I think everyone would agree, that both the Majority and the Minority parties in Congress want to have an answer when they are 

submitting questions to CBO. How do you go about ensuring that 

there is a fair allocation between the Minority and Majority parties 

with your resources? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So it is a challenge, but a challenge we take extremely seriously, because there is more demand for our work than 

we can produce. Part of what we do is to stay in very close touch 

with the Majority and Minority staff directors on the crucial committees that we serve, the Budget Committee, Ways and Means, 

the Finance Committee and the Appropriations Committees. And 

systematically I talk just as often to Austin Smythe, who is the 

Staff Director for Congressman Ryan, to Tom Kahn, who is the 

Staff Director to Chairman Spratt. 

The second thing that we do when we are making longer-reaching plans, we are now doing strategic planning in all the main topic 

areas that CBO covers, and we are reaching out systematically to 

both sides of the aisle. We prepare tentative plans that we circulate 

again equally to Minority and Majority. And then when a particular topic is moving quickly, we sit down very explicitly and balance our efforts across the parties on the course of the health reform work of the past year. We meet in my office once every day 

or every other day to review tasks and literally with a spreadsheet, 

with a column that was House Democrats, House Republicans, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans. And we made sure as we were 

planning our work for the day and week that we were addressing 

requests from each of those groups. 

So we take very, very seriously our role as nonpartisan and our 

responsibility to serve everyone in the Congress the best that we 

can. 

LENGTH OF TIME FOR HEALTH REFORM LEGISLATION ESTIMATES

Mr. ADERHOLT. I was given a letter recently that both the House 

and Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Members had written to you back in January requesting that an estimate for the discretionary authorization is being made in the House and Senate 

health care bills. I understand it wasn’t until this week that the 

committee received any sort of formal estimates on those calls. Of 

course, I noticed in CongressDaily this morning there was a mention of that as well. 

Given the importance of these authorizations, and, of course, this 

is, as you know, the issue that has sort of taken the attention of 

the entire country, what would you say or how could you tell the 

committee that one has been sort of a lower priority in getting 

those numbers out? And why has it taken so long, especially after 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
206 

we tried to provide you with the additional staffing that you needed? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. That is a fair question, Congressman. In our estimates of health reform legislation, we have focused on the mandatory or direct spending and the revenue effects, together with our 

colleagues of the Joint Tax Committee. Those are the aspects of 

legislation that we traditionally at CBO focus on first. Those are 

the aspects of legislation that are, for example, subject to PAYGO 

rules and statutory PAYGO and so on. But we do try very hard 

whenever we can in cost estimates to also provide information 

about the discretionary appropriations that would be necessary to 

achieve the purposes of the bill. And in rating the cost estimate, 

we want to be able to talk about the mandatory spending and revenues, but we also say if the following amounts were appropriated, 

it would cost X million dollars, in our estimate, to achieve these 

goals. 

We are sorry that we did not get to do that part of the health 

bills until we did. The only answer I have is that we do think that 

the biggest flow of the money in the bills that have been moving 

through the legislative process have been on the mandatory spending side and the revenue side. The appropriations are openly subject to the Appropriations Committee’s decisions anyway. And 

given the pace of work even with the additional staff that the Congress has provided to us, the pace of the work is simply overwhelming. I have people who are working 100 hours a week. Our 

computer people hardly have time to fix the computer things because there is always somebody on line doing something. 

It just seems to us more important not just for the Majority 

party, but for the Minority party, to have us doing good estimates 

of the largest piece of legislation that has been moving, which has 

been really an establishment or expansion of entitlements and the 

changes in tax revenue. But we are sorry we did not get to that 

sooner. 

ESTIMATE FOR HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION

Mr. ADERHOLT. Of course, as you know, we may vote on the legislation in the latter part of this week, and I know there will be billions in discretionary authorizations included. Can you provide the 

committee an estimate, including for the outyears, the cost of these 

authorizations at this time, for the discretionary authorizations 

part of the bill? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, the information we provided is part of the 

discretionary appropriations that were called for under the Senatepassed version that we did. And we focused on that not because we 

personally favor the Senate nor the House, but that seems like the 

bill that is most likely to be a vehicle for further congressional action. 

What we have done in that letter is to talk about some of the 

costs that would follow of necessity to the IRS and HHS and other 

people. We talked about the other specified authorizations. We still 

have not come through on all of them; there are other places where 

the legislation says, authorizes such sums as would be necessary. 

Each of those is an estimating challenge we haven’t gotten to yet. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
207 

We would like to get to it, but I—as you understand, I don’t control 

the pace or influence the pace. 

Again, if there is a reconciliation bill that was released that 

changes the entitlements or revenue features of the Senate-passed 

health bill, I think that most Members of the Congress, from both 

parties, would like to understand the effects of that mandatory 

spending and revenues before we would go back and try to—— 

Mr. ADERHOLT. But considering the massive scale of this legislation, you would agree that it would be very important? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think it is very important. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

SECURITY CLEARANCES

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Just one thing. I met with your office last 

week, or whenever it was, about the issue of some of your people 

who have clearance in working with the Intelligence Community 

helping with the workload, being more involved. I understand there 

is a pushback. Do you know where we are on that issue and where 

we need to go? We talked about issues involving cybersecurity and 

some other areas that we really probably need more help. Where 

is that now? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I don’t think it was me that you—— 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. It was Gene. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. This is CBO. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Gene is coming. 

CUTS TO COAST GUARD

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Well, this probably is not relevant, but I 

just came from a Homeland Security Appropriations Committee 

about the major cuts in the Coast Guard, and we would like to talk 

to you about that. I don’t want to do it here because it is not relevant to this hearing. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I am happy to talk to you, Congressman. I can 

come up and will bring people who are knowledgeable about that 

issue. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. All right. We really want to deal with that 

soon. 

COORDINATION WITH GAO

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I have just a couple of quick other 

questions, and then that will conclude my questions for you. 

CBO produces the budget and economic outlook, which examines 

the pressures facing the Federal budget over the coming decades 

by presenting the 8-year projections for Federal spending through, 

I guess, all the way to 2080. The GAO—and I will ask Mr. Dodaro 

the same question—produces the Federal Government’s long-term 

fiscal outlook. And it is really our job—and I have been asking a 

lot of different agencies about duplication of effort and overlap. 

How are those analyses different, and is it the best use of limited 

resources to have two legislative branch agencies doing at least 

what appears to be similar, if not the same, type of analysis? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, I don’t want to speak for Gene. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right, no. I am going to ask him. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
208 

Mr. ELMENDORF. From my perspective and the CBO’s perspective, this is such a crucial policy issue, the pressures that the budget faces, or the country faces, over the long term. There is an aging 

population, and with rising health care spending, my own view is 

that doing some partly overlapping work at CBO and GAO on that 

topic is probably in the Congress’ and in the country’s interest. 

We have slightly different modeling approaches. In the work that 

the GAO does, I think, they follow our sort of assumptions. They 

also examine the assumptions used by the Social Security and 

Medicare trustees. And there are differences, and we naturally 

think that we are picking assumptions that are in the middle of 

distribution of possible outcomes. But I think it is probably very 

useful for you to have GAO looking at that set of things and doing 

that sort of comparison. 

We present the information in somewhat different ways. I think 

that can be—again, like the way we present ours, I have no illusion 

that we have cornered the market on the way to present that or 

the way to do those calculations. Again, given the importance, I 

think that is of value, and you are seeing it from different perspectives. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just wanted to hear your perspective, because it is a very similar report. 

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FTES

Obviously, I would like to focus a little bit on your staffing. If 

your budget request is approved, you are asking for three additional FTEs for health care analysis. How many staff at that point 

would you have dedicated to health care issues? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Over the past year I tell people we have had 

around 50 people working on health issues. Some of them are in 

particular areas. Some people work on veterans health. So there 

are different groups, smaller groups and also a very large pool of 

people who have been involved in analysis of the broad reform effort over the past year. 

I think our view of what we would do with these extra people depends on whether this legislation passes the Congress or not. If it 

does, then it will be an ongoing flow of work as there is for the 

Medicaid program and Medicare and CHIP and so on. If it doesn’t, 

then we anticipate ongoing efforts to craft more comprehensive legislation. So we use the people in—and if legislation passes, it could 

be more budget analysts and projectors, otherwise more people 

with different skills. 

OPTIMAL SIZE OF CBO, RECRUITMENT, AND RETENTION

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I realize that any director of any 

agency never thinks they have enough staff, but what is the ideal 

size of CBO? As of March 10th, you have 19 job openings listed on 

your Web site. Are you having trouble filling the slots that we already allocated to you? 

And in terms of retention, I really get the sense that this is possibly the hardest-working agency in possibly the government, but 

certainly the Congress, right up there with GAO, although they 

have gotten relief in recent years. So is retention and issue for 

CBO? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
209 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think so far we are doing okay. I think for a 

number of years now we lost about two people a month, that is 

about two dozen a year, about 10 percent of our workforce in a 

year. Not all the pressure is bad. Many people want new challenges, and sometimes people are able to leave CBO and go on do 

other things. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What about the filling of the positions, though? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. The filling, I think, goes fairly well. Partly what 

you see by looking at spring is economists and many other people 

graduating from degree programs, they tend to look for jobs at this 

time of year. So in a sense there is a natural cycle in which we post 

jobs, we look to fill them, and the summer or the fall we hope to 

have them on board, the seasonal peak. 

I think there are particular areas where do have issues. One recent problem we have is that the Congress changed the rules in 

December. We are no longer able to hire foreign nationals. And in 

some particular areas we need to hire, in finance and macroeconomics, that is a real restriction. So we cancelled a third of the 

interviews that we had scheduled for this annual economic meeting 

to interview people. So I worry about that. 

I worry about burn-out on our whole staff. I think at the moment 

the momentum and the path from their bed to their desk and back 

is well-worn, and they keep doing it, but I think eventually they 

will realize that they miss their families and want other jobs. 

I think pay is an issue. My salary, as you know, was set by law 

to be some increment below yours. We don’t pay anybody at CBO 

more than Members of Congress are paid. But meanwhile people 

finishing school with advanced degrees and many years of education can often get significantly higher salaries other places, including other places in Washington. We had a very talented young 

woman who was just—now she is going to the IMF, the International Monetary Fund. They are paying her 50 percent more 

than what we are paying her. 

I have imaginary solutions I am not putting forward for solving 

that problem, but I do think that is an issue, that we have a lot 

of salary—we have to try to lure them in. We have to pay a certain 

amount. There is a lot of salary compression, and I think most people can find other outside offers. 

Now, I think we are, despite the work, a pretty happy group. We 

understand that we are doing important work for the Congress, 

and that is a very important motivator. And we are doing fascinating work, and that is an important motivator. We participated 

in a survey of government agencies. We finished as the third best 

place to work among small agencies. That was before health reform 

efforts. Check again. 

I think we have a variety of advantages in hiring, but eventually 

if you can get 50 percent more to go across town and do economic 

analysis, that is going to be a hard thing for us to fight with. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

HIRING OF FOREIGN NATIONALS

Mr. ADERHOLT. We talked about a little bit when you stopped in 

my office about the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2010, about 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
210 

the hiring of foreign nationals, which contains the governmentwide 

provision which now prohibits the ability to hire foreign nationals. 

Just for the record, talk a little bit about the impact that the language would have on you and your agency. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Most of the people that we hire, most of the 

people in pools that we look at, are U.S. citizens, but in parts of 

the job market that we are looking in and skills that we need to 

hire, there are a very large number of foreign nationals. Overall in 

economics Ph.D. programs in this country, more than half of the 

degree recipients are foreign nationals. 

Again, the topics that we look at like health care, say, that tends 

to look at graduate schools to be mostly U.S. citizens. But other 

areas, particularly in macroeconomics and finance, people who are 

trying to figure out the cost of the government’s involvement in the 

TARP or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, people trying to understand the effects of different fiscal policies over time, the budget 

balance and economic growth in this country, two very important 

topics from our perspective, and those areas, a significant share of 

our staff are foreign nationals. They are grandfathered under this 

rule so they themselves won’t have to leave. But we are looking to 

hire more people in those areas. Some of the open slots are in those 

areas. And if we really can’t on an ongoing basis look at this broader class of people, that is a real problem for us. 

This law was passed just before the annual meeting of the American Economics Association, while we were interviewing. We canceled I think it was a third of the interviews we had scheduled. It 

was about 4 days’ notice. We said, we are sorry, we just can’t talk 

with you. That does hinder our ability to fill those slots. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. We appreciate 

it and look forward to working with you on a whole lot of things. 

The subcommittee is going to stand in recess. We have three 

votes on. So we will stand in recess until the end of the vote, and 

we will come right back out. 

[Recess.] 

[Questions for the record follow:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
211 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 361 here 56678A.123
212 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 362 here 56678A.124
213 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 363 here 56678A.125
214 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I will call the hearing back to order 

of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. 

We are going to hear from Gene Dodaro, the Acting Comptroller 

General for the Government Accountability Office. The fiscal year 

2011 request would support 3,270 full-time equivalents, in addition 

to 144 FTEs focusing specifically on the Recovery Act work. So the 

increase is only for Recovery Act-focused employees. 

The budget request is $601 million. I know you know it is going 

to be hard to manage in this fiscal environment. We are going to 

have to talk to you about how you can manage increasing your 

workload with a funding that is short of what you requested, because we are going to—essentially for sure not going to be able to 

do what you have asked. 

In our public witness hearing a few weeks ago, I was really glad 

to hear from the GAO representative that things are going well in 

terms of dealing with the disparity in performance ratings experienced by African American employees, and I know you are developing a diversity training program which is good for staff, but I am 

very concerned about the lack of progress on merit-based pay 

raises. I understand that there wasn’t any more progress in your 

conversations on Monday, so we would like an update on both of 

those issues today. 

After Mr. Aderholt makes his opening remarks, you can proceed 

with a 5 minute summary of your statement. Your full statement 

will be entered into the record. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Just welcome to the committee. I look forward to hearing your 

testimony. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. DODARO

Mr. DODARO. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chair, Ranking Member Aderholt, good morning. I would 

like to start by thanking you for your support for GAO over the 

past 2 years. When I came to you in 2008, GAO was at its lowest 

staffing level in its history. You have responded very well, and I 

want to thank this subcommittee and your leadership for providing 

that support. 

Now, with that support we have been able to replenish the number of people working at GAO and add to the ranks, which has 

helped us provide better service to the Congress in addressing a 

number of difficult issues. As you pointed out, Madam Chair, our 

budget request is to maintain that staffing level in order to make 

sure that we can meet the needs across the Congress for all the 

committees in addressing a number of homeland security, national 

security, financial, economic and social issues confronting the Nation and the Congress, and in helping the Congress make the bestinformed decisions they can based on our analysis and support, 

while also taking on new responsibilities that we have been given 

by the Congress. For example, we are now required by law to proVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00214 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
215 

vide an annual report on the extent of duplication across the Federal Government. 

We have also been entrusted with a number of other new responsibilities by the Congress dealing with some of the economic conditions facing the country. The Economic Stabilization Act requires 

us to review the Troubled Asset Relief Program and authorizes cost 

reimbursement from the Treasury Department to ensure we have 

the ability to monitor the situation with AIG, General Motors and 

Chrysler in the coming years. 

However, on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, for 

which we have a number of recurring mandates the funding provided to GAO expires at the end of this year. A large amount of 

Recovery Act money remains to be allocated at the State and local 

level, including $110 billion this year, and in fiscal year 2011 and 

beyond, there is another $120 billion. GAO’s mandate to do bimonthly reviews of the State and local use of these funds will continue. 

I am concerned that in the coming years, a lot of new programs 

will be coming on line, and a number of these programs will involve increased amounts of money and risks. It is very important 

for GAO to be able to provide the appropriate level of congressional 

oversight that is warranted by the expenditure of large amounts of 

money. 

I know that you will give careful consideration to our request. I 

know it is a difficult period of time, but GAO is trying to do its 

best. I am very proud of our workforce for what we have been able 

to do to help the Congress, and we want to be able to maintain that 

going forward. 

So thank you very much, and I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

[Mr. Dodaro’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
216 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 369 here 56678A.126
217 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 370 here 56678A.127
218 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 371 here 56678A.128
219 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 372 here 56678A.129
220 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 373 here 56678A.130
221 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 374 here 56678A.131
222 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 375 here 56678A.132
223 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 376 here 56678A.133
224 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 377 here 56678A.134
225 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 378 here 56678A.135
226 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 379 here 56678A.136
227 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 380 here 56678A.137
228 

GAO’S REQUEST TO MAINTAIN CURRENT RECOVERY ACT STAFF LEVEL

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Your largest increase, Mr. Dodaro, is 

144 FTEs that will work on the Recovery Act programs, and given 

that that is a finite program, how long will GAO’s Recovery Act 

work continue? 

And to me it seems like the 144 FTEs are for work that is temporary, and you are adding a whole lot of FTEs that at some point 

in the future you are not going to be able to sustain because you 

are not going to have the work that they need. And again, like 

many a good agencies head, you can never have enough employees, 

but it puts pressure on our budget and your request when you are 

only asking for employees that we view as temporary. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. Well, from the beginning we also viewed this 

FTE level as temporary. I would point out that the way we staffed 

the Recovery Act oversight is by bringig back a number of reemployed annuitants who are temporary; used term employees who 

are temporary; and only brought on board, people that we can absorb through attrition going forward. 

We have approached this staffing carefully from the very beginning to ensure we did not put ourselves or the committee in the 

position to say that we now have these people, and we are asking 

you to support them. Our proposal going forward is to continue to 

maintain this staffing level to support the Recovery Act, only as 

long as the Recovery Act expenditures continue. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. For how long do think that work will 

continue? 

Mr. DODARO. Of the $120 billion which remains to be allocated 

to State and local governments, $63 billion will be allocated in fiscal year 2011, and the remaining funds will be allocated between 

fiscal year 2012 through to 2019, when it begins to phase out. We 

would phase out our work and staffing levels along the lines in 

which the money would phase out. We may need some kind of transition assistance, but our goal would be to phase out over time the 

number of FTEs we need. 

We are not trying to add this staffing level into the base. We are 

trying to be responsive to the mandates in the law where the most 

significant outlays will occur in this fiscal year and next fiscal year. 

We would develop a plan to reduce the scope of work and the FTEs 

over time consistent with the planned spending levels. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And then eventually phase the employees out? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

GAO MANAGEMENT AND UNION NEGOTIATIONS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We had an opportunity during the 

public witness hearing to hear from Ron La Due Lake, who is the 

union representative for GAO, and I really would like you to talk 

about the impasse that you appear to be at when it comes to merit 

pay raises. I know that you were able to set merit pay raises for 

nonmanagement, for nonbargaining unit employees, so where are 

we on that? And let me just tell you that I come from the standpoint of strongly encouraging you to move off the dime and get this 

done. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
229 

Mr. DODARO. We have reached agreement on the pay for developmental staff, and are using an interest-based collective bargaining 

process. I am very pleased we are able to do that. We have begun 

the mediation process, as you mentioned in your opening statement, and set an aggressive schedule for the remainder of the 

month, if necessary, to be able to complete it. We are going into it 

with optimism that we can strike an accord, and can do it in a way 

that won’t compromise our ability down the road to meet some of 

our workload demands. 

GAO’S ROLE IN TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. I want to ask you about the 

technology assessments. We have over the last several fiscal years 

appropriated $21⁄2 million to fund technology assessment studies. 

Tell me about how you have used those funds, what studies have 

been produced. 

The reason that I am asking is that the concern grows each year 

because more and more Members and more and more organizations 

are continuing to press for the reestablishment of the Office of 

Technology Assessment, and while GAO’s work is highly regarded, 

the feeling is that it is not an appropriate substitute for the work 

that OTA used to do. 

Mr. DODARO. I would like to take the opportunity to introduce 

Tim Persons, the Chief Scientist at GAO. We have recently hired 

Tim who comes from the Intel Community and has Ph.Ds in physical sciences and biomedical engineering. 

We have hired five additional staff with the funds that have been 

provided who have nuclear, chemical, electrical and industrial engineering backgrounds needed to do technology assessments. Also, as 

I have pointed out in past budget submissions, more and more of 

the work we are being asked to do at the GAO has a science and 

technology component. So this team—and other people we have already had on board help support our work in scientific issues, the 

nuclear area, and other areas—which accounts for about 10 or 15 

percent of our total workload. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is different than technology assessment. The 21⁄2 million is not to augment your workload. 

Mr. DODARO. I understand. But I want to fully use the talents 

that we have. 

On technology assessments, we have been doing one looking at 

explosive detection technology for passenger rail. That report will 

be issued in May. We started one on the technology for 

geoengineering, which is dealing with technologies that remove carbon dioxide from the environment and also with the reflection of 

solar rays, hich helps cool the Earth. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Are those assessments being done at 

a request of a Member or a committee Chair? 

Mr. DODARO. A committee Chair. But we are trying, as we had 

talked before about getting broad-based support. On the first one, 

as you requested, I met with Congressman Holt, and he agreed on 

that. We have a list of other areas we are going to start. The 

geoengineering ones are at the request of the House Committee on 

Science. And so we are going to involve other people and share that 

information with them. That should be done this fall. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
230 

We are going to start another one this June, and I am focused 

on looking at technologies to help in the detection of nuclear, biological and chemical threats; in other words, sensors and things of 

that nature that protect the homeland and protect people. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That request is from when? 

Mr. DODARO. That is one we are going to be talking with a number of people about. We don’t have a request yet. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is generating an area that—— 

Mr. DODARO. There are a number of people in Congress who are 

interested in this area and we have talked to all of them to try to 

get consensus on what would be a good area for us to start in. As 

we have discussed before, while some believe we don’t have the full 

ability to replicate OTA, I think that it is a matter of resource constraints, not because we don’t have the capability to be able to do 

it. I remain open to increasing GAO’s capabilities in consultation 

with you to try to provide Congress with the right type of information that is needed. 

We are going to need to expand our capabilities if we are going 

to help the Congress deal with increasing sophistication in satellite 

systems, weapon systems, homeland security, detection capabilities, 

and climate change. All of these areas require the application of 

science and technology, and we need to have the capabilities to provide that type of support. 

As I mentioned before, we also have a standing contract with the 

National Academy of Sciences to augment our skills, and for which 

we are using some of the money when we need to to have panels 

of experts from that community help us. So this is a really important area. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I think it is just something we are 

still struggling to decide, whether or not it is appropriate for you 

to continue to do it, or for us to reestablish OTA and have a dedicated office whose focus is science. 

GAO’S EFFORTS IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, AND PAKISTAN

Mr. Aderholt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

Of course, GAO is in the process of reviewing U.S. efforts related 

to Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, including reviewing the efforts 

of drawing down resources in Iraq. Providing more resources to Afghanistan and the retooling of operations in Pakistan, would you 

expand to the committee a little bit on the efforts that GAO is undertaking in this region and how you are staffing this effort? 

Mr. DODARO. Certainly, that is a very good question. So far we 

have done about 150 reports on the Iraq situation since the war 

began, as well as in the Afghanistan area. I have testified on our 

work in Iraq, and on our recommendations that the U.S. needs to 

develop more integrated strategic plans. We have provided the testimony on Pakistan as well, in terms of what the U.S. strategy was 

before. 

What we are currently looking at and have issued reports on is 

the plans at DOD to downsize in Iraq. During the first Persian 

Gulf War back in the early 1990s, it took about 15 months to move 

all the equipment out. That was far less involved in terms of equipment, personnel, et cetera. There are complications in bringing the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
231 

contractors out. You have to make arrangements with other countries to move the material through those countries. So we are looking at DOD’s plans. 

We are also looking at, Congressman Aderholt, the efforts to 

train the Afghanistan Police Force, and their army to stand up the 

institutions that are necessary for that government to function. We 

have done the same thing in Iraq. We have looked at the controls 

over the funding that is provided to Pakistan and made some recommendations to DOD to better track the money and the weapons 

provided to the Afghan Security Forces. So we are looking at those 

types of assistance in providing a lot of support to the Congress. 

There are a lot of logistical challenges that are different in Afghanistan, such as moving equipment around within the country. 

Our people have been there. We have had three people in Baghdad on 6-month rotation assignments for a while now. We are 

thinking about how to establish a presence in that area. We provide constant briefings to the committees on this, both in a classified sense and nonclassified sense. Our people really, have done a 

very good job understanding the situation, ferreting out the complexities, and making practical recommendations. I would expect 

that to continue through the completion of those efforts. 

GAO ATTRITION

Mr. ADERHOLT. You mentioned attrition a little bit earlier, and 

I think over 300 full-time employees’ attrition; is that correct? 

Mr. DODARO. On average over the last decade, we attrit about 

300 staff annually—about 10 percent of the GAO workforce. About 

half of the attritions retire and half move on for other reasons. And 

given the marketability and the highly trained and skilled workforce we have, we think that is a pretty good retention rate. 

But the last year and so far this year, attrition is down to about 

6 percent. We have had less than 200 people leave the agency this 

year. Obviously some people are deferring retirement, given the 

economic situation. Other jobs aren’t as available as they usually 

are. So attrition is lower than it has been in the past. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What do you anticipate again for the coming 

year? 

Mr. DODARO. I think we are still at about 6 percent. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And probably to the economy is probably what 

you are attributing that to, the overall economic stability. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. But we also work hard to attract and retain 

our people. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I know you are ranked one of the top in the Federal Government, so that is certainly something you should be 

proud of. 

That is all I have. Thank you. 

GAO’S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CAPITOL POLICE BUDGET

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I want to talk to you about the Capitol Police budget, which is something the GAO has been involved 

in reviewing, given their fiscal challenges and trouble getting it 

right in recent years. You know, we have now discovered that the 

police budget fiscal year 2011 request was built on quicksand at 

best and has to be amended by about $9 million. Can you talk to 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
232 

the committee about why GAO didn’t catch the request? I know 

they caught it earlier than the point at which you were involved, 

but can you enlighten us on that? And then I would really like your 

perspective, because you have been with GAO for so long, on what 

can be done to address the serious fiscal mismanagement in the 

Capitol Police. 

Mr. DODARO. First, as you point out, we were required, within 

30 days after the budget submission, to review the Capitol Police’s 

budget and look at some of the assumptions and validate the information. We received that on January 19th. We started to review 

the information, focusing first on the overtime area, because that 

was a big concern in the past, and then we turned our attention 

to the salary and benefit assumptions. 

We started raising questions in early February about this and 

asked the police for additional information. We received spreadsheets and other information from them that differed from what 

was in the budget submission, and so we flagged this area and had 

some concerns. We were in the process of trying to ask them for 

more information and weren’t getting a lot of complete information. 

We were asking questions along the same lines, and then the 

shortfall became—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And then they announced it. 

Mr. DODARO. It became public. 

So now, what can be done? I think this is an area where we can 

make a very valuable contribution. We need to talk to their financial auditors. Past financial audits there have noted some weaknesses in the payroll processing. We need to go in and do a lot 

more in-depth analysis to find out what the root cause is of the situation, much more than we can do in a 30-day period of time, and 

really identify why this happened, what can be done to fix it, and 

to make sure that it doesn’t happen again in terms of procedures, 

controls and having the proper people. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The Capitol Police previously was not 

responsible for their budget, and I am not confident that they 

should continue to be responsible for their budget, given the repeated errors. We are waiting for the IG report, but what are your 

thoughts? The GAO used to handle the budget for the Capitol Police, correct? 

Mr. DODARO. There were parts—not totally, not—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You were far more involved than you 

have been recently. 

Mr. DODARO. Well, there were a lot of problems in the administrative area historically, and we were mandated to do a number of 

reviews in financial management, and IT. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You were never exclusively responsible for the Capitol Police budget? 

Mr. DODARO. Not that I recall. We were providing some assistance in the payroll area, but I am not sure exactly. This was maybe 

10 years ago, so there hasn’t been anything in recent times. Obviously it compromises our independence to be able to go in and 

audit if we are carrying out an administrative role. We don’t typically do those type of things, so we can be independent and give 

advice. But I will commit to you that we can get deeply involved 

here and try to help figure out what the situation is to correct it, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
233 

assuming the police would maintain the responsibilities, and then 

there are other options that you could consider. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Another option might be to have some 

other entity maintain responsibility, and you still have oversight, 

and just have some tangential connection. 

Mr. DODARO. One of the difficult challenges, though, is the managers, in this case the chief of police, is responsible for staffing and 

protecting the Congress, and the accounting function is really going 

to be less—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is my point. 

Mr. DODARO. They are just going to keep having to basically account for decisions that are already made by management. There 

has to be an interrelationship, and accountability has to be with 

the head of agency. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You wouldn’t have a coal miner run 

a restaurant; it just doesn’t fit. It is too disparate a skill set. So 

thank you. 

Mr. DODARO. If you would like, with your consultation, we will 

proceed and try to do some additional—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would like to continue to consult 

with you on how we may address the concerns. 

Mr. DODARO. Sure. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My time is expired. Do you have anything else? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I am fine. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just have one more, and then I am 

done. 

INTELLIGENCE AUDIT CHALLENGES

On the intelligence programs, I know you have had some issues 

auditing the intelligence programs. The intelligence authorization 

bills for the House and Senate passed. I thought we dealt with this 

issue; we made it clear that GAO should be able to audit certain 

programs. Are you lacking in authority to audit intelligence programs if we required you to do so? Is there any additional language 

that you need? Are there obstacles being put in your path? Help 

us with the challenges that you are facing. 

Mr. DODARO. Sure. This has been an historical—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I will tell you this is a real issue for 

me. I have started to explore the so-called black budgets, and there 

has been precious little oversight, and it is really disturbing. 

Mr. DODARO. Well, we believe we have the authority. The language in the bills that you mentioned, the reauthorization bills, 

was to reaffirm the authority that we believe we have. Historically, 

there is a 1988 opinion by the Justice Department that disagrees 

with that. The administration’s position over the years has been 

that Congress has set up their own committees to oversee the Intelligence Community, and they disagree that GAO has the authority. 

We have countered that. We don’t believe that is true. We believe 

that we have the authority, we have the people with the clearances, we have the people with the skills, we can help. What we 

are lacking is cooperation from the Intelligence Community and the 

support of the Congress and the Intelligence Committees to get involved. And we think we can do that, but we haven’t had—— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
234 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is it the view of the Intelligence Community and the administration that there isn’t the right for Congress to review their spending and their practices? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, they take issue with GAO’s authority. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, who do they think has the authority, anybody? 

Mr. DODARO. I believe their position is the Congress through the 

Intelligence Committees. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Because we delegate you. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. You will find no disagreement with me, 

Madam Chair, on this issue. We think it is clear even without the 

additional support. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There is a different type of accountability that you engage in than the committees do. Of course, we 

hold the Intelligence Community accountable, and we hold hearings, and they have an appropriation subcommittee that handles 

that now. What else do you need? 

Mr. DODARO. We just need the clear language. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. More clear language. 

Mr. DODARO. More clear language. Either one of the things will 

do it, but we need the Congress to provide support to get the information we need from the Intelligence Community going forward. It 

has been an historic problem, and I think we can help the committees. This is along the lines of Congressman Ruppersberger’s question before as well. I had the same conversation with him. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am going to work with the Intelligence Committee and the relevant appropriations subcommittee 

here, the select committee, to try to get this resolved. 

Mr. DODARO. Very good. 

APPRECIATION OF GAO AND CBO EMPLOYEES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So thank you very much. Thank you 

for your work. We appreciate it. 

Mr. DODARO. Thank you very much. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Please thank the employees of GAO, 

and actually if anyone is here left from CBO as well, how much we 

appreciate all your work. We know you put in a ton of hours, and 

on behalf of the American people, we appreciate it. 

Mr. DODARO. Thank you very much. I know they appreciated 

your sentiment last year at the hearing. I communicated that to 

them, and I will do so this year. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It can never be said too much. 

Mr. DODARO. I agree. Thank you very much. 

[Questions for the record follow:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
235 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 397 here 56678A.138
236 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 398 here 56678A.139
237 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 399 here 56678A.140
238 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ms. Chrisler, you are up. Good afternoon. This is the part of the hearing for the smallest agency for the 

smallest appropriations bill. That is why the room is now essentially clear. 

So this is our opportunity to talk to Ms. Chrisler, the Executive 

Director of the Office of Compliance, about the budget request. This 

year OOC is requesting $4.8 million for fiscal year 2011, which is 

an 11 percent increase over last year’s level. 

I realize you have a small budget relative to other agencies, but 

an important role to make sure that we can continue to provide a 

safe, and productive, and hospitable working environment for our 

employees and our visitors. 

I would really like to hear about your ongoing work with the Architect of the Capitol—they are going to be testifying this afternoon, more like in a couple of hours—and how you prioritize life 

safety issues based on our unique aging Capitol complex needs. 

And I would like to, as we usually want to, hear from you on your 

outreach to Members and committee staff. At the end of the day, 

I need to know what the ‘‘got to haves’’ versus the ‘‘like to haves’’ 

are. 

I look forward to hearing from you. Your full statement will be 

entered into the record, and after Mr. Aderholt, you may proceed 

for 5 minutes. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Congratulations on your 15th year. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Thank you. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. As someone who just celebrated my 14th year on 

the Hill, I congratulate you on that. 

You state in your testimony that there is an estimate of 6,000 

hazards in the present Congress, which is a drop from previous 

Congresses is my understanding. What type of hazards are most 

prevalent that you find? 

Ms. CHRISLER. I will be happy to answer that after I give my 

opening remarks. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. She has to give her opening remarks. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

OPENING STATEMENT—MS. CHRISLER

Ms. CHRISLER. Thank you. I thank you both. It is a pleasure for 

me to be here and represent the Office of Compliance. 

I would like to make a correction for the record, if I could. The 

budget request that we have presented is a 6.82 percent increase 

over fiscal year 2010, about $4.68 million. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. You will have to take that up 

with my staff because they have a different number. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Thank you. We will make sure that we do that, 

because certainly one of the aspects of our request and one of the 

largest considerations of our request for fiscal year 2011 was to be 

mindful of the economic situation that we are all facing, and that 

increase is certainly not reflective of the efforts that our agency has 

made to keep in mind the fiscal constraints that everyone is operVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00238 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
239 

ating under. So I do want to emphasize that we have made many 

strides in not only acknowledging the current economic situation, 

but making the necessary adjustments within our budget request 

to ensure that is reflected in the work that we do. 

So commenting on your comment, Mr. Aderholt, with respect to 

our 15th anniversary, it is not just the 15th anniversary of the Office of Compliance, it is the 15th anniversary of the Congressional 

Accountability Act. And we do work for you, and we are here to 

thank you for the support of our agency and thank you for allowing 

us to do the good work for Congress. And because of the support 

of this Subcommittee, we have been able to raise awareness of safety and health on the Hill resulting in an increase of four times the 

Safe Office Awards during the 111th Congress than the 110th Congress. I would like to congratulate you, Madam Chair, and you, Mr. 

Aderholt, for leading by example, because both of your offices were 

recipients of our award this year. So thank you for that leadership. 

Again, the Subcommittee’s dedication to safety issues in the Capitol power plant utility tunnels and the abatement of those hazards 

allowed our office to prioritize properly monitoring that process, 

and we appreciate your assistance there. 

In addition, we have increased our services to sister agencies, 

providing educational workshops and training sessions at the suggestion of this Subcommittee. 

So I highlight these areas not just to show the progress that has 

been made within these 15 years under the Congressional Accountability Act, but to thank you for your continued support, and to emphasize that we will be carrying out these programs and other programs without asking for additional resources except where absolutely essential. 

There are three areas wherein the OOC has requested additional 

funding, and that is safety and health, to develop a risk assessment 

approach to inspections; IT infrastructure, to update and enhance 

our IT security; and human capital, to provide mandatory salary 

increases and minimal merit increases. 

The technical guidance that we provide in the area of safety and 

health is well received and results in cost savings, and we want to 

continue this type of service and increase the cost savings in the 

legislative branch. And from the language in the fiscal year 2010 

legislative branch appropriations conference committee report, you 

want us to continue that service, too. 

In line with that report, we anticipate developing a cooperative 

and cost-efficient approach to the identification and correction of 

safety and health hazards. The approach will be risk-based and, as 

the report indicated, focused on those areas which would yield the 

most reduction of risk to human health and safety. And as we see 

it, those areas involve workplaces and work activities that pose the 

biggest risk to safety. We work very closely with employing offices 

as we develop this approach. 

As my written statement indicates, our communications and IT 

systems are antiquated and do not provide a cost-effective way of 

securing information. Our current system of two computers per employees is an administrative burden on our staff and not cost-efficient, and it is cumbersome. So the funding we seek will allow us 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
240 

to migrate the two networks into a single system, while maintaining security for confidentiality purposes. 

The balance of our request is for mandatory cost-of-living increases, minimal staff increases and associate benefits. 

As I mentioned earlier, we understand the fiscal constraints of 

our environment, and in the spirit of cooperation, we have presented a budget request with minimal increases, only those necessary to allow us to continue to serve you in the areas of safety 

and health, and ensuring confidentiality in the information that we 

maintain, and to retain the talented workforce that we have. 

Though we have a need for additional resources to assist with 

our inspections of over 17 million square feet of space in the D.C. 

metro area alone, with an additional 1 million expected in fiscal 

year 2012 and 2013, we are not seeking those additional resources 

this year. We are working with OSHA to secure nonreimbursable 

detailees to fill the need. We are hopeful that a mutual exchange 

of services would be of benefit to both agencies at no cost to the 

government. 

So again, on behalf of the Board of Directors and the Office of 

Compliance, I thank you for your support of agency, and I am 

happy to answer the questions that you have. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Ms. Chrisler. 

[Ms. Chrisler’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
241 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 406 here 56678A.141
242 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 407 here 56678A.142
243 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 408 here 56678A.143
244 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 409 here 56678A.144
245 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 410 here 56678A.145
246 

WITHIN-GRADE PAY INCREASES AND PROMOTIONS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I only have a few questions. One is 

just on the record that you were attempting to correct. The 11 percent increase is based on—we have to use the request submitted 

through the Executive Office of the President, so that is an 11 percent increase based over last year. If you are amending your budget request, it will reflect the difference, but the actual request is 

an 11 percent increase. 

Ms. CHRISLER. And we have made that amendment. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That will certainly help. 

The issue of pay step increases for permanent staff, that is your 

most significant increase in your budget request, and most agencies 

absorb those increases, so I am wondering why you are not doing 

that. 

Ms. CHRISLER. With respect to the merit promotion? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The pay step. 

Ms. CHRISLER. The mandatory? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The pay step increases that you have 

in your budget request. Most of the other agencies absorb those increases; they are not part of the budget request. 

Ms. CHRISLER. And routinely we have. This is an item that we 

included to ensure that we have the funding, and the proper funding, for those increases. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you anticipate not being able to 

absorb the increase this year like you have in other years? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Depending on the level of funding that we are 

given from the Appropriations Committee. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, assuming that we are going to 

require you to absorb it like we normally do, what is it that you 

wouldn’t be able to do in that event? 

Ms. CHRISLER. May I have a moment? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Ms. CHRISLER. Thank you. 

We are able to absorb the mandatory pay increase, which some 

know as cost of living. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There is no such thing as a mandatory increase. There is nothing requiring an increase. We have increases as part of the year-to-year budgetary process, but mandatory isn’t there. 

Ms. CHRISLER. What I am referring to is the increase that is directed by the Congress, directed by the President to provide to employees. That is an increase that we have absorbed and can absorb. 

We have included that in our budget request because it is difficult 

for us to absorb that increase. It is a very small agency with a very 

small budget. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Noted. 

OFFICE SPACE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Can you talk about your ongoing challenge with office space and 

information technology? You touched on information technology 

and the problem that growth has caused you in your current space. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
247 

Ms. CHRISLER. Thank you for the question. I appreciate being 

able to address it on the record. 

We have, since the inception of the agency, which is 1996, have 

been in the same location, which is a very good location for the 

work that we do. It is equidistant for staff in the House office 

buildings and the Senate office buildings to visit our office. And the 

work that we do is, as I stated, confidential, so staff come to us in 

an effort to maintain that confidence, and sometimes during their 

lunch hour, during the day. So it is important that they be able to 

access us during the day. It is important that they be able to access 

us and continue to maintain the confidence of our programs. So the 

very anonymous location that we have as far as the confidence in 

the Adams Building is helpful for staff to come and visit us. 

That being said, the space that we have has outgrown operations. We have a staff of 22 FTEs, we have permanent daily contractors, we have other contractors. We have a Board of Directors 

of five. We have interns. We would like to have more detailees. We 

are trying to get more detailees for our safety and health program. 

The challenge that we have now is where to put them. This subcommittee has been our champion for attaining space in the past, 

and we continue to work with you and your staff on that issue. 

Where we are now is at an impasse with respect to additional 

space in the Library. The Library has graciously offered an assessment of the space that we have, and they have determined that we 

currently are housed in about 5,800 square feet, and for the number of employees, and the number of contractors, and the number 

of total staff that we have, we need about 9,800 square feet of 

space. 

There are plans, of course, for the distant future for the FOB 8 

building. Of course, that will incur costs, because right now being 

maintained within the Library of Congress building, there are a lot 

of services and resources that we receive from the Library through 

an interagency agreement and otherwise that would be shifted, and 

there are certain costs that are otherwise not seen now that would 

be seen later, especially with our infrastructure and our IT services. 

That being said, the Library has also began discussions of temporary space, of rooms that we might make use of for our overflow 

of our staff. There is space that the Library has dedicated, a suite 

space just north of our office, that, as I understand it, has been vacant for at least 4 years, but that has recently been occupied by Library staff. That space is space that I have been very vocal—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Coveting. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Yes. And I will continue to do so because it is 

ideal, and I believe that it would be a cost-efficient way to meet the 

needs that this agency has. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But my understanding of the problem 

is that that is swing space that the Library wishes to preserve as 

swing space for the Library. 

Ms. CHRISLER. That is my understanding as well, and it is my 

understanding also that it has not been used. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
248 

TYPES OF HAZARDS IDENTIFIED

Mr. ADERHOLT. Now on to my question. The estimated 6,000 hazards that were noted, which is a drop from previous Congresses, 

what type of hazard does seem to be most prevalent in this area? 

Ms. CHRISLER. We see a lot of electrical hazards. We see a lot of 

what we call daisy chains, which is an electric cord plugged into 

an electric cord, plugged into an electric cord, which is a fire hazard. So there are fire hazards, and there are electrical hazards and 

trip-and-fall hazards. 

And I will check with my general counsel on this, most of the 

hazards that we see are not the most serious, what we rank as 

RAC 1 and RAC 2. We have a risk assessment code where we rank 

the severity of hazards and the potential dangers that the hazards 

present. Most of 6,000 that we see are not of the RAC 1 and RAC 

2 nature. 

So we are looking at a relatively large number in comparison to 

what we see, a small number. Within the last three Congresses, we 

have seen a reduction of over 50 percent in the hazards that we 

have identified. It is in large part due to the education efforts of 

our inspections team, but an even larger part due to the cooperation that we have received from Senate Employment Counsel, 

House Employment Counsel, the Chief Administrative Officer of 

the House and Member offices. So it is wonderful progress. We are 

really, really happy to see it. So the majority of those hazards are 

not life-threatening. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Do you anticipate further decline? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Absolutely. As the Committee has directed and 

suggested to us, because we will continue to conduct our inspections, and continue to educate, and continue to provide the technical guidance that we do, we are hopeful that our efforts can focus 

on those areas where the most serious hazards have the potential 

of exposure, those being workplaces and work activities where hazards could be common. And we want to work closely with the employing offices as we work through the program to have the risk 

assessment-based approach to our inspections. 

IMPACT OF A ZERO GROWTH BUDGET

Mr. ADERHOLT. What would be the impact of the zero growth to 

your budget? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Well, as I mentioned, we have really focused our 

efforts to minimize our request and really look at the ‘‘need to 

haves’’ and not the ‘‘nice to haves,’’ if I can borrow a phrase from 

Madam Chair. 

So we have got the risk-based assessment inspection program 

that we are requesting additional funding for, because that is an 

extremely important program. We will try to limp along as best we 

can to develop and implement that program. I can’t say how far, 

how much program we would have with that, but we certainly 

would not abandon that program. That is our major priority. 

The second would be our IT infrastructure, because it is necessary for us to maintain the security of the confidential information that we do hold. Again, we would have to slow that project 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
249 

down. I don’t know to what point. We would have to crunch the 

numbers and see what it was we could do. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. All right. Thank you. 

LIFE SAFETY CITATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEFICIENCIES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

I just have a follow-up question from Mr. Aderholt’s, and that is, 

first of all, let me commend you on your very proactive work with 

the AOC. Our hearing with them is this afternoon, and life safety 

and security issues are something that I prioritize as the Chair of 

the subcommittee, and we have seen the progress, and I think that 

is in large part due to the work you are doing with them. 

Can you detail the most pressing life safety citations or major infrastructure deficiencies in the Capitol complex that you know of 

right now? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Sure. They would have to be the fire safety citations that are open right now. And we have had some very, very 

productive conversations with the AOC on this issue. We have sat 

down and spent time with the AOC to collaborate on a prioritized 

order of abating the hazards within these citations. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is that reflected in their budget request? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Ms. CHRISLER. So that exercise has resulted in a good understanding of what citations remain. Some are funded; the open citations, there are nine of them, three of them have already been 

funded, six remain unfunded, and the AOC, I am sure, will be talking to you about that this afternoon. 

But what we have been able to do is take a look at what remains 

unfunded and ranked them in order of—what we have done is, just 

to give you a little background, taken the standards that we both 

have agreed to be acceptable in this area and apply those standards to give a numerical ranking to the hazards that exist in the 

open citations. And as they are ranked, the Capitol is first, and the 

Russell and Senate—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is coordinated with the AOC? 

They have a ranking system as well. 

Ms. CHRISLER. Yes. Well, with respect to the joint effort that we 

have undertaken to address the fire safety citations, we are in 

agreement with respect to that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Great. 

I don’t have any additional questions. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I do not either. 

ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT FROM THE CHAIR

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I do have homework, though, related 

to your workload and your staffing. If you could provide a summary 

of OOC’s actual and estimated workload in terms such as numbers 

of inspections or open cases, that will help the subcommittee understand how OOC’s actual anticipated staffing requirements have 

changed since 2008. What business process reforms have you explored to improve productivity of your staff and your contractors? 

Ms. CHRISLER. Wonderful. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
250 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If you could get us this information, 

that would be great. And for all of the agencies, and that includes 

the agencies that we have reviewed here today as well as all the 

legislative branch agencies, we are going to ask for a summary of 

the impacts that a flat fiscal year 2011 budget would have on you, 

for the record. And particularly we are interested in knowing if 

staff will have to be furloughed and how that would impact your 

mission. That is for OOC as well as all the agencies. 

[CLERK’S NOTE:—Agencies’ response to homework is included in 

questions for the record.] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
251 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 421 here 56678A.146
252 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 422 here 56678A.147
253 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 423 here 56678A.148
254 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 424 here 56678A.149
255 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 425 here 56678A.150
256 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 426 here 56678A.151
257 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 427 here 56678A.152
258 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 428 here 56678A.153
259 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 429 here 56678A.154
260 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. With that, the subcommittee stands 

in recess until 2 p.m. When we will take up the Architect of the 

Capitol’s budget for 2011 fiscal year. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(261) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2010. 

FY 2011 BUDGET OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

AND INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS 

WITNESS 

STEPHEN T. AYERS, ACTING ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I call the meeting to order of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. 

This is the budget hearing for the Architect of the Capitol’s 2011 

fiscal year budget submission. We are in a challenging year yet 

again. 

But first I want to congratulate you on your nomination by the 

President of the United States and tell you how confident we are 

in your ability and commend you for the tremendous progress that 

you have made with the agency and really making it a model agency for not just the legislative branch, but I would say for the entire 

government. And it is good to know that we are going to be able 

to have a chance—as long as we can knock some sense into the 

Senate to make sure that they confirm you—a chance to work with 

you going forward for a long time. So, congratulations. 

Mr. AYERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome. 

FY 2011 BUDGET REQUEST

The AOC is requesting a total of $755 million, which is a 25.5 

percent increase above the 2010 enacted budget. It includes a 6.7 

percent increase to the operating budget and a total of $262 million 

in projects, compared to $136 million in last year’s bill. But I am 

certainly not suggesting that what you are requesting isn’t needed. 

We are just going to have to figure out what is really, really needed 

versus what can wait. 

And I know that it is always nice to have—there are ‘‘gotta 

haves’’ in every budget, but we have a huge backlog of deferred 

maintenance and life and safety and security issues and, obviously, 

capital renewal projects. I think we made that easier last year by 

establishing the House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust 

Fund. And I am glad to see that that was in the budget submission. 

The key thing here, I believe, is making sure that we don’t cut 

off our nose to spite our face. Because we have near-term pressures 

with your budget, and uniquely with your budget, that we always 

have to deal with, but the more that we tighten our belt here, it 

is not like the pressure goes away. We are just kicking the can 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
262 

down the road and causing ourselves probably a more expensive 

problem later on. 

So I, as you know, have always been for trying to figure out what 

is the most necessary to get done and fund those projects. So I look 

forward to working with you as we claw through your budget. 

And after Mr. Aderholt makes remarks, you can proceed with a 

5-minute statement of your summary, and your full statement will 

be entered into the record. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. ADERHOLT

I again want to, like the Chair, congratulate your nomination, 

and I look forward to your confirmation on the Senate side. I look 

forward to hearing your testimony today, and thank you for being 

here. 

Mr. AYERS. Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT—STEPHEN AYERS

Madam Chair, Congressman Aderholt, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding 

our FY 2011 budget request. 

I would first like to express my thanks to the Subcommittee and, 

of course, to the Congress for its support for the AOC over the past 

year, as we have worked to maintain and preserve the Capitol complex. 

For 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, the AOC 

serves as proud stewards of the most iconic buildings and grounds 

in the world. Nothing demonstrated our commitment more than 

our team’s remarkable response to ‘‘Snowmageddon’’ last month. 

AOC crews logged in more than 35,000 hours to remove more than 

11,000 tons of snow to be sure that the Congress could continue to 

conduct its business. 

The AOC has had a really successful 2009, a year that began 

with a historic Presidential inaugural and ended with the first of 

three blizzards that hit Washington D.C. this winter. In between 

these major events, we have welcomed more than 2.3 million visitors to the Capitol Visitor Center during its first year in operation 

and we have carried out numerous projects to save energy and preserve these historic buildings. 

CRITICAL NEED PRIORITIES

In that regard, our 2011 budget request focuses on priorities that 

are necessary to attend to the critical needs of the Capitol complex. 

Specifically, this entails addressing a significant backlog of deferred maintenance and capital renewal projects, as well as security, and life-safety and accessibility requirements. 

As the Chair noted, we are requesting $755 million for Fiscal 

Year 2011. This project portion of our budget request is devoted to 

addressing critical issues needing urgent attention. Although every 

project that we have listed in our budget is necessary and will ultimately need to be done, we realize not all can be funded in these 

fiscally challenging times. However, we do take our responsibility 

to identify, quantify, and report to the Congress the state of faciliVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00262 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
263 

ties and the extent of deferred maintenance backlog very, very seriously. 

Most importantly, our project prioritization tools, we believe, provide the Congress with concrete and practical assessments of our 

infrastructure, enabling good decision-making about future investments. Over the last year, this process has matured, including a 

year Capital Improvements plan which examines phasing opportunities and sequencing and other factors to better facilitate the timing of major projects. 

ENERGY SAVING INITIATIVES

The AOC is committed to making the right choices by doing our 

part to save energy on Capitol Hill, as well. In 2009, the Congress 

met its energy reduction goals for the fourth year in a row and reduced energy consumption by 15.3 percent across the Capitol complex. 

To help meet future energy reduction requirements, last summer 

we entered into the first Energy Savings Performance Contract to 

implement energy savings projects here in the House buildings. In 

December, we entered into Energy Savings performance contracts 

for the Senate and the Capitol Building, as well. These public-private partnerships would help us achieve very significant energy reductions over the next several years. 

AOC OPERATIONS

On the operations side, we have been successful in our endeavors 

due to the professional men and women who make up this AOC 

team. Their commitment to excellence allows us to provide exceptional service to the Congress and the visiting public every day. In 

that regard, our annual operating budget request for $443 million 

supports the critical activities necessary to support the Congress 

and other Legislative Branch agencies. 

With regard to accommodating Members’ and visitors’ needs, the 

Capitol Visitor Center is top in its class. Now in our second year 

of operation, we continue to make improvements to our policies and 

tour procedures, including modifying the advanced reservation system to give Congressional offices more flexibility to modify, cancel, 

and reschedule reservations. 

We have also added a Congressional staff line at the south information desk; increased the number of operators to ensure prompt 

response to phone calls; and are placing staff at strategic locations 

to help facilitate visitor flow. In addition, we continue to hold 

monthly listening sessions with Congressional staff to receive feedback, answer questions, and exchange information. To date, over 

5,200 staff members have attended our training program. 

Madam Chair, the AOC is ready to do what is necessary to keep 

the Capitol complex open and operating every day of the year 

under any circumstance, and I am honored and privileged to work 

alongside this great team. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be 

happy to answer questions. 

[Mr. Ayer’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
264 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 708 here 56678B.042
265 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 709 here 56678B.043
266 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 710 here 56678B.044
267 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 711 here 56678B.045
268 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 712 here 56678B.046
269 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 713 here 56678B.047
270 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 714 here 56678B.048
271 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 715 here 56678B.049
272 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 716 here 56678B.050
273 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 717 here 56678B.051
274 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 718 here 56678B.052
275 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 719 here 56678B.053
276 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 720 here 56678B.054
277 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 721 here 56678B.055
278 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 722 here 56678B.056
279 

CVC SHUTTLE ACCOMMODATIONS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Ayers. 

I want to start out with some CVC-related questions. First, on 

the shuttles, you may have heard about the testimony we had at 

the public witness hearing. You know, we again had concerns expressed from the Guild of Professional Tour Guides. I understand 

their concern was very clear. I believe the question of drop-off at 

the east front is settled and they are going to just need to get over 

that and move on, because we have explored that repeatedly. We 

have sat down with the Capitol Police, discussed it at our hearings, 

and the Congress agrees that security is too much of a concern to 

make that an option. 

PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED TOURISTS

That having been said, we do still have the issue of the frail, elderly, the disabled, and transporting them from the west front up 

that hill over to the CVC entrance. And we have been dealing with 

that in an ongoing way. The most recent way we are attempting 

to deal with it is through the purchase of those six shuttles. 

So, can you give us an update on how those shuttles are working 

in transporting visitors from tour buses to the CVC? Have there 

been circumstances where you haven’t had enough shuttles? And, 

also, what is the time frame for getting a large group with a lot 

of people who need that shuttle service all the way up to the entrance so that you are not separating their group and messing up 

their scheduled tour? 

Mr. AYERS. You are absolutely correct that we did purchase six 

shuttles and put them into operation in August of 2009. And we 

laid out a process by which we would do a pilot implementation for 

a year and come back and reevaluate. So we are a few months into 

that, but I think we do have some good statistics thus far. 

Of course, the first year, 2.3 million people came to the Capitol 

Visitor Center, and only 1 percent of them requested or used shuttle service. 

TOUR GROUP ACCOMMODATIONS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Now, is that in part because they just 

didn’t know? In last year’s hearing I remember Terrie repeatedly 

said, ‘‘If they would just call us and let us know and give us a 

heads-up in advance, then we can work with them.’’ And we have 

repeatedly told that to the tour groups. 

And has that improved compared to the way it was before? 

Mr. AYERS. It has improved. We have two shuttles parked there 

at Garfield Circle every day, and we have a third shuttle at the 

other circle, in standby mode in case we need more than two at any 

given time. 

There have also been, since August until today, 10 occasions 

where we have received calls in advance that say, ‘‘We are going 

to need all six shuttles.’’ We have had all six shuttles there and accommodated those groups up the Hill. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So you have not had a problem where 

you have had not enough shuttles available for a group—— 

Mr. AYERS. No. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
280 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing]. Or separating a group for 

too long a period of time? 

Mr. AYERS. No, absolutely not. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. So why are they complaining? 

Mr. AYERS. There are a couple of important issues. One, we have 

to develop a better relationship with the tour companies. We are 

really working on that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would encourage you to do that. 

Mr. AYERS. We went out last week and met with tour company 

representatives and gave a presentation to their guild members. 

We encouraged them to call. It is really important, that they call, 

so that we can get the cell phone number of the person who is 

working with the group and stay in contact as things progress. 

ADDRESSING TOUR COMPANIES’ CONCERNS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. And we stressed that to them, 

as well, in the public witness hearing. I mean, I have been sympathetic to their concerns, but, you know, we are at the point now 

where I feel like we have taken some pretty constructive, positive 

steps to address the issue. It is a legitimate issue. I represent a lot 

of senior citizens; a lot of Members do. And, you know, I have 

trudged up that hill with my kids, and, you know, it can be winding if you are not—you can get winded if you are not a robust person. 

Do you anticipate a change as the tourist season and spring 

break season kicks in? I mean, do you think it is going to start to— 

while you haven’t identified a problem now, do you anticipate there 

being a problem? 

Mr. AYERS. We don’t anticipate that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. All right. 

And then the other quick question I have related to the CVC is 

on the staffing. Actually, this question is not as quick, so I will 

save it. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. 

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

You mentioned in your testimony about the large backlog of deferred maintenance, and that is across the Capitol complex. How 

do you put a priority on which ones that you need to move forward 

with more quickly and which ones that you—of all of these, the 

backlog that you currently have? 

Mr. AYERS. That is a great question. 

We have developed a robust project prioritization process that we 

have been working on for a number of years. We have developed 

and matured based on feedback from this Committee. 

Every single project of the 47 on our recommended list there is, 

I don’t know, 30 or 40 totaling over $200 million goes through a 

prioritization process, and that list is in priority order. 

So that process includes first, defining a project’s category, 

whether it is deferred maintenance, meaning something that is broken and needs to be fixed; or capital renewal; capital improvement; 

or capital construction, meaning new construction. The reason we 

do that is, a deferred maintenance project in our prioritization 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
281 

process will move up higher on the list versus new construction. 

You want to take care of what you have before you build new. 

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

Also, every project gets a numeric score from 1 to 100 on six criteria: mission, economics, energy, efficiency and environmental 

quality security, historic preservation, and life-safety. We look at 

all six of those attributes of a project and score it from 1 to 100 

on some predetermined evaluation criteria. 

In the end, all of this data comes together in an algorithm and 

produces a priority list top to bottom that is the most important 

tool for the Congress to use to fund the things that are on the top 

of the list and, when we are in a difficult environment, to not fund 

the projects that are on the bottom of the list. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What projects or programs are the Architect’s Office exploring that will help Congress meet its goals under the Energy Independence and Security Act and other energy reduction 

goals? 

Mr. AYERS. In the House, we are working under two primary 

goals. First is the Energy Independence and Security Act, which requires a 3 percent reduction in energy intensity per year for 10 

years. The Green the Capitol initiative requires a 5 percent energy 

reduction per year for 10 years. 

In addition to doing a wide variety of what we call demand side 

or behavioral changes, such as getting people to turn out their 

lights and being much better about their computer use and HVAC 

use, we are implementing Energy Savings Performance Contracts. 

We have signed the one for the House. I mentioned the Senate and 

the Capitol. 

Those contracts are going to save us, just here in the House, 

nearly 30 percent of our energy use. I think that using private dollars initially to make that investment and paying them back with 

the energy savings is a great model for us, especially in these difficult times. 

SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

Mr. ADERHOLT. Regarding participation with small businesses, 

what efforts are you undertaking to increase small business participation with your office? 

Mr. AYERS. The Executive Branch has the Small Business Administration, and they have implemented mandatory small business programs across the Executive Branch. Those requirements 

don’t apply to the legislative branch, but a year or so ago we made 

a decision to implement the small business program—the first in 

the legislative branch. 

We have entered into Memorandum of Agreement with the Small 

Business Administration to develop a program that has three tiers. 

The first is that we set aside all of our procurements between 

$5,000 and $100,000 and drive all of those to small businesses as 

direct set-asides, where sufficient competition exists. Then, on construction contracts that are over a million dollars, we require vendors to subcontract with small business vendors, and we track that 

as well. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
282 

Thirdly, we have developed an important outreach program 

where we are holding small business seminars. We recently held 

one last month in the Capitol Visitor Center. We are holding and 

participating in small business seminars that bring in small businesses and educate them about how to do business with us and 

what kind of business we do. 

So we are excited about that. I think we are leading the Legislative branch in that endeavor, and I think it is the right thing to 

do. It is also a sustainable thing to do. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. 

And you get gold stars. You have the right to brag about snow 

now. You did a good job. 

Mr. AYERS. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. We will talk about the way you used salt later 

on. 

ENERGY AUDITS/UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

I have two questions. One, in here you talk about moving forward and doing your energy audits. And I want to make this very 

clear, Madam Chair, I am not asking for anything to happen in my 

office. But if this problem is happening in my office, it is happening 

in others. 

I have a wooden window that doesn’t fit tight. You can’t close it. 

You know, the wind howls. So, I know that is typical of all of ours. 

And as you are going through and as you are ranking things, 

where are we on window replacement? Because, as we know and 

as most families know, that is probably one of the best ways to become energy-efficient. 

And then, secondly, I would like to request and I will continue 

to request an update about what is going on with the employees 

and their exposure to asbestos and their families’ possible exposure 

to asbestos as their clothing came home. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. From the tunnels you mean? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. From the tunnels. I am going to continue to be 

persistent about it. 

But if you could maybe just talk about your energy upgrades in 

general. 

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

The first window project we undertook was in the Ford House 

Office Building. We did replace every window in that building, and 

we have achieved some very significant energy savings because of 

that. So you are absolutely right; changing windows, caulking, and 

weather-stripping really does save money as well as energy. 

As we move forward to undertake the top-to-bottom Cannon 

Building renovation, a window replacement and a complete rework 

of windows and doors in that building will be part of that scope. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Well, when do you anticipate getting maybe into 

Longworth to shore up its windows? When do you think you will 

be done with the windows in Cannon? What is your ETA? 

Mr. AYERS. I think Cannon renewal is probably scheduled to 

begin in 2016 or 2017. Then it is probably 5 years for construction. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
283 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Madam Chair, there is an old adage, ‘‘Don’t ask 

a question you don’t know the answer to.’’ And I knew the answer 

was going to be out that far. 

That is really unacceptable, because we are literally pouring fuel 

out the window. And it is a national security issue. We have asked 

Americans to do something about it. I think we need to figure out 

a way to do a better job of leading by example. 

And in the tunnel, I do realize because it is a personnel issue it 

can’t be discussed about here so much in the open. But this remains a priority for me to find out where we are with our workers. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We can provide you with an update. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Ms. McCollum. 

Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

U.S. CAPITOL STRUCTUAL OBSERVATIONS

I have three quirky questions. But first, just thank you for the 

great job you do. It always amazes me, frankly, how well this building holds up, in particular, given the foot traffic and the age, and 

it is just amazing. So, thanks. 

And so any question I have is certainly not—I now find myself 

spending a lot of time along the balcony of the east facade simply 

because that is where you can smoke a cigar. It is the last refuge 

left. And I worry about my leader occasionally as he comes out 

there, because he is out there more than occasionally. 

If you look at the window—what would the appropriate term be; 

it is the facade around the windows—the corners are mostly gone, 

you know, where clearly there has been stone damage. And I am 

sure there is no immediate danger, but I was just curious about 

long-term plans. Definitely, if it is there, it must be around other 

places. If you look up, there it is. It must have fallen at some point. 

Mr. AYERS. Absolutely. One would be surprised how, if you look 

up close at the Capitol Building, how many pieces of stone are broken or cracked or missing from the Capitol Building. We have done 

a complete survey of that stonework, and it really does need some 

work. 

In our budget request this year, I think, just looking down, we have $11 million scheduled for the first of four phases to repair the 

stone damage on the Capitol Building itself. So we are aware of 

those issues. We just had a piece of stone, as well as a piece of 

metal, fall off the dome. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Always just before the times when 

you are here. 

Mr. AYERS. I don’t know how that happens. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yeah. Every year. 

Mr. AYERS. But we are aware, and we do have a project on the 

list to begin to take care of those stone issues on the Capitol Building. 

DIVERSITY DEPICTED WITHIN THE CAPITOL

Mr. COLE. Great. I would never put congressmen ahead of anybody else, but you have a lot of Members at risk out there, particularly when the weather is nice. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
284 

The second question, this is actually just a personal question. 

You know, as I go around the Capitol, we all enjoy the art. It just 

is such an amazing depiction of American history. And there are 

a lot of parts of it that not all of us know very much about. We 

called a few years ago, frankly, and we found out about the use of 

slave labor in the Capitol and how important and meaningful that 

was to a lot of people. 

I go around—my background was from Native Americans. And 

there are depictions of Native Americans here. Some are pretty 

good. Some, obviously, sort of reflect the racism of the time when 

they were put up there. 

I was curious. Is there just a list for convenience of where Native 

Americans are depicted in the Capitol of the United States that you 

guys can direct me to? 

Mr. AYERS. Our Curator’s Office has that. We would be happy to 

provide that. 

Mr. COLE. I would really—I get a lot of foot traffic, particularly 

from my district, and that is actually, for them, a very important 

question. So anything you could do to direct me in the right place, 

I would appreciate it. 

Mr. AYERS. Sure. 

CVC OPERATIONS—LOGISTICAL DIRECTIVES

Mr. COLE. And, finally, if someday somebody can teach me how 

to actually get around the Capitol Visitor Center. I see more lost 

congressmen in the Visitor Center than anyplace else, because we 

are all the classic, ‘‘Look, I don’t need a map,’’ and then I am gone. 

So, anyway, any help you could—I think I may call on you for 

just a tour of the Visitor Center. I saw it a couple of times during 

construction, but I really don’t have, you know, in my own mind 

a very convenient map of the place, so to speak. 

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

And, of course, we just installed, a month or two ago, the temporary signs. They are on paper, and they are up on the walls. And 

the purpose for putting them up there is really to get some feedback. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Maps? 

Mr. AYERS. They are maps, and they are locators. They say 

‘‘SCIF this way’’ or ‘‘restaurant that way’’ to help get people 

around. They have been up for a month or two, and we have gotten 

some good feedback. But if you haven’t noticed them, then maybe 

we are not quite there yet. 

MEMBER CONCERNS

Mr. COLE. I mean, this is a true confession, as to me. I figured 

out exactly how to get to where the Republican conference is occasionally located. But, boy, if I am off that path, I am in big trouble. 

I literally—we will have groups up. I am sure other Members 

have this. They are doing receptions, and they are up from the district. And I stumble around that place for 20 or 30 minutes sometimes, not able to find where I am supposed to go. And I am not 

blaming that on anybody. I just have to get a better feel for that 

space, and I am going to need some help to do that. 

Mr. AYERS. Happy to do that. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
285 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If I can piggyback on what the gentleman said—we seem to always think the same way on issues like 

this. 

I am, kind of, the central clearinghouse for complaints, as you 

might imagine, when it comes to concerns that Members have 

about the complex. CVC is the one that I hear about most often. 

As recently as yesterday, this exact complaint. A Member found me 

on the floor and said, ‘‘What is going on with the signage?’’ I told 

him that the signage had begun to be improved. 

But they were very specific about there needing to be maps 

showing people where they are, 3–D maps because of the weird nature of the floors. When you are on the main floor, you are really 

on the second floor. And then you go down, and you are on the 

third floor. It is counterintuitive. 

SIGNAGE

Another example the same Member used was, you are going 

down to go back to the Cannon tunnel, and it says ‘‘Cannon tunnel 

this way,’’ and then you never see another sign until you are parallel to the door that you are really supposed to turn right on, and 

that you would have to be sideways to see the sign, to know where 

you turn next. 

So the signage still, clearly, has some challenges. And better 

mapping—Members tell me every day that they need to drop 

breadcrumbs from the place they left to the place they are going 

so that they can find their way back. 

Mr. AYERS. Okay. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Madam Chair? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes? 

CVC ALARMS

Ms. MCCOLLUM. On that point, I went to leave out through the 

Visitor Center yesterday, and when you go out as a visitor would, 

out, it says, ‘‘Alarm will go off in 15 seconds when you push this 

door.’’ So there you are, you are at an exit, and you are reading 

across all these doors, ‘‘Alarm will go off.’’ 

And I watched this group of people, there were 20 people, totally 

paralyzed. I said, ‘‘This really is the exit.’’ ‘‘Oh, no, alarms are 

going to go off.’’ And I said, ‘‘Well, I will set them off.’’ So, you 

know, I pushed—and there were people on the other side, kind of, 

going, ‘‘Come on, you can do it, you can come through.’’ Crazy. And, 

you know, we need to do something about that, like, now. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yeah, as quickly as possible. 

So, sorry to go off the back and forth, but you were so very timely. 

Okay, so now we go to Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 

And congratulations. 

Mr. AYERS. Thank you, Mr. Honda. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
286 

BUILDING RENOVATION SCHEDULES

Mr. HONDA. Well, you have been doing it for 3 years. And you 

have gone through a lot of the hard parts, too, so you might as well 

stay and enjoy the rest of it. 

We had a meeting on emergency procedures and evacuation. Is 

there a calendar of events of the modernizations that will be taking 

place in each building, is there someplace that it is laid out there? 

And do we have a deferred maintenance program, where we are 

trying to achieve 100 percent maintenance so that we don’t have 

to go through the expense of trying to fix things as they break 

down? It seems to me, a study was done where it showed that fixing something, rather than preventing it and keeping it in good 

working condition, saved, like, 60 percent or more, the cost of just 

keeping it up. I was just wondering whether there is a program 

that you are looking at to put in place or is one in place already 

that will address that. 

Mr. AYERS. I believe you have asked two questions. The answer 

to the first in terms of is there a calendar or schedule of major 

building renovations, the answer to that is yes. Certainly, that is 

laid out in our 20-year master plan. And I am happy to share that 

with you or with the emergency preparedness group, whatever is 

appropriate. 

Secondly, you are absolutely right that, in terms of deferred 

maintenance, deferred maintenance being defined as something 

that is already broken and needs to be fixed. Any Facility Manager 

wants to minimize deferred maintenance. I don’t think anyone 

could ever get to zero deferred maintenance. 

CAPITAL RENEWAL INITIATIVE

We would want to minimize that and focus our money and attention on Capital renewal, which is fixing something right before it 

breaks. That is where you get the best bang for your money. So you 

fully utilize a piece of equipment for the full extent of its useful 

life, and you replace it just before it breaks so that you don’t suffer 

any failure consequences of it breaking. 

That is the best model, and that is what we are working to 

achieve. Our prioritization process helps us do that and helps the 

Congress make those decisions, because it pushes deferred maintenance projects towards the top of our list. 

Last year was a great example. The Congress funded many of 

those deferred maintenance projects. Our deferred maintenance 

number last year was well over $600 million backlog, and it is 

down to $570 million of deferred maintenance. So we are obviously 

doing the right thing and heading in the right direction. 

Mr. HONDA. So we have a program where we want to achieve full 

maintenance and not have—— 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA [continuing]. Maintenance that has to be deferred because we don’t have money or anything else like that? 

Mr. AYERS. Correct. 

Mr. HONDA. Or are you defining deferred maintenance as a plan 

for continuous maintenance? I guess I need those—— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
287 

Mr. AYERS. No, deferred maintenance is a piece of equipment 

that is broken or a building system that is broken already and 

needs to be fixed. 

TUNNEL WORKERS AND HEALTH CONCERNS

Mr. HONDA. Let me just add my sense of urgency with Congresswoman McCollum in talking about some, sort of, staff being exposed to the asbestos in the tunnels, and that we do have a procedure where, you know, we take care of our workers so that they 

are working in safe conditions and a safe situation. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Honda, we can provide the entire 

Subcommittee with an update—not a public update, but an update 

on the status of the tunnel workers and the health situation and 

the current conditions and how the Architect has addressed those. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

U.S. CAPITOL POLICE RADIO MODERNIZATION PROJECT

Mr. ADERHOLT. I understand the design engineering work for the 

indoor coverage component of the new Capitol Police radio system 

is complete. Is that correct? 

Mr. AYERS. The indoor space is not 100 percent complete. It is 

complete, I believe, in the Capitol and in the Senate buildings. And 

I believe the House buildings are nearing completion, but we are 

not 100 percent design complete in the House. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. Do you have an estimate of how long it 

will take to complete the entire project? 

Mr. AYERS. The radio modernization project schedule says it is 

March of 2011. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Just briefly, could you just give us an overview 

of exactly what is involved with the actual construction up to this 

point? 

Mr. AYERS. From the Architect’s perspective, we have three 

things that we need to do to support the Capitol Police on their 

project. The first is to design and construct the primary site where 

the radio communications center will be, in Manassas. We have designed that, and we have awarded a contract. We are going 

through the pre-work submittal process now. So we expect to be 

finished with that work in December of 2010, well in advance of 

the March 2011 equipment installation by the Capitol police and 

NAVAIR. 

So, first is the construction of the primary site. The second thing 

we need to do to support them is the construction of the mirror site 

or the backup site, which is here just off Capitol Hill. We are negotiating today with the lessor of that building on both the lease 

agreement and the construction agreement. Those negotiations are 

under way, and we don’t anticipate having any problems in meeting the March 2011 date. 

Thirdly, we need to support the Capitol Police and the installation of their wiring and conduit and antenna system throughout all 

the buildings. The police contractor is designing that system now, 

and we are prepared to get to work on that right away as soon as 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
288 

that design work is complete across the campus. We don’t see any 

problem meeting the completion date for that project. 

BARTHOLDI PARK

Mr. ADERHOLT. Bartholdi Park, what is the status of the repair 

of the fountain in the park there? And when do you anticipate that 

completion? 

Mr. AYERS. The fountain is, of course, at a metal refinishing company. We have gone down to the company numerous times to check 

their progress. I have seen photographs of that work, and it really 

looks magnificent. When it comes back to the Hill a year from now, 

I think it is really going to look great. So I think the completion 

date of that is 14 or 15 months out. 

What we are doing now is working on the basin of the statue, 

where the water is, as well as around the perimeter. There are 

some lights that need to go in there. We are redoing the pumping 

systems for the fountain and redoing the electrical distribution system. That work is ongoing now, but that statue I think will be back 

later this year, and after commissioning is complete the fountain 

will be running again in December or March 2011. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. Thank you very much. 

CVC STAFFING REQUEST

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

I wanted to ask you some questions about your staffing request 

for the CVC. I guess it is really a request by Ms. Rouse’s office. The 

budget request includes four additional FTEs, two of which are for 

responding to Members’ offices. Are the two that you have now that 

are dedicated to responding to Members of Congress, are they over 

burdened? How many staff would be dedicated to Member services 

if we add these two positions? 

And, beyond that, I would like to know what the status is of hiring a deputy for the CVC. That seems to be taking an extraordinarily long time. And now, on top of that, Ms. Rouse is asking 

for a special assistant. What are the duties of a special assistant 

versus a deputy? Why is it necessary for her to have a special assistant? I am confused. 

Mr. AYERS. For the big picture on the four positions for the Capitol Visitor Center, there is a good bifurcation. The first is, the two 

congressional liaisons are mandatory and must-have. And then I 

think there is a gap in between—the bottom two are more of a 

process improvement for the Visitor Center. The top two are really 

important. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The two that you have on board? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. But the key is, those two are temporary employees. They are not permanent employees. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Oh, I see. 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. We really think that they have been tremendously successful—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So are you asking to make the two positions permanent, or to take it to four? 

Mr. AYERS. To convert the two temporary employees to permanent. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
289 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I see. Okay. So it is not four additional staff. It is just the two that you have now and make those 

permanent. 

Mr. AYERS. Correct. 

DEPUTY VS. SPECIAL ASSISTANT POSITION REQUESTS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Gotcha. And what is going on with 

the hiring of a deputy to replace the one that is no longer there? 

And what is the purpose of a special assistant? 

Mr. AYERS. We have advertised for the deputy, and conducted 

interviews. We have not found a candidate that we believe is suitable. So we are going to go back out and re-advertise again and reinitiate our search and continue that process until we do find someone who is suitable. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. And the special assistant is for 

what? 

Mr. AYERS. We think one of the problems with the deputy is that 

we are really looking for someone who has great managerial experience, great Hill experience, and experience in the visitor services 

arena. We are really having trouble finding someone that has all 

of that mixed together. So we thought we can take some of that experience out, hire a lower-level special assistant who can focus on 

some of the visitor services duties that require that kind of experience, and really focus the deputy search on a manager who has 

Hill experience and can effectively navigate in this environment. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. And why is that a must-have 

item? 

Mr. AYERS. Well, there is a difference between the two. I would 

consider the congressional liaisons must-haves. 

There is a line between them. The special assistant and the Curator, are more of a process improvement. So I would not term 

them must-haves. 

INTEPRETIVE CURATOR

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. That is what I wanted to know. 

You are also asking for an interpretive curator. Why is that a position that is independently required of the rest of the curatorial 

staff? That doesn’t seem like a must-have item either, and we are 

really in must-have mode here. 

Mr. AYERS. No, I don’t believe that is a must-have. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. But why is it even necessary? 

Mr. AYERS. With all of the exhibits that are in the Exhibition 

Hall, we think a Curator really would add value to that, in terms 

of finding the appropriate materials to bring in to the exhibit, as 

they do rotate every six months. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Your curatorial staff can’t handle that 

now? Don’t you have a curatorial staff? I thought that is what they 

do. 

Mr. AYERS. The Architect’s office does have a curatorial staff. 

They have not yet been involved in any of that, other than factchecking. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So there isn’t a separate or dedicated 

curatorial staff focused on the CVC at all? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
290 

Mr. AYERS. We do have a group of four or five employees that 

focus on the Exhibition Hall and those kinds of things. We do think 

a curator would add value. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Because, when I went through the 

CVC on one occasion, it was accompanied by a curator. So who was 

that? 

Mr. AYERS. I am not sure who it was. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ms. Rouse seems to be wanting to answer the question. 

Mr. AYERS. Terrie, go ahead, if you know. 

Ms. ROUSE. That was Rob Lukens, who is our Exhibits and Education Director. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Ms. ROUSE. We have educators, and we don’t have a curator. A 

curator is an overarching scholar. But we have educators and exhibits people, so that is the difference. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But an interpretive curator seems to 

be somebody who could be researching and labeling the exhibits. 

Ms. ROUSE. In the way we are doing museum work these days, 

we have someone who does interpretive work. Their job is to speak 

outwards, to speak to children, to the families, to K through 12. 

What they do is interpret what the House and Senate curators do 

for an external public and, hopefully, for Congressional offices to 

use with their constituents. That was the goal. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let’s get the signage and the mapping 

right first, and then we can move on to things like that. 

Okay. My time has expired. Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. I am out of questions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Just a quick question. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Or, no—Mr. Aderholt, do you want 

to—— 

Mr. ADERHOLT. No, I am good. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

TOUR GUIDES AND TRAINING

Mr. HONDA. Just a quick follow-up. Mr. Cole had mentioned details around the—what do you call the—we have all the frescoes 

and the artwork, and it does reflect the art of the era. 

Are the folks who take the folks through, the guides, as they tell 

them the story, are they also telling the story of how the Capitol 

was built, some of that history, where we can’t depict it on the wall 

but we can, sort of, explain why we have it today and what it 

means then and today and, you know, the different groups of people in this country, because I guess it is the history of the establishment of this country that it is supposed to depict. I think that 

there are probably opportunities for us to do some good education, 

you know, with people walking away saying, ‘‘I didn’t know that.’’ 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA. Is that something that is being thought of or that 

is being done right now to, sort of, offset that lack of information? 

Mr. AYERS. I think you are speaking of the Frieze of American 

History that was started by Constantino Brumidi and then underVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00290 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
291 

taken by Filippo Costaggini and then finished by Allyn Cox. And 

that Frieze of American History does tell the story from the landing of the pilgrims through the Wright Brothers. So it is a great 

story of American history and a great story of diversity, as well. 

We have spent the last year really training our guides and visitor assistants and Congressional staff, the 5,200 staff that have 

been through our training program, on how to interpret and tell 

those stories. You know, in cherry blossom season, our visitor 

counts are nearly 20,000 people a day. There are other times of the 

year where our visitor counts are 3,000 people a day. So during 

those low visitor times, we have really focused on training, training, training. 

Ms. Rouse has really done a fantastic job of making that a priority and bringing in the curators, bringing in the scholars, and 

bringing in the right people can train Congressional staff and our 

guides so that we do enliven those stories and tell those stories. 

HISTORICAL DETAILED STORYTELLING

Mr. HONDA. You know, what I was driving at was a little bit 

more—not only telling the story of who did it and the epic, but in 

today’s context, when we look at that, we should be able to say 

that, you know, the attitudes are different today in how we perceive, say, native folks, indigenous people, people of color, the 

building out of this place and how we have received that show that, 

you know, contractors were using slave labor to build things. It is 

just bringing everything up to date so that the context is explained, 

but also the content of the time and how we see it today in 2011. 

I think it would be fair to all our visiting public because, if this 

is the Nation’s Capitol, this is the place to tell the story. It is like 

we say Columbus discovered America, but we know that there were 

other people here prior to that. And so the issue is, who wrote the 

book will tell you how the history is going to be told. 

So we have an opportunity to tell the history again, but in—and 

it is not to rewrite history. It is to bring it up to date and be a little 

more precise, so that folks walk away having a better sense that 

contributions were made, although it be under different circumstances. 

Mr. AYERS. I really do believe our guides do that kind of storytelling and interpret what they see. You bring up the slave labor 

in the construction of the Capitol. That is part of the explanation 

on tours, as well. 

CVC TRAINING CURRICULUM

Mr. HONDA. So there is a curriculum that is established that people follow so that is consistent and—— 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. Over the last year, that curriculum has been enhanced and further developed by outside experts and scholars who 

have helped to interpret the story. 

Mr. HONDA. And this is true both with different statues and everything else like that? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
292 

RECYCLING PROGRAM

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Do either of you have any more questions? 

Okay. I am going to go through a number of them, then. I have 

my own reasonably quirky question, as well. 

I know that you have been working on improving the recycling 

program, the complex-wide recycling program. But we still hear a 

lot of confusion among Members and staff who report seeing facilities maintenance employees putting presorted recyclable materials 

into the same collection receptacles. 

And, you know, people are really struggling here to do the right 

thing. We are all trying to do every type of recycling imaginable. 

We all have about a thousand canisters that we have to separate 

things into, and we are committed to doing it, but it does take 

extra time. So it is distressing when you see all of what you sorted 

going into the same bin. And then you lack the confidence that it 

is actually being recycled. 

So what is the best way for us to support your recycling efforts? 

And can you explain how it works once we have separated it and 

it is taken over by your folks? 

Mr. AYERS. Well the most important thing that the Congress can 

do is to keep recycling and keep doing what they are doing. We 

have certainly heard about and I have heard about this issue before, and we have done a number of things to help prevent, the promulgation of that perception. 

I recall, 2 years ago, we brought in a contractor to do an independent review to really tell us, are our people really putting these 

things together in the trash, and it is ultimately going to the landfill? What the contractor told us is, no, that is really not happening. 

We did see some people co-mingle together into a trash truck; 

but when they got to the dock, they separated it back out as they 

should, and have recycled the recycling portion and put in the 

trash the trash portion. 

RECYCLING PERCEPTION

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you have a single-stream facility 

that all of the separating we do all goes together and then they sort 

it back out? 

Mr. AYERS. No, it doesn’t work that way. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Mr. AYERS. In the House, you will see that we have three different recycling products, and we are using now three different colored bags to help change the perception. There is a pink bag, a 

green bag, and a white plastic bag to help prevent a perception 

that everyone is going in one place. If you take the pink bag and 

the white bag, it is okay if you put it in the same container. In the 

end, when they get to the dock, those things are put in the appropriate places. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Mr. AYERS. So that is helping the perception a little bit. We have 

also—we have a full-time recycling manager in the House who was 

working day shift, and we took that manager and moved his shift 

to work the same shift that the recycling folks are working so that 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
293 

we can watch this full-time. We have heard these kinds of complaints, and those perceptions are really, detrimental to the success 

of the program. 

The program is, from a statistic point of view, improving. Last 

year, we recycled about 2,000 tons out of the House, and this year 

it is 2,700 tons out of the House. So we are doing the right things, 

but I do think we have a public perception problem that we still 

have to work on. 

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

CANNON RENEWAL PROJECT

I want to ask you about the Cannon renewal and get an update 

on the planning and the design work. GAO testified to House Administration in May last year that the AOC planned to request $37 

million in 2011 for design work on Cannon renewal. Your 2011 submission asks for $43 million under deferred projects, which are 

going to be requested in future years. 

So what is the status of the planning and design activities? What 

is the result of the delay? And what activities are you anticipating 

on the Cannon renewal project for this year and next year? 

I want to piggyback a question about FOB–8 on that also, because you have asked for funds for FOB–8 this year, but you are 

still in the full planning phase of Cannon. So are they in line? Why 

do you need to outfit FOB–8 when you are still only in the planning phase of Cannon, if the first thing we are doing with FOB– 

8 is swing space for the Cannon renewal project? 

Mr. AYERS. Today, we are working on the Program of Requirements for the Cannon Building renewal. So that will take us fiscal 

year 2010; it will take us much of fiscal year 2011 to complete. We 

expect to be able to start the design work for Cannon in 2012. 

It has taken us some time to get started and to get the appropriate decisions as to what Cannon is going to look like in the future. We have that now, so we are proceeding with that. 

For FOB–8, we don’t believe that GSA will be ready for us to occupy until sometime in 2013. Let’s say it is mid–2013. So we would 

then begin moving people to FOB–8. That process could at least 

take a year or two to move the appropriate people to FOB–8 to free 

up enough space in Rayburn, Longworth and Cannon so that we 

can vacate a wing of Cannon. 

That is a really big effort, to cherry-pick pieces out of Rayburn, 

cherry-pick pieces out of Longworth and others, ultimately get 

them moved and renovate that space, so that we can then move 

Members out of Cannon into those renovated spaces. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But is your timing of outfitting—needing the funds to outfit FOB–8, and when you would need to move 

people there, are they running in tandem? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. How? Because if you are only 

in the planning for Cannon renewal and you are asking for funds 

to outfit FOB–8 and you won’t need to occupy FOB–8 until, the 

earliest, 2013, you can’t start moving the—your process would start 

in 2013 or would start in 2011? 

Mr. AYERS. Start in 2013. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
294 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. So why do you need to outfit 

it in 2011? 

Mr. AYERS. That construction process will take a year and a half 

to do, to outfit it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So you need to start it now or in the 

coming year—— 

Mr. AYERS. In 2011. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing]. So that it is ready by 

2013? 

Mr. AYERS. Correct. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. That is what I wanted to know. 

Thank you. 

STAFF POSITION CONVERSIONS

Your SES legislative proposal—GAO has an agreement with 

OPM where that gives them the opportunity for transferability between GAO and executive branch agencies. Is that something that 

you considered in terms of a similar arrangement for your employees? 

You are wanting to convert four existing staff to SES. I don’t get 

the sense that your exit interview, to the degree that you do one, 

gathers enough information to know whether or not the concern 

you are trying to address is a real one. 

Mr. AYERS. Well, I think there are a couple of points to be made 

for that. 

Our desire and our objective is to be the best. We believe firmly 

that to be the best, we have to be able to recruit and retain the 

best people. So, obviously, that makes sense. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No argument. 

Mr. AYERS. So, if we are working to recruit an executive from the 

executive branch, certainly the pay and benefits package that we 

are able to offer them today is not comparable to the pay and benefits package they have in the executive branch. It is not comparable. Anyone can show that. We have the data, GAO has the 

data, and GAO has even stated that in their review. 

So a great example of that is someone in the SES cadre in the 

executive branch can carry over 720 hours of annual leave a year, 

and an executive in the AOC can only carry over 240 hours of annual leave. So an executive there would have to forfeit that—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No, and I understand that. But do 

you—— 

EXIT INTERVIEWS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. As people depart employment with 

the AOC for other jobs elsewhere, do you consistently do an exit 

interview with all of those people to determine whether or not this 

is an issue that is related to their departure? 

Mr. AYERS. We do exit interviews. I can’t say they are consistent. 

They are not 100 percent. But we certainly do them. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Because it would be easier for me to 

be supportive of your request if you had consistent data that you 

have been gathering over a period of time that demonstrated that 

this was a problem. But other than anecdotal information, unless 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
295 

you can show me that it is not just anecdotal, I would want to see 

more evidence of this really being a problem. 

Mr. AYERS. Certainly, just looking at the package, the pay and 

benefits package of the Executive Branch and the pay and benefits 

package of AOC Executives, they are not equal. So you can’t analyze and predict what you don’t know. We can’t predict who is out 

there looking as well as making a decision not to apply. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But you can ask them when they depart whether or not that was a factor in their departure. 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. In the last 2 years, we have had one SES depart 

clearly for that reason. We have had eight GS–14 and –15 employees depart from our feeder pool to the executive branch—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Like I said, I am not taking issue—— 

Mr. AYERS [continuing]. We think for some of those reasons. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just think that you need more than 

anecdotal information before it justifies the request that you have 

made. I mean, because this is—you know, we are in—I have to look 

for places in everybody’s budget to tighten, and, you know, having 

that backup is important. 

ENERGY SAVING PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS

I want to follow up on Mr. Aderholt’s energy savings performance 

contracts question. They continue to cause me great concern. What 

is the status and estimated value of current and anticipated 

ESPCs? And how do the current and anticipated ESPCs fit into 

your overall energy reduction goals? 

Mr. AYERS. Well, there is no question, the three ESPCs that we 

have awarded are key to our strategy to meeting the goals. We 

won’t meet the goal without ESPC contracts. And I noted we have 

awarded one in the House, we have awarded one in the Senate and 

we have awarded one in the Capitol. ***** In the House, I think the vendor is investing $34 million. Ulti- mately, we will pay out $67 million over the course of the life of 

that project. We will get about 23 percent energy reduction out of 

that and, I think, $3 million or $3.5 million a year in financial savings out of that which will ultimately go to repaying the vendors 

for their investment until the term of that loan expires, and then 

we retain the savings after that. 

ESPCS LONG TERM COSTS/SAVINGS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Uh-huh. So why is there so much criticism of the Energy Savings Performance Contracts? I mean, my 

understanding is that they are completely out of balance for what 

they cost us in the long term versus what they save. 

Mr. AYERS. Well, there is no question that Energy Savings Performance Contracts cost more than direct appropriations. I have 

seen figures from 5 percent up to 60 percent. The latest figures I 

saw from the House IG quote 60 percent. I have seen GAO quote 

in the range of 5 to 57 percent. So there is no question they do cost 

more, because it is just like a mortgage; you are getting a private 

vendor to loan you money to make these investments. That is the 

criticism from a purely financial perspective. 

From my take on it, with what is on my plate, a big pile of deferred maintenance and renewal work, Office of Compliance citaVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:11 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00295 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
296 

tions—if we were to take appropriated dollars and do those investments—there is only so much bandwidth, as you know. We would 

not be doing citation work or deferred maintenance work, and instead we would be investing that money in energy projects to meet 

the statutory goal. 

I think this is a great alternative, though in the end it costs us 

more. But it is a great alternative to help balance that entire program. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is something that we are going to 

be examining, as to whether or not it makes sense to continue to 

go in that direction or to devote resources specifically through direct appropriations and get more direct bang for what we spend. 

I am very concerned about how much we are paying out to, you 

know, reap benefits that are not equivalent to what we are paying. 

So, you know, time sensitivity versus how much we are spending, 

I think it is a real concern. 

Mr. AYERS. There is a great alternative—we can strike a balance 

sometimes. These contracts allow you to buy down if you wanted 

to do that. We could invest half and finance half through these 

companies. So there are a variety of things we could do if we wanted to change the terms, and they are very, very flexible mechanisms. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay, good. Well, if we could spend 

some time talking about that, that would be great. 

Mr. AYERS. Sure. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. That completes my questions. 

If any other Members—— 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Yes, one last thing. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Sure. 

EAST HOUSE UNDERGROUND GARAGE

Mr. ADERHOLT. On the East House Underground Garage, what 

is the status of that project? 

Mr. AYERS. On the East House Underground Garage, we took the 

first several months of this fiscal year to update the design of that 

project to incorporate energy-saving measures in there. It was designed many years ago and the design didn’t incorporate any energy-conservation measures. 

So we thought, before implementing the construction, which this 

Subcommittee funded last year, we would tune up the design to incorporate some energy-saving features like installing carbon monoxide detectors so that, instead of exhaust fans running 24 hours 

a day, 7 days a week, we put in carbon monoxide detectors that, 

when carbon monoxide gets to a certain level, the fans turn on. So 

that is a great new technology for parking garages, and we thought 

it would really be a good investment for us to make some energyconservation measures in there. 

So we are on tap to finish that this spring, and then we will 

move to award that contract. It will probably be this fall before it 

is actually awarded and probably next winter or early spring before 

it is in construction. 

There is another good story about that. We requested and the 

Subcommittee appropriated $6 million for alternative parking 

schemes, and we have determined that we are no longer going to 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
297 

need to do that. In fact, House Parking is going to be able to accommodate all of the parking that comes out of that garage. So 

that money is available for us to reprogram to things that are on 

the list of higher priorities. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Great. Excellent. 

What about the chunk of the ceiling that fell out of the Cannon 

tunnel the other day? 

Mr. AYERS. There was a piece of plaster that fell—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Which, again, always seems to happen right before your hearing. 

Mr. AYERS. That pesky House superintendent. I don’t know how 

he does these things, but he is very good at it. 

We did have a piece of plaster fall, and it was just some water 

incursion that did that. We tested all of the plaster around it, and 

we are not concerned that it is a bigger problem. It is just an isolated incident. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay, great. 

FACILITY RENEWAL SCHEDULE/COST UPDATES

Seeing no other questions, the homework that I wanted to ask 

you for is if you could provide a timeline including currently estimated schedules and costs for planning, design, and construction 

on all major facility renewals through 2020. We are just trying to 

get a handle on, given that we have the Revitalization Trust Fund, 

what is coming down the pike and the priority order. 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. Very good. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—AOC response to homework is included in questions for the record.] 

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

With that, the Subcommittee stands adjourned until next Tuesday at 10:15, where we will hear from yet another legislative 

branch agency—the Capitol Police. Thank you. 

The Subcommittee stands adjourned. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
298 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 766 here 56678B.057
299 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 767 here 56678B.058
300 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 768 here 56678B.059
301 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 769 here 56678B.060
302 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 770 here 56678B.061
303 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 771 here 56678B.062
304 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 772 here 56678B.063
305 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 773 here 56678B.064
306 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 774 here 56678B.065
307 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2010. 

U.S. CAPITOL POLICE FY 2011 BUDGET REQUEST 

WITNESSES 

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

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

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good morning. I am going to call the 

Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations hearing to order. 

Today, we have our hearing on the Capitol Police’s 2011 budget 

request. We have Chief Phillip Morse, the chief of the Capitol Police, and Gloria Jarmon, the Capitol Police’s chief administrative officer, with us this morning. 

We have a lot to cover, to say the least. And we absolutely appreciate—‘‘appreciate’’ isn’t even a strong enough word—the work and 

dedication and devotion and commitment of the officers and their 

leadership that protect us every day. 

And I want to particularly thank them—I mean, there is always 

something to thank them for, but particularly ask you to thank 

them for their efforts over the last several days. Because, clearly, 

since the inauguration, this last few days was the most trying and 

difficult time that the Capitol Police had, in ensuring that the 

Members were protected and also in crowd control and keeping 

temperatures simmered to a degree that they didn’t get out of control. And there were some incidents; the Capitol Police addressed 

those incidents. 

But it is really important to emphasize—and, you know, we, as 

Members, are inside the Capitol and certainly aren’t privy to all 

the conflict that went on. But, as a result of the health care reform 

debate, it was very obvious that that was a pressure-cooker situation outside that could have easily spiraled out of control and that, 

thanks to the good work of the Capitol Police, did not. And the 

Members were protected, and the public that was there that was 

in opposition to most of that crowd was protected as well. So, thank 

you. 

I want to go over, at least to some degree, the idea of officer morale, because that is always an issue. It is an issue that we should 

make sure that we pay attention to. I know it is an important issue 

to you. It is one that you are a big defender of and promoter of. 

But the demand on these people, which is—we have to remember 

that they are each individuals in a high-pressure situation, and we 

have to make sure that they feel that they have all the support 

that they need, not just from you, which I know you try to provide 

them with that every day, but also from us as Members who represent the public. 

But that is one of the reasons that I am incredibly disappointed—it would be hard to overstate my disappointment—in 

the fact that the Capitol Police has not been able to get a handle 

on fiscal management and has not been able to responsibly and 

properly handle your budget. Even after dramatic changes, even 

after bringing in accountability measures, even after bringing in inVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00307 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
308 

dividuals who were supposed to be responsible for cleaning up the 

mess, the mess isn’t clean. And we have to do something. 

And I know you and I have talked about it. I know that you are 

committed to taking the steps that need to be taken. But I am 

going to have several questions for you that I think we need to talk 

about publicly so that we can get to a point where we can feel confident that the budget, going forward, is going to be one that we 

can rely on. I mean, that is the most important thing that we do 

in the Appropriations Committee. 

So, with that, I look forward to hearing your testimony. We are 

also going to be reviewing the reports on the budget from the Inspector General, which I hope is going to be forthcoming sooner 

rather than later. 

But just to provide the details, the amended budget is $9 million 

more than the original request. The police are now requesting 

$385.5 million, which is 17 percent more than the fiscal year 2010 

level. Within that total, you are requesting 52 new sworn officers, 

12 new civilians, and $29 million in overtime. That, it should be 

noted, is almost $4 million than the current year’s budget for overtime. 

I look forward to your statement. And your full statement will 

be entered into the record. And, after Mr. Aderholt, you can proceed with a 5-minute summary. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

Thank you, Chief, for being here. Thank you for your service. I 

also want to welcome the Chief Administrative Officer today to join 

us, as well, for the hearing. 

Thank you for coming to the office last week. We had a chance 

to visit and discuss a little bit about the financial problems that 

you have been confronted with. I, too, like the Chair, share concerns about the seriousness of the mismanagement and am glad to 

see that you are on top of that, that you are working diligently on 

that; also, the decision for the Inspector General to audit the occurrences. And hopefully his recommendations will help us clarify the 

mistakes that have occurred and what needs to be done to ensure 

that they are not repeated. 

As the Madam Chair says, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention 

the work of the Capitol Police force, all that they do on a daily 

basis and all that they do to not only protect those of us who work 

here in the Capitol but also our visitors, which are literally millions 

each year. So we thank you for their tireless efforts. 

So, thank you both for being here. Look forward to your testimony. And we will probably have some questions in a few minutes. 

Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Chief. 

Chief MORSE. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the 

committee, Mr. Aderholt. It is a pleasure to be here. It is my honor 

to be here and to testify before you for the fiscal year 2011 budget. 

First, I would like to thank the committee for its sustained and 

unwavering support of the men and women of the United States 

Capitol Police. You and your staffs have continuously and very generously supported both the mission and our personnel, and not just 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
309 

in a monetary way but also in a private and public recognition to 

our operational accomplishments. 

Over the last year, the men and women of the United States 

Capitol Police have, with your support, successfully performed their 

law enforcement and security roles with expertise, poise, and integrity. From a historic inauguration through colossal snowstorms— 

and, yes, they all came to work—and, most recently, through some 

of the groundbreaking legislation where we had late nights, weekend sessions, demonstrations, all these men and women balanced 

security of the campus with the facilitation of the legislative process. 

Additionally, the department implemented the Library of Congress Police merger. We are transitioning our primary fleet to a 

leasing program through the General Services Administration. We 

have replaced our ballistic vests for our officers. And we have proceeded with the migration of a financial management system to the 

Library of Congress for cross-servicing. 

However, the past year has not been without setbacks, primarily 

within our financial management areas. And, as you note, the department recently discovered that we made a salaries miscalculation error in our fiscal year 2010 budget request, and that resulted 

in projected salary shortfalls. This miscalculation also resulted in 

the department submitting a budget amendment for the 2011 

budget request, which is now before you for your consideration. 

Once I learned of this problem, I did take immediate action to 

assess the issue, to coordinate with the Capitol Police Board, and 

to notify you, our oversight committees, and to immediately develop 

a plan to address the problem. And I took full responsibility for 

this issue. As the Chief of Police, that is what I am supposed to 

do. And it is now my duty to make sure that it does not happen 

again and that the impact to our agency is minimal. 

In doing so, we conducted an internal review of funding for potential reprogramming to address the shortfall, with a primary 

focus on maintaining our security and law enforcement mission and 

also mitigating possible impacts to our workforce. 

And to find out why our budget process failed, I have asked the 

Inspector General of the United States Capitol Police to conduct an 

audit of our fiscal year 2010 and 2011 budget formulation processes, to provide me with a report as soon as possible so that I can 

take immediate corrective action. 

In closing, I am well aware and I understand the economic climate that affects our country, the legislative branch, and the entire 

Federal Government. And I want to assure, Mr. Aderholt, Madam 

Chair, that we will adapt to the resources that you provide us, and 

we will continue to safeguard the congressional community. 

So, again, I just appreciate all your good comments, great comments to our agency. It is our duty to be here, and we take a great 

privilege in protecting this institution. So, thank you very much. 

[Chief Morse’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
310 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 609 here 56678B.001
311 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 610 here 56678B.002
312 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 611 here 56678B.003
313 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 612 here 56678B.004
314 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 613 here 56678B.005
315 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 614 here 56678B.006
316 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 615 here 56678B.007
317 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 616 here 56678B.008
318 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 617 here 56678B.009
319 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 618 here 56678B.010
320 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 619 here 56678B.011
321 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 620 here 56678B.012
322 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 621 here 56678B.013
323 

RESPONSIBILITY FOR BUDGET FORMULATION AND EXECUTION

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. Thank you so much, Chief 

Morse. And, again, thank you for your service and the service of 

your officers. 

The thing that I have emphasized, that we have emphasized the 

most as a subcommittee since the subcommittee was reconstituted 

is fiscal responsibility and responsible fiscal management. And that 

is applicable whether it was the CVC or the Capitol Police or GPO 

or any other problems that have come up. 

In the case of the Capitol Police, the comparison that came to 

mind for me with you—not you, personally, but with the police 

management—continuing to be responsible for developing and executing your budget, it is like asking a coal miner to run a restaurant. I couldn’t think of a better analogy than that because 

those are two things that are so completely separate in terms of responsibility and skill, quite frankly, and time management. 

I mean, we discussed in my office that I fully appreciate all the 

responsibility—actually, there is no way I fully appreciate all the 

responsibility that you have, but I appreciate that it is significant. 

And it is significant and unrelated to administrative responsibilities. Ideally, you are able to hire people who you can surround 

yourself with to handle responsibly that budget development and 

execution. But that hasn’t happened. And it is not just you; it has 

been ongoing for a long time. 

Previously, the Capitol Police was not responsible for development and execution of your budget. So, given that we don’t want 

coal miners running restaurants because we want to make sure 

that coal miners can do their job and that the food we eat, you 

know, comes out better than a coal miner might prepare it, why 

shouldn’t we just simply turn the budget development responsibilities over to the legislative branch agencies, as it was done in previous years, leaving the Capitol Police Board obviously in place for 

review and oversight, so that you can focus on your mission? 

And I realize that you have some concerns about that, but I 

would like to know what they are. 

Chief MORSE. Sure. 

With respect to this budget issue, you are right, it is very disappointing. It impacts the police department in so many ways. And 

the disappointment, for me, is the successes that we had in this 

area over the past couple of years and at the direction of this committee. You know, we obtained clean financial statements. So that 

means that we made tremendous progress in correcting material 

weaknesses, that we were able to fill vacancies and stop chaos and 

move forward. And, in doing so, we were able to prepare and formulate a budget submission in 2009 that was correct and that represented the needs of the agency as well as the needs of the Committee. 

So, what happened? And the question is, why does it continue to 

happen? With this particular issue, with what happened, you 

know, specifically, the Inspector General’s audit will hopefully give 

us that answer. 

But when it comes to taking the budget away from the Capitol 

Police, my first response to that is, no, we can’t do that in totality. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
324 

Because the budget does support the mission, and the mission is 

so critical. So we have to have input into that. 

Is it something to look at possible—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am not even suggesting—let’s not go 

too far. I am not suggesting that you would have no input. I am 

just suggesting that, administratively, a way would be developed to 

ensure that you weren’t primarily responsible for developing and 

executing the budget plan; that you would do it in conjunction with 

people who had, perhaps, more expertise, more time, and more controls in place than you have been able to establish. 

Chief MORSE. Yeah, I think there are options that other agencies 

use, not just because of this issue, but with helping take away 

some of the more tedious tasks in budgeting—budget formulation, 

the preparation of financial statements, and things like that. 

I think that we can look at ways to focus our attention on making it right and having options for some of those tasks, to take 

away some of the workload that is there that may be distracting. 

But I think that the Inspector General’s audit is going to really 

help us and tell us where we need to go with those types of options, 

to help us get to where the Committee would like us to be. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And I agree. And I hope that is forthcoming sooner rather than later. 

We had the acting Comptroller General here, Gene Dodaro, and 

we asked him the same questions. And we required them to do a 

30-day review, which had begun but was not the reason that this 

mistake was discovered. He indicated that they could be significantly more involved than that 30-day review, without the responsibility being completely removed from the Capitol Police, but that 

they could help put controls in place, and also without compromising their independence, because, obviously, their independence 

and accountability role is important. So as part of your process, 

from soup to nuts, it would compromise that. 

How would you feel about involving GAO, going forward, in a 

much more significant way to avoid this happening again? 

Chief MORSE. Well, first, I would like to say, you know, what you 

always read may not always be the truth. We have a very good 

working relationship with GAO. It is one that I worked very hard 

to establish when I became Chief, because the relationship there 

was essential for us to move our agency forward. We had many recommendations in many different areas other than just the budget. 

So it was important for us to establish a relationship, one that was 

cooperative and working together in making the agency better. 

So, we do that. We are actively doing that. And I do not see that 

as any obstacle to our success, but more of a component of our success. So having them assist us again and make recommendations 

to us to make this better is certainly something that I do welcome. 

And, like I said, the relationship is good, so we understand how the 

operation works now. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My time is expired, but I am talking 

about more involvement than just them giving you recommendations. I mean, I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but I have lost confidence in the Capitol Police’s ability, going forward, to handle this 

without assistance and without more backup. And, like I said, not 

disrespectfully, simply because I think you have a mission, you 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
325 

have expertise, and you could benefit from the expertise that is unrelated to your mission. 

My time has expired. Mr. Aderholt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. The current way that the budget operates now— 

and this is my first Congress to be on this subcommittee, so I have 

not in past Congresses been involved with it—but has this current 

way that you operate currently with the budget, how long has that 

system been in place? Do you know offhand? 

Chief MORSE. Since about 2003. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And what was the system before 2003? 

Chief MORSE. The system prior to this was, the Capitol Police 

were on two different payrolls, and there was the House and Senate disbursing offices. And then I believe, respectively, they assisted in the formulation of the budget. And then the Capitol Police, actual officers at the time, as we transitioned to 

civilianization, would actually work on the budget. I mean, I remember that from my days as an officer and growing up in the 

agency, that Capitol Police officers, officials, used to execute the 

budget and make budget submittals. 

So, I don’t know if Gloria can give more detail on what they actually did and how they formulated the budget, but that is what I 

recall. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Do you have anything you want to add to that? 

Ms. JARMON. No, that sounds similar to what I understand. I 

have only been with the Capitol Police for 2 years, but it is my understanding that that is the way it was in 2003. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And you said it was 2003 was when some of the 

changes were made under the current system we are today of how 

the budget is set up. 

Chief MORSE. I believe that is an accurate date, yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And what was the situation back in 2002 or 2003 

when they did the switchover? Do you have any information about 

that? 

GROWTH OF CAPITOL POLICE

Chief MORSE. Tremendous growth of the agency, both from the 

standpoint of monetary as well as people. And, in order to support 

people, you need a larger administrative staff to do that. So the 

agency was in very rapid growth. It was right after 9/11, anthrax, 

ricin. And so, therefore, there were current and emerging threats. 

The agency was growing. There were concerns about security and 

so forth, with terrorism. So there was a huge growth of the agency. 

And so, it was a matter of trying to catch up with that. 

And I think, when you are dealing with those types of issues, 

and you are trying to deal with the administrative functions, sometimes you can’t catch up. And the recommendations build, and, the 

ability to correct that and overcome that sometimes is lagging. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What was the expansion between September 

11th and, like, say, 2 years later? Do you have offhand a percentage of how many officers were added? 

Chief MORSE. The exact figures I don’t know, but I would say 

several hundred officers increased in the agency. And then it continued, obviously, to grow subsequently in years after that in order 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
326 

for us to meet the missions that we are, assigned. So it was rapid 

growth and very large. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

Is my time up? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No. 

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

Mr. ADERHOLT. Let me just ask the Chief Administrative Officer: 

Over the—your budget justification states that one of the accomplishments of the Chief Administrative Officer was to implement 

the budget formulation execution system. And, of course, we have 

seen the problems with that, as has already been alluded to today. 

What particular or specific controls were put in place to try to 

deal with this, and how did you ensure that these controls were 

complied with? 

Ms. JARMON. What I tried to do when I came in, budget formulation was—one of the statutory responsibilities of the Chief Administrative Officer was to bring in people who I thought had the expertise in the budget area. And the process that was supposed to 

be followed was to review how it was done in 2009 and try to enhance the process and to make sure that all the components that 

were in our budget formulation in 2009 were also there in 2010. 

And I relied on experts and people in senior executive positions 

who I brought in to help me in that area. I didn’t go behind the 

numbers and get as involved in the details of what they had done 

because of their level of expertise. 

FY 2010 BUDGET SHORTFALL

Mr. ADERHOLT. So were you able to identify the particular problem that—you know, like you said, you had delegated that out. But 

have you been able to identify the problem that allowed this new 

problem to grow to the extent that it did? 

Ms. JARMON. Well, from my review, what we have found happened was that some of the differentials—like, officers are paid 

extra for working Sundays and nights and holidays. So the differential, the increased salary they receive for that was not properly calculated and included in the budget estimates for 2010. 

Also, the average salary that was used for 2010 was lower than 

it should have been. It didn’t include the pay raises that it should 

have included. And, also, promotions for our new officers, for recruits, was not properly included. And terminal lump-sum payments—when officers leave the Department and retire and we pay 

them lump sums for their annual leave—had not been properly calculated. 

Seems like, from our preliminary review—and like the Chief 

said, the Inspector General will also be doing an audit to see if 

there were other issues that were found—but it appears that those 

four areas were not properly included. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. When were you personally made aware of the 

shortfall? 

Ms. JARMON. I was made aware of the extent of the shortfall in 

mid-February. We had had some meetings related to our review of 

the first-quarter budget execution in January and had heard that 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
327 

there may be some differences, but we weren’t told that it was, you 

know, as much as it was until mid-February. 

Earlier, when we were told there could be some problems, we 

had provided a lot of additional questions, and the people who were 

doing the budget formulation, they were following up on those 

things. That was in January. And we weren’t satisfied with the answers we were receiving. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So mid-February is when it really came to—— 

Ms. JARMON. When we realized the extent of it. 

Mr. ADERHOLT [continuing]. To the extent of it. 

Ms. JARMON. Right. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And who brought it to your attention at that 

time? 

Ms. JARMON. It was based on the reviews that we were performing. And it was the director of the Office of Financial Management and the budget officer. And the people in the budget shop 

were the ones who brought it to our attention, but it was part of 

our review of the first-quarter budget execution. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ms. McCollum. 

CAPITOL POLICE PERFORMANCE

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First off, I also want to offer my thanks for what you do here. 

But I want to also thank you for the cooperation that you gave the 

St. Paul Police Department, for the help that you gave my district 

office. And I think that that is something that is, kind of, becoming 

newer and newer to your job, probably consuming different job descriptions and everything like that. But the coordination, this summer and even last week, between Capitol Police, St. Paul Fire Department, St. Paul Police Department—and I know you are talking 

to the FBI and everything. Thank you so much. 

I also want to point out that I know that you are always evaluating and adjusting things on the ground. On Saturday, there 

wasn’t any presence inside the office buildings; on Sunday, there 

was presence there. My staff thanks you, because they key in and 

out, and so people knew that they were staff because they were 

using keys. 

Just knowing that there were officers on other floors in the building made my staff feel more secure and, I know, changed behavior. 

I am on the same floor as both Chairman Van Hollen and Mr. 

Hoyer, so people were—I will even use my phrase—fired up and 

ready to go. So, thank you so much for that. 

STAFF ACCESS

I want to touch on one other policy thing that has been recently 

in the paper, and that is how to handle staff coming in and out of 

the building. I have my own internal rules. And the first time staff 

comes in the building, they go through a metal detector. Then, if 

they leave the building with me, they go with me the whole time, 

as Irene has, then there is a big, long line, then, you know, we go 

through. Never asked for that going through the Capitol. The Capitol I treat as something totally different. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
328 

But it is confusing, and I watch other Members do other things. 

And, quite often, because I am on the State and Foreign Operations 

Subcommittee, I will have parliamentarians with me from other 

countries, especially Middle East countries. They have gone 

through; they come with their own security detail, and then we are 

bringing them over to the Capitol. 

I would like to maybe, you know, try to see the rules of the road 

here, kind of, formalized or informalized. 

But I want to make clear one thing: I do bring my staff through 

metal detectors, at this point in time. My Chief of Staff today, I 

met him outside. He had a briefcase; he went through. Now, if he 

goes over to the Capitol and back again and there is a long line, 

I really appreciate the courtesy that is extended; he won’t have a 

briefcase with him and other things like that. But if he had driven 

into the Rayburn Building, he would have gone through nothing. 

So there is an inconsistency just with that, and then with Members 

at times, you know, like, not bringing a staff member through. 

So I am not asking you to solve the problem today. I think we 

need to be part of the solution. I think your officers deserve to have 

consistency. So this is something that we need to talk about, and 

you can work things out with the Chair and we will figure it out. 

And, yes, Madam Chair, I am very much aware of that. Thank 

you. So we need to—that is why I am not asking for anything 

today. 

We need to figure this out. Because it is not fair to the officers. 

It is not fair to the officers, because they do see Members abuse 

it. They do. So I want to be consistent. 

POLICE BUDGET MODELS

Let me just go back to, kind of, the point of the discussion today. 

There are models, Madam Chair, that I think we can look at. There 

are models that are used by police departments all across this 

country and sheriff’s departments and State highway patrols in the 

way that they perform and do their budgets. So I don’t know if you 

have had discussions, so that you still have your input, your autonomy that you need in doing that, because there needs to be a bit 

of a separation here. 

So, Madam Chair, I don’t know if, when we get our report from 

the Inspector General, if the inspector general will have looked at, 

like, what the League of Minnesota Cities has recommended for 

doing a report on the—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Why don’t we ask him? He is here. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. So I would be interested—because I think there 

are models out here that we could look at for actually—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Why don’t you come to the table? 

Mr. HOECKER. Ma’am, that was not part of our initial—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If you could state your name for the 

record. 

Mr. HOECKER. Carl Hoecker. I am the Inspector General for the 

United States Capitol Police. I think you have my card. 

That is not part of our initial scope, to do best practices or good 

practices comparison. Our scope is to look at what the controls 

were, were they adequate for budget formulation; and, if they were, 

then why this happened. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
329 

That study may be useful, but that certainly wouldn’t fit in the 

timeline that I have described. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I would just suggest, because I 

don’t think we have to have a study to study the studies. I think 

we have bright enough and smart enough minds around here to 

maybe look at some best practices. And then this committee, working with our colleagues in the Senate and working with like-minded places, can come up with, not reinventing the wheel, but putting 

in something that allows to you be 100 percent focused on your 

work but know what your parameters are for your budget and how 

to advocate for them, either up or down, depending upon what is 

there. 

SIGNAGE IN THE CVC

Madam Chair, with that, I will conclude, except to say I exited 

the Visitor Center the other day. And I had my stealth staff check 

it out today. It is still not signed that you can exit without the 

buzzer going off in 15 seconds. But, oddly enough, I have had elves 

at my window. I think I asked for the reverse. 

Could you please fix the signage so I don’t have to keep—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is that because the doors still say that 

they alarm when they open and they don’t? 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Fifteen seconds. This Saturday and Sunday 

when I walked through, there were people once again trapped in 

there. Yeah, because who wants to set the metal—you know, any 

detector off in this building, right? And who wants your—you 

know, your folks want people to leave, so they are on the other side 

of the window going, ‘‘Leave, leave,’’ and people are going, ‘‘No, the 

alarm.’’ 

So, thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDIT OF THE CAPITOL POLICE BUDGET

SHORTFALL

Mr. ADERHOLT. I had a question for the Inspector General. 

Thank you for being here, as well. 

Can you, sort of, just run us through briefly just a little bit of 

the process that you are undertaking in doing this audit of this 

current situation? 

Mr. HOECKER. Yes, sir. 

Well, I have already mentioned the objective, sir. And the way 

we are carrying that out is we are doing interviews of all parties, 

all knowledgeable people. That looks like right now it is going to 

be somewhere between 15 and 20 interviews. We are under way 

with those. 

We have e-mails, we have a couple of computers that we have 

down in my office that we are going to analyze. We have other documents that we will be looking at. We will analyze the documents, 

analyze the information from the interviews. We may have to go 

back and reinterview, based on clarifications, discrepancies found 

in the supporting documents versus the interviews. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
330 

And, you know, we will try to get an overarching picture of what 

happened so that you can make the decisions from the Committee’s 

standpoint and the Chief can make his decisions. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. When do we expect a final report or recommendations that would be available? 

Mr. HOECKER. Last week I would have told you May 31st, but 

my auditor working this has experienced a death in the family, and 

that will push it a couple of days. So it will be early June. 

And I will give briefings up and to that point, sir. It wouldn’t be 

just like, ‘‘Here is the report.’’ We will have discussions, periodic 

discussions, perhaps halfway and maybe 30 percent of the way 

through, updating the Committee on what is going on. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. 

CAPITOL POLICE RADIO MODERNIZATION BUDGET REQUEST

With the $16 million—and, Chief, let me direct this to you— 

being requested in the fiscal year 2011 request, the total budget for 

the radio modernization program will be $97.6 million. 

How confident are you that this cost estimate will be met and 

that there will be no significant overruns? 

Chief MORSE. I am confident that it will meet the requested appropriation funds, and there is a number of reasons for that. One 

is, so many experts have reviewed it, and we also have our partners with GAO who have monitored this and given us advice 

throughout the process. 

We also have an executive sponsor, a single point of contact within our agency, who is now reporting to myself, the assistant chief, 

and the CAO, weekly progress reports on how we are doing. We 

scrubbed all of our obligation plans to make sure that they are on 

time, on budget, that there are no issues with that. So, with that 

type of oversight, we feel confident that we will stay on time and 

within budget. 

We do have a contingency fund that is associated with this 

project, where it is typical that in a project of this size that sometimes you will find various challenges that you must overcome. And 

working in the environment that we do, in the historic buildings, 

and some of the work that the architect has already been doing 

with respect to the buildings and the work, we would expect we 

will run into things, but we think that our contingency fund will 

certainly cover that. 

So, right now, we are on track and within budget to complete the 

project in the spring of 2012. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I think there was about $6.5 million in the contingency fund for this particular project, is my understanding. Do 

you anticipate dipping into that contingency fund? 

Chief MORSE. We certainly anticipate that we will run into challenges that may be necessary to do that. 

At this point, Gloria, have we run into this contingency fund requests? 

Ms. JARMON. No, not yet. And, like you mentioned, we were 

going to make sure we contact the committee and let the committee 

know about the use of the contingency fund. 

Chief MORSE. The one thing that I recently did—and this was, 

like, last week when I reviewed it—is to ensure that the continVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00330 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
331 

gency funds are in one pot and that, whenever we have a request 

for that, that it is justified, verified, and that it becomes an obligation plan. In other words, we come to the committee and say, ‘‘We 

need this contingency money to be obligated to mitigate this situation.’’ That was not something that was in place prior to last week. 

But it is something that, when I reviewed the last obligation plan, 

that I found to be not solid enough to be transparent to our oversight committees on what we were doing with the money. So I immediately corrected that last week. 

So, the obligation plan that I just signed recently to come forward does not include contingency money, because what it says is, 

‘‘This is the work that needs to be done. This is the money that it 

takes to do it.’’ If something comes and interferes with that or 

there is a challenge, then the people responsible for that need to 

tell me why they need the contingency fund, we have to verify that, 

and then we can approve it and then ask the committee, ‘‘Can we 

obligate this money to that effort?’’ So that enables us to track the 

money for the project appropriately and, separately, track appropriately the contingency fund. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And you said that, unless you run into problems—so what would you envision that might be a problem that 

would dip into the contingency fund? 

Chief MORSE. Well, we may have an issue—and I am trying to 

think of them. We may have, for instance, an aesthetics issue, a 

location of an antenna. We could have an abatement issue. We 

could, where we have our plans to put fiber or antennas maybe in 

close proximity, for instance, to a secure area that we need to mitigate. 

So we may find things out like that as we go—or we may not— 

that may require additional work that was not planned or could 

not be anticipated. So these are not things that we didn’t anticipate; they are things that sort of pop up with the historic nature 

of the building or, perhaps, new construction that has occurred 

since the design plan was made. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. I think my time is up. 

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

very much. 

CAPITOL POLICE MATERIAL WEAKNESSES

Mr. Hoecker, since you are here, I want to ask you some additional questions. 

In the fiscal year 2008 examination of the effectiveness of the internal controls of the Capitol Police, there were three material 

weaknesses that were found. Those were in payroll processing, financial management, and information systems. Two, if not all 

three, of those weaknesses could have led to the problems that resulted in the budget issues that we have right now. 

Have those material weaknesses been fixed by the police up to 

this point? 

Mr. HOECKER. They are still material weaknesses. We have 

not—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. All three? 

Mr. HOECKER. Yes, ma’am. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
332 

But what we do is we test those—we only clear those and close 

those at the financial statement audit. So when we complete the 

fiscal year 2009 financial statement audit, the auditors will find if 

there is sufficient progress made on those. 

But, just overall, I think there has been some progress made, but 

they are still open. And to the extent that some of them are open, 

that will be part of my review in terms of what happened—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Ms. Jarmon, this is really all your responsibility. I mean, all of 

this is under your jurisdiction. So, since you have come onboard, 

why haven’t these material weaknesses been addressed? 

Ms. JARMON. We have been trying to address the material weaknesses. There are a lot of issues at the Capitol Police, going back 

many years, that I have been trying to address, and the material 

weaknesses have been my focus. Some of the problems are longstanding problems that are just taking longer to fix than I had 

really anticipated. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Well, what is the time frame 

for getting them addressed? Because we cannot go through another 

fiscal year where they are not addressed and these problems are 

prone to happening. Can you give me assurance that they will be 

addressed within the next 6 months? 

Ms. JARMON. Of the 28—we have 28 remaining—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am talking about the three materials weaknesses. 

Ms. JARMON. The three material weaknesses, I can give you assurance that we will make significant progress in the next 6 

months. We expect to have closed 17 of the 28 that were open 

from—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But, see, lots of times, people focus on 

the easy ones, because people like to cross things off, and they 

spend an extraordinary amount of time doing the easy things, and 

they leave the hard things for last. The hard things are what is 

causing your problems. 

So, are you devoting a significant enough amount of attention to 

addressing those material weaknesses? 

I mean, I would rather see you deal with the less important 

things later so that you can make sure that you can provide us 

with budget estimates and budget proposals that we can count on 

and that I don’t have to worry about the other shoe dropping every 

time I get a Capitol Police budget proposal. 

Ms. JARMON. Right. I will commit to you that I will do all I can 

to close the material weaknesses in the next 6 months—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Well, I have to tell you—— 

Ms. JARMON. I can’t say they will all be—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing]. That response leaves me 

less than confident. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—A further explanation by the Capitol Police follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
333 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 645 here 56678B.014
334 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 646 here 56678B.015
335 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 647 here 56678B.016
336 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 648 here 56678B.017
337 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 649 here 56678B.018
338 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 650 here 56678B.019
339 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 651 here 56678B.020
340 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 652 here 56678B.021
341 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 653 here 56678B.022
342 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 654 here 56678B.023
343 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 655 here 56678B.024
344 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 656 here 56678B.025
345 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 657 here 56678B.026
346 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 658 here 56678B.027
347 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 659 here 56678B.028
348 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 660 here 56678B.029
349 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 661 here 56678B.030
350 

BUDGET PROCESSES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let me just continue with you. Like 

I said, this is your responsibility; you are responsible for budget 

and human resource functions. 

I want to get a specific analysis from you on how this process 

broke down. I am not someone who dwells a lot on, you know, how 

did we get here, and I am not interested in beating anyone up over 

this. But when it comes to a budgeting problem, the look-back is 

important, because you need to know how it happened so that you 

can prevent it from happening again. If you don’t address the 

weaknesses that cause the problems, then you are not going to be 

able to prevent them. 

So I just have some specific questions. Are you getting, for example, the information that you need from the operational side to effectively manage the budget? A specific example is, when a decision 

is made to move officers to nights or Sundays, that affects pay. Is 

the administrative side notified about that so that the whole budget picture is established? Is that something that occurs now? 

Ms. JARMON. It occurs. It could occur more effectively. That is 

something I will focus on also. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Is that something that you 

were already working on? 

Ms. JARMON. Yes, it is something I am already working on. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. What about, where does the 

budget office get actual data on officer usage? 

Ms. JARMON. The budget office gets actual data on officer usage 

from the Chief Operating Officer’s office, in terms of their monitors—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is that one of the people that was responsible for this error, the individual in question? 

Ms. JARMON. We don’t know—that is probably one of the people 

that will be talked to by the Inspector General. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. How does the Capitol Police ensure 

that its budget staff are informed of new hires? 

Ms. JARMON. The budget staff are informed by the Office of 

Human Resources of new hires. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Are there sufficient processes 

and controls in place to make sure that that happens in a timely 

and specific fashion? 

Ms. JARMON. That is part of the controls that we will be looking 

at as part of the audit. 

OVERTIME

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. All right. 

Chief, I wanted to talk to you about overtime and staffing. And 

I am going to ask this question in a simplistic way. I know overtime and staffing is not as simple as I am going to ask you this 

question. 

But you are asking for $29 million in overtime, and you are asking for 52 additional officers. So, I mean, one of the major frustrations of the Capitol Police’s budget is the increase of use of overtime. Why wouldn’t we just take the $29 million that you are asking for in overtime and give it to you instead to hire additional offiVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00350 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
351 

cers so you can handle the workload with more officers rather than 

adding to the overtime of the officers you have? 

Especially now in light of the concerns over the retirement system and the pensions, which, depending on who is right, overtime 

isn’t going into the officers’ retirement benefits package. So, it 

would seem to me to make more sense to broaden the number of 

officers you have so that you are not exacerbating and inflating the 

retirement issue, which is a separate question. 

Chief MORSE. Okay. The easiest way to explain overtime and 

staffing is, we have a mission; and what that means is, a door is 

a mission. And there is an assignment of personnel to that door 

and a number of hours. Our current staffing does not meet that 

mission, so the gap in between is overtime. 

The current overtime request with our staffing still does not get 

us to our mission. So, in other words, with $29 million—although, 

in the $29 million, the increase is from the COLA and stuff from 

this year, and then there are some specialty projects with the AOC 

that we are doing that will require overtime. So that is where the 

increase is. 

So, every time you add officers, you get closer to covering all 

those missions. The closer you get to covering all those missions, 

the lower overtime gets. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. 

Chief MORSE. The less officers you have and the more missions 

that come in—the threat changes or we have unpredictable sessions or we have demonstrations that occur—then the mission 

keeps spreading and the overtime keeps getting higher. 

So when we request additional officers, we have restraints on 

how many we can ask for. I could ask you for 350, which would 

get us all the way to the end, but I could never recruit that many, 

I can’t train that many, there are general expenses associated with 

that, and salaries. You would still have overtime, though, because 

you still have things you can’t predict. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Oh, yeah. I mean, I am not suggesting 

that we could eliminate overtime. 

Chief MORSE. Yeah, I am trying to give a very simple answer to 

a complex question. So we—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If we added 52—I am sorry to interrupt you. 

Chief MORSE. Sure. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If we gave you the 52 officers—and I 

assume you are asking for 52 officers, which is, sort of, the maximum that you think you could absorb now and train and fund. 

Chief MORSE. Along with attrition. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Along with attrition. Then would the 

$29 million go down if you have 52? 

Would you need $29 million if we gave you 52 officers? 

Chief MORSE. Yes. The reason why is because you don’t hire all 

those 52 at the beginning of the fiscal year. They are hired 

throughout the year. And then there is approximately—once they 

are finished training, FTO programs, et cetera, you are looking at 

about 30 weeks. So you don’t reap the benefits of a full year of 52 

additional officers until your following year. So you would get some 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
352 

benefit from that as they came on, but you wouldn’t get the full 

benefit of those 52 until the following year. 

But you have to also remember that, whenever a request to increase the mission—in other words, unfunded mission—comes in, 

that absorbs that and can, sort of, counter that. 

So, that is my simplest explanation of it, is, mission is here; overtime gets us as close to that mission as we can without hiring more 

people. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

I am over time. Mr. Aderholt, I wanted to finish this last piece 

of my question. It is only you and me here anyway. 

What is the number of officers that we could give you—which I 

assume we could not really give you all in 1 year; or, depending 

on the allocation, I guess we could—that would allow us to put our 

finger in the dike of increasing overtime, let you over a few years 

ramp up to the amount of officers on the force that you need, you 

know, barring unforeseen security issues, so that we have a more 

predictable and reasonable overtime budget that we can count on? 

Chief MORSE. With the existing. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, under existing mission requirements. 

Chief MORSE. Under the existing mission requirements, with the 

exception of any unexpecteds, because I can’t predict what may or 

may not happen, we could give you a number of officers we would 

need that would give you sort of a correlated overtime. So, as an 

example, I could say, if you give me 150, the overtime would be 

this. If I gave you 200, the overtime would be this. 

But let me just add this, there are things we can do, and there 

are things that we are doing and continue to do to generate more 

officers through things that we are already doing. One example is 

we just completed—or at least I was told it is completed and with 

the Assistant Chief now—an assessment of the Library of Congress 

because we completed our merger. So we did an assessment of that 

division. What our assessment tells us, without diminishing security at the Library of Congress, without diminishing that, is that 

we will be able to put 20 officers back into the field other than that 

division. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Chief MORSE. But there is a process that we have to take yet, 

and I have to speak to my board. We have to speak to our union, 

and we have to make sure that it is absolutely correct, but it looks 

like it would yield that. We are looking at technologies, obviously, 

that input more officers, so we still have a little bit of work to do 

on that, and we are doing it and have done it. 

The other thing is the consideration of changing sort of the hours 

of operations of doors, et cetera, so we are working on proposals 

for, for instance, our lowest access doors at certain hours, and could 

we, for instance, close those because of the access level, pedestrian 

access level, and move those officers toward the more busy hours 

and the higher threat hours? So we have a proposal that we are 

working on with that, too, that we are going to submit. 

So I think that we need to really flush those things out first and 

make sure that we are utilizing our people the best. And with the 

help of the oversight committees, hopefully, maybe, we can change 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
353 

some of the environmental things that we have been dealing with 

for many, many years. I mean, the hours of operation of the doors, 

in many cases, have been the same since I was an officer in 1985, 

so perhaps we need to look at that and see if it should change. 

That is what we are doing. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would just like to work with you, to 

the degree that we have a role in this since we provide the budget 

for it, to more effectively help you adapt and to have us have more 

predictability so that we are not—I mean, I just think that using 

overtime over the long term to solve our mission gap problems is 

not responsible. 

Chief MORSE. The other piece here is, as we grow—you know, we 

have grown out of facilities space. So there is a master plan. I have 

worked with the Architect of the Capitol and their planners in developing plans for a new headquarters building, a model for that, 

should the need exist for the expansion. Certainly, you know, we 

feel like we need it now, but we also understand the way times are 

now. So we are very respectful of that and are very humble with 

what we have. 

So, if we expand with officers, it does have a facilities requirement attachment to it as well, but we have this information, and 

we would definitely be able to answer any of your questions and 

would be able to provide you with any details that you would need 

to make decisions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Great. 

I have long since past gone over my time. I am so sorry. 

POLICE MERGER

Mr. ADERHOLT. It has been roughly 6 months since the merger 

of the Capitol Police and the Library of Congress Police. 

Can you bring us up to date on how things are going with the 

merger? 

Chief MORSE. I mentioned one just a second ago. 

We completed our assessment, our manpower assessment. We 

are reviewing that now, and that is from the sworn perspective and 

the mission, without diminishing it; the transition was smooth. We 

have some continued work to do with the communications piece of 

this and a similar assessment with communications. We are working and have been to transition the command center and to become 

unified in that. So we are on track with and are taking measures 

to sort of complete the operational transition of this. There have 

been no other issues. 

We had, when you talk about a seamless transition of security, 

we had one of our officers the other day who, in doing his screening 

process, observed an individual enter the building, and he was involved in a bank robbery just a few days before. So the transition 

has occurred. They are proud to be U.S. Capitol Police Officers. We 

are proud to have them, and they are doing a wonderful job. So we 

continue to work on the transition of mission. 

OFF-SITE DELIVERY SCREENING STUDY

Mr. ADERHOLT. I know the Architect of the Capitol is requesting 

$1.7 million to further study and develop a program of requirements for an off-site delivery screening center. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
354 

What are the current problems that exist, as it is today, that 

would facilitate the need for this new screening center? 

Chief MORSE. Well, the model that we are looking at is with regard to security and enhancing our security capability to screen 

items, both perishable and otherwise, that come to the campus before it gets here and to be able to do that very expeditiously and 

very safely and, you know, to continue to facilitate the services that 

you see now without any interruption. But the concept is about the 

safety and security of the campus and doing the screening at an 

off-site facility at a higher level and being able to get it here without some of the gaps that we face now. So it is an enhancement 

of the security process. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So the gap seems to be that there are problems 

with the current system. 

Chief MORSE. Right. We have filled those gaps, but those are 

temporary in nature and not sustainable. So, therefore, we need a 

more robust capability with respect to off-site screening and so 

forth. I believe the study that is requested is specific to, you know, 

the building size, the type of operation that needs to take place and 

how that takes place in order for it to be a very efficient process 

so that we don’t see any impact here with the services that are provided by vendors and such. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Has that been studied in the past, or is this a 

study that you are undergoing right now? 

Chief MORSE. As I recall—and it has been some time ago, maybe 

4 to 5 years ago, and before I was chief, I did read studies that 

were more about the concept of, what type of model do you need? 

Do you need a complete transfer model where government trucks 

bring things in after they are screened? Do you need a hybrid 

method, meaning some things are and some things are not? And 

then sort of assessing the various current and emerging threats. 

This particular request came from a task force looking at how 

the operations of this off-site would actually occur. So the actual 

physical operations and demands of an off-site like that and how 

to most effectively and efficiently run it. 

DESIGN FOR NEW CAPITOL POLICE RADIO PROJECT

Mr. ADERHOLT. We talked about the radio modernization program just a minute ago. Have they now completed a detailed engineering design for the radio system? 

Chief MORSE. They have. 

Ms. JARMON. Yes, they have completed the detailed design engineering for the radios. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So that has been completed? 

Ms. JARMON. Yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. When will the procurement for the radio equipment begin? 

Chief MORSE. In fiscal year 2011, we are going to see a significant increase in obligation plans. That is where a significant bulk 

of the money will be spent. Up until now, we have had obligation 

plans that have included, obviously, the concepts to operations, the 

build-outs of the mirror sites and the main facility in Manassas. 

We are now seeing obligation plans begin to affect the construction 

of the project itself, as in the recent obligation plan that was subVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00354 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
355 

mitted, but in fiscal year 2011, we will see a large bulk of the 

money begin to actually build out the project. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Has my time expired? You are being a little lenient. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I went for a little more than my time. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. 

THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL AND THE POLICE RADIO PROJECT

The Capitol Police, the Architect and, of course, now the mayor 

all have been critical in putting this radio system modernization 

program into place. 

Has that worked? Has the relationship between those three entities there gone well? How would you characterize that? 

Chief MORSE. I think they have a good working relationship, and 

I think that—I haven’t been told of any differences, but as you 

know, we work with the Architect of the Capitol all the time, and 

they are great partners in everything that we do. I don’t just say 

that because Mr. Ayers is in the room. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I am sure you would say that even if he were not 

here. 

Chief MORSE. Yes, I tell him that all the time, and I tell his people that. 

We have a good working relationship. We have a good liaison 

with each other, and we work very closely with each other. Now, 

there is obviously someone who has been working on other projects 

here who we have a good rapport with. So, if there are any difficulties that are currently existing, then I don’t know about them. I 

would have to turn to Ms. Jarmon to ask her, you know, specifically if there is anything that I am unaware of. 

Ms. JARMON. We work hard there in AOC to make sure we address any issues or concerns, so I feel like all of the issues or concerns that have happened are ones that we have been working on 

with them and are trying to resolve, so there are none that, I 

think, are unresolved or that can’t be resolved. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Are there some things that you can do, Chief, in 

your role, to make sure that this is put into place in a timely fashion? 

Chief MORSE. Yes. 

One thing I recently did—and I am talking last week—is I talked 

to Ms. Jarmon about this, and we felt it was the best course of action so that we could focus more on the administrative responsibilities. This is regarding the executive sponsor of this program, 

meaning the single point of contact as to where the buck stops. Unless they are, you know, communicating to me, it is now the responsibility of our CIO, who was a part of this project in the first 

place. 

I feel that the CAO, in being executive sponsor of such a large 

project and with all the other issues that we need to deal with in 

administration, is not good for the project or for the administrative 

side of the House. So I changed the executive sponsor, and have 

the person reporting to me and my executive staff directly on a 

weekly basis to ensure that every aspect of the project is covered, 

and that it is what I want it to be and what the committees want 

it to be—on time and within budget. So I think that my involveVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00355 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
356 

ment in it is more direct now, and the executive team’s involvement will be on a weekly basis with progress reports. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. All right. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome. 

Chief, continuing to focus on the radio project, you have asked for just about $16 million for the common phase of it. Most of the 

bulk of this project, $71.6 million, was funded in 2009, which are 

the infrastructure changes that are necessary to support the new 

radio system. 

Are those funds going to be transferred to the Architect because 

that is really for indoor infrastructure work? 

Chief MORSE. Yes, ma’am. 

That money is critical in fiscal year 2011 because, in fiscal year 2012, there is only about $1.7 million left to complete the project. 

In other words, that is when it is supposed to be completed. That 

is what we expect. So, once we get to the point where the $16 million will be used, it would be inclusive, you know, of an obligation 

plan directly related to the work that NAVAIR is doing. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And the schedule of that phase of the 

project is through 2011? 

Chief MORSE. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Then it would be just the last little 

bit that would be in 2012? 

Chief MORSE. Right. 

Ms. JARMON. Some of the indoor coverage work may actually 

start sooner than later. It could actually start in the beginning of 

2011 rather than toward the end. 

CAPITOL POLICE RETIREMENT

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

I just have two more questions. I do want to address the police 

retirement issue with you. 

Year in and year out, we have heard concerns and complaints 

about the failures of the current retirement system that is used by 

the Capitol Police. There was a troubling article in the newspaper 

today. We, obviously, are concerned when there are officers who are 

leaving the force who have trouble making ends meet. Now, that 

is the case with a lot of people in this country today, so it is at 

least, in part, understandable. But your spokeswoman made it 

clear in the same article that the Capitol Police retirement plan is 

exactly on par with other law enforcement plans, with other Federal law enforcement plans, which would logically lead me to ask 

you, are all of the Federal retirement plans subpar compared to 

other police agencies or, quite frankly, compared to government retirement plans in general? 

I mean, I understand you have an officer who doesn’t have his 

or her overtime counted, and you have a requirement to retire at 

57. So there is, you know, an artificial depressed period of time. 

They lose those 10 years that non-sworn officers who are Federal 

employees have to add to their retirement years, which are productive years. So they don’t get that. They get an extra boost because 

of the nature of their work, but they lose 10 years of that boost because they have to retire at 57, which is 10 years or so. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
357 

So is there a problem here? 

I recognize also that there are plenty of people, whether they are 

police officers or not, who simply do not plan for retirement, ignore 

it, like people who are young and healthy, who feel they are invincible and will never get sick, so they don’t have health insurance. 

There are people who are young, who are not thinking about the 

fact that they may one day retire and may need to actually have 

money to survive. 

So what is really going on here? 

Chief MORSE. Yes. 

First of all, I was extremely disappointed in the article this 

morning because that is not my position, so I don’t know where 

they got that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. From your spokesperson, you mean? 

Chief MORSE. No. My spokesperson’s responses really come from 

the OPM and the GAO report. 

Now, do I know exactly what other Federal law enforcement 

agencies get? No, not unless I read the report. 

But let me say this, so that the article is correct the next time: 

I support anything that is good for my police officers, okay. I have 

been here 25 years. I know how difficult it is, and I know what 

they experience when they leave here. So it is very important to 

me that, if there is something out there that is good for them, it 

is good for me, but I think there is a lot of work to do. 

What I said is that I have worked with the chairman of the 

union to provide them and support them with information that is 

needed for them to put together or to even examine what might be 

able to be done, if anything, to improve the system or understand 

the system better. I think that is where we are, and that is inclusive of the two reports we cited. 

But of course I support our officers and their needs, and the 

story this morning was certainly something that we do see across 

the Nation, and it is concerning. 

So by putting it into perspective with respect to the questions 

that you are asking, those are the types of things that would have 

to be fleshed out, is, you know, what we have versus someone else 

and those types of things. What I do know is that we have made 

tremendous strides, especially since I was an officer, but our Federal law enforcement status was not something that we had before, 

and that is a compatibility. It may not be in money or percentage, 

but it is a compatibility. 

The other thing is, we try to make sure, through entry level and 

in training and then through retirement seminars, to inform the officers of what their retirement is. Whether it is good or bad is irrelevant. What is it? What does it provide for you? How do you go 

about making the best decisions throughout your career? That is 

our responsibility. I think we do a very good job of that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There was an officer in the article 

who said that he probably could have planned better for retirement 

than he did. I mean, that is the case with a lot of people, but you 

know, if you end up with $38,000 a year in this environment and 

if you have a financial burden of children and a home and a spouse 

who doesn’t have a job, all the awareness in the world of what you 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
358 

are facing upon retirement isn’t going to change the $38,000, and 

it isn’t going to get you through your retirement years. 

Chief MORSE. Right. 

If I am not mistaken, I think the officer who was mentioned may 

have served this country in two different capacities, both in the 

military and here. You know, it is an inherently dangerous job. We 

know we have to work long hours. We know it is dangerous. I 

mean, that is what we do and who we are, but there are futures, 

you know, of these people, which are of concern, and I think that, 

you know, it requires close attention. 

Did I say that I am adamantly opposed? No, I did not. To say 

that I am interested in having something to make a decision on, 

if any, is reasonable. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Are there any reports which you think 

need to be done, any formal examinations of the current retirement 

system for the Capitol Police, which would be helpful so that you 

could, for example, compare and contrast and also use that information so that, in going forward, if there are changes which are 

necessary on the authorizing side and then as well on the appropriations side, we can act on those? 

Chief MORSE. Well, I think that we—I guess we first need to understand some of the questions that you asked: What are the answers to those questions? I mean, what are the comparisons? Who 

are we comparing ourselves to? What are those comparisons? Are 

they different? How are they different? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. When is the last time anything like 

that was done? 

Chief MORSE. The only two—well, the two reports that I have 

seen, I believe—and I am not sure of the names of them, but I believe there is an OPM and a GAO report on the retirement systems. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you know when those were done? 

Chief MORSE. I thought I had it with me, but I don’t. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The law changed in 1990, right? The 

last time there was a specific modification to the retirement plan 

in law was in 1990; is that right? 

Chief MORSE. Well, I know that the retirement changed two 

classes prior to me in 1985 because my assistant chief is a CSRS 

and I am FERS, so we are different. So I know that that piece of 

it has changed. The Federal law enforcement status—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I will bet he hangs that over your 

head all the time. 

Chief MORSE. He does. What is really impressive is he could have 

left 2 years ago, but he is still here, so that shows his true commitment. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It does. 

Chief MORSE. I am not sure of the exact date of the change, but 

it was in the 1990s. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Would you give me answers to 

those questions for the committee, for the record? 

Chief MORSE. Absolutely. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I don’t want to hastily put together a 

homework assignment on this, but I would like to work with you 

to figure out what does need to be examined on the retirement sysVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00358 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
359 

tem and since there are disputes over the content and over the 

facts in the article, notwithstanding that the police union raised 

this issue with us. It does seem to be of concern. We should make 

sure we are on top of it, because I am not someone who likes to 

let something fester for a bunch of years while we argue over 

whether it is or isn’t true. Let’s just take a look at it so we can 

see if there are any modifications that we can make to improve the 

retirement of the Capitol Police Officer. 

I only have one more question. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—A further explanation by the Capitol Police follows:] 

(1) When did OPM and GAO report on the retirement system come out? 

OPM—Federal Law Enforcement Pay and Benefits (Report to Congress) July 2004 

This report responds to section 2(b) of the Federal Law Enforcement Pay and Benefits Parity Act of 2003, Public Law 108–196, which calls for OPM to submit a report to Congress providing a comparison of classification, pay, and benefits among 

Federal law enforcement personnel throughout the Government and to make recommendations to correct any unwarranted differences. 

GAO—Federal Law Enforcement Retirement (Information on Enhanced Retirement Benefits for Law Enforcement Personnel) July 2009 

This report addresses (1) the processes used to grant enhanced retirement benefits to federal law enforcement personnel, (2) the rationales and potential costs for 

extending benefits to additional occupations, and (3) the extent to which federal 

agencies used human capital tools to retain law enforcement and other related personnel. GAO reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and other documentation, such as 

agency reports describing the processes used to grant enhanced benefits. 

(2) When was the law changed? 

The Capitol Police Retirement Act (Public Law 101–428, October 15, 1990) added 

Capitol Police to the retirement statutes as a new group subject to special retirement provisions equivalent to those applicable to LEOs. 

Public Law 101–428 did not include Capitol Police in the CSRS or FERS definition of ‘‘law enforcement officer’’ set out at 5 U.S.C. 8331(20) and 8411(17). Instead, 

Capitol Police were added to the retirement provisions as a distinct group, separate 

from law enforcement officers. Capitol Police are entitled to early retirement, an enhanced annuity computation (at the same accrual rate as other LEOs), and maximum entry age and mandatory retirement provisions that are similar to the LEO 

provisions. A member of the Capitol Police may retire at age 50 with 20 years of 

LEO service or, under FERS, at any age with 25 years of LEO service. A Capitol 

Police officer is subject to mandatory retirement when the officer reaches age 57 and 

has at least 20 years of LEO service. If the Capitol Police Board finds that it would 

be in the public interest, the Board may exempt a member of the Capitol Police from 

mandatory retirement until age 60. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I don’t have anything else. 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE POLICE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Thank you. 

The last question I have is related to the GPO and their police 

force. 

We had the GPO police union in front of the committee in February. We have them every year. They have the same complaints 

and concerns every year, and it doesn’t seem to improve. When I 

asked them if they were open to the idea of merging with the Capitol Police, in which we have a success model that we have been 

through with the Library’s police force, the chairman of the police 

union was very responsive. I know there were some old reports 

that looked at that as an option. I think they are really old, and 

I think it was just GAO that looked at it. I know you and I talked 

about it. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
360 

Are you willing to do an examination or some kind of internal 

study on whether that would be feasible, from your standpoint, 

from the Capitol Police’s standpoint? Because we are going to be 

asking the GAO to refresh their study and to look at it again. 

You know, I am skeptical as to whether it makes sense to continue to have a separate police force. Even though they are, you 

know, not part of the direct campus of the Capitol complex, we are 

still really sort of all within the legislative branch. 

Do you still store vehicles in there? 

So there is a connection that you have to their facilities. 

Quite frankly, you know, in the first year that I chaired this subcommittee, it was really alarming—and we had to take a step 

statutorily to correct it—that they were leaving the passport facility guarded by security guards and not sworn officers. And had we 

not had a public witness hearing in which that concern was expressed by the union, that would have continued. We all know that, 

following 9/11, that is obviously a very significant issue, the security of passports. In fact, I am still concerned that there are not 

sworn officers guarding the facility in Mississippi, but that was not 

something we could get the Senate to agree to. 

So, anyway, is that something that you think you could internally review and could report back to the committee on as to the 

feasibility? 

Chief MORSE. We have the capability of looking at it from a physical securities perspective and jurisdictional perspective, from a 

staffing perspective and mission requirements. That is a piece that 

we can offer should you request us to do so. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That would be great. Consider it requested. 

Chief MORSE. Okay. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We will write up, you know, a formal 

set of questions that we would like you to review. 

So, great, I don’t have any additional questions. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. There may be some questions I might submit for 

the record but not other than that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Great. 

Again, please give our huge thanks and appreciation to the entire police force, to the management, to the sworn and non-sworn 

staff. We just can’t thank you enough for your effort and for your 

hard work. 

I hope the Capitol Police force feels that the Members have their 

backs. As cranky as some may get when they are asked to walk 

through a magnetometer, you know, which is annoying and frustrating, at the end of the day, we should all know that that is what 

keeps us all safe. 

We really appreciate how you go above and beyond the call of 

duty. So thank you. 

With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned until the next 

committee hearing. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
361 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset graphic 690 here 56678B.031
362 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset graphic 691 here 56678B.032
363 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset graphic 692 here 56678B.033
364 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset graphic 693 here 56678B.034
365 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset graphic 694 here 56678B.035
366 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset graphic 695 here 56678B.036
367 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset graphic 696 here 56678B.037
368 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset graphic 697 here 56678B.038
369 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset graphic 698 here 56678B.039
370 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset graphic 699 here 56678B.040
371 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset graphic 700 here 56678B.041
372 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

WITNESSES 

JAMES H. BILLINGTON, LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS 

JO ANN C. JENKINS, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am pleased to call to order this 

hearing of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations. 

This afternoon, we are going to hear from Dr. Billington, the distinguished Librarian of Congress about the Library of Congress’s 

proposed 2011 budget for the fiscal year. We will also hear the 

budget presentation from Open World as well. Last, but not least, 

from Bob Tapella, the Public Printer, about the Government Printing Office’s fiscal year 2011 budget. 

Before we go forward, though, I do, Dr. Billington, want to take 

a point of personal privilege and celebrate the retirement, the 

progress, the moving forward, of Jo Ann Jenkins, the very, very capable Chief Operating Officer of the Library of Congress. She has 

been a true professional and an incredible person to work with, 

someone I really enjoyed getting to know, and look forward to 

working with in your new capacity at the AARP Foundation. 

So thank you very much. I bet you are not sorry that this is your 

last hearing before the Legislative Branch Appropriation Subcommittee. You don’t have to respond to that. 

Just to review what we are considering here today with the Li- brary of Congress, the Library is requesting $674.8 million, which 

is a 4.9 percent increase. Now, and I know Dr. Billington believes 

that that was a small increase that recognizes the tight fiscal year 

that we are in, and we appreciate that, and I know it does represent a belt-tightening process that was difficult for everyone. 

That being said, it is a very difficult fiscal year, and we are going 

to have to make some really tough decisions. We are normally in 

a situation where we have to decide between nice-to-haves and gotto-haves, and this year is no exception to that. But we are even 

going to have to probably go beyond the just cutting nice-to-haves 

and even cutting some things that we know we would need to have, 

but maybe we don’t need them right now. So it is with that in mind 

that we will go through this process this morning. 

A major focus of the Library budget was increased staffing and 

information technology upgrades for the Congressional Research 

Service. The CRS portion of the Library’s request is $119.9 million, 

which is $7.4 million or 6.6 percent above the current fiscal year. 

Staffing is going to be very difficult. All the agencies, virtually all 

the agencies, have asked for additional FTEs. That is going to be 

very tough for us to accomplish in this budget this year. 

I am glad to see that a telework agreement was finally reached 

with the employees of CRS. I think it took longer than it should 

have, but I am glad that it is there. It is not a perfect plan, but 

there is plenty of room for improvement. I am just glad that our 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
373 

subcommittee was able to help be the catalyst to ensuring that the 

employees of CRS have a telework opportunity. 

Before I conclude, I really want to commend you, Dr. Billington, 

for introducing children to the Library of Congress. America’s children, I know, have always been incredibly important to you. The 

opportunity to host the First Lady at the Library of Congress recently, where she read to children, was incredibly special. I know 

it was incredibly special for you. She read Dr. Seuss, which is neat. 

Mr. Aderholt and I had a chance to be there for the opening of 

the Young Readers Room in October of last year. So thank you so 

much for really opening the Library and all its treasures of every 

definition and every stripe to the next generation of Americans so 

that we can all continue to be passionate supporters of reading and 

of literature and of preserving the treasures that you have been 

protecting for so many years. 

So, with that, I welcome Mr. Aderholt to make any remarks. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

It is good to be here today and have you before our committee, 

Dr. Billington and Ms. Jenkins. 

Dr. Billington, of course, your service and dedication to the Library of Congress is well known, and we do appreciate your service. I know we say that, but we can all say it because we mean it. 

We do thank you for your service, and your reputation is well 

known. 

Of course, again, Jo Ann, congratulations on your new position 

at the AARP Foundation. We look forward to seeing you around. 

Hopefully, you won’t be going far away, but we are glad you were 

able to get this position. And so we congratulate you for that. You 

have done a tremendous job in your, what, 15 years of service at 

the Library of Congress. 

Ms. JENKINS. Yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. We appreciate the service that you have rendered 

over the last 15 years. We look forward to working with you maybe 

in a different capacity. 

Again, thank you all both for being here. We look forward to your 

testimony and working with you on this FY 11 budget. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. With that, Dr. Billington, you can proceed with a 5-minute summary of your statement, and your full 

statement will be entered into the record. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

OPENING REMARKS—THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS

Madam Chair, Mr. Aderholt, members of the subcommittee, it is 

really an honor to be here to present the fiscal year 2011 budget 

request for the Library just 3 days before the 210th anniversary of 

its birth as America’s oldest Federal cultural institution later this 

month. 

This will be, as you noted, the last time I will be accompanied 

by our esteemed Chief Operating Officer. And I just add my words 

of appreciation and admiration as she moves forward after 15 years 

of really outstanding service to the Library and to the Nation. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
374 

Among those who are here today that you will not have seen before, I call attention to Roberta Shaffer, the new Law Librarian of 

the Library of Congress. And I will also mention two others who 

are not here but have provided exceptional service to the Library 

for 20 years and whom I just named yesterday to assume in June 

new responsibilities and membership on the Executive Committee: 

Robert Dizard, who will become Chief of Staff, and Lucy Suddreth, 

who has worked with our esteemed Chief Operating Officer but 

who will become the Chief of Support Operations. 

So we have a good team for the transition, but we are noting 

with sadness the departure of our esteemed colleague here, Dr. Jo 

Ann Jenkins. I call her doctor because she had some medical procedures with her eyes, but she came back to be here. 

Anyway, recognizing the difficult budget environment, we are 

presenting a relatively lean funding request, I think. We compute 

it as a 4.6 percent increase over fiscal year 2010; 58 percent of it 

is for mandatory pay raises for our excellent staff; 16 percent is for 

addressing urgent congressional needs in our CRS; and the smaller 

remaining requests are largely to strengthen staff management capabilities and to support clear Library-wide priorities and ongoing, 

already existing activities. These latter requests are mostly for people urgently needed by an institution doing many times more work 

with 1,076 less employees than before we began our massive digital 

activities in 1992. 

Madam Chair, the Congress of the United States has been, quite 

simply, the greatest patron of a library in human history. It has 

created, and thanks to this committee and your leadership, sustained the largest and most inclusive and best preserved record in 

one place both of the world’s knowledge, in multiple languages and 

formats, and of America’s private-sector creativity. In many ways, 

the Library contains our Nation’s strategic information reserve, 

preserves the cultural patrimony of free and diverse people, and is 

something of a lighthouse to the world for our open society and 

knowledge-based democracy. 

We are now nearing completion of a focused effort that I initiated 

10 months ago collaboratively to address Library-wide management 

requirements. We will shortly have a mid-course revision of our 

strategic plan extending to 2016. Strengthening our governance 

and investment processes in information technology has been a 

high priority in this review in order to meet the objectives of the 

funding that you, the committee, have generously provided for us. 

Earlier this year, I also initiated an effort more fully to integrate 

the Library’s Web presence and activities into the central core of 

the Library’s work and management structure and across the entire Library. 

For the last 20 years, we have been superimposing in effect a 

new digital library on top of our traditional artifactual one. We 

have created a National Digital Library of 16 million additional 

original documents of American history, and, just a year ago today, 

unveiled in Paris, to what I am told is the largest international 

media audience ever seen at UNESCO headquarters, a World Digital Library with UNESCO including some material from all 193 

U.N. countries, with clear, expert commentary in seven languages. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
375 

The Library of Congress now has enormous digital content holdings and works with 170 partner institutions in our congressionally 

mandated roles to develop a national program to archive important 

online materials. But in the past 10 years, global book publishing 

has also increased by 40 percent. Much of that increase is in the 

less developed part of the world that is emerging with many problems and without nearly as much awareness in the outside world 

as is necessary. Digital information, of course, will never replace 

our heritage assets, the unique, original physical records that are 

often one-of-a-kind artifactual collections. 

FORT MEADE MODULE 5

Our most critical material need and highest mission priority this 

year is for Fort Meade Module 5, as requested in the Architect of 

the Capitol’s fiscal year 2011 budget. We are already 8 years behind in the storage schedule for Fort Meade that we established 

with Congress in 1997. The already functioning modules are efficiently compacted. They are magnificently controlled for preservation. And they have provided, so far, prompt, 100 percent delivery 

to our Capitol Hill reading rooms of all materials requested. This 

fifth module is essential if we are to sustain our core mission of 

preserving and making accessible the collections needed both for 

present and for future generations. 

The Library of Congress is the only institution in the world capable of sustaining collections on the scale we do. Our key role for 

America in the information age could be compromised, perhaps 

irretrievably, if the original written and published materials in our 

collections, which often provide the only permanent and tamperfree records of human creativity, continue to be stored on the floor 

of existing buildings and effectively removed from either inventory 

or access. 

We do not keep everything, I will assure you, and we are currently reexamining our acquisitions policy. Thanks to this committee’s wonderful support, we already have not only some preservation storage modules at Fort Meade but also in Culpeper, the 

world’s biggest and best facility for audio-visual conservation. But 

we must continue to grow and house our artifactual collections if 

they are to remain usable for Congress and the Nation, and we will 

continue to need space to store them. 

Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee, thank you, again, 

for your support for the Library and for your consideration of our 

fiscal year 2011 budget. I will be happy to answer any questions. 

[Dr. Billington’s and the Library’s other prepared statements follow:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
376 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 785 here 56678B.066
377 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 786 here 56678B.067
378 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 787 here 56678B.068
379 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 788 here 56678B.069
380 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 789 here 56678B.070
381 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 790 here 56678B.071
382 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 791 here 56678B.072
383 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 792 here 56678B.073
384 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 793 here 56678B.074
385 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 794 here 56678B.075
386 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 795 here 56678B.076
387 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 796 here 56678B.077
388 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 797 here 56678B.078
389 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 798 here 56678B.079
390 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 799 here 56678B.080
391 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 800 here 56678B.081
392 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 801 here 56678B.082
393 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 802 here 56678B.083
394 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 803 here 56678B.084
395 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Dr. Billington. 

CRS REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF

I have a series of questions. The first one is related to CRS’s 

budget request. They are asking for an additional 17 FTEs this 

year; 17 FTEs for next year as well. Certainly, we all could be more 

efficient and productive if we had more staff. I know I would love 

to have some more staff. I know my staff would love to have more 

staff. But this is a difficult fiscal environment. 

Do you have Member requests, does the CRS have Member requests that go unanswered? Under the current staffing model, 

what are they not able to do that these 17 FTEs will allow them 

to do? And was there a survey done in the issue areas, in the subject matter areas, that you have requested the increased staffing, 

because the increased staffing was asked for in science and technology; health; financial, economics and accounting; and labor and 

immigration? Who decided those were the areas that were necessary? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Let me briefly answer, then perhaps Director 

Dan Mulhollan of CRS can answer in more detail. Fundamentally, 

this is our response, the Library’s and CRS’s in particular, to your 

requests. By ‘‘you’’ I mean the plural of Congress’s requests, which 

come in daily and are evaluated on a running basis by the staff. 

So it is our response to what is most requested and for which we 

most need added help. The only other thing I would point out is 

that in this staff decline of more than a thousand that has occurred, there has been an enormous increase in requests from Congress. Half of this request is for upgrading the digital, essentially 

the delivery of information, and the other half is for personnel. 

CRS, next to Library Services, has accepted a fairly sharp decline 

in personnel while at the same time seeing an increase in Congressional requests, particularly in science and technology and things 

that require large statistical analysis and projections, and the integration of that kind of material with the broader cultural and historical material that lies at the background. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Was there any outreach to Members 

of Congress, specifically, to ask them about, for input on what 

areas were lacking? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes. I think maybe if Mr. Mulhollan will step 

forward. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. The answer is yes and yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can you state your name for the 

record? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Dan Mulhollan, Director of CRS. 

First, to your point, you are exactly right: What do we need now 

and in the immediate future? That is what we are asking for. We 

have not asked for positions for the last several fiscal years, so we 

established a group of our mid-level managers to recommend, in 

consultation with staff, the appropriate staffing not just in the next 

fiscal year but also the years to come. 

We considered the kind of questions we have received across a 

large number of areas, from security to energy to health. 

In health care reform and financial reform haven’t had a 2-day 

weekend for a year. Much of the major health care reform impleVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00395 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
396 

mentation will not be effective until 2014 but a lot of complex questions are being raised, and regulations will have to be developed. 

Financial reform support calls for sophisticated accounting capacity. We are asking for expertise in disciplines that we do not have 

now but that we have determined we will need in the future, as 

well as expertise in certain areas, such as energy and information 

security, that we will need for the future. 

We have done this knowing full well the seriousness of the fiscal 

situation. But I believe the seriousness of the questions Congress 

faces, we can help. And your point with regard to staff of each 

Member, we, as shared staff, are cost-effective: we serve both majority and minority; we serve every committee and every Member. 

For example, a physicist in CRS can help the House Science Committee as well as Energy and Commerce. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My time is just about to expire, and 

I know Mr. LaTourette will ask you about the survey. So I won’t 

steal his thunder. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY ON LIBRARY MISSION

Mr. ADERHOLT. One thing that I did want to ask about was the 

digital technology and the growth of digital technology and digital 

content and how that has really changed the mission of the Library 

and how that has made some direct impact on the way the Library 

of Congress has operated today as opposed to the way it operated 

say 50 years ago. So could you talk a little bit about that? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes, gladly. The advent of the real digital revolution in the generation and communication and storage of knowledge has added a new dimension, but it has not changed the fundamental nature of the mission of the Library of Congress. The leadership role that we have exercised in the government, in getting 

out in front incorporating the virtual and digital world into the information storage and the sharing of Library of Congress materials 

with the general public and with Congress has strengthened our 

performance of the mission without basically changing it. 

The essential mission is to acquire, preserve, and make accessible the world’s knowledge and America’s creativity. Now what 

that means, so much of it is now digital, that it supplements but 

does not supplant the traditional artifactual culture. 

We had another revolution really in the 20th century, the audiovisual. We incorporated that. The early records of the Library of 

Congress were almost entirely written and published material, 

verbal material. We added the audio-visual dimension in the early 

and mid-20th century. At the end of the 20th century, beginning 

of the 21st, we are adding the digital dimension. But it is still, basically, a form of knowledge and so forth. And it is very subject to 

tampering and change in the way that the artifactual items are 

not. So preserving the original artifactual items is extremely important, even as we move into the digital world. 

The congressionally created National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program, which we are mandated to coordinate, now has 170 partners. We have an enormous storage of 

born-digital material. That is material that is only available in digital format. We have, as I say, 170 partners in 44 States that are 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
397 

cooperating with us in storing this material. We are even adding 

some of the new media material beyond the traditional Internet. 

DIGITAL CONTENT SUPPLEMENTS ARTIFACTUAL COLLECTIONS

But that is America, as a country, which in terms of its compilation and in terms of the ideas, it adds without subtracting. That 

is very unique in world history. It adds without subtracting. We 

supplement rather than supplant. And that is true of the history 

of technology, generally, in all kinds of revolutions. When movies 

came in, people said nobody would be interested in plays. When television came in, they said nobody would be interested in radio. You 

add without subtracting. There are still plays that have found new 

dimensions and radios have new kinds of audiences for people in 

traffic jams who have the radio on. So that is the distinctive thing 

about America, that we are a place that adds without subtracting. 

My predecessor had a wonderful phrase, the great American historian, Daniel Boorstin. He said, you can get all the information 

you want—or he foresaw this as happening—from a computer, but 

only from the older book culture will you be able to frame the 

unimagined question and accept the unwelcoming answer. That is 

almost a definition of a dynamic, self-improving, constantly developing society. 

In incorporating that, now what we have done is brought forth 

old materials that have been half forgotten. We call them the 

American Memory, where we put these 60 million things, because 

the news media talk a lot about memory of the machines. But we 

are talking about the memory of ordinary people, from the national 

collection of the Library of Congress to great Presidential papers, 

in which we have only one-of-a-kind items. These aren’t primarily 

books. 

We are taking the primary documents out to people, and that has 

a way of stimulating curiosity, questioning, and sustaining the values of the book culture, which are interactive, thinking, asking 

questions, seeing new vehicles of imagination and the history of our 

innovation. With memory, you don’t know what is new until you 

know what there has been before. So we are in effect adding. That 

is why this module is so important. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Number five? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Module 5 at Fort Meade. Because, for instance, 

when we digitize things, we digitize a great many of the most interesting things. And even the World Digital Library in many languages is always accompanied by dependable commentary by experts and curators. This has a terrific kind of impact in getting 

people to think and sustaining the values of the book culture. 

Henry Steele Commager, the great American historian, once said 

America is the only world civilization whose institutions were entirely framed and conceived in the age of print. And the dialogic 

way in which the Founding Fathers debated in the Federalist papers you look at the rough draft of the Declaration of Independence 

with corrections by Adams and Franklin, and you realize you are 

dealing with something that was put together by debate and discussion and is ongoing, not that it is perfect, but it can always be 

improved. It is essential that you preserve that, even as you at the 

same time try to sustain those values in the new media and incorVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00397 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
398 

porate it, so that ultimately it can be one-stop shopping for the 

Congress, both from the virtual world and from the artifactual 

world. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Your time has expired. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. We will go another round. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Sorry. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Your passion is evident. 

Ms. McCollum. 

IMPORTANCE OF NEW STORAGE SPACE AT FORT MEADE

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you. Well, you were talking modules. I 

am a former teacher. Show and tell. It is late in the afternoon. You 

have all gone through your sugar rush from lunch. 

So, Madam Chair, I know we have got some tough choices here 

to make, but I am here to plead a case when we are making those 

tough choices. 

This is, in the Library of Congress, books lined up on the floor. 

These yellow slips indicate that they are ready to go to Module 5. 

This is the before, what is happening in the Library of Congress 

right now, and this is what the storage is out at Fort Meade. We 

are slowly, with the best of intentions, trying to keep the books as 

safe as they can at the Library of Congress, but it is hard on the 

spines. It is hard on the pages, and we are going to get to the point 

where they know where everything is. This is not chaos that is organized. This is organized organized. This is librarian-organized. 

But we are going to get to a point where even retrieval over at the 

Library of Congress is going to become very cumbersome and, in 

my opinion, going to become a work safety hazard just trying to get 

through the shelves. 

I went out and looked at the facility. And I know we are making 

some tough decisions. But it is pretty much cookie cutter. Once you 

have one unit built, they are all built the same way. So there isn’t 

a lot of planning. There isn’t a lot of startup that has to be done. 

But we have gotten behind in the implementation. And I know we 

are behind on a lot of deferred maintenance here, as well, even in 

the Library of Congress. Even with the remodeling, there are more 

things that could have been done. But if we don’t take care of these 

treasures and they become damaged, they are irreplaceable. 

So I am going to plead for a case and work with you, Madam 

Chair. I am being very public with what my top priority is going 

to be. 

Dr. Billington, if you could maybe just talk about just for a 

minute, because I will give you a little bit of my time, you can just 

talk about, if you have the numbers, how many books you have 

ready to go to Fort Meade right now. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, it is several hundred thousand. I will get 

you an exact figure. The important additional point here, briefly, 

is that what tends to go on the floor, of necessity, when you already 

have packed shelves, is the most recent thing. If you lose inventory 

and easy access control to the most recent things, say you have a 

periodical that has been going on for a 100 years, and you can’t deliver the last 2 years; that doesn’t make it just 1–50th useful. It 

makes it about half as useful because the questions Congress 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
399 

wants a rapid answer to are dependent on having the latest information. 

We have different categories. We get 20,000 items a day at the 

Library, and to sort it down to 8,000 or 10,000, we have different 

categories; if you just have to pile it up on the floor and if you 

aren’t up-to-date, you rapidly become much more archaic and useless, and people will go elsewhere if we are not able to provide. 

Then you slowly ease into becoming a museum of a book rather 

than a fast deliverer of information. So I think that is the most important thing. 

I will get you the exact number, but I know 5 million items are 

inventoried and ready to move to Fort Meade. All those 5 million 

are not piled up on the stacks, but they are all ready to be moved. 

So they will not only take things off the stacks, but open up material on the stacks so the new stuff can be processed fast and inventoried and accessed. By the way, we had Amazon look—— 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Dr. Billington, you are going to get me in trouble. 

Madam Chair, also, in full disclosure, my mother was a librarian. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. LaTourette. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Billington, welcome. I don’t have any questions for you. 

CRS RESEARCH PRODUCTS

But if you would ask Mr. Mulhollan to come back, I do have a 

couple of CRS questions, if I could. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. At last year’s hearing, a couple of us, I think 

Ms. McCollum and others, expressed a desire to perhaps put together a more side-by-side analysis, and I did notice that in the recent health care discussion, you did produce a product that had a 

side-by-side. I have found that to be very helpful. I assume you did. 

And the question is, on major pieces of legislation, is that now the 

standard operating procedure? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. It has always been when we were requested. As 

I tried to explain before and didn’t do a good job, we prefer to do 

an analysis where we point out what the reason is and the impact 

of the language, but if the Member wants a comparison strict, just 

of the language, then we do that. 

We have a tool to assist in comparing bills called the Text Analysis Program (TAP) that is used by our staff in the Bill Digest section. They provide bill summaries for 18,000 bills every Congress. 

In fact, with regard to the health care reform, a columnist in the 

New York Times commended our bill summary that is available on 

Thomas. The summary explaining P.L. 111–148 is also available in 

the Legislative Information System (LIS). 

TAP is a tool that, over time, we are trying to improve on, it is 

pretty labor-intensive right now, but it still reduces our workload. 

At some point, I believe by the end of the year, we hope to share 

this tool with House Legislative Counsel. Over time the goal would 

be to make it more useful for congressional staff as a whole, because it uses the information in LIS and compares the bills. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
400 

CRS HIRING PRACTICES

Mr. LATOURETTE. The other thing, just to clean up from last 

year, you had talked about bringing in these section chiefs or managers, I guess. One of the concerns that I had, just chatting with 

folks at the Service, was a number had been brought in not from 

the ranks up but brought in from the outside. I noticed in the 

Washington Post on Sunday in the business section—I wasn’t looking for another job, but I do read the classifieds—that you are in 

fact advertising for more. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Yes. We have had a transition from one who 

was an internal person who decided to step down and go into research. And so we are advertising for one. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. I think when your vendor was in on the survey, they had collected statistics and indicated that half come from 

inside and half from out. So it is just one post you are filling at 

the moment? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Well, we filled one approximately 2 months 

ago, because the head of that section became an assistant director. 

CRS CLIENT SURVEY

Mr. LATOURETTE. And then I want to talk a little bit about the 

survey. I want to thank you for doing that. That came out of last 

year’s hearing and the chairwoman’s leadership as a result of her 

meeting with the vendor. I know that the chairwoman and Mr. 

Aderholt sort of spurred our colleagues to answer them. A lot of offices have policies that they won’t answer surveys when they come 

in from an outside vendor. I think it was 3,600 they sent out. We 

had about 1,200 back in; Hoped for 1,800. So, hopefully, the work 

of the chairwoman and the ranking member will help you get 

there. 

Just a two-part question, the timing of the completion of the survey, and what are the chances of the subcommittee receiving the 

raw, unadulterated report from the vendor, because what may be 

important to you may differ—— 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. First of all, we will share with the subcommittee any information you want. 

Secondly, I want to express my gratitude to the leadership of the 

committee for personally going out to Members and explaining to 

them the survey. We did send out under my name 3,700 e-mails 

saying this was coming from a private vendor and that CRS was 

trying to clear the way for them. We also sent out about 450 emails to chiefs of staff to follow up and encourage participation. 

Right now, they say the margin of error on the response, because 

it is a random sample, will be under 3 percent. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. Madam Chairwoman, I think my request 

would simply be when LMI is finished, that whatever they produce 

come directly to the subcommittee. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. We can share the results. 

LAWSUIT REGARDING DISMISSAL OF PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE

Mr. LATOURETTE. Then, last, there was a lawsuit in the news 

that you and I talked about, somebody who had been a chief prosecutor out at Guantanamo Bay was employed by the Service, and 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
401 

there was—could you just give us whatever you are able to tell us 

about the status of that lawsuit? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. That lawsuit is being pursued by the ACLU on 

free speech grounds. The gentleman was in the probationary period, and he was removed during the probationary period for his 

judgment and discretion. He sent out, as the record in the court 

points out, caustic e-mails about other colleagues in CRS that 

caused me concern. And then he wrote public editorials using political statements like ‘‘fear-mongering like Dick Cheney.’’ And you 

can’t expect someone to be a leader for a whole division if they 

come out and make political statements like that. It is just not acceptable for CRS. 

Mr. LATOURETTE. And that lawsuit is pending? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. That is correct. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Mulhollan. 

DEMAND FOR COLLECTION MATERIALS AT FORT MEADE

I can appreciate all of the Members’ priorities; $16 million, which 

is the cost of the module, is a significant chunk of this budget. So 

it is just, we are in a world of competing priorities. We are going 

to take a close look at all of those, but my question specifically on 

the module is, How many requests do you get for material that is 

out in the places that you plan to move to the modules? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I can’t give you precise—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If you could answer that for the 

record, that would be very helpful. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. We will answer that for the record. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I was out there watching a pull 

request. I was actually intrigued and rather surprised by the requests that were coming out there. They actually have good use of 

the major portion of the facility, so that if researchers and that are 

going out there, they don’t have to transport everything out. It 

would be a great field trip. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We can certainly plan that. But my 

understanding is that it is historically very low, the amount of requests. I think we also need to keep in mind, and correct me if I 

am wrong, but I believe that you are seeking 13 modules. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. That was the original schedule. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Last year, we went from $15 million to now $16.9 million. So the cost increases every year. We have got 

a lot of balls in the air in the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I am informed that there were 200,000 requests 

since Module 1 opened. The low number of requests is likely to increase because the first books that went out there were the ones 

least used. We weren’t sure we would get that kind of return. Because it is automated, because it is compacted stacks and you can 

do it in a different way than you can with fixed stacks, it is much 

more efficient in many respects, particularly as it grows. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I can appreciate that. 

STAFFING OF OFFICE OF OPPORTUNITY, INCLUSIVENESS AND

COMPLIANCE

Just shifting gears, we held the public witness hearing at the beginning of the hearing season this time so that we could be able 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
402 

to incorporate their concerns and comments into our budgetary decisions. I was glad to hear that the union representation at the Library is pleased with the Office of Opportunity, Inclusiveness and 

Compliance, that they are feeling like, compared to last year, OIC 

is on the right track, but they do still feel the office is understaffed. 

I wanted you to talk about, you have 12 FTEs that you received 

funding for. Where are we in terms of getting that office fully 

staffed? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I might pass that to our distinguished Chief Operating Officer because that is an area in which, actually, the first 

private money ever raised was to begin the program of leadership 

and development that would expand opportunity, but aggressive 

implementation and imaginative Library-wide activities have been 

run by Jo Ann Jenkins. 

Ms. JENKINS. Originally, the office had 19 FTEs. We had the IG 

do an audit, a management audit, of the office. We also went across 

the Federal Government to look at like agencies. What we found 

is that our office was about five or six FTEs more, funded at a 

higher level than all of the rest of the Federal Government agencies, and the right number they recommended was 12. We have 

funded the office at 12 level. There are still several vacancies to be 

filled in the office, but as part of the right sizing effort. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What is your timetable for reaching 

the 12? 

Ms. JENKINS. This year. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. This fiscal year or this year? 

Ms. JENKINS. This fiscal year. The Director has the positions and 

the money, and the positions are in the process of being posted 

right now. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Good work for improving the concerns that they definitely had 

last year. 

REQUEST FOR SUPERVISORY STAFF SUPPORT

There was concern expressed also in that same public witness 

hearing about the FTEs that were requested for supervisory staff 

support at the Library. And I will quote the Guild by telling you 

that they said they were skeptical about the request for more positions on the sixth floor of the Madison Building which moved paper 

from here to there. Typically, you have direct supervisory positions 

where this is not direct. This is indirect. So what is the purpose 

of those two FTEs, and what are they going to be doing? 

Ms. JENKINS. The purpose of the two FTEs is to support a development program for Library supervisory positions. Mandatory 

training for supervisors includes courses about union contracts, 

about life and safety issues, about sexual harassment. Service units 

don’t have the money in their budgets to cover that. These two 

FTEs are to support curriculum development for mandatory and 

Library-wide training and to staff this. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So it is more broad. 

Ms. JENKINS. It is for the entire Library. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
403 

OVERSEAS OFFICES: 

I will just ask, I am going to have a couple of questions about 

just what is going on with the overseas offices. I had an opportunity to visit the overseas office in Cairo in January. 

And I know, Dr. Billington, in the past you expressed concern 

about the ‘‘head tax,’’ so to speak, with the Capital Security CostSharing Program. Where are you now on that? You have got a $15 

million overseas budget, and $5 million of that is to cover the cost 

of that. So I can understand why you would be concerned, but has 

your opinion changed of that program? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Not really. 

Ms. JENKINS. No. I was going to say that we really believe that 

we get more than our money’s worth out of those overseas offices, 

but we have not received the exemption for us not to pay the rent. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do any other agencies get exemption? 

Ms. JENKINS. Not to my knowledge. 

OVERSEAS OFFICE SYSTEM REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT

Dr. BILLINGTON. The main thing we are concerned about this 

year in this regard is the upgrade of the information systems, because it is now 20-year-old technology. You never know when it is 

going to break down. These systems must be replaced. They can’t 

be upgraded and changed because they are completely out of sync 

with other technologies in use. And they are extraordinarily important in being able to catalog overseas acquisitions, not just for ourself but for all other research libraries and repositories in America. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We should also note, you have a small 

budget. You have small offices. 

Ms. JENKINS. That is one of our larger offices. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. What they do is they don’t just collect—— 

Dr. BILLINGTON. The importance of these offices is that they are 

only in areas where there is no developed book trade that you can 

deal with in a rational manner. For instance, the recovery in our 

normal collection process of, say, the operation of Osama bin 

Laden’s autobiography, it was a mimeographed copy that was 

picked up by one of the local employees sweeping through. They 

don’t just collect in one country. 

This is really, very important for the Nation, and it is important 

that we not have a breakdown in the ability to process this material, because it is catalogued in exotic languages by native speakers 

who are there. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I met your very enthusiastic director 

in Cairo. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Sorry. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No, don’t apologize. He was great. We 

got to see a lot of cool stuff. It was very good. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

FUNDING REQUEST FOR TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Mr. ADERHOLT. I understand the Library is requesting $2.7 million for five full-time employees for a Library-wide centralized 

training and development program. Could you just talk a little bit 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
404 

about that and what this would be focused on and what this would 

go toward? 

Ms. JENKINS. Well, the training and development program, the 

Supervisory Training and Development Program, is what Congressman Wasserman Schultz referred to earlier, which was the two 

FTEs to do mandatory supervisory training. The staff development 

program, which is the three FTEs, the large portion of that is to 

develop core competencies. You heard Dr. Billington talk a little 

earlier about the new digital competencies we were going to have 

to train staff across the agencies to learn. A large component of 

that request is for student loan repayment. I think well over half 

of that is to try to come up to standards of what the House itself 

is implementing for their employees around student loan repayment options. 

MERGER WITH CAPITOL POLICE

Mr. ADERHOLT. Six months ago, the Library Police merged with 

the Capitol Police, of course. In your opinion, how has the merger 

gone, and what role does the Library’s Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness play in all this? 

Ms. JENKINS. We believe that the merger has worked very well. 

We have been working very closely with the Capitol Police to address all of the Capitol Complex security concerns. The Office of Security now is focused on our emergency preparedness as we go 

through all of the emergency fire safety drills, weather-related security issues, as well as with collection security. But I think most 

would say that the police merger, once we got everything on the 

table, has worked fairly well. 

DIGITAL TALKING BOOK PROGRAM STATUS

Mr. ADERHOLT. Just quickly, the Digital Talking Book System, is 

it on track for completion for 2013, as I think it was estimated? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes, I believe we are on track toward completion. There was a slight manufacturer delay. It was partly handled 

with no year funds. Most of it is handled with year-by-year appropriation on the schedule that was agreed to. No year funds were 

important to give it the necessary flexibility. There was a manufacturer’s glitch that delayed it slightly, but by January 2010, all the 

funds were obligated. So we are fully on track. Kurt Cylke is the 

long-term manager of this. He may want to add something on this. 

Mr. CYLKE. We are absolutely on target. What Dr. Billington is 

referring to is the use of the no year money. The purpose of no year 

money is to be able to spend it not in one fiscal year but—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Could you state your name for the 

record? 

Mr. CYLKE. I am sorry. Kurt Cylke. 

We are manufacturing machines at the rate of 20,000 a month. 

They are getting a distribution rate from the libraries of higher 

than 95 percent. Books are going out. And we are on target and 

appreciate the money that was given. The community is very 

pleased. Of course, we are pleased as well. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. That has been resolved, the glitches? 

Mr. CYLKE. There were no glitches. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. The manufacturing delays. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
405 

Mr. CYLKE. In the manufacturing process, there is always a 

startup phase, as operations become standardized. We had a few 

issues to addresses. I don’t call them glitches. I just call them the 

natural process. We are in the manufacturing business. It took us 

6 months. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Your bumps. 

Mr. CYLKE. You can call them bumps, if you would like. That is 

all taken care of. The money is a hundred percent obligated. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

AQUISITIONS OF OVERSEAS OFFICES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. All right. According to GAO, Dr. 

Billington, the Library’s Washington, D.C., experts frequently responded, when they were surveyed by them that less than 50 percent of the acquisitions from a particular country were acquired by 

an overseas office. I am speaking as a supporter of the fact that 

you need overseas offices, but what is going on? Is there a disconnect between the Library in D.C. and the field offices? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Fifty percent of what? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In other words, let’s say Egypt. You 

have gotten, Africa and the Middle East, less than 50 percent—and 

I don’t know whether Egypt is the case, but less than 50 percent 

of the collection from Egypt comes from the overseas offices. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, it depends what you are talking about. 

Take the law. One of the most important responsibilities we have 

is for the Law Library of Congress, which handles international 

law requests. Something like 97 percent of the material acquired 

about indigenous laws and material of this kind from the Library 

come from the overseas offices. Most of what they get would be 

unobtainable by other means because the book trade is not sufficiently developed, sufficiently speedy, or sufficiently discriminatory 

in terms of what Americans would want to know and need to know 

to do it. So, really, it isn’t as if there is an alternative way of getting most of these books. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You don’t need to make a case to me 

about the need for overseas offices. I just don’t understand why the 

majority of a collection from a particular country would not be coming from the overseas office that covers that country; that you 

would be getting it from somewhere else. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Most foreign acquisitions are acquired by direct 

dealings either of exchange or purchase from book dealers. Our 

overseas offices are all in regions where there isn’t a fully developed commercial book trade that you can deal with, and where exchanges are not adequate or sufficient to assure us of getting all 

the things we need. So while, in certain instances this material 

might be obtainable in other ways, purchasing through dealers, 

when possible, is faster. In the important area of law, the field offices are not covering only the six countries where the offices are 

located. Each one has responsibility for different regions. They do 

sweeps through all of East Africa, Sub-Saharan and East Africa. 

The Cairo office for the Arab world; Islamabad covers much of Central Asia, Afghanistan. By the way, we have a unique Afghan exhibit up right now in the Library of Congress. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
406 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would like maybe a more clear answer just as to why. I mean, I understand the purpose of the overseas offices, but it would seem to me—I mean, if you asked me logically whether the majority of the collection from a particular country came from an overseas office or somewhere else, I mean, that 

would be part of the justification I think you would be making for 

having an overseas office. It is hard to understand why the majority of the collection isn’t—— 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Maybe you could—— 

Ms. MARCUM. Deanna Marcum. I think the survey you referred 

to looks at all the international collections. We have only six overseas offices. So we are getting materials from all parts of the world, 

some through regular means and these very special circumstances 

in our overseas offices. The exchange programs for the overseas offices are also very important. We get a lot of material directly 

through government agencies from exchange programs that 

wouldn’t be included in the overseas offices. But I will be happy to 

give you—we are working on a report right now looking at alternatives to the overseas offices, and I will be happy to share that 

information. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. That would be great. 

COPYRIGHT PROCESSING BACKLOG

On the copyright backlog, which I know is the bane of your existence—it is close to the bane of mine, so I can only imagine what 

it is for you—there has been somewhat of a drop from last year, 

but there is a dispute, apparently, over what the actual backlog is. 

The Library of Congress shows the backlog at just about 400,000, 

and Library’s Professional Guild has the backlog at about 500,000. 

I understand the discrepancy is apparently in the way in which you 

are now counting the backlog. You are not counting things that are 

in the pipeline that you are waiting to receive information from. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. It is a different means of computation. It is not 

necessarily a conflict. We do not include those things which we 

have already taken action on and that are in process; in other 

words, we are already in correspondence with or processing what 

has been submitted. Sometimes we need a second copy. Sometimes 

we need more information. Sometimes funding wasn’t correctly 

done. But if it is being in the process of being done, we don’t count 

that as part of the backlog. I think the Guild did. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is a 100,000-case difference. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, we can itemize it if you want. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would just like your analysis. 

Mr. BILLINGTON. I got very concerned late in the year that we 

weren’t making progress, and therefore I took the authority which 

this committee has very kindly, generously, extended to divert to 

other parts of the Library—we have created a task force of 50 people who worked intensively for a period of time. We negotiated and 

made sure it was understood and coordinated with the Guild and 

so forth. That has been very successful. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is that still ongoing? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. We foresee this whole thing being clear to what 

we call normal level, perhaps 150,000, by the end of 2011. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good. That is great. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
407 

MANDATORY PAY REQUIREMENTS

My last question for the Library of Congress, you cited in your 

remarks a reference to $5 million as mandatory pay. Mandatory is 

in the eyes of the beholder. So is all of that funding actually mandatory? There is no law that says you have to provide with in-grade 

increases and pay increases in fiscal year 2011, correct? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I suppose technically there is no direct law that 

says that, but it is the considered opinion of our general counsel 

that this is a requirement. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Whose requirement? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, it is a requirement on us to do this. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It might be a responsibility. It isn’t a 

requirement, per se. It doesn’t meet the strict definition of mandatory. I know that is the phrase that is used by the agencies. But 

it technically does not meet the dictionary definition of mandatory. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Okay. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But it doesn’t mean that I don’t think 

it is necessary; it just means that it is not mandatory. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, I think we almost invariably have put sustaining the recompense to our staff as a top priority. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is a top priority. But I just want to 

make sure that you understand where the policymaking ends. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. We will prioritize that. We will get a full response including citations from our legal staff. 

[Additional information on mandatory pay follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
408 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 834 here 56678B.085
409 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 835 here 56678B.086
410 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 836 here 56678B.087
411 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 837 here 56678B.088
412 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 838 here 56678B.089
413 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 839 here 56678B.090
414 

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

ACQUISITION COSTS

And before we conclude, I have some homework for the Library. 

I know you are reviewing your acquisitions policy. Some of the 

largest requests like Storage Module 5 are to deal with your space 

issues. Central to dealing with the Library space problem is the direct relationships with the amount of material that you acquire. I 

would like you to provide the subcommittee with data on the 

amount of acquisitions for the past 5 years, the types of information required, the goal of the acquisition policy, the types of information required, the goal of the acquisition policy review and the 

expected completion date of the review. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The Library provided additional information as 

follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
415 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 842 here 56678B.091
416 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 843 here 56678B.092
417 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Dr. Billington. 

And we can turn to Open World. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Thank you very much. And let me thank you 

again, Ranking Member Aderholt, for your not only backing, but 

embodying—— 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Well, everybody at the Library has—— 

Dr. BILLINGTON. It is being expanded upon, so—even as we 

speak—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is exciting. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. So, it has been successful then? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Also we have lowered the age limit. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. So our consciousness has been raised. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Fantastic. You have your own personal lobbying team. 

The subcommittee stands in recess, and we will begin to resume 

after the vote. We will stand in recess until the end of this series 

of votes. 

[Recess.] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
418 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 845 here 56678B.093
419 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 846 here 56678B.094
420 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 847 here 56678B.095
421 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 848 here 56678B.096

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(423) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010. 

OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER 

WITNESS 

JOHN O’KEEFE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP 

CENTER 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I call the committee back to order. 

The next agency is Open World, and we have your 2011 budget 

request, which is $2 million more than the fiscal year 2010 budget. 

That is a huge increase, particularly given the fiscal constraints we 

are operating under. Our subcommittee’s stated goal has been that 

we would begin to wean you off your reliance on legislative branch 

funding, so it is somewhat difficult for me to understand why you 

have asked for $2 million more in funding. But I am not sure, Dr. 

Billington, are you going to make—— 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I may have something brief at the end. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Amb. O’Keefe, we are here to 

listen to your budget request presentation, and I am sure we will 

have a couple of questions. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I just want to say welcome to the Ambassador, 

and we look forward to your comments this afternoon. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You can proceed, Ambassador, with 5 

minutes for your statement, and your full statement will be entered 

into the record. 

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR JOHN O’KEEFE

Amb. O’KEEFE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Mr. 

Aderholt. And thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Open 

World Leadership Center’s fiscal year 2011 budget request. As a 

unique congressional center and resource, Open World is the dynamic catalyst for hundreds of international projects and partnerships that constituents have developed with emerging leaders from 

the countries of Eurasia. 

CONSTITUENT DRIVEN PROGRAMS

More than 6,000 volunteer American families in all 50 States 

have hosted 15,500 young professionals. Seventy-five percent of 

Open World’s fiscal year 2009 appropriated funds were expended 

on U.S.-based goods and services. Our U.S. hosts immersed these 

professionals in American life and values, contributing an estimated $1.9 million in cost shares in 2009. American volunteer 

hosts have stepped forward keeping the demand for the 2010 visitors at nearly triple the supply. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
424 

DOUBLING THE NUMBER OF CONGRESSIONAL MEETINGS

Thanks to the committee’s guidance, in 2010 we have significantly changed our work with Members of Congress. We have more 

than doubled the number of Open World delegates’ meetings with 

Congress, involving half of our program participants now. 

DRAFTING A MORE LEGISLATIVELY-ORIENTED STRATEGIC PLAN

The Open World Board of Trustees has directed the center to 

draft a new strategic plan with goals that will engage Members of 

Congress and their constituents even more. We bring people from 

all 83 regions of Russia, all parts of Ukraine, from the Caucasus 

and Central Asia. They now constitute 10 percent of the Russian 

Duma, one-third of the Council of Judges, and are engines for 

change in fields from education to medicine. One example in the security field, a Georgian delegate who, drawing on his Open World 

experience, drafted a bill on cybersecurity, was then promoted to 

be his country’s first cybersecurity czar. He is now in contact with 

experts he met on Open World at the Department of Homeland Security to craft a strategy to thwart cyberattacks on his country. 

EFFICIENCY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS

Open World offers an extraordinary bang for the buck in terms 

of efficiency, cost-effectiveness and value. The center boasts an 

overhead rate of about 7 percent, and every grant contains costshared elements. Unfortunately, to keep costs down, I have had to 

let go one of our nine staff here in Washington. 

Funding at the level requested by the Board will enable the Center to resume its important nonproliferation program, bringing nuclear experts to enhance working relationships not covered by other 

programs. We will expand to Armenia, Uzbekistan and Belarus, 

and will fund a full-time development expert. With your support, 

Americans in hundreds of congressional districts throughout the 

United States will engage a promising new generation of political 

and civic leaders, parliamentarians, mayors, environmentalists, 

anti-human trafficking activists in a dialogue that has doubled the 

number, for example, of Rotary Clubs throughout the region, and 

created 20 sister courts. 

This unprecedented congressional program has proven to be an 

exciting vehicle to linking grassroots professionals and emerging 

leaders. It furthers the effort to create more transparent and accountable governments and expands cooperative arrangements between America and Eurasia. 

I would also like to mention my staff is here, some of them: Jane 

Sargus, our financial management officer; Chang Suh, Congressional Liaison, and from Russia, stranded here in Washington now, 

Alex Khilkov. 

Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Aderholt. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Ambassador. 

[Mr. O’Keefe’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
425 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 854 here 56678B.097
426 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 855 here 56678B.098
427 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 856 here 56678B.099
428 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 857 here 56678B.100
429 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 858 here 56678B.101
430 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 859 here 56678B.102
431 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 860 here 56678B.103
432 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 861 here 56678B.104
433 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 862 here 56678B.105
434 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 863 here 56678B.106
435 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We are in a very difficult fiscal year, 

as you know, more difficult than most. We have asked each agency 

to give us a flat budget proposal and how that would leave them. 

How much of your requested increase is required to maintain the 

program at the current level, and how much is the new, expanded 

efforts? 

FLAT BUDGET SCENARIO

Amb. O’KEEFE. We can do the program at this year’s funding 

level with a reduction of about 4 percent of participants. The reduction is because of increased airfare and higher contract costs, just 

to get them from here to there. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So all of your—— 

Amb. O’KEEFE. The 2 million is to do those things that I said, 

the development person, the expansion to strategically important 

countries to the United States, and to reinstate the program bringing these nuclear experts over. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. To reinstate a program—— 

Amb. O’KEEFE. We brought individuals from Russian nuclear 

labs and facilities that store plutonium and highly enriched uranium. And last year we had a breakthrough. Rosatom, which controls all of these facilities, would not participate in any embassy 

programs, but they decided to join our program. Unfortunately, we 

can’t do it this year because it is very expensive. It is almost twice 

the cost of our other programs. So we had to cut. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Your budget materials indicate a reduction in FTEs from 11 to 10 FTEs, but you don’t indicate a reason or the projected savings from that reduction. Can you explain 

the change? 

REDUCTION IN FTES

Amb. O’KEEFE. The reduction from 11 to 10 happened this year, 

and we had a 14 percent decrease in our budget from the previous 

year. And so we entered the year with that number of FTE, but 

in March I had to eliminate a person to make it through. So for 

next year we are going to have one less than we started with. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. We have worked with you over 

the last several fiscal years to try to push you to begin to find resources in other places. Can you tell us what commitments Open 

World has received this year for funding from nonlegislative branch 

sources, public or private? 

GIFTS AND DONATIONS

Amb. O’KEEFE. Yes, ma’am. Just to frame the answer, last year 

we received gifts of $413,000. This year we are projecting $620,000. 

So we have upped it somewhat. Our projections for 2011, to be very 

frank, are $325,000 right now. We are hoping the person we have 

working with us on our development strategy will create successes 

on our grant proposals. In addition to which, this year we did get 

$100,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts for cultural 

programs, which I do not believe we will have next year. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Why is your projection for funding 

$300,000 less for this fiscal year? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
436 

Amb. O’KEEFE. It is funds that have already been committed. In 

other words, it is donors who are giving over a 3-year period. And 

this is either the second or the third tranche. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. This past fall you informed us that 

the Board was examining a new plan for diverse funding. Is that 

a plan that has been approved by the Board? And if it has, can you 

provide us with an update? 

PLAN FOR DIVERSIFIED FUNDING

Amb. O’KEEFE. Yes, ma’am. The outline of the plan has been 

given to the Board, and it involves three rubrics. The first would 

be foundations, and part of that plan is to submit grant proposals. 

We have put in three so far, with separate organizations. 

The second part is to seek funds from corporate donors. I am a 

little new to this process, but the development of a relation to a 

corporation is one that is in stages. I think first they have to see 

what it means to their bottom line, why would I want to give to 

this organization, how does it help my corporation, and what is it 

doing in a region in Russia or the Caspian. And then we need to 

do a small program so that their confidence is built, and then we 

can move to a bigger program. So that is a process. 

And then the third is individual givers, and that is individuals 

who are excited about Open World and introduce their friends to 

it, and we hope they get excited, too. 

So those are the three areas we are working on. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And you have hired the development 

consultant, as you just mentioned? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. For 6 months. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And that person is working with you 

currently? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. At this very moment. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And have they yielded any resources? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. Not yet. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do they have a plan that they are 

working off of? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. The development person wrote up the grant proposals. She is with an individual visiting from Russia right now, 

going to various corporations in and around here and in Maryland, 

kind of working on who we can approach. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is this a full-time staff member? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. Four days a week. And it is a contractor. So we 

contracted for so many hours and so much delivered. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Generally a development officer or development staffer would work off of a plan, an overall goal, a budget. Do you have something that she is working off of that helps you 

know what your goal is and how she is getting there? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. I can provide you the contract that we had for 

her and the deliverables. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, if you could provide that for the 

record, that would be helpful. 

Amb. O’KEEFE. I will do that. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Additional information provided by Open World 

follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
437 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 869 here 56678B.107
438 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 870 here 56678B.108
439 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But continue. 

Amb. O’KEEFE. Okay. The main thing we need is for us to have 

our own capacity to do this. And so part of what she has to do is 

train us. She also has to flesh out our general plan into, just as 

you say, a development plan that has stages, has goals, has work 

that we have to get done. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is part of her contract to write such 

a plan? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. I don’t have any other questions. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Of course, I know we have talked about in the 

past about the Open World Leadership program is different from 

a lot of other programs, the exchange program that is out there. 

Just briefly just remind the committee, the subcommittee, how it 

is different here as opposed to other programs that may be already 

in place in other facets of the Federal Government. 

HOW OPEN WORLD SERVES CONGRESS

Amb. O’KEEFE. Yes, sir. I think the first factor is the fact that 

we are here in the legislative branch serving Congress. And one of 

the things that the chair last year mentioned was the number of 

exchange programs. I checked on these programs, not simply ones 

for Russia, but all over, and how many agencies had them. There 

are over 200 exchange programs associated with various government agencies. Congress has such tremendous oversight responsibilities. We at least provide what every other agency with much 

less responsibility has. So, for example, if a Member of Congress 

had a particular interest in a region, we are bringing people who 

can fill in the gaps as it were. 

I think the second part is that we are, as you know, very oriented towards constituents, very oriented towards civic organizations. And as you know very well, civic organizations build communities, and through our grantmaking process we keep these viable. 

And that is, I think, particularly helpful. 

The third thing is that because we do the home stays, because 

we are very oriented towards these civic groups, because we bring 

professionals to link with other professionals, we are not giving an 

agenda. People who go through this program come back with a 

much more positive view of the United States because they are 

with people who have the same issues, the same problems. It is a 

powerful tool from that standpoint. 

And I think lastly, as I mentioned before, we are very cost-efficient. And part of it is that we are modest in size, and we will stay 

that way. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. You mentioned the home stays. Is that different 

from most other programs? Or how does that compare to other programs? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. For most other programs, there are no home 

stays. There is one program called Community Connections that 

does have some home stays associated with it. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. But by and large, they are usually not? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. No, sir. No other ones that I know of. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
440 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I noticed in your testimony where you had talked 

about the strategic plan to expand to Armenia, Uzbekistan and 

Belarus. Tell us a little bit about that, what the Board envisions 

in trying to expand in that region. 

IMPORTANCE OF THE REGION

Amb. O’KEEFE. Uzbekistan is fairly critical. And we just looked 

at the events in Kyrgyzstan in the last 2 weeks. There is an airbase there that is very critical to our operations in Afghanistan, 

and there used to be one in Uzbekistan, but it was closed in 2005. 

These countries are ruled by individuals who have been in power 

for many years. They are in their seventies. There will be a transition. And by moving into a place like Uzbekistan, which is the most 

populous country in Central Asia, traditionally the leader—although Kazakhstan has taken that over somewhat—I believe that 

we can—and the Board believes that it is important to start bringing this next generation here to expose them to the United States, 

because there really hasn’t been very much of that exchange lately. 

Even though the executive branch might have some problems with 

exchanges because we are, as I mentioned, part of the leg branch, 

we can operate more easily in these kinds of environment. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And was I correct in saying those were the three 

countries that you are looking at, Armenia, Uzbekistan and 

Belarus? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. Yes, sir. Again, the strategic plan called for going 

to all countries of the former Soviet Union. Belarus lies between 

Russia and Poland, just south of Lithuania. It has been closed to 

Western influence by and large. And in talking with people at the 

embassy, they are frankly desperate for a program. I did tell them 

that if we started it, they would have to pay for half of it, mindful 

of the chair’s desire to spread out our funding. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. You said Belarus? Is that what you said? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Do we have an ambassador over there at this 

time? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. No, we only have a charge. The ambassador and 

almost all the staff were tossed out about 3 years ago. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. That is what I was thinking. That is still the current situation. 

Amb. O’KEEFE. They only have 5 U.S. staff there right now. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. All right. That is all I have now. 

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

Amb. O’KEEFE. Thank you, ma’am. 

OBSERVATIONS OF BOARD CHAIRMAN DR. JAMES BILLINGTON

Dr. BILLINGTON. Let me just add maybe a couple of words, 

Madam Chair, just briefly. First of all, I think that the Board is 

very mindful of your concerns and the committee’s concerns, and 

that we will, of course, honor and respect whatever your decisions 

are. And I think the Board fully recognizes that. They did, however, feel obligated to report, and persuaded that I should deliver 

to you what they actually recommended on the basis of the rather 

remarkable things they have done. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
441 

And I would add to that my personal judgment, having been involved both as an administrator and as a participant. I was chairman of the board of the Fulbright program for a number of years 

when we introduced American studies for the first time into Russia. And I think from the long-term perspective—Open World has 

been as effective as any exchange program, international exchange 

program, that I have been involved in or know about over more 

than half a century now. And I do think that it has been rather 

distinctive in having an already measurable long-term effect on the 

development of an accountable and participatory government and 

a more open and transparent society than any other exchange program that I have known, as evidenced by the celebrations all over 

Russia by the alumni of this program. 

And there are other statistics that we could get into, numbers in 

Duma, numbers on the two top Supreme Courts. Therefore something is happening from the bottom up. So I think it is an extremely important thing. 

And on the fundraising issue, I have been involved in that myself, and so have other members of the Board. The difficulty has 

been that the business community has not seen—have not had— 

how shall we say—advanced our ventures in the Russian area. I 

think that is beginning to change a little bit. I think relations have 

improved. I think this is particularly good orchestration for—and 

people in the administration who are—who see, who have—this is 

a good background for expanded understanding of our country. 

The most interesting thing about this in terms of all other exchange programs in the Soviet Union and Russia and all other 

countries that form the Soviet Union, everyone has gone back. 

These are young people who are going back and doing something 

in society and beginning to move from the regions that they came 

from into the central Duma, the central courts and so forth. So it 

is a very unique and interesting phenomenon. 

I think I met recently with the head of the American Chamber 

of Commerce in Moscow, and I think they were closer to seeing better prospects. So we have dialogue going with quite a number of 

possible sources, and I hope personally that we will be able to bring 

you a better scoreboard for the private sector. 

And I also note that in light of the Forbes list, the number of 

Russian oligarchs with substantial funds has noticeably increased 

and have been involved in discussions. In fact, when I spoke at the 

dedication of the new library system, which I am advising, I am 

sort of designated by our respective Presidents to expand the dialogue that we have had with this new Presidential leverage system, 

and President Medvedev said to me since I spoke after him—it was 

a dedication in St. Petersburg, which is a good sign—the more 

things you give up, just centralization in Moscow, and connecting 

electronics, and they have studied very closely a lot of things we 

do, and he said that he embraced this program with both arms. 

And what is interesting about it is that it is really a new generation of people who are very, very different; 50 percent of them are 

women—a little more than 50 percent. And that reflects the totally 

different complexion of the post-Soviet, post-Communist generation. 

That has never before happened in Russian history. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
442 

So I hope we can give you better results, and I am sure I speak 

for the Board in saying that, but I did feel we should report to you 

what they had said. We appreciate everything you do and have 

done and may need to do. But I just wanted to—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I can appreciate and I know that this 

is a program that you are very supportive of, but this fiscal year 

is an example of the reasons why the last few years I have been 

urging you to begin to find other resources, because of the things 

that we have to fund in the legislative branch. This is not in the 

job description of the legislative branch. This is the only program 

we fund, the only one, and it is an expensive one relative to our 

overall budget. So had you been more aggressive about weaning 

yourself off of your dependence on the legislative branch funding, 

you would not be facing as difficult a time in getting the resources 

that you need in this fiscal year. 

So we are going to do the best we can. That is all I can commit 

to you. So thank you very much. 

Amb. O’KEEFE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(443) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 2010. 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WITNESS 

ROBERT C. TAPELLA, PUBLIC PRINTER OF THE UNITED STATES 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIR WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. We now move on to the Government Printing Office. Mr. Tapella, welcome back. The Government Printing Office is requesting $167 million in fiscal year 2011. That is a 13 percent increase over last year’s enacted 

level. Again, we are going to face a tough budget year, and we are 

sorting through the ‘‘got to haves’’ versus the ‘‘nice to haves.’’ I 

know that you have challenges with your technological and workforce change, and I want to make sure you have the resources that 

you need to manage those transitions. We would love to hear in 

your remarks about how you are modernizing your business processes and adapting your workforce to keep up with the changing 

requirements. And if you can also give us an update, which we 

have talked about before, on how you are addressing discrimination, police personnel and facilities maintenance issues. Your full 

written statement will be entered into the record. And after Mr. 

Aderholt speaks, you can proceed for 5 minutes. 

OPENING REMARKS—MR. ADERHOLT

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. And welcome back to the subcommittee. I was pleased we got to speak last week. Again, thank 

you for your service. I know you have served, I guess, around 5 

years now? 

Mr. TAPELLA. No. Three years as Public Printer. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Three years. And then, of course, I know over a 

decade as a professional House staffer. Even when I came here, you 

were a young professional staff member in the House of Representatives. So I commend you for your work that you have done on the 

Federal level, and especially in the Federal Digital System. So a lot 

of things have taken place under your reins over at the Government Printing Office. 

So anyway, I look forward to hearing your testimony and the 

progress that GPO has made in the past year. 

OPENING REMARKS—PUBLIC PRINTER TAPELLA

Mr. TAPELLA. Thank you. Madam Chair, Mr. Aderholt, thank you 

for inviting me here today to discuss GPO’s appropriations request 

for fiscal year 2011. I have submitted my prepared statement for 

the record, and I will just make a few brief remarks to allow plenty 

of time for questions. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
444 

First off, on behalf of GPO’s 2,300 employees, I want to begin by 

thanking the Subcommittee for supporting our appropriations request for fiscal year 2010. It was a great help to us. 

For fiscal year 2011, we are requesting a modest increase of 3 

percent for our Congressional Printing and Binding funds to cover 

projected volume requirements for a first session year. 

For our Superintendent of Documents programs, we need to fund 

mandatory wage and price level requirements, ongoing projects 

supporting depository libraries, and operating expenses for the 

Federal Digital System that are attributable to this program. For 

this account we have about $1.5 million available in prior year 

unspent funds that could be transferred forward with your approval. The transfer would reduce our requirement for new funds 

to an increase of only 4 percent. 

For our revolving fund, we are seeking an addition to working 

capital that would cover a range of investments in IT, continuity 

of operations, facility repair, and workforce retraining projects. 

In view of the state of the economy and the constraints on the 

Federal budget, we fully understand there are limitations on what 

the Subcommittee can recommend for us. While not specified as 

such in our original submission, I consider it a top priority among 

our two projects to complete the work on a full-system failover capability for FDsys, a need that was accurately pointed out by Mary 

Alice Baish during the public hearings before this Subcommittee in 

February. 

REMARKS ON GPO SECURITY SERVICES

I would like to conclude by briefly discussing security services of 

the Government Printing Office, the other topic of the public hearing in February. I made a commitment to professionalize security 

services at the Government Printing Office, and during my tenure 

as the Public Printer, we did that. GPO security services have a 

risk management approach that links threats and vulnerabilities to 

resource requirements, human capital, and technology plans to 

meet the identified risks, and proper oversight and regular validation of our contract officer program. 

Our security services have a very different role than a traditional 

police force or even the United States Capitol Police. We have on 

average 1,000 employees in our facility at any given time, and we 

average less than 50 visitors each business day. 

To build a professional force, we increased the standard rate of 

pay for our sworn officers by more than 40 percent, putting our salary on par with other professional law enforcement organizations, 

and changed their role from security guard to law enforcement professional. 

We complement the sworn officers with contracted special police 

officers based on the requirements of each post. These contracted 

officers are closely managed. We conduct weekly exercises to test 

and evaluate the contract officers’ ability to detect prohibited items. 

There are now performance plans for every sworn officer written to 

specific law enforcement duties and responsibilities. Seventeen of 

the thirty-nine sworn officers have received cash awards for outstanding performance based on these new responsibilities. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
445 

During my tenure as Public Printer, funding for security services has risen from $5.2 million per year to $9.9 million. Training dollars per employee have gone from $330 to $857. We have modernized equipment, technologies, and resources. We have purchased 

new Glock 40s for our sworn officers to replace the outdated and 

hand-me-down SIG 9-millimeters they once carried. All officers now 

communicate through new digital Motorola radios and base stations staffed by professional dispatchers. We have new X-ray and 

magnetometer equipment at all access control points. We have new 

alarm and closed-circuit television systems monitored from a control room. We have two new police vehicles, new police badges, new 

uniforms, including an optional Class B utility uniform, new personal protective equipment, and defensive tactics gear. 

I welcome any independent qualified review of what we do and 

how we do it. We have been reviewed by the Government Accountability Office, the Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service, and GPO’s own inspector general. In fact, the GAO, in its report to this committee last May, said GPO generally conforms to 

the key practices in Government facility protection. I have read 

hundreds, if not thousands, of GAO reports in my career, and that 

is about as good as it gets from the GAO. 

One final note. This is going to be another tough year for GPO, 

as it is for agencies and businesses across America. We are continuing to cut costs and scale back expenditures to ensure we live 

within our budget. Last year, with your understanding and support, we finished on a sound financial basis, generating a modest 

net income before other operating expenses. We are targeting similar financial performance this year, positive but modest. 

Madam Chair, Mr. Aderholt, this concludes my opening remarks, 

and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank 

you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. 

[Mr. Tapella’s prepared statement follows:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
446 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 886 here 56678B.109
447 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 887 here 56678B.110
448 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 888 here 56678B.111
449 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 889 here 56678B.112
450 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 890 here 56678B.113
451 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 891 here 56678B.114
452 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 892 here 56678B.115
453 

WORKFORCE DIVERSITY AND EEO

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We have been discussing with you 

workforce diversity and your anti-discrimination policies. You 

didn’t really touch on that in your opening remarks. Ensuring that 

you have a reduction in the amount of discrimination complaints 

that are filed is an important priority of the Committee. When I 

met with you a couple of weeks ago, you mentioned that you had 

made some progress on recruiting or promoting women to the nonexecutive supervisory levels of the white-collar workforce. What 

steps have you taken to address diversity problems? And what policies, practices or other actions have had the most significant impact? 

Mr. TAPELLA. In terms of actual practices, we just submitted our 

quarterly report to this Subcommittee on our actions. We now have 

an EEO and a discriminatory harassment class. I participate in the 

beginning of every single one of those, as do my other senior managers. We have conducted group focus meetings with employees 

and supervisors. We have been conducting semiannual reviews 

with every single business unit. We are participating in new employee orientation to brief new employees on the policies and procedures relative to EEO. My EEO Director and Assistant Director 

personally review all allegations of discrimination at the informal 

stage to assess whether there might be an opportunity for early 

resolution. And as you will see in the report we just submitted as 

of March 31st, in fiscal year 2009, there were 50 complaints filed; 

as of March 31st fiscal year 2010, 25. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Have you addressed this issue with 

nonsupervisory white-collar workers and executives? 

Mr. TAPELLA. I am sorry? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Have you addressed the issue in a supervisory white-collar group? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But have you done it with nonsupervisory, nonwhite-collar employees? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Not directly, because, in fact, in most of those positions it is a majority minority or other protected classes that are 

in those positions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Mr. TAPELLA. I am sorry. I am trying to understand your question. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You have white collar; not white, but 

white collar. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Correct. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And then you have nonwhite-collar, 

nonsupervisory positions. Have you addressed diversity and this 

EEO training with that population of employees as well? 

Mr. TAPELLA. We have with new employees. I actually need to 

check on that because I don’t know if we have mandated that for 

all employees. 

Paul, did we mandate that? 

PAUL ERICKSON. [Deputy Public Printer]. We started with the 

management level, and we haven’t taken it down to the lower levels yet. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
454 

Mr. TAPELLA. The first phase, we started with executives. The 

next phase, we started with the white-collar supervisors, and then 

we did all supervisors. That includes the blue-collar supervisors. 

We have not brought it completely down to every single employee 

to have mandatory classroom training. That is the next phase. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What is the timetable for that? 

Mr. TAPELLA. I believe that is scheduled for the next fiscal year. 

WORKFORCE PREPAREDNESS FOR TECHNOLOGY CHANGES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Thank you. 

You have a lot of your workforce that is either eligible for retirement or approaching eligibility. And then you have changing technologies that change job requirements and staffing needs. How is 

the impending large retirement bubble in your agency and technological transitions that are being made going to coincide? 

Mr. TAPELLA. We are anticipating in this fiscal year approximately 160 employees leaving the agency, and that is kind of our 

average transition. And it has been our historic average other than 

those years when we did a buyout, dating back about 5 years ago. 

One of the things that we are seeing, is that with the change in 

the economy, many of our employees who we thought might be retiring have decided to continue working longer. As we look at the 

technology changes, last year we requested money for the composition system replacement, as we are this year. We are also asking 

money for the advanced printing technology assessment. And we 

are trying to bring technology into place to address the issue as 

employees start to retire so that we do not have to backfill positions unnecessarily. And, in fact—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are doing it by attrition? 

Mr. TAPELLA. We are doing it by attrition. Absolutely. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And not hiring new replacements? 

Mr. TAPELLA. We are only hiring replacements when absolutely 

necessary. There are particular categories; for example, proofreaders, those we are continuing to hire. There are certain bookbinders that we are continuing to hire because they are in our security and intelligence document business. But a manager who 

loses an employee through attrition does not automatically get that 

head count back. It is being managed by Paul Erickson, the Deputy 

Public Printer. And, in fact, last year we only backfilled half of the 

slots that we lost, and that is part of the reason why GPO has been 

able to maintain its positive financial structure. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My time has expired. 

FEDERAL DIGITAL SYSTEM

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. I mentioned the Federal Digital System in 

my comments earlier. Of course, it is a multimillion-dollar effort 

that you are funding and managing to modernize GPO information, 

collection process and dissemination capabilities. The program was 

deployed, I understand, in January of 2009. Your budget request 

for the Federal Digital System is 6 million for fiscal year 2011. 

Could you give the subcommittee just a little overview of how that 

is perceived? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Yes. We officially launched in March of 2009. We 

did a soft launch in January of 2009. To date, we have spent apVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:21 Jun 30, 2010 Jkt 056678 PO 00000 Frm 00454 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A678P2.XXX A678P2

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
455 

proximately a grand total of $37.5 million on the Federal Digital 

System with a projection of $41 million by the end of FY 2010. By 

that time, approximately $27 million has come from appropriated 

funds. The remainder of the money has come out of our revolving 

fund through retained earnings. 

The system is progressing. In fact, this past April 7th, I held a 

public program review where we brought in the key stakeholders, 

which includes the Library community as represented by the chair 

of my Depository Library Council, as well as the incoming chair of 

the Depository Library Council; the Office of the Federal Register, 

which plays a critical role on behalf of the executive branch and 

the work that we are doing for this Administration; and our own 

Library Services and Content Management Group, which is kind of 

one of the customers of the Federal Digital System. We had our 

folks lay out the good, the bad, and the ugly. And I would say that 

we are a little behind schedule from where we would like to be. A 

lot of that has to do with two critical factors. One had to do with 

the master integrator that we needed to curtail. That was one of 

the first things I did as Public Printer. The second issue is that 

with this new Administration, there was a significant priority on 

open and transparent government, and we were asked if we could 

participate in helping them work on some very specific initiatives 

related to the Federal Register. So we have done that. 

GPO’S BUILDING NO. 4

Mr. ADERHOLT. The passport operation, I understand there is a 

$2 million request to move it from Building 4 into the main GPO 

building complex. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Yes. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What is involved in this effort? 

Mr. TAPELLA. What we are interested in doing is, as both you 

and the Chair have seen our passport operation, it sits as an island 

unto itself. When I became Public Printer, one of my highest priorities was seeing if we could get legislation to allow us to build a 

new factory. That got nowhere because of the $400 million hit on 

the budget score by CBO. 

And at that point we began assessing what we could do with our 

current facility, and, as such, we have now commissioned a complete assessment of our current facility looking at everything in 

Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4 and seeing if there are ways that we can 

consolidate. If we could move the passport operation out of what we 

call Building 4 completely, we could reduce overhead by about $6 

million. 

And so that is one of the things that we are absolutely looking 

at. We are also looking at what could be done with that building 

if we no longer needed it, and that deals with the utilities. In particular, we are running into an issue as the State Department has 

put in some new requests in terms of what we are doing with the 

passports, we don’t have enough power going into that building to 

meet all of the future needs of the passport lines. The question 

then becomes do we invest in another power substation, which 

could be in the multimillions of dollars, or do we look at an alternative that would allow us to more wisely use that money? And so 

that is what we are looking at. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
456 

Mr. ADERHOLT. What is the long-range plans for Building 4? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Until we have the study and we know exactly what 

it is, I don’t think I could accurately answer that. But it would 

seem likely, based on the space available in other portions of our 

facility, that we may very well be able to move the passport operation into a new location, properly secured within the main perimeter, and could literally, I suppose, mothball the building or turn 

it over for some other uses. Right now at least a third of the building, if not closer to half of the building, is actually used by other 

leg branch agencies on an approved space-sharing basis for storage 

and some other purposes, and we would certainly be looking at that 

as an option. In fact, I have had discussions with the Architect of 

the Capitol and the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate to do just that. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you. 

PASSPORT REVENUES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Just focusing on passport revenues, you received pretty substantial revenues from passports in the past, and there has been fluctuations in the revenue that you receive. How has that fluctuation 

impacted your ability to take on large program initiatives where 

you have got shared services like accounting, security and—— 

Mr. TAPELLA. Well, we now have a very comprehensive memorandum of understanding with the Department of State. We had a 

memorandum of understanding on the electronic passports, but 

there were a few things that were a little vague, including when 

they would be placing the order, what numbers, and what they 

would have to guarantee. We now have a program where there are 

deadlines in place, and they have to make a commitment for the 

next fiscal year. And they will be doing it this summer well in advance of the fiscal year. 

And what happened last year, is about halfway through the fiscal 

year, they significantly reduced the number of passports they wanted, which put GPO in a tremendous financial bind. And yet we 

were still able to end the fiscal year with $1.234 million in retained 

earnings. And I think that was just a tribute to the fabulous work 

of the men and women in the GPO, that halfway through the year 

they were literally able to squeeze roughly $60 million out of the 

operating budget, and we had very minimal impact on our operations. 

Moving forward, we now have a commitment in advance, and the 

State Department has given us a proposed number. We have given 

them a proposed price based on that number. They will come back 

this summer with a final number, and we will give them a final 

price for passports. So we will know well in advance of the fiscal 

year what the demand is going to be. 

In terms of the shared services, when we look at the Government 

Printing Office and the investments that we have asked Congress 

to make—and, in fact, last year Congress did help us fund our Oracle financial initiatives, what we are calling GBIS, the GPO Business Information System—as we start to bring on line financial 

systems and other back-office functions with technology, we can 

more easily handle the fluctuations in products and services. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
457 

As sort of a follow-up to that, while passports are important, one 

of our other growth businesses is in the area of other secure IDs. 

We are producing the Trusted Traveler cards for the Department 

of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection. It looks 

like we are going to be doing some more work for the State Department with a different unit other than Consular Affairs for some 

credentials. We produced the credential for the President’s inaugural. We produced a credential, a law enforcement credential, for 

IGs in government. We are very, very focused on trying to broaden 

revenues on things that are inherently governmental, such as secure Federal credentials. 

ERRORS ON APPROPRIATIONS PRINTS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Just very quickly, there has been a number of notable errors on 

a number of appropriations prints from last year. And those led to 

star prints, which are reprintings that have a black star. Have you 

taken immediate steps to address that problem? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Yes, ma’am. And, in fact—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And what are they so that they don’t 

happen again? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Absolutely. Well, first of all, let me begin. Star 

prints are generally caused by human error. As we look at the 

causes of the four appropriations star prints, there is no common 

factor in any of the four star prints that were made. Contributing 

to this problem is the lack of standardization in Congress. Even 

within the appropriations process, each one of the 12 appropriations subcommittees uses different processes, proofreading marks, 

and technology. And what is interesting of the 44 star prints in the 

111th Congress, a third were errors attributed both to GPO staff, 

a third actually to House staff, and a third to congressional staff. 

As relates to the four for the Appropriations Committee, those were 

all GPO staff’s fault. 

We have taken some immediate actions in prepress for conference reports. First, the file will be broken down into smaller segments for—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You can answer the rest of the question for the record. I want to move. Suffice it to say you have taken 

some steps. 

[GPO provided additional information on the ‘‘star prints’’ for the 

record:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
458 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 904 here 56678B.116
459 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 905 here 56678B.117
460 

Mr. TAPELLA. I am sorry. I am trying not to follow Dr. Billington, 

but I do have his chair. 

GPO POLICE STAFFING

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is okay. 

The last three questions I want to ask you do relate to the police 

staff and staffing challenges. During the public witness hearing, 

the representative from the Fraternal Order of Police testified that 

GPO management had a meeting with the union to raise the possibility of posting contract security aides at passport facilities. And 

our committee has been very clear on the statutory requirement to 

protect that building with sworn Federal officers because of security needs for passports. 

So what I would like to know is, is the passport facility currently 

protected by sworn Federal officers, or is it protected by contractors, and are there plans to change the roles and missions of each 

of those? What was proposed in the meeting in question, and would 

that be compatible with the clear statutory direction from this committee? And what factors do you consider when deciding whether 

to assign a duty station to a sworn officer or a contract security officer? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Let me begin with the meeting itself, and the representative of the union that spoke was not in attendance at the 

meeting. It was a meeting of the new leadership of the Fraternal 

Order of Police. And the question was asked of me by the new leadership, with the changes we are making at professionalizing the 

sworn officers at the Government Printing Office, why are they 

standing post at magnetometers and an X-ray machine at Building 

4 as opposed to using the contract security aides? And in that 

meeting I shared with them that that came under the statutory 

language from this Committee, and that any change to that would 

have to be approved by this Committee. And that is what occurred 

at the meeting. 

Only sworn officers are at that post. They have been at that post 

since the day you ordered it, and we have no intention of changing 

that unless this Committee changes its position. 

When it comes to any of the posts, we look at what are the needs 

of a particular post. The idea behind our security services is we 

would like to use the contract officers to man magnetometers; we 

would like to have them man the X-ray equipment. We then have 

sworn officers available for response, for patrol. We have increased 

our foot patrol. We have increased our travel patrol. We even now 

have a bicycle patrol. 

HIRING ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICERS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. When are you hiring the additional 17 

officers? 

Mr. TAPELLA. We are in the process of hiring all of the officers 

right now. Our officers, unlike the U.S. Capitol Police or, for that 

matter, any Congressional employees, are in the competitive service of Government. And at this moment we have 13 vacancies. For 

these 13 vacancies, we have an ongoing post in USAJOBS, which 

is how we must post competitive jobs. We will get a list of 15 

names on it in rank order. We can only look at 15 candidates at 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
461 

a time, and then we schedule interviews with the candidates. And 

unless there is a problem, a significant deficiency, we will make a 

tentative job offer to the candidates and then inform them of the 

preemployment considerations. The tentative selectees must then 

complete several examinations. Do you want me to put this for the 

record? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I want the abbreviated version. 

Mr. TAPELLA. The abbreviated version is we are moving absolutely as quickly as possible as the competitive service allows. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. By when will all 13 be hired? 

Mr. TAPELLA. Ma’am, I cannot give you a specific date because 

up to this point we have had to disqualify 66 candidates because 

they have failed one of the tests. If we hadn’t had to disqualify the 

66 candidates, they would have all been hired with the first 15 that 

we looked at. And as soon as we lose somebody, we then go back 

and we have to start the process again. And we can only look at 

one candidate. And it is—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But you don’t have any different process for hiring a sworn officer than any other police agency. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Yes, we do. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Not compared to the Capitol Police. 

Mr. TAPELLA. Actually, ma’am, the Capitol Police does a process, 

and they do an annual hiring for all of their officers all the way 

through. They are in the excepted service of the government. They 

are not competitive service officers. It is a different process. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, we will have to spend some 

more time talking about it. I remain concerned about the level of 

staffing in the police force at GPO and would like to continue to 

work with you, as we talked about in my office, on trying to figure 

out whether or not it is appropriate for you to continue with your 

own police force, or whether the GPO police force should eventually 

become a part of the Capitol Police. 

I don’t have any other additional questions. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I am good as well. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. With that, thank you very much. The 

subcommittee stands adjourned. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
462 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 911 here 56678B.118
463 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 912 here 56678B.119
464 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 913 here 56678B.120
465 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 914 here 56678B.121
466 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 915 here 56678B.122
467 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 916 here 56678B.123
468 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 917 here 56678B.124
469 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 918 here 56678B.125
470 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 919 here 56678B.126
471 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 920 here 56678B.127
472 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 921 here 56678B.128
473 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 922 here 56678B.129
474 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 923 here 56678B.130
475 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 924 here 56678B.131
476 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 925 here 56678B.132
477 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 926 here 56678B.133
478 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 927 here 56678B.134
479 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 928 here 56678B.135
480 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 929 here 56678B.136
481 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 930 here 56678B.137
482 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 931 here 56678B.138
483 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 932 here 56678B.139
484 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 933 here 56678B.140
485 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 934 here 56678B.141
486 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 935 here 56678B.142
487 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 936 here 56678B.143
488 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 937 here 56678B.144
489 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 938 here 56678B.145
490 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 939 here 56678B.146
491 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 940 here 56678B.147
492 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 941 here 56678B.148
493 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 942 here 56678B.149
494 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 943 here 56678B.150
495 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 944 here 56678B.151
496 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 945 here 56678B.152
497 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 946 here 56678B.153
498 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 947 here 56678B.154
499 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 948 here 56678B.155
500 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 949 here 56678B.156
501 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 950 here 56678B.157
502 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 951 here 56678B.158
503 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 952 here 56678B.159
504 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 953 here 56678B.160
505 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 954 here 56678B.161
506 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 955 here 56678B.162
507 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 956 here 56678B.163
508 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 957 here 56678B.164
509 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 958 here 56678B.165
510 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 959 here 56678B.166
511 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 960 here 56678B.167
512 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 961 here 56678B.168
513 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 962 here 56678B.169
514 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 963 here 56678B.170
515 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 964 here 56678B.171
516 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 965 here 56678B.172
517 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 966 here 56678B.173
518 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 967/1200 here 56678B.174
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Allina, Amy .............................................................................................................. 41 

Arkush, David .......................................................................................................... 41 

Ayers, S.T ................................................................................................................. 261

Baish, M.A ................................................................................................................ 41, 47 

Bankston, Kevin ...................................................................................................... 41 

Beard, D.P ................................................................................................................ 117 

Billington, J.H .......................................................................................................... 372 

Brenner, B.A ............................................................................................................ 41 

Brian, Danielle ......................................................................................................... 41 

Chester, Jeff ............................................................................................................. 41 

Chrisler, Tamara ..................................................................................................... 189 

De Mooy, Michelle ................................................................................................... 41 

Dixon, Pam ............................................................................................................... 41 

Dodaro, Gene ............................................................................................................ 189 

Elmendorf, Douglas ................................................................................................. 189 

Givens, Beth ............................................................................................................. 41 

Gravell, Bethany ...................................................................................................... 41 

Graves, Lisa ............................................................................................................. 41 

Grifo, Francesca ....................................................................................................... 30, 41 

Hardwick, Alvin ....................................................................................................... 88 

Hartle, Jesse ............................................................................................................ 96 

Heller, Hon. Dean .................................................................................................... 14 

Hendricks, Evan ...................................................................................................... 41 

Holt, Hon. Rush ....................................................................................................... 3 

Huta, Leda ............................................................................................................... 41 

Jarmon, Gloria ......................................................................................................... 307 

Jenkins, J.C .............................................................................................................. 372 

Johnson, S.E ............................................................................................................. 41 

Katz, Ashley ............................................................................................................. 41 

Konczos, James ........................................................................................................ 109 

Kurtz, Paul ............................................................................................................... 41 

La Due Lake, Ronald ............................................................................................... 18 

Livingood, W.S ......................................................................................................... 117 

Maltby, Lewis ........................................................................................................... 41 

Marshall, J.A ............................................................................................................ 41 

McCabe, David ......................................................................................................... 41 

McDermott, Patrice ................................................................................................. 41 

McIntosh, Bruce ....................................................................................................... 41 

Medaglia, M.E .......................................................................................................... 113 

Melberth, R.E ........................................................................................................... 41 

Miller, Ellen ............................................................................................................. 41 

Miller, L.C ................................................................................................................ 117

Monforton, Celeste ................................................................................................... 41 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

ii 

Moore, Kristen ......................................................................................................... 41 

Morse, P.D., Sr ......................................................................................................... 307 

Murphy, L.W ............................................................................................................ 41 

Musil, R.K ................................................................................................................ 41 

O’Keefe, John ........................................................................................................... 423 

Pedery, Steve ............................................................................................................ 41 

Pierce, Deborah ........................................................................................................ 41 

Plunkett, D.W .......................................................................................................... 41 

Richard, John ........................................................................................................... 41 

Roth, Dennis ............................................................................................................. 54 

Saperstein, Carl ....................................................................................................... 72 

Saundry, Peter ......................................................................................................... 41 

Schniderman, Saul .................................................................................................. 101 

Schwartz, Ari ........................................................................................................... 41 

Smith, R.E ................................................................................................................ 41 

Snape, William ......................................................................................................... 41 

Tapella, R.C .............................................................................................................. 443 

Volk, Joe ................................................................................................................... 41

Werntz, Dave ............................................................................................................ 41 

Zuckerman, Diana ................................................................................................... 41 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(iii) 

I N D E X 

Member and Public Witness Hearing 

Page 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schultz ..................................................... 1 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Aderholt ........................................................................... 2 

Congressman Rush Holt on Reestablishing the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) ........................................................................................................... 3 

OTA—authorization ................................................................................................. 12 

OTA—basis for establishment ................................................................................ 12 

OTA—budgetary offsets .......................................................................................... 12 

Congressman Dean Heller on TRIM Growth Act ................................................. 14 

GAO Employee Organization on GAO’s FY 2011 Request ................................... 18 

Prepared Statement—Ron La Due Lake (GAO Employee Organization) .... 20 

Merit Pay Negotiation Impasse ....................................................................... 27 

GAO Productivity and Effectiveness ............................................................... 29 

Recruitment and Retention ............................................................................. 29 

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) ................................................................ 30 

Testimony—Francesca Grifo ............................................................................ 30 

Prepared Statement—Francesca Grifo ........................................................... 33 

Support Letter for OTA .................................................................................... 41 

Rationale for OTA ............................................................................................. 46 

American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) on GPO’s FY 2011 Request ..... 47 

Prepared Statement—Mary Alice Baish (AALL) ........................................... 50 

Discussions with the Library and GPO .......................................................... 52 

Testimony—Mary Alice Baish (AALL) ........................................................... 52 

FDSys ......................................................................................................... 52 

Need for Paper Copies .............................................................................. 53 

Congressional Research Employees Association (CREA) on CRS’ FY 2011 

Request ................................................................................................................. 54 

Prepared Statement—Dennis Roth (CREA) ................................................... 56 

Additional information from CREA—CREA on Outside Writing ................. 61 

Additional information from CREA—Programs and Projects Initiatives .... 65 

Additional information from CREA—Presidential Documents ..................... 66 

Testimony—Dennis Roth (CREA) ................................................................... 54 

Telework ............................................................................................................ 70 

OIC Restructuring ............................................................................................ 71 

Restriction of Tour Buses on Capitol Hill .............................................................. 72 

Testimony—Carl Saperstein ............................................................................ 72 

Prepared Statement—Carl Saperstein ........................................................... 74 

Tour Bus Access ................................................................................................ 76 

Availability of Shuttle Buses ........................................................................... 76 

Advance Coordination with the CVC .............................................................. 76 

Reservation of Buses ........................................................................................ 77 

Additional information from the Guild of Professional Tour Guides ........... 79 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

iv 

GPO Police Labor Committee on GPO’s FY 2011 Request .................................. 88 

Use of Contract Security at GPO Facilities .................................................... 93 

Funding for Additional Officers ....................................................................... 93 

Potential Merger with USCP ........................................................................... 94 

Sworn vs. Contract Officers ............................................................................. 94 

New Officers ...................................................................................................... 95 

Standard for USCP and GPO Police ............................................................... 95 

Prepared Statement—Alvin Hardwick (GPO Police Labor Committee) ...... 90 

Testimony—Alvin Hardwick (GPO Police Labor Committee) ....................... 88 

National Federation of the Blind (NFB) on the Library of Congress’ Talking 

Book Program ....................................................................................................... 96 

Conversion of Non-NLS Material .................................................................... 100 

Digital Talking Book ........................................................................................ 101 

Use of Audio Books ........................................................................................... 101 

Prepared Statement—Jesse Hartle (NFB) ..................................................... 98 

Testimony—Jesse Hartle (NFB) ...................................................................... 96 

Library of Congress Professional Guild on the Library of Congress’ FY 2011 

Request ................................................................................................................. 101 

Copyright Office Backlog ................................................................................. 107 

EEO Issues ........................................................................................................ 107 

Library Entrances ............................................................................................ 108 

Prepared Statement—Saul Schniderman (Library of Congress Professional Guild) .................................................................................................. 104 

Testimony—Saul Schniderman (Library of Congress Professional Guild) .. 101 

United States Capitol Police Labor Committee on USCP’s FY 2011 Request .... 109 

Prepared Statement—James Konczos ............................................................ 110 

Testimony—James Konczos ............................................................................. 109 

Retirement System ........................................................................................... 111 

Library of Congress Police Merger .................................................................. 111 

Retirement Benefits ......................................................................................... 112 

Statement submitted by the American Bar Association ...................................... 113 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Additional Assignments from the Chair ................................................................ 175 

Cell Phone Coverage ................................................................................................ 167 

Web Site Security .................................................................................................... 167 

Third-Party Vendors ................................................................................................ 168 

House ID System ..................................................................................................... 169 

Communication in Capitol and CVC ...................................................................... 159 

Cost of Food in Cafeterias ....................................................................................... 151 

Food Service Contracts ............................................................................................ 157 

Staff Access .............................................................................................................. 170 

Emergency Evacuation Plan ................................................................................... 156 

Energy Demonstration Projects .............................................................................. 153 

District Office Energy Consultations ..................................................................... 154 

Passwords on Blackberrys ...................................................................................... 155 

Number of Roll Call Votes ...................................................................................... 161 

House Library .......................................................................................................... 161 

Historical Services—Members’ Papers ................................................................... 162 

Responsibilities of Curator and Historian ............................................................. 164 

Student Loan Repayment Program ........................................................................ 164 

Hearing Room Equipment Upgrades ..................................................................... 164 

Office of Congressional Ethics Leased Space ........................................................ 166 

House Staffing and Diversity .................................................................................. 153 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

v 

House Library .......................................................................................................... 161 

Capitol Police Budget Shortfall .............................................................................. 172 

USCP IG Investigation ............................................................................................ 174 

Screening Process .................................................................................................... 174 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schultz ..................................................... 117 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Aderholt ........................................................................... 117 

Opening Statement—Bill Livingood, House Sergeant-at-Arms ........................... 143 

Opening Statement—Dan Beard, CAO of the House ........................................... 130 

Opening Statement—Lorraine Miller, Clerk of the House .................................. 118 

Prepared Statement—Bill Livingood, House Sergeant-at-Arms .......................... 145 

Prepared Statement—Dan Beard, CAO of the House .......................................... 132 

Prepared Statement—Lorraine Miller, Clerk of the House ................................. 121 

Questions for the Record—Chair Wasserman Schultz ......................................... 178 

Continued Problems with the Payroll and Finance Offices .......................... 178 

Student Loan Repayment Program ................................................................. 179 

MRA ................................................................................................................... 179 

Food Services .................................................................................................... 180 

Unobligated Balances ....................................................................................... 184 

Wounded Warrior ............................................................................................. 183 

Congressional Budget Office 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schulz ...................................................... 189 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Aderholt ........................................................................... 189 

Opening Statement—Mr. Elmendorf ..................................................................... 189 

Additional information from CBO .......................................................................... 192 

Prepared Testimony—Mr. Elmendorf .................................................................... 196 

Revisions to Scores .................................................................................................. 202 

Diversity at CBO ..................................................................................................... 203 

Office Space and Capacity ....................................................................................... 204 

Length of Time for Health Reform Legislation Estimates ................................... 205 

Estimate for Health Care Legislation .................................................................... 206 

Security Clearances ................................................................................................. 207 

Cuts to Coast Guard ................................................................................................ 207 

Coordination with GAO ........................................................................................... 207 

Request for Additional FTEs .................................................................................. 208 

Optimal Size of CBO, Recruitment, and Retention .............................................. 208 

Hiring of Foreign Nationals .................................................................................... 209 

Questions for the Record ......................................................................................... 211 

Retention ........................................................................................................... 211 

Staffing .............................................................................................................. 211 

Budget ............................................................................................................... 212 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

Appreciation of GAO and CBO Employees ............................................................ 234 

GAO Attrition .......................................................................................................... 231 

GAO Management and Union Negotiations .......................................................... 228 

GAO’s Efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan ............................................... 230 

GAO’s Involvement with the Capitol Police Budget ............................................. 231 

GAO’s Request to Maintain Current Recovery Act Staff Level ........................... 228 

GAO’s Role in Technology Assessments ................................................................ 229 

Intelligence Audit Challenges ................................................................................. 233 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schulz ...................................................... 214 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Aderholt ........................................................................... 214 

Opening Statement—Mr. Dodaro ........................................................................... 214 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

vi 

Prepared Statement—Mr. Dodaro .......................................................................... 216 

Questions for the Record ......................................................................................... 235 

Staffing .............................................................................................................. 235 

Technology Assessments .................................................................................. 236 

Workload ........................................................................................................... 236 

Budget ............................................................................................................... 237 

Office of Compliance 

Additional Assignment from the Chair .................................................................. 249 

Additional Assignment—OOC Workload and Staffing ......................................... 251 

Impact of Zero Growth Budget ............................................................................... 248 

Life Safety Citations and Infrastructure Deficiencies .......................................... 249 

Office Space and Information Technology ............................................................. 246 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Shultz ...................................................... 238 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Aderholt ........................................................................... 238 

Opening Statement—Ms. Chrisler ......................................................................... 238 

Prepared Testimony—Ms. Chrisler ........................................................................ 241 

Types of Hazards Identified .................................................................................... 248 

Within-Grade Pay Increases and Promotions ....................................................... 246 

Question for the Record ........................................................................................... 259 

Flat Budget ....................................................................................................... 259 

Budget Request for Within-Grade Pay Increases and Promotions ............... 259 

Architect of the Capitol 

Additional Assignment from the Chair .................................................................. 298 

Addressing Tour Companies’ Concerns .................................................................. 280 

AOC Operations ....................................................................................................... 263 

Bartholdi Park ......................................................................................................... 288 

Building Renovation Schedules .............................................................................. 286 

Cannon Renewal Project ......................................................................................... 293 

Capital Renewal Initiative ...................................................................................... 286 

Critical Need Priorities ........................................................................................... 262 

CVC Alarms ............................................................................................................. 285 

CVC Operations—Logistical Directives ................................................................. 284 

CVC Shuttle Accommodations ................................................................................ 279 

CVC Staffing Request .............................................................................................. 288 

CVC Training Curriculum ...................................................................................... 291 

Deferred Maintenance Backlog ............................................................................... 280 

Deputy vs. Special Assistant Position Requests ................................................... 289 

Diversity Depicted Within the Capitol ................................................................... 283 

East House Underground Garage .......................................................................... 296 

Energy Audits/Utility Improvement Program ....................................................... 282 

Energy Saving Initiatives ....................................................................................... 263 

Energy Saving Performance Contracts .................................................................. 295 

ESPCS Long Term Costs/Savings .......................................................................... 295 

Exit Interviews ........................................................................................................ 294 

Facility Renewal Schedule/Cost Updates .............................................................. 297 

FY 2011 Budget Request ......................................................................................... 261 

Historical Detailed Storytelling .............................................................................. 291 

Interpretive Curator ................................................................................................ 289 

Member Concerns .................................................................................................... 284 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Shultz ...................................................... 261 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Aderholt ........................................................................... 262 

Opening Statement—Mr. Ayers ............................................................................. 262 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

vii 

Physically Challenged Tourists .............................................................................. 279 

Prepared Testimony—Mr. Ayers ............................................................................ 264 

Project Prioritization ............................................................................................... 281 

Recycling Perception ................................................................................................ 292 

Recycling Program ................................................................................................... 292 

Signage ..................................................................................................................... 285 

Small Business Participation .................................................................................. 281 

Staff Position Conversions ...................................................................................... 294 

Tour Group Accommodations .................................................................................. 279 

Tour Guides and Training ...................................................................................... 290 

Tunnel Workers and Health Concerns .................................................................. 287 

U.S. Capitol Police Radio Modernization Project .................................................. 287 

U.S. Capitol Structural Observations .................................................................... 283 

Questions for the Record ......................................................................................... 298 

Flat Budget ....................................................................................................... 298 

Federal Office Building 8 Cost and Schedule ................................................. 300 

Capital Improvements Plan and Deferred Maintenance Backlog ................ 301 

Capitol Power Plant Staffing ........................................................................... 303 

U.S. Capitol Police 

Budget Processes ..................................................................................................... 350 

Capitol Police Material Weaknesses ...................................................................... 331 

Capitol Police Performance ..................................................................................... 327 

Capitol Police Radio Modernization Budget Request ........................................... 330 

Capitol Police Retirement ....................................................................................... 356 

Design for New Capitol Police Radio Project ......................................................... 354 

FY 2010 Budget Shortfall ....................................................................................... 326 

Government Printing Office Police ......................................................................... 359 

Growth of Capitol Police ......................................................................................... 325 

Inspector General Audit of the Capitol Police Budget Shortfall .......................... 329 

Off-site Delivery Screening Study .......................................................................... 353 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Shultz ...................................................... 307 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Aderholt ........................................................................... 308 

Opening Statement—Chief Morse .......................................................................... 308 

Overtime ................................................................................................................... 350

Police Budget Models .............................................................................................. 328 

Prepared Testimony—Chief Morse ......................................................................... 310 

Responsibility for Budget Formulation and Execution ......................................... 323 

Responsibility of the Chief Administrative Officer ............................................... 326 

Signage in the CVC ................................................................................................. 329 

Staff Access .............................................................................................................. 327 

The Architect of the Capitol and the Police Radio Project ................................... 355 

Questions for the Record—Chair Wasserman Schultz ......................................... 361 

Staffing .............................................................................................................. 361 

Training ............................................................................................................. 363 

Civilianization ................................................................................................... 364 

Additional Assignment from the Chair .................................................................. 366 

Budget ............................................................................................................... 366 

Contracting ....................................................................................................... 367 

Scope of IG Report ............................................................................................ 367 

Questions for the Record—Mr. Aderholt ............................................................... 368 

Radio Modernization Program ......................................................................... 368 

Budget Formulation and Execution System ................................................... 369 

Recommendations Addressing Financial Weakness ...................................... 370 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

viii 

Library of Congress 

Acquisition Costs ..................................................................................................... 414 

Acquisitions of Overseas Offices ............................................................................. 405 

Copyright Processing Backlog ................................................................................. 406 

CRS Client Survey ................................................................................................... 400 

CRS Hiring Practices ............................................................................................... 400 

CRS Request for Additional Staff ........................................................................... 395 

CRS Research Products ........................................................................................... 399 

Demand for Collection Materials at Fort Meade .................................................. 401 

Digital Content Supplements Artifactual Collections ........................................... 397 

Digital Talking Book Program Status .................................................................... 404 

Funding Request for Training and Development Program .................................. 403 

Impact of Digital Technology on Library Mission ................................................. 396 

Importance of New Storage Space at Fort Meade ................................................ 398 

Lawsuit Regarding Dismissal of Probationary Employee .................................... 400 

Mandatory Pay Requirements ................................................................................ 407 

Merger with Capitol Police ..................................................................................... 404 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schultz ..................................................... 372 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Aderholt ........................................................................... 373 

Opening Statement of the Librarian ...................................................................... 373 

Overseas Office System Replacement Requirement ............................................. 403 

Overseas Offices ....................................................................................................... 403 

Prepared Testimony—Daniel P. Mulhollan ........................................................... 390 

Prepared Testimony—Dr. Billington ...................................................................... 376 

Prepared Testimony—Marybeth Peters ................................................................. 383 

Request for Supervisory Staff Support .................................................................. 402 

Staffing of Office of Opportunity, Inclusiveness and Compliance ....................... 401 

Questions for the Record—Chair Wasserman Schultz ......................................... 418 

Office of Opportunity, Inclusiveness and Compliance ................................... 418 

Law Library ...................................................................................................... 418 

Inventory Management .................................................................................... 418 

Books for the Blind ........................................................................................... 419 

Overseas Offices ............................................................................................... 419 

Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness ........................................... 420 

Architectural and Engineering Design ........................................................... 421 

Open World Leadership Center 

Flat Budget Scenario ............................................................................................... 435 

Gifts and Donations ................................................................................................. 435 

How Open World Serves Congress ......................................................................... 439 

Importance of the Region ........................................................................................ 440 

Observations of Board Chairman Dr. James Billington ....................................... 440 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schultz ..................................................... 423 

Opening Statement of Ambassador O’Keefe .......................................................... 423 

Plan for Diversified Funding .................................................................................. 436 

Prepared Statement— Ambassador John O’Keefe ................................................ 425 

Reduction in FTEs ................................................................................................... 435 

Government Printing Office 

Errors on Appropriations Prints ............................................................................. 457 

Federal Digital System ............................................................................................ 454 

GPO Police Staffing ................................................................................................. 460 

GPO’s Building No. 4 .............................................................................................. 455 

Hiring Additional Police Officers ............................................................................ 460 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

ix 

Opening Remarks—Chair Wasserman Schultz ..................................................... 443 

Opening Remarks—Mr. Aderholt ........................................................................... 443 

Opening Statement—Mr. Tapella .......................................................................... 443 

Passport Revenues ................................................................................................... 456 

Prepared Statement—Mr. Tapella ......................................................................... 446 

Remarks on GPO Security Services ....................................................................... 444 

Workforce Diversity and EEO ................................................................................ 453 

Workforce Preparedness for Technology Changes ................................................ 454 

Questions for the Record ......................................................................................... 462 

Workforce Diversity .......................................................................................... 462 

Fdsys Remaining Development and Operational Requirements .................. 463 

Federal Digital System (Fdsys) Development Cost and Scope ..................... 464 

Federal Digital System (Fdsys) Program Redirection ................................... 466 

Electronic Archiving of Federal Website Content and Historic Congressional Documents .......................................................................................... 467 

Determining Police Requirements ................................................................... 469 

Merging the GPO Police with the Capitol Police ........................................... 469 

Errors on Appropriations Prints ..................................................................... 470 

Microcomp Replacement .................................................................................. 471 

Personnel and Technological Change ............................................................. 472 

Consolidation of Building 4 ............................................................................. 473 

Continuity of Operations Alternate Distant Site ........................................... 474 

Environmental Impact Abatement .................................................................. 476 

EEO Complaints and Diversity ....................................................................... 480 

Flat Budget ....................................................................................................... 481 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING