U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–050 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–431 

BUSINESS MEETING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY 

OF CONGRESS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 3, 2004 

Printed for the use of the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate 
(II) 

MEMBERSHIP OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON 

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Senator TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

Representative VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

SENATE 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

HOUSE 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, 

California 

SENATE CONTACT 

JENNIFER MIES, Staff Director 

224–1034 

HOUSE CONTACT 

BILL MCBRIDE, Deputy Staff Director 

225–3831 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening Statement of Senator Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator From Alaska ........... 1 

Statement of Vernon Ehlers, U.S. Representative From Michigan ..................... 1 

Statement of Hon. James H. Billington, Ph.D., Librarian of Congress, Library 

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

General Donald L. Scott, USA (Ret.), Deputy Librarian of Congress, Library 

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

Prepared Statement of James H. Billington ......................................................... 4 

Highlights of 2003 ................................................................................................... 6 

Acquisitions .............................................................................................................. 6 

Police Merger ........................................................................................................... 6 

Film Preservation .................................................................................................... 7 

Statement of Senator Thad Cochran, U.S. Senator From Mississippi ................ 8 

Statement of Robert W. Ney, U.S. Representative From Ohio ............................ 9 

Statement of John B. Larson, U.S. Representative From Connecticut ............... 10 

Statement of Daniel P. Mulhollan, Director, Congressional Research Service, 

Library of Congress .............................................................................................. 13 

Prepared Statement of Daniel P. Mulhollan ......................................................... 14 

Statement of Hon. Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol ................................ 22 

Leone Reeder, Acting Chair, National Fund for the U.S. Botanic Garden ......... 22 

Stephen Ward, Executive Director, National Fund for the U.S. Botanic Garden ......................................................................................................................... 22

Prepared Statement of Honorable Alan M. Hantman, FAIA ............................... 23 

(1) 

BUSINESS MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004 

U.S. SENATE, JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met at 4:07 p.m., in room S–128, the Capitol, 

Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Stevens and Cochran; and Representatives 

Ehlers (vice chairman), Ney, and Larson. 

Also present: Jennifer Mies (staff director). 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS, U.S. SENATOR FROM

ALASKA

Chairman STEVENS. Well, I think we have representation on both 

sides; we can start the meeting, if you will. I do thank you for coming. One of our members had to depart because of a call from the 

chairman of appropriations on the other side, but we have not had 

a meeting for some time. We have a series of things to go over and 

I thought it would be best if we could cover several subjects at one 

time and that is why I have asked Dr. Billington and the Architect 

and the Director of the Congressional Research Service to be here, 

all here, today. 

But let me first ask you, Mr. Vice Chairman, if you have any 

comments to make before we start this process? 

STATEMENT OF VERNON EHLERS, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM

MICHIGAN

Mr. EHLERS. No, nothing about the past. I will have some about 

what is on the agenda. 

Chairman STEVENS. Okay, that is very good. 

Mr. EHLERS. I am concerned about a few things. 

Chairman STEVENS. I understand that. 

I particularly hope Senator Lott can get here. But let me first 

call upon you, Dr. Billington, as the Librarian to give us sort of a 

summary of whatever you would like to discuss with us here today. 

I do believe we will have a majority before we are through. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES H. BILLINGTON, Ph.D., LIBRARIAN OF 

CONGRESS, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL DONALD L. SCOTT, USA (Ret.), DEPUTY 

LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We recognize the austere budget restrictions that we face for this 

next fiscal year and we are seeking ways to continue performing 
2 

our statutory obligations and our core mission for Congress and the 

Nation in this new information age. 

The Library, which the Congress created and has sustained for 

204 years, has become more important than ever before. It is in 

many ways the Nation’s strategic information reserve in a time 

when our security, economic competitiveness, and creative dynamism are increasingly dependent on information. This is the 

world’s largest collection of retrievable human knowledge, in almost all languages and formats. It contains the mint record of 

American private sector creativity and it is a world leader in both 

our constantly gathering in and freely sending out high quality material on the Internet. 

We are well on our way to the electronic conversion of our internal processes and to providing digital archiving and services required by the Congress. These range from re-engineering the Copyright Office to providing new user-friendly digital materials for the 

blind and physically handicapped, who currently get more than $23 

million in free reading materials a year. 

We are in effect superimposing a new electronic library on top of 

continuing to add 10,000 new items every day to the 128 million 

artifactual items in the Library of Congress. We are doing all this 

with 7.7 percent less full-time equivalent staff than we had in 1992 

before the Internet age was set upon us. We are doing it with a 

magnificent but aging work force, 48.1 percent of whom will be eligible for either regular or early retirement by September of this 

year. 

To continue performing our statutory obligations and core mission for Congress and the Nation, we will be making major changes 

and requesting some new funding, as determined by our rigorous 

planning process and guiding strategic plan, presided over by General Scott, my distinguished deputy. 

Now, more than ever we must increase the acquisition and preservation and storage of print material even as we begin implementing our Congressionally mandated plan for archiving the 

Internet. Print material is increasing by an estimated 15 percent 

along with the exponential increase in digital material, and this increase is particularly strong in troubled regions of the developing 

world, where both the Nation’s needs and the Library’s resources 

are particularly great. Only in our massive collections could America find Osama bin Laden’s rare autobiography, or rare German archaeological data which verified that the desert spaces in southern 

Iraq would hold heavy tanks and heavily laden all-purpose carriers, 

or could we find a complete set of Afghan legal codes that could be 

digitized in 24 hours and replicated in 200 copies to replace those 

destroyed by the Taliban, anxious to prevent the rule of law, traditional Afghan law, from being even available for the new postTaliban Afghanistan. 

That is just one illustration, and I could give you many more: the 

way in which a major breakthrough on adult remission of leukemia 

was facilitated by a rare German volume of which we had the only 

copy in the world. 

Now, we must adequately preserve and store these immense collections because it is never clear where we are going to find clues 

in the future to some wisdom that was overlooked in the past. But 
3 

it is all retrievable. By far the largest private donation for storing 

our material ever received, that has ever been received by the Library, is a $120 million donation from the Packard Humanities Institute, which is largely building as well as paying for a national 

facility for housing the audiovisual heritage of 20th century America, in which so much of the world’s history and of our Nation’s creativity is preserved, but in presently fragile and perishable forms, 

which will receive state of the art treatment as soon as this comes 

on stream, the first part next year and the second part the following year. 

This stage of the art facility at Culpeper requires some modest 

requested increases in our own current budget to equip it and prepare for the move and to sustain for the future the good relationship with our extraordinarily generous donor. 

We are also requesting in the Architect of the Capitol’s budget 

continuation of the Fort Meade storage project in accordance with 

the plan previously discussed with the committee for specially formatted collections, as well as a copyright deposit facility to bring 

the vast but presently scattered creative record of America into one 

location. We need this to fulfill our legal preservation obligations 

to depositors and to assure continuation of the voluntary deposit 

system that annually provides $32 million worth of material free 

for the Library’s collection. 

The single greatest challenge facing the Library in the digital 

age, however, is developing a work force that can think and work 

in new ways without losing the immense inherent traditional 

knowledge and memory embedded in our staff. We will soon need 

the committee’s support for a flexible package of human capital 

tools in line with practices already in use in the Federal Government. 

The Congress must be able to provide Congress and the Nation 

with a whole new type of objective knowledge navigator who can 

seamlessly integrate and alleviate both the old analog and the new 

digital materials into one set of services for the Congress and for 

the Nation. We must be able to attract, maintain, motivate, and reward a top-quality high performing new generation of what we will 

be calling in the future knowledge navigators, rather than merely 

librarians. 

With regard to a couple of other issues, Mr. Chairman: the police 

merger. The Library is fully engaged in increasing security, integrating police operations, and improving budget economy here on 

Capitol Hill. We are deeply troubled, however, by the proposed plan 

the U.S. Capitol Police have issued for implementing the merger of 

the Library of Congress Police Force into the U.S. Capitol Police 

Force. The proposed plan which the U.S. Capitol Police have submitted for Congressional approval does not protect the Librarian’s 

statutory and historic responsibility for protecting the collections as 

well as the people and buildings of the Library. 

The merger is happening de facto and is eroding the Library’s 

authority to exercise this core task since we can no longer hire our 

own police. I look forward to working with the committee on this 

problem. 

The Congress also submitted, Mr. Chairman, during the First 

Session of the 108th Congress a request for reauthorization of the 
4 

national film preservation program. There are now 375 culturally, 

historically, and artistically significant motion pictures in the National Film Registry which was created by Congress in 1988. This 

vital program has played the leading role in identifying endangered 

films of all sorts, by the way—there is a tremendous variety of the 

film record—setting national preservation standards, working with 

other public and nonprofit archives to save American films from irreversible deterioration. 

Mr. Chairman, the Library of Congress has been the greatest 

single patron of the library in the history of the world, and on behalf of the Library past, present and future and all its staff I thank 

this committee for its continued support for and interest in the Library. Individual members of this committee have provided an unusual level of continuity and guidance and support for this institution. We are all in your debt. We look forward to working with you 

as we move the Library fully into the new century. 

I will be happy to answer any questions and respond in any way 

I can. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES H. BILLINGTON

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice-Chairman, members of the Joint Committee. 

We live in a world where our health, security, and economic future increasingly 

depend on information—and in a world undergoing the greatest revolution in the 

storage and communication of knowledge since the invention of the printing press. 

I would like to submit, Mr. Chairman, that the Library which Congress has created 

and sustained so magnificently has become one of America’s greatest assets in both 

of these critical areas. The Library of Congress is a key part of the nation’s strategic 

information reserve and a world leader both in the gathering in of digitized information and in the dissemination of free, high-quality electronic material for our country. 

Out of its collection of 128 million items, with 10,000 added every day, this Library provides our nation with many unique items—an obscure 19th century German book for a breakthrough in leukemia research that no one else in the world 

had saved, a rare early 20th century German record of archaeological digs in Mesopotamia which assured us prior to Desert Storm that the southern Iraqi desert 

would hold modern heavy tanks. We found an autobiography of Osama bin Laden 

in our unmatched Arabic collections. Our Law Library digitized and delivered in 24 

hours the compilation of Afghan civil, commercial, and criminal law codes that 

helped the courts of Afghanistan reestablish the rule of law after the Taliban had 

destroyed the existing codes. 

No one can be sure where America’s next global security threat—or economic opportunity—will lie, but the Library of Congress will have the best odds in the world 

for finding background information about it. We have a crucial need to increase our 

modest acquisition budget that has been declining in purchasing power for more 

than a decade. We must make sure that our global coverage continues in a world 

where published materials, particularly in troubled spots in the developing world, 

are increasing at an estimated 15 percent a year. 

We must properly store and preserve our immense and expanding collections. The 

Library is asking for funding for two major Fort Meade construction projects in the 

Architect of the Capitol’s budget: modules 3 and 4 in the already much-delayed series previously approved by the Congress. These two will house specially formatted 

materials such as maps and manuscripts. We also need a copyright deposit facility 

that will at last bring the vast but presently scattered creative record of America 

into one location. This is needed to fulfill our legal preservation obligations to our 

depositors and to assure the continuation of the $32 million our depositors save the 

taxpayers annually by voluntarily sending us their new works for registration and 

mandatory deposit. 

By comparison with other national cultural institutions, we have had a very low 

construction budget for the last 20 years. By far our biggest new construction 

project is being primarily privately funded by the largest donation every received 

by the Library: $120 million from the Packard Humanities Institute (PHI). Con-
5 

struction is already well underway for this National Audiovisual Conservation Center in Culpeper, Virginia, which will bring together the world’s largest audiovisual 

collections and provide state of the art preservation for these presently scattered 

materials—movies, television, radio, and sound recordings—that document so much 

of the history of the 20th century. 

Some added appropriated funding is needed this year to acquire basic equipment 

and preservation infrastructure for the facility and to get staff and collections in 

place for the move to Culpeper, which will begin in fiscal year 2005. 

The Congress’s Library is a world leader—both in providing and sending high 

quality digital material everywhere free of charge—and in crafting and implementing a distributed national policy for preserving and managing ‘‘at risk’’ digital 

content. Much of the 7.6 percent increase in the Library’s budget request for fiscal 

year 2005 is needed for electronic conversion; business re- engineering in the copyright office; preserving CRS’ research capacity, and to begin converting to userfriendly digital equipment materials for the Library’s National Service for the Blind 

and Physically Handicapped. 

Tomorrow, the Library will make available, as he instructed, the papers of Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun—one of our largest collections of judicial 

papers. We have made elaborate preparations to accommodate the anticipated wide 

public, press, and scholarly interest, through expanded hours in the Manuscript 

Reading Rooms and with on-site access to significant digitized portions of the collections and web-site access to collection highlights. 

We have specially prepared for Members of Congress and their staff, who wish 

to view the more extensive digital files, a dedicated computer in the LaFollette 

Reading Room. Materials will include a 362-page collection guide, a 500-page transcript of an oral history taken by Justice Blackmun’s law clerk, Harold Koh, and 

case files from many of the seminal opinions authored by Justice Blackmun. 

Electronically, the Library of Congress is responding to the new ‘‘Google’’ world 

of search engines by fundamentally changing the way in which we identify, gather, 

and process information to yield knowledge for Congress and the nation. We will 

always have books, maps, and other printed artifacts, but we must also capture and 

preserve the dramatically increasing volume of human knowledge that is created in 

cyberspace, and will never see life as a printed book or document. 

Our mission is unchanged: to make our resources available and useful to the Congress and the American people and to sustain and preserve a universal collection 

of knowledge and creativity for future generations. But the way we fulfill that mission is undergoing a sea change. To ensure that digital information is captured and 

preserved, libraries cannot wait until that information is acquired in the traditional 

way, after it is published. It has to be collected at the point of creation. 

Thanks to the Congress’s appropriation of funds in fiscal year 2001 and approval 

of a plan in December 2002, the Library has been working with creators and publishers to create digital preservation repositories and with creators and legislators 

to ensure that copyright laws balance protection and access. The Library will, in the 

years ahead, have to retrain print-oriented staff and bring in new talents to select, 

preserve, and deliver digital information. 

But the Library of the 21st Century—like America itself—must add without subtracting. We must continue to serve as the in-gatherer of analog collections while 

dramatically expanding its on-line information services in new and more timely 

ways. 

The Library of Congress must be a leader in seamlessly integrating old knowledge 

with new information in its services for Congress and the nation. In an age flooded 

with unfiltered information, the Library of Congress has the opportunity and obligation to provide Congress and the nation with objective knowledge navigators. 

The Congressional Research Service has a long and unique tradition of combining 

scholarly expertise with objectivity and authority. The large endowment generously 

provided by John W. Kluge supplemented by other private donations has brought 

a fresh infusion of world class scholarship into our midst. 

The single greatest challenge facing the Library in the digital age is developing 

a workforce that can think and work in new ways without losing the immense inherited knowledge and memory of our great staff. I will soon be requesting legislation that will give the Library a broad based flexible package of human capital tools, 

in line with practices already in use within the federal government. We need to ensure that the Library of Congress will be able to attract, retain, motivate, and reward a top quality and high performing new generation of knowledge specialists to 

serve the Congress and the American people in those areas where the Library has 

unique obligations. 
6 

HIGHLIGHTS OF 2003

During 2003, Mr. Chairman, the John W. Kluge Center officially opened at the 

Library of Congress, bringing some of the world’s leading scholars on a rotating 

basis to use the Library’s collections and interact with public policy makers; the 

Center for the Book celebrated twenty-five years of championing reading promotion 

programs and literacy partnership. Founded by my distinguished predecessor, Daniel J. Boorstein, whose death last Friday we all mourn, this center within the Library of Congress now has affiliated centers in all fifty states and the District of 

Columbia. 

During this past year, the Library continued to implement its multi-year security 

enhancement plan; including an upgraded intrusion detection and security monitoring systems, and upgraded firewalls to safeguard the Library’s valuable computer 

resources and overseas offices. Working with other information technology professionals in the Legislative Branch, the Library constructed an alternate computer facility in a remote location to mirror its priority systems in case of a disaster on Capitol Hill. 

Also in 2003, the Library submitted and the Congress approved the plan entitled, 

‘‘Preserving Our Digital Heritage: Plan for the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program.’’ The Library began the program’s next phase 

with a call for project applications to develop and test models for archiving these 

materials that do not exist in analog form. Awards will be made in April 2004. 

The Library has so far digitized and made available free on our website 8.5 million American historical items, adding in 2003 more than 344,000 new digital items, 

and five new Library exhibitions. The Library’s Global Gateway program of bi-national, bilingual internet files based on our unparalleled international resources, 

was formally launched with Brazil two weeks ago; and the Congressionally-created 

flagship ‘‘Meeting of Frontiers’’ program with Russia will have nearly half a million 

images on-line by the end of 2004. The Library’s interactive web-site for families, 

www.americaslibrary.gov, continues to grow in popularity thanks to the Advertising 

Council’s first-ever national promotion campaign for a library project. 

ACQUISITIONS

Significant special acquisitions were made possible by private funding during 

2003—such the oldest known intact Indian book (a birchbark scroll on Buddhist psychology from as early as 200 B.C); and a complete set of Curtis’s Botanical Magazine, a landmark work of natural history literature and illustration. The acquisition 

of two very important new collections made possible by the major private donations 

of Madison Council members will be announced shortly. 

The Library completed in 2003 the purchase of the only known copy of the first 

document of any kind to use the name ‘‘America,’’ the first map of the new world 

made in 1507 by Martin Waldseemuller. Funding for this historic purchase came 

from a special Congressional appropriation as well as private contributions from the 

Discovery Channel, Gerry and Marguerite Lenfest, and others. 

In 2003, the Library’s Veterans History Project received more than 60,000 items 

documenting the experience of the nation’s veterans and their families; and an extremely rare relief model of Utah Beach that was used in the preparations for the 

amphibious D-Day landing at Normandy. 

The Library celebrated the 75th anniversary of its large Chinese collections and 

added 9,012 monograph volumes and 15,444 issues of Chinese serials, and 192 Chinese microfilm reels in targeted subject areas. The Library acquired microfilm and 

digital copies of 4,000 pages of virtually unknown, largely Islamic, manuscripts from 

Timbuktu, Mali, exhibited at the Library in the summer of 2003. 

Significant new manuscript acquisitions included the papers of former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski; the original kinescope collection from the ‘‘Ed 

Sullivan Show’’, the seminal American television variety program (1948–1971); and 

a unique collection of audiotape interviews with Alice Roosevelt Longworth, the outspoken daughter of President Theodore Roosevelt. 

POLICE MERGER

The Library has been fully engaged in and is committed to increasing security, 

integrating police operations, and improving budget economy here on Capitol Hill. 

We are deeply troubled, however, by the proposed plan that the U.S. Capitol Police 

have issued for implementing the merger of the Library of Congress Police force into 

the U.S. Capitol Police force. 

When ricin was recently found at 3:00 in the afternoon in a Senate office, Capitol 

Police and House and Senate Officers met to discuss closing the Capitol campus 
7 

until the threat could be assessed. Library officials learned of this incident at 10:00 

p.m. only on the television news, and Library police were not officially informed 

until 11:00 p.m. 

Even more serious is the way in which the Capitol Police propose to proceed— 

by stripping the Librarian of Congress of the authority to exercise his most basic, 

statutory responsibility to protect the collections as well as the people and buildings 

of the Library. The Library’s police force is focused not only on the physical safety 

of our staff, visitors, and building, but on the integrity and security of our priceless 

collections and is the primary arm for the Librarian of Congress in discharging this 

responsibility. The Library must be able to request and to present its case directly 

for the resources and policies needed to protect the Library’s assets. The Capitol Police officers that serve on Library property with special responsibility for the collections must be under the technical direction of—and accountable to—the Librarian 

of Congress. 

Under the 2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, the Library of Congress 

no longer has authority to hire new officers to replace those that leave our force 

through retirement or other separation. These positions now have to be filled with 

Capitol Police officers on detail to the Library, and we will soon be getting our first 

such group. If no action is taken on the proposed police merger plan, a merger will 

occur by attrition over a period of years, during which the authority for the safety 

of staff and collections will be increasingly difficult to implement with a workforce 

serving only on detail. I look forward to working with the Congress to design a 

merger implementation plan that will not undermine the authority of the Librarian. 

FILM PRESERVATION

The Library submitted during the first session of the 108th Congress a request 

for re-authorization of the National Film Preservation Program. There are now 375 

culturally, historically and artistically significant motion pictures that I have picked 

for the National Film Registry, which was created by Congress in the original Film 

Preservation authorization in 1988. Annually adding films to the Registry enhances 

public appreciation for the richness and variety of America’s film heritage and highlights the importance of film preservation. 

The forthcoming opening of the National Audio-Visual Conservation Center in 

Culpeper provides a single location and new focus for all the Library’s vast motion 

picture, television, and recorded sound collections—the largest in the world. Re-authorization of the National Film Preservation Program is an essential support element for this national program. The Library of Congress has played the leading role 

in identifying endangered films, setting national preservation standards, and working with other public and non-profit archives to save American films from irreversible deterioration. In passing the original 1988 act and subsequent re-authorizations 

in 1992 and 1996, Congress recognized the central federal role of the Library of Congress, in developing a coordinated strategy to address the challenges of film preservation—particularly for those films in the public domain or not owned by major studios. 

The National Film Preservation Re-authorization Act of 2003 [S. 1923 and H.R. 

3569] will also continue the vitally important role of the private sector, through the 

National Film Preservation Foundation, a new non-profit charitable affiliate created 

in 1996. The Foundation has raised $6.34 million in private funds and in-kind contributions—a magnificent response to the $750,000 in federal funds received to date. 

The Foundation has supported 98 institutions in 34 states and D.C., and has preserved and made available more than 630 significant films that would otherwise 

have been unlikely to survive. I hope the Congress will support the Library’s request for a 10-year re-authorization of the National Film Preservation Program. 

On behalf of the Library and all of its staff, I thank this committee for its continued support for and interest in the Library. The individual members of this committee have provided an unusual level of continuity and guidance for this institution. We are all in your debt, and look forward to working with you as we move 

the Library fully into the new century. 

I will be happy to answer any questions. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you, sir, very much. 

You and I have reviewed some of that material and the Appropriations Committee has reviewed it. Let me see if the vice chairman has any comments or questions. 

Mr. EHLERS. No, I just want to thank you for the report, and we 

appreciate everything that the Library does. 
8 

Chairman STEVENS. Do you have any questions, Senator Cochran? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM

MISSISSIPPI

Senator COCHRAN. One comes to mind. When materials and donations are made available to the Library, it seems that we almost 

always accept them. Is there any criteria that you have that guides 

you in saying no, we cannot accept this or we do not have room 

for this, or we would suggest you try to find a university library 

somewhere that might accept it? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes. First of all, we do not accept everything. 

We make judgments: Is this important for the national collection 

or is it not? We often suggest that people give it to a local library 

if it deals with local history or if it has some logical connection. Almost all Congressional collections, we suggest that they work with 

somebody from the district or their State if possible and so forth. 

In addition, we cannot accept anything that is not formally approved by the Library’s Trust Fund Statutory Board established in 

the 1920’s. So the Library’s acceptance of collections is contingent 

on its acceptance by the Trust Fund Board as well. 

But yes, we—first of all, in terms of things we look for—in terms 

of things that come in to us, I would say we accept only a fraction 

of those that some have suggested. But we have a universal collection, so we collect very broadly. We try to collect qualitatively. We 

try to sustain the core mission of the universal collection, which is 

not to say we collect everything, but that we try to collect everything that is important for the Congress and more broadly for the 

Nation’s memory and the Nation’s policies, all of which are subject 

to the Congress. 

So it is a limiting factor, yes, definitely. We do not accept everything. We will be about to announce in the next couple of months 

two major and, I think one could almost say spectacular collections, 

which will come to the Library in the near future. Very often these 

take a long time to develop. But we concentrate on those things 

that we think are of fundamental importance to Congress and the 

Nation. 

But we are a very creative Nation and since the copyright deposit also represents the core of our Americana collection many— 

for instance in music, there have been many great composers that 

have offered us their entire collections and we have been inclined 

to accept them because we already have the base of the copyright 

deposit. So we have the complete collections of people like Bob 

Hope, for instance, or the Gershwin brothers or Leonard Bernstein 

and Irving Berlin, John Philip Sousa. 

The addition of these collections, that for instance dates back to 

the 1890’s when Congress decided that Sousa, the great Sousa collection, which he really created the march and the President’s own 

band, ought to be in the national collection. 

Some of the most important collections given to the Library are 

the papers of the Presidents. We have most of the papers of the 

first 23 Presidents of the United States and they came largely from 

the State Department, where they had been housed, and it was 

thought to be more proper to transfer them. So there is a lot of 
9 

transfer of material that is not the formal official record of the U.S. 

Government, which of course goes to the National Archives and 

Records Administration, but papers, particularly important manuscript papers. 

There is a kind of informal agreement, for instance, with the 

Presidential libraries, which are part of the Archives, that if someone served primarily, whose papers, personal papers, are of importance and interest to historians, but served primarily in one administration, the first consideration would be to go to the Presidential 

library, although everyone’s free to do anything they want with 

their papers. 

So we are inclined to accept and certainly to look for mainly papers who served in a variety of administrations over a long period 

of time. So there is a kind of a, I think, an understanding between 

other great repositories and libraries and other government institutions that everyone pretty well adheres to, which limits what we 

take in, but still leaves us with a very broad and comprehensive 

collection. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. Any further comment? 

Senator COCHRAN. No, I have no other questions. 

Chairman STEVENS. Mr. Ney. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. NEY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM OHIO

Mr. NEY. Just a statement, Mr. Chairman. Just a statement that 

we will work with you on the concerns you have about the merger 

which is happening, as you said, through attrition with the Capitol 

Police and some of the issues you might have about conducting law 

enforcement, and also looking at the different types of protection 

for the collections. I do not want to take the time right now, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Thank you. General Scott has really been handling that for us. I am sure we will be glad to talk to him about 

it. Our main concern is that the collections—and this was a concern, has been a historic concern of this committee, too—that the 

security of the collections poses a very special set of problems and 

obligations that are absolutely essential if we are going to be preservers of most of the Nation’s creative memory in the private sector. 

No other country has preserved, let alone the legislative body, 

has sought to preserve, as insistently as this did. When the copyright deposit was in the judicial and the executive branch, as it 

was for a while, we did not preserve that record. Once it came 

under the legislative branch of the government in 1870, 1971, the 

record is virtually—has been very well maintained and sustained. 

So we are very concerned, and there was concern when we discussed security problems and tightened and closed the stacks definitively and made a number of other security provisions that we 

have been steadily implementing. Security was a central concern of 

this committee. So we feel that it will be helpful to be able to discuss it with you and for the committee to understand how we continue to exercise what is one of the most fundamental responsibilities in the Library—that is, to make sure that the security of the 
10 

collections, along with the obvious needs, as well, on questions of 

security of buildings or people, are also maintained. 

So we think we can cooperate with this program, but we would 

like to have that opportunity. 

Chairman STEVENS. I think we would all like to work with you 

on that police issue. It is going to take some action by both of the 

subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee, I think, to work 

out. But we will pursue that with you. We would like to have your 

help, Mr. Ney. 

Mr. Larson, do you have anything? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. LARSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM

CONNECTICUT

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just briefly, again thank you for the fine work you do on behalf 

of the Library and the Nation, and I concur with what the chairman said at the outset, you get fine marks with respect to your 

predecessor Daniel Boorstein in his tenure here as Librarian of 

Congress. 

You mentioned in your remarks 41 percent turnover. How is that 

going to impact us in terms of institutional memory? Do we have 

a plan? That is a huge number. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, that is of course the number that are—— 

Mr. LARSON. Potential. 

Dr. BILLINGTON [continuing]. Potential, and it is not all have 

reached retirement age, but they have reached eligibility. Many of 

them will have reached retirement age. We have been working on 

a succession plan for a number of years, but this is really our priority concern and I expect that by the next budget beyond the one 

that is currently under consideration we will have some rather 

massive plans to deal with this question, because it is not simply 

a question of replacing existing positions. It is a question of redefining many of these positions, because we have to be able to—the 

mission of the Library does not change, which is basically fundamental for Congress first of all and for the Nation as well. 

Because of its size and potential, this place has to acquire, preserve, make accessible, promote the use of by more people in more 

ways the knowledge, information, and creativity of the world, 

knowledge and information particularly of the world and the creativity particularly of our own country, the memory of which is 

likely to erode without that vast copyright deposit. 

So how do we do that? Well, we have to train people and we have 

to also, because of the tremendous inundation of the Internet, we 

have to have a whole new type of filtration. The filtration which 

occurs with editing and publishing in the print world does not 

occur on the Internet. You just have an immense amount of material. It is growing exponentially even as more people enter the 

print era that are simultaneously entering the Internet era. 

So this is going to be a massive task of redefining. Moreover, we 

have to make much more efficient use—I think the Congressional 

Research Service, which you will hear later, has a great tradition 

established, very unique in the scholarly world, of the object of filtration and synthesizing of knowledge for the purposes of the Congress and in response to their concern. 
11 

But that can be enriched and the whole services of the Library 

can be enriched by better use of our foreign collections. We are increasingly involved in places in the world in which few institutions 

have the materials that we do and that we need to keep on acquiring in places nobody would have thought of having a collection on, 

Kosovo, Chechnya, Burundi, and Afghanistan 20 years ago. But 

these are all tremendously important, and that is why we need to 

increase our essentially flat acquisitions budget. 

But we also need to get that material used and in service for the 

Congress so that we can have it be accessed, not only to what the 

English language intercommunication on the Internet provides; we 

need to filter that. We need people who can filter that and we need 

people who can use it more effectively. We have the largest Arabic 

collection in the world, the Library of Congress, but we need people 

who can use it, mediate it, and get it into the stream of what you 

need. 

The private endowment that John Kluge, the chairman of our 

Madison Council, has given us has enabled us to bring important 

people who could think broadly about this and stimulate us. We 

just had recently the former president of Brazil Cardoza, and we 

have the former president of the Czech Republic Vaclev Havel arriving shortly. These are major figures. We had the recent visit and 

spent time with the Congressional Research Service of an endowment that the Friends of Henry Kissinger created for an annual 

lecture by George Schultz. 

So we have a stream of people of great experience and knowledge 

coming in, on private funds, but providing increased knowledge. We 

have had one of the great Islamic scholars in the world, Mohammed Arkun, make a number of visits to the Library. 

So we have to—because there is no filtration of the Internet and 

because there is just so much material and because the concerns, 

the security concerns, the economic opportunities as well as the 

competitiveness problems of our economy, they are all growing 

internationally. We have just devised a whole new system for getting material from China. We have the largest Chinese collection 

outside of the Chinese-speaking world, but we have a whole new 

system for getting stuff from the Chinese provinces, which is going 

to be very important because in that country too, different forces 

are at work. We need to understand it better. 

So all of this is I think of capital importance if we are going to 

serve Congress—and it requires us to have people who have both 

substantive knowledge of languages, fields, and cultures and, at 

the same time, technical fluidity and ease in dealing with the 

Internet and also good judgment so they can help filter this flow 

of information, because otherwise we are just overloaded with information, with unsorted data, with unverified facts, the amount of 

unverifiable information. 

So this is really our major task for the next few years. It is not 

reflected quite as much in our current budget because we have a 

set of needs, particularly the storage needs, that are largely in the 

Architect’s budget that are not new and, since we have no capital 

budget, they have to come in for annual appropriations. 

The storage, for instance, at Fort Meade is already much delayed, but that was part of a project that we have developed and 
12 

discussed with the committee before as part of a general strategic 

plan over many years. Our requests for capital, major capital construction, have been relatively modest, I think, compared to many 

cultural institutions, but they do occur, without a capital budget, 

on an annual appropriation basis. 

The biggest one, this audiovisual conservation center, as I have 

indicated, is largely being funded privately. So we do have these requests and needs, but the biggest one is going to be the human 

capital. That has been our greatest asset of this Library, even 

greater than the collections, is the people who preserve them, chose 

them, and made them accessible. They have done a great job over 

the years. 

We are going to try to set it up so that they will mentor, the outgoing people will help mentor the incoming people. That is already 

happening at the Congressional Research Service and other parts 

of the Library, but we are going to increase that immensely. 

We do not think, by the way, that everybody who can retire will 

retire. People like to stay on, and it is on the whole, of great value 

because they get the feel for the collections. We have problems of 

quantity. We get 22,000 artifactual items every day. Narrowing 

that to the 10,000 we keep is also a tremendous skill set of people 

who no one appreciates outside of the Congress. I as an old pack 

rat go down in the discard pile periodically just to see if there is 

anything anybody might conceivably want, and I have never found 

anything. And as my wife can tell you, I never throw anything out 

at home. 

So this is a huge problem, getting the right staff. But we have 

had a great staff, we have a great staff. But we are going to have 

to not only get an equally good one, but we are going to have to 

get staff who have skill sets that we have not had to have as urgently in the past. 

Chairman STEVENS. We had a request from former Senator Slade 

Gorton that the Library acquire the Harper’s Weekly John Adler 

collection. I do not know how many members are familiar with 

that. We have so far not pursued that. Would you tell us just for 

the record what your opinion is about that? There is a request 

pending now before the Appropriations Committee for $7.5 million 

to be used to acquire that, with some additional moneys from nonFederal sources. Are you interested in that project? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, I have met several times with Mr. Adler 

and his advisers. The digitized version of Harper’s Weekly and 

some other things he has would be certainly accepted by the Library if offered as a gift. We have not asked for appropriations or 

are seeking private contributions to purchase the collection. It is 

not a priority for our acquisitions budget, particularly in the current tight budget environment. 

But it is a very valuable collection and it could be—certainly we 

would be glad to have it. It would add to—we have 8.5 million 

items of American history and culture already on line. This would 

be a very valuable addition and we would be very happy to accept 

it as a gift. It might be—it would be the kind of thing that, if we 

could get it, we would be very happy to have it, I think, if it could 

be acquired, particularly in the context of some kind of educational 

program which would support a very great need, that is to train 
13 

or to have some program for expanding the training of teachers in 

the educational use of the Internet. 

But we already have a great deal online and, much as we would 

love to have it, I cannot say that for the Library’s budget as such 

that it is an immediate high priority. 

Chairman STEVENS. Any member have any further questions of 

the Librarian? 

[No response.] 

Chairman STEVENS. Could we ask you, Director Mulhollan, if you 

would come up and join the Librarian and let us chat for a minute 

about your situation with the Congressional Research Service. We 

are not really going into appropriations, but you are really a very 

essential arm of the Congress. All the Library is, but we use your 

Research Service probably as Members more than we do the rest 

of the Library. So we thought it would be nice to have us hear from 

you what your situation is. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL 

RESEARCH SERVICE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I appreciate 

the support that this committee has given over the years. Just to 

know, last week—we are statutorily obligated to report on an annual basis to the Joint Committee on the Library and we provided 

that to you for our fiscal year 2003 last week. 

I will summarize. I think that for CRS, our perspective, the Congress plays a critical role in a representative democracy during 

war. This is a particularly difficult time because this war on terrorism does not have boundaries and there is no end in sight. I 

maintain that the capacities to help the Congress to sustain its role 

have a critical claim on scarce resources. 

Then the logic follows is that CRS helps the Congress in that capacity. In that annual report we talk about how our folks were 

there during the Congressional joint resolution on the war declaration. We were there with regard to issues with regard to war powers, declaration of war, preemptive use of war in international law. 

When military action started, CRS assisted Congress in a whole 

range of questions on Iraq and the Middle East, U.S. efforts to 

change the Iraqi regime, the U.N. Food for Aid program, and continuing with the whole major effort of the largest since the DOD, 

the creation of the Homeland Security, the impact on federalism, 

the impact now on civil service and personnel structures, and 

across the board on each of the programs, and still evolving on 

homeland security. 

I think we are trying to do our best to help the Congress on these 

many and many more complex issues. My concern is is that the one 

that we are all aware of, and that is kind of silently sitting here, 

that we are facing a very difficult fiscal circumstance. What I have 

mentioned in my statement is that if we do not get our 

mandatories—the cost of living, we are 87 percent salaries; if we 

do not get that, that means $4.3 million. That is 37 positions I do 

not have, which are—and together with that we are looking for a 

one-time ramp-up of $2.7 million because basically we have greater 

expertise and greater need coming into the service in the last 10 

years. Aside from special hiring programs our average grade was 
14 

GS–7, step 9. Now it is 13.1. We have got a better, smarter force, 

but it is a more expensive one. 

If we do not get, those two lump sums, $7 million added onto our 

budget, we are going to lose over 60 positions. That is almost 160 

hours on each of the issues that you are talking about. We cover 

160 policy issues, providing over 900 reports, literally thousands of 

confidential memoranda, daily briefings, both oral and telephone 

consultations, on each of those issues that you have to do to maintain your responsibilities, and I hope we are there for you, and I 

am looking for the Congress’ help to sustain that capacity, because 

these are very difficult times. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to appear before you 

today to discuss the work of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in fiscal year 

2003 and its priorities for the future. I want to thank this Committee for the confidence it has shown in CRS in the past and the support that has enabled CRS to 

serve the Congress during these difficult times of demanding policy deliberations, 

which have been made especially challenging because of our heightened need to provide for security at home and abroad, and because of greatly increased fiscal constraints. 

As CRS completes its ninth decade of service to the Congress, we continue to uphold our sole mission: We work exclusively and directly for the Congress, providing 

research and analysis that is authoritative, timely, objective, nonpartisan, confidential, and fully responsive to the policy-making needs of the Congress. 

The Congress continually and routinely calls on CRS research assistance as it examines policy problems, formulates responses, and deliberates on them across the 

broad range of complex and challenging issues on the legislative agenda. Our paramount concern, especially given the critical constitutional role of the Congress during a time of war, is preserving independent, accessible, and responsive analytic capacity in the legislative branch. 

Mr. Chairman, my statement today highlights CRS accomplishments in supporting the Congress over the past year. My statement also outlines the fiscal challenges CRS will face in the upcoming year and reports on the steps we have been 

taking to contain costs. I am concerned about the Service’s ability to continue providing the level of support Congress has come to rely upon. For the coming year, 

we seek to maintain our research support for the Congress including priorities targeted to meet major policy-making needs as Congress faces continuing and unfolding policy concerns, as well as significant, unanticipated crises. 

Fiscal Year 2003 Highlights in CRS Legislative Support 

Throughout fiscal year 2003 Congress called on CRS as it confronted numerous, 

challenging public policy problems in its demanding schedule of legislative and oversight activities. I have submitted to you our 2003 annual report outlining the 

breadth and depth of support on key public policy issues. Today I will touch upon 

some issues emanating from the war with Iraq and efforts to enhance homeland security last year. CRS has and continues to play a significant role in keeping the 

Congress abreast of policy questions, options and their implications during rapidly 

changing situations of vital importance to the Nation. 

The War with Iraq.—U.S. involvement in Iraq—the diplomatic activities and military preparations leading up to the war, the war itself, and the war’s aftermath— 

dominated the congressional foreign affairs and defense agenda during the year. 

CRS specialists responded to diplomatic, military, and postwar issues; provided 

briefings on the congressional joint resolution authorizing the President to use force 

against Iraq; and fielded queries on war powers, declarations of war, and the preemptive use of force under international law. 

As military action began, CRS assisted with issues such as Iraq’s relations in the 

Middle East, U.S. efforts to change the Iraqi regime, and the United Nations oilfor-food program. Analysts examined the postwar needs of Iraq for humanitarian 

and reconstruction assistance, the role of the international community and the 

United Nations, Iraq’s economy and foreign debt, and the likelihood that any U.S. 

loans to future Iraqi governments would be repaid. 
15 

Homeland Security and the Potential for Terrorism.—To assist the Congress as it 

addressed homeland security and terrorism, CRS continued its Service-wide, coordinated response that draws upon a wide range of expertise. Following passage of the 

Homeland Security Act, CRS experts developed a comprehensive organization chart 

that identified statutory requirements for congressional staff who monitor the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As Congress began oversight activities pertaining to this new government agency, CRS provided help with 

procedural and jurisdictional questions, briefings on the operational and organizational aspects of DHS, and analyses on the protection, use, and disclosure of critical 

infrastructure information submitted to DHS. Anticipating the subsequent intense 

demand for information and analyses on new or expanded programs related to 

homeland security, CRS examined such matters as emergency management funding 

programs, federal disaster recovery programs, and federal assistance programs aiding state and local government in terrorism preparedness. 

Other related domestic policy issues related to the war and terrorism arose late 

in the 107th and continued throughout the 108th Congresses. CRS responded to requests regarding bioterrorism and health issues, such as the public health system’s 

ability to respond to health threats posed by chemical and biological agents; border 

and transportation safety; the continuity of Congress in the event of a catastrophic 

attack; critical infrastructure security including communications systems, oil and 

gas pipelines, electrical power grids, and highway systems; immigration concerns 

such as restructuring the issuance of visas; and legal ramifications of anti-terrorist 

enforcement, including the roles and authorities of law enforcement and the intelligence community. 

Cost Containment Efforts 

Over the past several years, in order to sustain the level of research support on 

issues such as those outlined above, CRS has conducted numerous management reviews to evaluate current operations, maximize value, and implement cost containment measures. As stewards of the taxpayers’ money, it is our obligation to review 

continuously how we can work most cost-effectively. Our reviews identified opportunities for containing operational costs of current services: for example, closure of the 

Longworth Research Center and one copy center, elimination of the Info Pack, and 

reorganization of the Service’s information professional staff. In addition, the Service formed collegial research partnerships with major public policy universities to 

enhance research capacity, created a hiring strategy that does not routinely replace 

staff attrition one-for-one, but rather continually adjusts the work force composition 

to respond to the evolving needs of the Congress, and examined outsourcing of selected activities where cost efficiencies could be realized. I assure you that CRS has 

exhausted all reasonable means of realigning existing resources to maximize its efficiency and effectiveness in supporting the Congress. Yet despite these many efforts, 

our research priorities for the future remain in jeopardy without additional funding. 

Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request 

Mr. Chairman, I am requesting a total of $100.9 million for fiscal year 2005. This 

represents a 10.7 percent increase in funding over fiscal year 2004. This funding request is critical to the continual delivery of high-quality analysis to the Congress. 

A 2001 congressional directive obligates the CRS director to: ‘‘. . . bring to the attention of the appropriate House and Senate committees issues which directly impact the Congressional Research Service and its ability to serve the needs of the 

Congress. . . .’’ [H. Rept. 1033, Cong. Rec. 146, H12228, November 30, 2001]. I am 

fully aware of the fiscal realities that the Congress faces and the hard choices that 

must be made in the coming months, and I make a request for this funding because 

I believe that these resources are critical to preserving our ability to provide the 

Congress with the expertise and services it has come to rely upon so heavily. 

The remainder of my statement summarizes three critical challenges facing the 

Service this upcoming year—preserving the Service’s research capacity, meeting 

congressional requirements, and funding uncontrollable increases for essential research materials. 

Preservation of CRS Research Capacity 

Preserving CRS’s research capacity is of the highest priority. Over the last several 

years, with the help of the Congress, the Service has been able to abate erosion of 

its workforce. The Service’s capacity—measured by the number of full-time equivalent positions (FTEs)—has decreased from 763 in 1994 to 729 this year. After early 

and prolonged delays due to the implementation of the Library’s new merit selection, the Service has nearly rebuilt its capacity by hiring much needed analytic 

staff. To preserve this capacity the Service is requesting two actions full funding for 
16 

its mandatory pay and inflationary increases and a one-time adjustment to sustain 

its current ceiling of 729 full time equivalent staff. CRS needs $4.3 million to cover its mandatory and price-level cost increases. 

Without this adjustment, the Service would have to reduce its full-time equivalent 

(FTE) capacity by 37 staff. In addition, the Service’s budget request includes a onetime financial adjustment of $2.7 million to sustain the CRS current FTE level of 

729. Without the one-time funding adjustment, CRS would have to staff down further by another 25 FTEs. 

Change in the CRS workforce composition is an increasingly significant factor affecting personnel costs. The nature of the work—reflecting the increasingly complex 

and specialized research and information requirements of the Congress—dictates 

that CRS hire individuals with high levels of formal education and specialized experience. In the period from fiscal years 1995 to 2003, the grade level of the average 

new CRS hire has increased from a GS–7, step 9, to a GS–13, step 1, not including 

special hiring programs. 

When Congress confronts unanticipated major policy events, it turns immediately 

to CRS to draw on the existing stock of knowledge of CRS experts and their proven 

ability to assess situations and options reliably and objectively. Congress gained significant, immediate support from CRS experts as the world listened to early reports 

of the Columbia Space Shuttle accident, during the electricity blackout last August, 

when Mad Cow disease was found in the United States, when ricin was discovered 

in a Senate office building, and on many other occasions. 

Congress routinely turns to CRS as it engages in long-term policy endeavors for 

which precedents or experience is limited. Congress is receiving continuing assistance from CRS experts in formulating, implementing and overseeing a complex complement of provisions for homeland security; in grappling with major revisions in 

government personnel practices; in responding to an array of novel assaults on corporate and financial integrity; in responding to world health threats from SARS, 

avian flu, and AIDS; in assessing unique conditions in Iraq relating to security, reconstruction and governance; in relating a mix of policy objectives across the use 

of the tax code and providing for a robust economy in a far more globalized setting 

than experienced before. 

The Service’s productivity and performance in fiscal year 2003 are best illustrated 

by four measures of its workload during the year: (1) support for 160 major policy 

problems at all stages of the legislative agenda; (2) maintenance of 900 key products 

in major policy areas, representing a 30-percent increase over the 700 products 

maintained at the close of last fiscal year; (3) immediate 24/7 online access to key 

products and services through the Current Legislative Issues (CLI) system on the 

CRS Web site, with a 10-percent increase in congressional use of our electronic services over use last year; and (4) custom work for the Congress—thousands of confidential memoranda, in-person briefings, and telephone consultations. In fiscal year 

2003, CRS delivered 875,197 research responses, a number that includes analysis 

and information requests, product requests, in-person requests and services at Research Centers, electronic services, and seminars. 

Without the full funding of our mandatory costs and the one-time adjustment to 

our salary base, CRS would loose a total of 62 full-time equivalent staff—a 9 percent 

reduction to its workforce. The results would be devastating. What could be said 

with certainty is that, overall, CRS would not be able to provide the Congress with 

102,300 productive work hours per year. For example, for the 160 active policy areas 

for which CRS maintain ongoing research coverage, 682 productive work hours— 

more than 21 weeks per year per major issue—would be unavailable to the Congress. While the Service would do its best to carry out its mission to serve the Congress as it carries out its legislative function, this outcome would, by the very scope 

of its effect, force the Service to reduce seriously or eliminate customized, timely, 

and integrative analyses of some critical policy issues. It would be difficult to predict 

what issues would be the most impacted but seasoned, expert staff working on high 

demand issue areas would likely leave and we would not be able to replace them. 

Meeting Congressional Requirements 

Another challenge facing the Service is to support CRS business continuity and 

improved technological infrastructure activities as required by the Congress. I am 

seeking $622,000 for continuing operations of the alternative computer facility 

(ACF) that houses back-up and emergency computer and other technology capacity 

for the Congress, the Library and CRS. With this facility CRS will be able to meet 

needs of the Congress in emergency situations while maintaining a secure and reliable technology environment. 

The Service is also requesting $549,000 to develop the XML international standard authorized by the Congress as the data standard for the creation and accessi-
17 

bility of all congressional documents through the Legislative Information System 

(LIS). CRS will work with the Library’s Information Technology Services to implement this much-needed capability. Without funds to replace the existing search system, the LIS will need extensive, costly, and proprietary modifications to be able to 

receive and index the legislative documents you need. 

Meeting Uncontrollable Inflationary Increases for Essential Research Materials 

And the last challenge facing the Service is funding research materials. Providing 

accurate, timely, authoritative, and comprehensive research analysis and services to 

the Congress has become increasingly difficult due to the high annual increases in 

the costs of research materials. Thus our budget includes a one-time financial adjustment of $1.0 million to meet cumulative increases over recent years in subscription and publication prices. Restrictive industry policies limit our alternatives for 

obtaining needed materials, especially electronic resources, in a more cost-effective 

manner. Information resources sought with the additional funding include those 

that provide information on port security, prescription drug pricing, and the nature 

and status of corporate financial reporting. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to inform the Committee 

about the state of CRS. During a time of war, Congress, the First Branch of Government, must ensure that it maintains its independent capacity to analyze the complex challenges that the Nation confronts in combating terrorism and sustaining 

homeland security. 

I trust that you agree that CRS contributes significantly to this independent capacity of the Congress. I also trust that you believe we are fulfilling our mission 

in a way that warrants your continued support. I am, of course, always available 

to answer any questions that the Committee might have. 

Chairman STEVENS. When I first came here, it is my memory 

that in order to have access to the Congressional Research Service 

I had to go through a committee to make a request. Today you respond directly to the request of any Member, is that not right? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. That has always actually been the case. We always, since actually the 1946 legislation, the first Legislative Organization Act, 1946, then the Legislative Reference Service was 

founded, both to Members and committees, and that is our statutory charter. So an individual Member as well as committees. 

Now, what happened, what you are referring to is that major 

studies at the time were requested when you would have a letter 

from a committee. Our usual standard has been as far as 

prioritization, is that the chair and/or ranking member or the member of the committee of jurisdiction. It has always been roughly trying to meet the priorities that Congress gives to us, but for always 

we have tried to do our best to meet, through negotiation on a continuing basis, meet the concerns and the questions that each of 

Member of Congress has brought up. 

Chairman STEVENS. But are you not putting out a great many 

more individual reports for Members than you used to? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Yes, we are. In part, I think it reflects the challenges that the Congress has. I mean, there are a whole range of 

new issues alone that you helped us with on technology, and the 

impact of information technology and telecommunications are 

issues that are expanding exponentially as far as the legislative 

agenda is concerned. 

You can look on one aspect of terrorism, bioterrorism, and a 

whole range of issues. We had a report on ricin, a short report written by a biologist and a physicist together 11⁄2 years before the 

ricin attack here, updated immediately and Members and staff 

could get first-hand information about its range and what have 

you, as an example. 
18 

Chairman STEVENS. I am worried about the problem of responding in a very activist Congress to each Member. I really think that 

Members—I am guilty of this probably myself—we would rather 

have a memorandum from you to say, the CRS says this, than have 

a memorandum from our own staff, and some of them, very frankly, may have more experience in the area than your people do. 

But I do think that you are getting to the point where you are 

being used a little, and I wonder how we might slow that down. 

I do think there ought to be some priority given to basic issues that 

the Congress as a whole faces, rather than some of the issues that 

any Member on either side would utilize. Once your people get involved in those, they are tied up and they really cannot respond to 

the committees. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Well, I would submit to you I think that the 

issues that the service gets involved with are driven by the committee agendas at the subcommittee and committee level, and that 

what we try to do and do very well is manage the workload to focus 

on aspects of questions. So that if you are concerned with a particular issue with regard to marine fisheries and Mr. Larson also 

has another aspect coming from the eastern seaboard, we try to 

look at that and manage the issues in such a way that the report 

is out there to help both of you with regard to the general issue 

and then specifically, through conversation or specific memoranda, 

get to the particular issues that you have. 

We deal with and manage a significant legislative demand by 

finding correspondence on various issues to be able to manage that 

workload in a very cost effective way. I would submit oftentimes a 

CRS memoranda from staff can and does become actually the 

memoranda from the staff that we contribute to, because we are in 

a work process so that the staff, and I urge staff, to take some sections from a service report that is helpful and add it to the memoranda. 

If you are the style you want a one-pager, they take two paragraphs from the service report and they add the particular issue 

of focus, let us say it is particularly dealing with Juneau on one 

aspect and they know that, and the issue, and you have got a onepager for the Member. A lot of service reports are tailored to the 

Member, drawing upon that, and that should be. We are a shared 

resource. 

Chairman STEVENS. I do not want to belabor it, but I do think 

the real problem is—we had an attack on your entity once and I 

helped defend it on the basis of shared staff. But you cannot share 

the number of people you have with 535 people all at once. The 

prioritization problem is there and a constant one, and I hope you 

are reviewing that in terms of responding to people who have a 

task to perform as opposed to people who are just seeking information. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. We are legislatively focused. We continually 

say, okay, what is the legislative purpose behind that. And our 

statute requires us to: Are you looking at drafting a measure, 

drafting an amendment? We continue to focus on the lawmaking 

function. That is our job. 

Chairman STEVENS. Good. 

Mr. Ehlers? 
19 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. First a comment. It may comfort you to know 

at one time I issued a request on the history of contested elections 

in the House because I was chairing one. The Congressional Research Service decided that was not a legislative matter and it took 

me a long time to get a report. So not everyone gets prioritized. 

They do prioritize, I can assure you of that. 

A question, Mr. Mulhollan. In 1995 the Congress discontinued 

the Office of Technology Assessment and passed some duties on to 

the Congressional Research Service. I have noticed in the years 

since then that we more and more are asking the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, to do studies for 

us, which we pay for. They are not particularly cheap. 

Have your requests increased since we made that decision in 

1995? Are people automatically going to the National Academy? 

Furthermore, how many scientists do you have on staff to handle 

requests if they come to you? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Well, with regard to the first question, I would 

submit to you that the kinds of questions that OTA handled were 

quite different from the Congressional Research Service. OTA did 

technology assessments. There were roughly, I believe, about 25 a 

year. They were very in-depth. They brought to the table the private sector, the executive, the Academy, together to look at a complex issue. 

Our job is policy analysis. In statute we are to, as much as possible, anticipate the consequences of alternative provisions in proposing and the drafting of law. 

Mr. EHLERS. Did your workload go up after that? 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Yes. But the number of science questions, 

science-related questions, has gone up. I do not have any—I cannot 

give you any definitive figures. What we have done, and the Congress has helped us, actually in 2001 Congress gave us five additional senior GS–15 positions on impact of technology on Congress 

itself. Most recently, in 2003 we got seven positions, also five positions on terrorism, which included an epidemiologist and a 

bioethicist. 

We also have, for the aging we have a demographer, we have a 

gerontologist, a geneticist. We have increased also through our succession initiative, because we are in the same situation Dr. 

Billington was mentioning about our succession planning, to maintain our science capacity with physics, biology, and the solid 

sciences, coming in to expand that. Our scientific capacity has increased, not to the degree that I would like to see or I think you 

would like to see or the Congress needs, but we have increased 

that. I could give you more solid figures. 

Mr. EHLERS. I do not want to take more time now, but if you 

could send me a note on that I would appreciate it. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. You have got it. 

Chairman STEVENS. Mr. Ney? 

Mr. NEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thought the Internet, when I first heard of it, would cure all 

the—this did not come from you—but cure all your problems, because the staff could just research everything right there. It obviously has not decreased your workload, having the Internet available. 
20 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Well, it actually has helped in managing the 

service. CRS’ web site provides on a 24 by 7 basis to Members and 

staff of the committees service analysis on a constant basis. So that 

when, for instance, when the Space Shuttle Columbia came down, 

our nationally known expert Marsha Smith was over the weekend 

and had up on Monday morning—— 

Mr. NEY. No, no, I am sorry. I mean, our staff should be able— 

at one point in time I was told here years ago that the Internet 

would allow our staff to go ahead and conduct research without 

calling CRS. In reality, there are issues with the accuracy of information and actually locating that for which you are looking. That 

is what I meant. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Well, in that instance, you are quite right. This 

was several years ago: One of the major search engines, when you 

put ‘‘holocaust’’ the first 23 of the 25 said it did not exist. There 

are significant problems as far—and that is why I think Dr. 

Billington has talked about why librarians are expert as far as 

navigation on the concern. 

But what has happened is, as I indicated—and we closed the 

Longworth Research Center as a cost-benefit—is that the information-seeking behavior of Members and staff has changed and certain specific questions can be obtained, factual questions, but they 

need to be checked, but the kinds of questions we are getting are 

actually more complex. It is hard to document, but that is in fact 

the universal response that I get from my colleagues. 

Mr. NEY. I will not take much more time. We had LSC in Ohio— 

I do not know if you are familiar with that—when I was a State 

senator. It was this great research engine and resource for the legislature. What you do is clearly important. If we do not have you, 

if you cannot do it, it is going to not allow us to respond to constituents, because things have changed. 

The opening up of people knowing about hearings and information creates a great ability to get information out to the public or 

to the world, but it also creates work, too, because there are more 

people who know what is going on and ask us questions. 

I will just close by saying, too, something that our great ranking 

member Congressman Larson worked on, that we did and we got 

a lot of heat for it, but it ties to your potential bankruptcy. We 

made a decision, and there was a pilot previous to us that looked 

at CRS and making every single CRS product available online. 

We decided if a Member wants to do that, that is fine, but if the 

Member does not want to do it that is fine, too, because there are 

a lot of things we will go research and, frankly, it is sensitive information in the sense that when you put it out there, what constituent asked you to research it. So there is a confidentiality issue. 

I know some people are not happy about it, but it was proven 

correct what we did, because I got a phone call last week. There 

were some lobbyists who were horrifically upset with Congressman 

Larson and me because they could not get freebies any more off of 

CRS through Members offices. So I think what we did was correct. 

I did not want to comment, but I just thought I would say that. 

That would have cost I think millions and millions of dollars, for 

you to have to put every single thing on line. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Thank you. 
21 

Chairman STEVENS. My apologies. We have a tradition of going 

from one side of the Congress to the other and I did not look to 

my right. I should have looked. Senator Cochran. 

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

I was pleased to notice in your statement, Mr. Mulhollan, that 

you refer to the report that we included in 2001 setting forth our 

commitment to support the Congressional Research Service and its 

budget request to meet the staffing needs so that you can respond 

to the Congress. I still think that when we have it in the title of 

this institution, the ‘‘Library of Congress,’’ that is what it means. 

It is the Library of Congress, for Congress, to support Congress. 

It also is, as Dr. Billington has often so eloquently pointed out, 

a national treasure as well, and it goes way beyond that. But still, 

this is a core function, and I am hopeful that your budget request 

can be approved and supported by the committee. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Chairman STEVENS. Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just a comment. I appreciate your eloquent defense of the need 

to make sure we continue to provide Members of Congress with the 

most up to date and knowledgeable research available to us. It is 

a core function of the institution and you perform your jobs admirably. I want to thank you for that. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. I am going to close with just a comment to 

you two. I would like to have you consider some kind of a Congressional hour once a week, that we will know if we come over there 

we will see another facet of the Library and have that facet explained to us, and leave it open to Members or one staff from each. 

Theoretically you could have 500 people. You are not going to have 

that. And let us know what the subject is going to be. 

I find at times there are things over there that I did not even 

dream were there. As long as I have wandered around there—and 

I have been wandering around there since 1950, as you know—it 

is still a complex thing for us. I would like to have a show and tell 

hour for Congress and the staff once a week. You pick the time, 

like 9:00 to 10:00 in the morning on a Tuesday or something, and 

we will see that you get some people over there to try and learn 

more about what you are doing, so we can be more articulate in 

terms of defending your budgets and the authorizations we have to 

give you. 

Just consider it. Now, it is not a mandate. That is just a thought. 

Okay? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. It would be helpful if you indicate to us what 

the best time would be for Members. 

Chairman STEVENS. For the Senate it would be Tuesday morning. There are not enough here on Monday morning, I have got to 

tell you. 

I do not know about you. We do not usually meet before 10:00 

on Tuesday morning. So if we had a 9:00 to 10:00 show and tell 

on Tuesday morning, we could stop by there on the way to work, 

if we were interested. And you would send us a bulletin on what 

it is going to be next week, okay. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Okay. 
22 

Chairman STEVENS. Just think about it, if this will be helpful. 

Would you not like that? 

Senator COCHRAN. Yes. 

Chairman STEVENS. Do you have any problem with that, Mr. 

Chairman? 

Mr. EHLERS. No, that would be fine. 

Chairman STEVENS. Thank you. That is just a suggestion. 

Now, any further questions of the Library of Congress, gentlemen? 

[No response.] 

Chairman STEVENS. Well, we do thank you both. It really is a 

grand asset for our country and it has become even more so important, more important in the world. I just wish we had another one 

of those years when we had enough money that we could give you 

another little bit of a boost like we did once. I do not see it this 

year, but we will do our best to get you the money you need. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MULHOLLAN. Thank you. 

Chairman STEVENS. And General Scott, thank you very much for 

being with us. 

General SCOTT. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman STEVENS. We appreciate it. 

The Architect of the Capitol, please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

LEONE REEDER, ACTING CHAIR, NATIONAL FUND FOR THE U.S. 

BOTANIC GARDEN 

STEPHEN WARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FUND FOR 

THE U.S. BOTANIC GARDEN 

Mr. HANTMAN. Chairman Stevens, Vice Chairman Ehlers, members of the Joint Committee: I would like to submit my formal 

statement for the record—— 

Chairman STEVENS. First, who is with you, please? 

Mr. HANTMAN. That is the next line, sir. 

And make some brief opening remarks. I thank you for inviting 

me here to update you on the National Garden project and to bring 

before you our recommended method of recognizing supporters of 

the National Garden. 

I am joined at the table by Ms. Leone Reeder, who is Acting 

Chair of the National Fund for the U.S. Botanic Garden and representative on the Fund’s board of the Garden Clubs of America 

from all 50 States; and Mr. Stephen Ward, Executive Director of 

the National Fund for the U.S. Botanic Garden. I have asked these 

folks to join me here because, as you are aware, this project has 

been a joint venture among the Joint Committee on the Library, 

the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, and the National Fund 

for the U.S. Botanic Garden. It also has a long history that goes 

back to 1989 when the project was first conceived. It has been a 

major work in progress until today. 

Mr. Chairman, we are now at the end of that very long road and 

we are ready to move forward to make the vision for this National 

Garden, conceived by your predecessors and mine, a reality. In 

working with the National Fund over the past several years, I have 
23 

watched them try to meet the challenge of their mission to raise 

the necessary funds to begin this project, and also to wrestle with 

the issue of what they wanted to propose as appropriate donor recognition for their fundraising efforts. 

I have also witnessed, Mr. Chairman, how the fund overcame the 

sudden tragic death of its executive director last year and seen how 

it became re-energized under the direction of Ms. Reeder and Mr. 

Ward. 

I have also met with members of the JCL staff and discussed 

their concerns with the issue of the nature of donor recognition on 

Capitol Hill. We believe our proposal reaches an acceptable and appropriate compromise, one that effectively blends together the 

fund’s prior commitments and the desires of my office and the Congress to provide for a respectful, dignified National Garden of 

which we can all be proud. 

When we held the symbolic groundbreaking ceremony for this 

project, Mr. Chairman, in October 2001, we had a well-defined vision. Today we come before you with a final plan and the National 

Fund’s financing in hand, ready to be transferred for the construction of a beautiful garden. This National Garden will not only be 

a wonderful oasis on what is now a vacant, invaluable piece of Capitol Hill real estate, it will be a natural complement to the U.S. Botanic Garden, an outdoor living museum of plants. 

In that regard, we are here today to request your approval of the 

donor recognition plan so that we may move forward expeditiously, 

sign a contract with a contractor selected through a competitive 

bidding process, and begin construction on this beautiful garden. 

The fund is here today, Mr. Chairman, check in hand. 

At this time Ms. Reeder, Mr. Ward, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HONORABLE ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA 

Chairman Stevens, Vice-Chairman Ehlers, and Members of the Joint Committee; 

thank you for inviting me here today to bring before you our prepared method of 

recognizing supporters of the National Garden. I am joined at the table by Ms. 

Leone Reeder, acting Chair of the National Fund for the U.S. Botanic Garden 

(USBG); and Mr. Stephen Ward, Executive Director of the National Fund for the 

U.S. Botanic Garden. 

As you are aware, donor recognition in the National Garden was approved by the 

Joint Committee on the Library by then-Chairman Claiborne Pell in 1991. The JCL 

reaffirmed its position in 1993 under then-Chairman Charlie Rose, with the condition that the Joint Committee on the Library would approve specific design plans 

proposed to recognize donors. The National Fund for the Botanic Garden then began 

to solicit donations for the National Garden with the understanding that those donors would be recognized in an appropriate and respectful way. 

We are here before you today to request your approval of our donor recognition 

plan so we may move forward with our efforts to begin construction of this beautiful 

garden. 

Mr. Chairman, this project was competitively bid and the selected proposal will 

expire on March 11, 2004. The contractor has already extended its bid twice and 

will not do so a third time. With your approval of the donor recognition plan we 

are proposing, the money raised by the fund will be transferred to my office and 

procurement for construction will be completed. 

As you can see in Attachment A provided with my testimony, currently the National Fund has raised $9.3 million for the National Garden construction. By securing this level of funding, we will be able to build the Base Bid plus Option One. 

The base bid includes the Rose Garden, Butterfly Garden, Lawn Terrace, Hornbeam 

Court, and a simplified and reduced grading and landscape plan with infrastructure 
24 

planning for future options. Option One includes the Garden pathway which frames 

the area for future options and provides attractive groupings of trees and shrub 

plantings. 

The construction of the Base Bid and Option One will create a beautiful garden 

that will be enhanced by the staff of the Botanic Garden’s creative landscape ability. 

Because it sits at the base of Capitol Hill, we would expect nothing less. 

The National Fund believes that once construction begins, they will be able to 

raise additional funds that would allow for the inclusion of other options in the contract. Option Two is the Regional Garden. Option Three is the First Ladies Water 

Garden; and Option Four, the Environmental Learning Center—would be the only 

structure built on the site—if funding becomes available. 

We have been moving forward with our preparatory efforts to construct the Garden. In August of 2002, a solicitation was issued to 25 qualified and interested bidders. We solicited competition through the use of competitive negotiation procedure 

of Source Selection. Two proposals were received in December 2002, both exceeding 

available funds. Over the next several months, we worked with the Fund and our 

architect and engineering firms to produce a viable action plan. The project was 

simplified over the next few months, and in November 2003, we produced a workable proposal. The project is now phased into a Base Bid with four options, allowing 

the fund to raise additional money for future options within the time frame it takes 

to construct the project. 

Based on conversations we have had with Members’ offices, we also have worked 

with the National Fund to dramatically scale back its original proposal for donor 

recognition. 

The issue before the JCL today is how do we recognize donors in a respectful way, 

while at the same time, not detracting from the garden’s beauty and stature? 

We believe we have found an appropriate and acceptable way to do so. If you refer 

to Attachment B, you will see a rendering of a freestanding bronze plaque. The 

plaque measures four feet by six feet and will include the names of the Garden’s 

founding donors. The next attachment shows a sample listing of the donors. This 

list is subject to revision if additional donations are received during construction of 

the project, however, size of the plaque will not change. Finally, the plaque will be 

located in a discreet location in the Hornbeam Court, as seen on the map—Attachment C. 

The second form of recognition that the National Fund solicited was in the form 

of sidewalk pavers that would be located in the Butterfly Garden—Attachment D. 

To date approximately 500 pavers at $1,000 each have been sold. The Fund initiated 

this fundraising effort to include many National Garden Clubs of America and individual citizens. In addition, many current and former Members of Congress are supporting the project through the purchase of these pavers to commemorate the Bicentennial of Congress. 

At the heart of this effort are the 235,000 individuals—from nearly every state— 

who have purchased the pavers. Individuals from organizations such as the Federated Garden Clubs of Connecticut and Michigan, to the Garden Clubs of Georgia 

and Mississippi, to the Alaska State Federation of Garden Clubs; have raised money 

through flower sales and local fundraisers. They have worked very hard for this National Garden and it would be a shame for them to go unrecognized. 

We hope the Committee will approve the recognition design plan before you today 

so the project may move forward. We believe the Garden will greatly add to visitors’ 

experiences to Capitol Hill by connecting people to nature and provide Members of 

Congress and their staffs with a beautiful and peaceful sanctuary which will complement our wonderful Botanic Garden Conservatory. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 

PURCHASED PAVERS FOR THE NATIONAL GARDEN

The National Fund for the USBG sold close to 500 pavers at $1,000 a piece. Purchasers were given a certificate, see attached, for their paver. Also attached is a list 

of paver purchasers which include current and former Members of Congress, 271 individuals and 223 garden clubs from across the United States representing 235,000 

members. 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 

THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, 

Washington, DC, September 25, 1991. 

The Honorable CLAIBORNE PELL, 

Chairman, Joint Committee on the Library, United States Congress, Washington, DC 

20510. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As indicated in my recent letter to you, the continued success of the fund-raising effort for the construction of the National Garden by the 

National Fund for the United States Botanic Garden (‘‘the Fund’’) requires the Fund 

to be able to offer major donors appropriate recognition of their contributions. It is 

also important that the Fund be able to offer such recognition when major gifts are 

being solicited. 

The Executive Committee of the Fund, comprised of the representatives who met 

with me on July 30, have accordingly proposed a program of major donor recognition 

that, in my judgment, requires the advance approval of the Joint Committee on the 

Library. In general, recognition would involve the placement of the name of the 

donor within the garden, in a tasteful and dignified manner that would not detract 

from the beauty of the garden display. An instructive example may be found in the 

recognition given to major donors to the Capitol Columns site within the National 

Arboretum. As you may know, this project was undertaken by the Friends of the 

National Arboretum, a nonprofit organization operating under an agreement with 

the Secretary of Agriculture. Major donors to this project are recognized by dignified 

inscriptions incised into the marble floor adjacent the columns, which as you know 

are the original columns from the East Front of the Capitol. Another major donor 

is recognized by an inscription on the small fountain in the center of the site. 

The Fund proposes that donors of $1 million or more could have their names associated with a specific component of the garden, such as the teaching pavilion, the 
32 

fountain, the rose garden or the like. The actual design of such recognition would 

await the design of the National Garden itself so that it would be properly integrated into the overall plan. (Inasmuch as the total cost of the National Garden is 

estimated to be somewhat more than $4 million the number of names to be so recognized would be quite limited.) Donors of amounts of $1,000 and above would be recognized in some tasteful aggregated way with appropriate distinctions according to 

the levels of giving. It would be our plan to work with the Fund to have this form 

of recognition embodied in some work of art integrated into the design of the garden 

itself. This might perhaps be a wall or some work of sculpture. The actual design 

of the collective recognition treatment will also be worked out during the preparation of construction documents for the National Garden, which process will begin 

soon with funds already raised by the Fund. Contributions of less than $1,000 would 

be recognized in a suitably designed and bound book located within the teaching pavilion. 

In addition, the Fund proposes that donors of $200,000 or more be given the opportunity, if they so desire, to host a function in the National Garden after its completion. On the presumption that the relevant rules for use of the Conservatory 

would apply, this would involve only the advance waiver of the condition of the 

Joint Committee for the use of the facility that requires the host to be a non-profit 

entity with IRS tax exempt status. All conditions that otherwise pertain to such 

Congressionally related events, such as sponsorship by a Representative or Senator, 

would continue to apply. 

I believe these proposals constitute ordinary and necessary policies for any professionally organized undertaking to raise private funds for a significant project of this 

nature, and I recommend your approval. Every major donor may not require recognition but its availability is important to the creditability of the Fund’s campaign. 

As stated in my earlier letter to you on this subject, the existing National Garden 

legislation requiring the raising of private funds, in my view, reasonably contemplates the use of standard practices typically employed in fund-raising campaigns. 

It would be the role of this office to assure that these policies are followed in a 

way that does not detract from the dignity of the Congress or the U.S. Botanic Garden or from the high aesthetic standards that will apply to the design of the National Garden. 

The approval of this approach by the Joint Committee at this time will enable 

the Fund to pursue its fund-raising activities more effectively. 

A similar letter has been sent to the Honorable Charles Rose, Vice Chairman, 

Joint Committee on the Library. 

I would be pleased to provide any further information you might desire in this 

regard. 

Cordially, 

GEORGE M. WHITE, FAIA, 

Architect of the Capitol. 

Approved: Claiborne Pell, Chairman. 

Date: October 21, 1991. 

THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL, 

Washington, DC, April 16, 1993. 

The Honorable CHARLIE ROSE, 

Chairman, Joint Committee on the Library, United States Congress, Washington, DC 

20515. 

DEAR CHARLIE: I am pleased to report that planning for the National Garden is 

proceeding well, in cooperation with the National Fund for the U.S. Botanic Garden 

(‘‘the Fund’’). 

As you will recall, the Fund sponsored a national competition for design approaches to three components of the National Garden, the rose garden, water garden and environmental learning center. We are in the process of melding the approaches taken by the three winners of that competition with the overall master 

plan approved by your committee in 1989. 

The Fund has been successful in raising approximately $2 million thus far for the 

National Garden, and it is financing the design work now being undertaken by 

transferring funds to this office as contemplated by the applicable authorizing and 

appropriations legislation. 

The success achieved thus far in raising funds is based in significant measure on 

the ability of the Fund to recognize major donors in some appropriate way. In 1991 
33 

I received approval from the Honorable Claiborne Pell, then Chairman of the Joint 

Committee, for a proposal from the Fund as described in the enclosed letter. 

It has come to my attention that my request to you of September 25, 1991 as then 

Vice Chairman of the Committee has been misplaced, and this letter is intended to 

renew the request so that the Fund can continue with its program with confidence 

that it has the Joint Committee’s approval. 

In general, recognition would involve the placement of the name of the donor 

within the garden, in a tasteful and dignified manner that would not detract from 

the beauty of the garden display. An instructive example may be found in the recognition given to major donors to the Capitol Columns site within the National Arboretum. As you may know, this project was undertaken by the Friends of the National Arboretum, a nonprofit organization operating under an agreement with the 

Secretary of Agriculture. Major donors to this project are recognized by dignified inscriptions incised into the marble floor adjacent the columns, which as you know 

are the original columns from the East Front of the Capitol. Another major donor 

is recognized by an inscription on the small fountain in the center of the site. 

The Fund proposes that donors of $1 million or more could have their names associated with a specific component of the garden, such as the environmental learning 

center, the water garden, the rose garden or the like. The actual design of such recognition would await the design of the National Garden itself so that it would be 

properly integrated into the overall plan. (Inasmuch as the total cost of the National 

Garden is estimated to be somewhat more than $5 million the number of names to 

be so recognized would be quite limited.) Donors of amounts of $1,000 and above 

would be recognized in some tasteful aggregated way with appropriate distinctions 

according to the levels of giving. It would be our plan to work with the Fund to have 

this form of recognition embodied in some work of art integrated into the design of 

the garden itself. This might perhaps be a wall or some work of sculpture. The actual design of the collective recognition treatment will also be worked out during 

the preparation of construction documents for the National Garden, which process 

will begin soon with funds already raised by the Fund. Contributions of less than 

$1,000 would be recognized in a suitably designed and bound book located within 

the environmental learning center. 

In addition, the Fund proposes that donors of $200,000 or more be given the opportunity, if they so desire, to host a function in the National Garden after its completion. This would involve only the advance waiver of the condition of the Joint 

Committee for the use of the facility that requires the host to be a non-profit entity 

with IRS tax exempt status. All conditions that otherwise pertain to such Congressionally related events, such as sponsorship by a Representative or Senator, would 

continue to apply. 

I believe these proposals constitute ordinary and necessary policies for any professionally organized undertaking to raise private funds for a significant project of this 

nature, and I recommend your approval. Every major donor may not require recognition but its availability is important to the creditability of the Fund’s campaign. 

In my judgment, the existing National Garden legislation requiring the raising of 

private funds reasonably contemplates the use of standard practices typically employed in fund-raising campaigns. 

It would be the role of this office to assure that these policies are followed in a 

way that does not detract from the dignity of the Congress or the U.S. Botanic Garden or from the high aesthetic standards that will apply to the design of the National Garden. 

The approval of this approach by the Joint Committee at this time will enable 

the Fund to continue to pursue its fund-raising activities more effectively. 

I would be pleased to provide any further information you might desire in this 

regard. 

Cordially, 

GEORGE M. WHITE, FAIA, 

Architect of the Capitol. 

Enclosure. 

Approved: With the condition that the Joint Committee on the Library be kept 

informed of the specific design plans proposed to recognize those donors contributing 

$1,000 and more. 

Charlie Rose, Chairman. 

Date: May 11, 1993. 
34 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC, November 22, 1989. 

Honorable GEORGE M. WHITE, 

Architect of the Capitol, SB–15, The Capitol, Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR GEORGE: After contacting the full membership of the Joint Committee on 

the Library, I am pleased to inform you that the Committee has approved the conceptual design for a National Garden commemorating the Bicentennial of Congress. 

The planned National Garden, which will occupy the adjacent tract west of the 

U.S. Botanic Garden Conservatory, will serve as a splendid commemoration of the 

Bicentennial of the Congress and a beautiful public garden for those visiting and 

living in our Nation’s Capitol. 

The design having been approved, you are authorized to seek funding for the purpose of constructing the National Garden. Pursuant to Public Law 100–458, you are 

directed to accept gifts, including money, plants, volunteer time, planning, construction and installation expenses, assistance and implements, and garden structures, 

on behalf of the United States Botanic Garden for the National Garden project. 

As Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Library, I would like to be kept informed of the progress of this project. 

With every best wish, I am 

Sincerely, 

FRANK ANNUNZIO, 

Chairman. 

TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS 

CHAPTER 30—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CAPITOL COMPLEX 

SUBCHAPTER VI—BOTANIC GARDEN AND NATIONAL GARDEN 

Sec. 2146. National Garden 

(a) Establishment; gifts 

The Architect of the Capitol, subject to the direction of the Joint Committee on 

the Library, is authorized to— 

(1) construct a National Garden demonstrating the diversity of plants, including the rose, our national flower, to be located between Maryland and Independence Avenues, S.W., and extending from the Botanic Garden Conservatory to 

Third Streets, S.W., in the District of Columbia; and 

(2) solicit, receive, accept, and hold gifts, including money, plant material, and 

other property, on behalf of the Botanic Garden, and to dispose of, utilize, obligate, expend, disburse, and administer such gifts for the benefit of the Botanic 

Garden, including among other things, the carrying out of any programs, duties, 

or functions of the Botanic Garden, and for constructing, equipping, and maintaining the National Garden referred to in paragraph (1). 

(b) Gifts and bequests of money; investment; appropriations 

(1) Gifts or bequests of money under subsection (a)(2) of this section shall, when 

received by the Architect, be deposited with the Treasurer of the United States, who 

shall credit these deposits as offsetting collections to an account entitled ‘‘Botanic 

Garden, Gifts and Donations’’. The gifts or bequests described under subsection 

(a)(2) of this section shall be accepted only in the total amount provided in appropriations Acts. 

(2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest any portion of the account designated in paragraph (1) that, as determined by the Architect, is not required to 

meet current expenses. Each investment shall be made in an interest-bearing obligation of the United States or an obligation guaranteed both as to principal and interest by the United States that, as determined by the Architect, has a maturity 

date suitable for the purposes of the account. The Secretary of the Treasury shall 

credit interest earned on the obligations to the account. 

(3) Receipts, obligations, and expenditures of funds under this section shall be included in annual estimates submitted by the Architect for the operation and maintenance of the Botanic Garden and such funds shall be expended by the Architect, 

without regard to section 5 of title 41, for the purposes of this section after approval 

in appropriation Acts. All such sums shall remain available until expended, without 

fiscal year limitation. 
35 

(c) Donations of personal services 

(1) In carrying out this section and his duties, the Architect of the Capitol may 

accept personal services, including educationally related work assignments for students in nonpay status, if the service is to be rendered without compensation. 

(2) No person shall be permitted to donate his or her personal services under this 

section unless such person has first agreed, in writing, to waive any and all claims 

against the United States arising out of or in connection with such services, other 

than a claim under the provisions of chapter 81 of title 5. 

(3) No person donating personal services under this section shall be considered 

an employee of the United States for any purpose other than for purposes of chapter 

81 of title 5. 

(4) In no case shall the acceptance of personal services under this section result 

in the reduction of pay or displacement of any employee of the Botanic Garden. 

(d) Tax deductions 

Any gift accepted by the Architect of the Capitol under this section shall be considered a gift to the United States for purposes of income, estate, and gift tax laws 

of the United States. 

SOURCE

(Pub. L. 100–458, title III, Sec. 307E, Oct. 1, 1988, 102 Stat. 2183; Pub. L. 102– 

229, title II, Sec. 209(a), Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1716; Pub. L. 104–53, title II, Sec. 

201(b), Nov. 19, 1995, 109 Stat. 529; Pub. L. 105–275, title II, Sec. 201, Oct. 21, 

1998, 112 Stat. 2445.) 

REFERENCES IN TEXT

The income, estate, and gift tax laws of the United States, referred to in subsec. 

(d), are classified generally to Title 26, Internal Revenue Code. 

CODIFICATION

Section was classified to section 216c of former Title 40, prior to the enactment 

of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, by Pub. L. 107–217, Sec. 1, Aug. 

21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062. 

AMENDMENTS

1998—Subsec. (b)(2), (3). Pub. L. 105–275 added par. (2) and redesignated former 

par. (2) as (3). 

1995—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 104–53 substituted ‘‘plants’’ for ‘‘plans’’. 

1991—Pub. L. 102–229 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section 

read as follows: ‘‘The Architect of the Capitol, subject to the direction of the Joint 

Committee on the Library, is authorized to— 

‘‘(1) construct a National Garden demonstrating the diversity of plants, including the rose, our national flower, to be located between Maryland and Independence Avenues, S.W., and extending from the United States Botanic Garden 

Conservatory to Third Street, S.W., in the District of Columbia; and 

‘‘(2) accept gifts, including money, plants, volunteer time, planning, construction and installation expenses, assistance and implements, and garden structures, on behalf of the United States Botanic Garden for the purpose of constructing the National Garden described in paragraph (1).’’ 

FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTING, EQUIPPING, AND MAINTAINING NATIONAL

GARDEN

Pub. L. 102–392, title II, Sec. 201, Oct. 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1716, as amended by 

Pub. L. 104–53, title II, Sec. 201(a), Nov. 19, 1995, 109 Stat. 529; Pub. L. 106–554, 

Sec. 1(a)(2) (title III, Sec. 312), Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–120; Pub. L. 

107–68, title I, Sec. 135, Nov. 12, 2001, 115 Stat. 583, provided that: 

‘‘(a) Pursuant to section 307E of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1989 

(40 U.S.C. 216c) (now 2 U.S.C. 2146), not more than $16,500,000 shall be accepted 

and not more than $16,500,000 of the amounts accepted shall be available for obligation by the Architect of the Capitol for constructing, equipping, and maintaining 

the National Garden. 

‘‘(b) The Architect of the Capitol is authorized to solicit, receive, accept, and hold 

amounts under section 307E(a)(2) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 

1989 (40 U.S.C. 216c(a)(2)) (now 2 U.S.C. 2146(a)(2)) in excess of the $16,500,000 

authorized under subsection (a), but such amounts (and any interest thereon) shall 
36 

not be expended by the Architect without approval in appropriation Acts as required 

under section 307E(b)(3) of such Act (40 U.S.C. 216c(b)(3)) (now 2 U.S.C. 

2146(b)(3)).’’ 

RENOVATION OF CONSERVATORY OF BOTANIC GARDEN

Section 209(b) of Pub. L. 102–229 provided that: ‘‘Pursuant to section 307E of the 

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1989 (2 U.S.C. 2146), not more than 

$2,000,000 shall be accepted and not more than $2,000,000 of the amounts accepted 

shall be available for obligation by the Architect for preparation of working drawings, specifications, and cost estimates for renovation of the Conservatory of the Botanic Garden.’’ 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 

Chairman STEVENS. Pardon us. I had showed to Senator Cochran 

the letter that you sent to me as chairman. I think you received 

one too, Mr. Ehlers. It requested approval of a specific form of recognition for donors to the National Garden. 

I have shown that to a couple of members and one objected very 

strenuously to it. That is one of the reasons we have gotten around 

to calling this meeting today. It is my understanding that the garden has gone forward now with the solicitation of funds for the 

pavers and for the wall and that we actually have, you actually 
48 

now have received a substantial amount of money. Would you tell 

us where that stands? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, a check for $9,296,000 and change 

is right here; from the fund, ready to be transferred to us so that 

we can sign a contract, hopefully before March 11 of this year. The 

money is in hand for the completion of the base bid and the first 

phase of the project as defined in the material that we sent to you. 

The fund also believes that in the next 12 months that they could 

raise additional funds for phases two and three of the project as we 

are under construction, and the contractor who has been selected 

through the competitive bidding process is ready to accept those 

additional dollars within the first 12 months or so of the construction period. 

Chairman STEVENS. The objection was that never before in history has there been an identification of a donor in that way. There 

has been recognition in the sense of having a room or a building 

named after a donor, but not of the kind of recognition that comes 

from having a physical presence on a wall or having names on the 

floor. To your knowledge, has this been done by the Congress in 

any other way? 

Mr. HANTMAN. I do not believe it has been done on Capitol Hill, 

Senator. The issue is, right across the street at the American Indian Museum—I was there on Friday. I think two-thirds of the cost 

of that building was funded by the Congress, the rest through private funding. They have a donor wall right at the main entrance 

for major donors and low walls on the upper levels for up to 40,000 

donations of $150 each. It is right across the street from where the 

National Garden will be built. 

But in terms of Capitol Hill itself, I am not aware specifically of 

donor recognition. 

Ms. REEDER. Could I address that? We have in our files a letter 

to Senator Moynihan in 1992 from the Federal Election Commission, where he was getting—when this garden was started, the 

plan was that this would recognize the bicentennial of the Congress—so it has been going for a very long time, since 1992—and 

that the pavers in particular would be a Congressional walk. 

So this paper says that it is all right for a Congressperson to give 

$1,000 out of their campaign funds for a paver. 

Chairman STEVENS. What appears on the paver then? 

Ms. REEDER. Well, their name, the name of the person on the 

paver. 

So when we started it was to be a Congressional walk. I understand that they did not sell that many pavers to Congressmen, but 

there are 60 pavers that were bought by Congressmen, including 

Gerald Ford, the former President. 

They then opened those up to the people of the country, and so 

the National Garden Clubs, which is the largest gardening organization in the world, were recruited to help us sell those pavers. 

They have 8,800 garden clubs and the garden clubs in 49 States 

responded, representing 235,000 of their members, and they did 

the equivalent of a bake sale, these little clubs. They sold—— 

Chairman STEVENS. May I interrupt you. We have got to go to 

a meeting. 
49 

That is not the point. The point is this establishes a tradition of 

putting donors’ names on facilities of the Congress and it was objected to. I think before we are through here we are going to have 

to have a motion for a vote, and we will circulate the item to the 

members who are not present and then have everyone vote. 

Am I correct that there was no specific authorization of Congress 

for a concept that the pavers or the wall would have the names of 

donors? 

Mr. HANTMAN. There was specific authorization of Congress to 

have recognition of the donors. The method for that recognition was 

not defined. 

Chairman STEVENS. But nothing said it would be a physical presence on the walls or on the floors or on anything, other than the 

traditional plaque at the door saying that the Garden Clubs of 

America have donated this? 

Mr. HANTMAN. I believe there were words that did address specific recognition in different parts of the garden. In fact, it started 

out that a $1 million donor could get a name in a specific portion 

of the garden. 

Chairman STEVENS. Congress gave approval to that? 

Mr. HANTMAN. That is correct, sir. 

Chairman STEVENS. Who gave that approval? 

Senator COCHRAN. It is dated April 16, 1993, in one document 

where George White writes a letter confirming the understanding 

with Charlie Rose, who was the chairman at that time of the Joint 

Committee, and they talk about ‘‘an appropriate way of recognizing 

donors of $1 million or more, to have their names associated with 

a specific component of the garden, such as the environmental 

learning center, the water garden, the rose garden, or the like.’’ Then it goes on to talk about ‘‘Donors of amounts of $1,000 and 

above would be recognized in some tasteful aggregated way, with 

appropriate distinctions according to the levels of giving.’’ 

This was approved and signed by Charlie Rose May 11, 1993, as 

chairman of the committee, and it was approved with the condition 

that the Joint Committee on the Library be kept informed of the 

specific design plans proposed to recognize those donors contributing $1,000 or more. 

Chairman STEVENS. How was that done? 

Mr. HANTMAN. In terms of—— 

Chairman STEVENS. Was there further consultation with the 

committee on the plans for this type of recognition of donors? 

Mr. HANTMAN. There was a lot of discussion, Mr. Chairman, over 

time about how best to raise funds. The fund was working on that 

very strongly, and the issue of how they wanted to recognize donors 

was something that they had dealt with with great difficulty. 

Their projections for their fundraising, unfortunately, were overly optimistic. So as they tried to raise the funding—and in fact we 

raised the cap level potentially to $16.5 million that would allow 

the fund to raise those dollars—that unfortunately was optimistic, 

and the unexpected death of the executive director last year caused 

a major disruption in the fund’s activities. 

But under the direction of Ms. Reeder and Mr. Ward, the fund 

was re-energized. They reviewed what was discussed with donors 

over the years and the commitments that were made and then 
50 

came to us with a donor recognition plan. We recognize the sensitivities of the Congress to the issue of the donor recognition on 

Capitol Hill and I was working with the fund, members of JCL 

staff and my staff to craft what I believe is an appropriate compromise that balances the fund’s commitments and Congress’ requirements. 

The proposal we bring to you today, Mr. Chairman, is much more 

modest than the fund originally proposed. When you talked about 

walls, that in fact was what was being proposed originally. It was 

a donor wall with names across it maybe 30 feet long. What we are 

coming to you today for, sir, is one 4 by 6 foot plaque, freestanding 

in bronze, and the pavers in the one section. 

Chairman STEVENS. Mr. Ehlers, do you have any comment—oh, 

pardon me. 

Senator COCHRAN. May I ask a question? 

Chairman STEVENS. Yes. 

Senator COCHRAN. Am I not correct too that at the Madison Library we had a long discussion one time about recognition of specific individuals with engraved names in the walls there? Was that 

not approved? Did that not go forward? I do not know if Dr. 

Billington remembers that. 

Ms. MIES. That was the 106th Congress. 

Senator COCHRAN. But we did approve that. Oh, we did not approve it? 

Ms. MIES. You did not approve that. There was discussion of 

that. 

Chairman STEVENS. No, I do not think that was done. 

Mr. HANTMAN. There were discussions to that effect. 

Chairman STEVENS. Mr. Ehlers, do you have any comment, sir? 

Are you done, Thad? 

Senator COCHRAN. Yes. 

Mr. EHLERS. I would verify that, because I was present for that 

discussion and my memory is it was rejected and the Library was 

instructed to find some alternative. 

Mr. Chairman, my comments first of all are more general. I 

think we have a problem that goes beyond this and I think we need 

to institute regular reporting requirements from the Architect of 

the Capitol. This is now the third time that I have basically been 

informed of a project when it has already gone out for bid. The 

plans are drawn, it has gone out for bid, and we are asked to approve it. 

I would like to request that we get regular reports from the Architect of the Capitol on every project that it is undergoing and be 

kept informed. Specifically, the letter that Senator Cochran just 

read, the bottom, it is very clear, ‘‘approved with the condition that 

the Joint Committee on the Library be kept informed of the specific 

design plans proposed to recognize the donors contributing $1,000 

or more.’’ This is my sixth year on this committee. I have never 

seen, received any notification or recognition of that at all. 

I think we have to have in place some good reporting requirements. We could have caught the problem long ago because, as 

Senator Cochran pointed out, 6 years ago we talked about this 

issue and rejected it for the Library of Congress. Had this come before us before, we could have dealt with it according to that policy. 
51 

Now we are in the completely embarrassing position of donors 

having been promised something by people who were not aware of 

the decision, prior decisions, and the rules we have established. 

And we have been put in a real box because people have contributed money on the basis that they would receive this recognition, 

and now we are saying: Oh, thanks for the money, but we do not 

want to recognize you. We should not be put in these boxes by not 

being kept informed of things. 

Also, I do not know to what extent we have detailed records of 

all this. The Architect’s Office of course does, but this is again an 

internal committee concern. I do not know to what extent we have 

established procedures for keeping records within the committee. It 

jumps back and forth between the House and the Senate and I am 

not sure there is any permanent record kept of everything that 

happens within this committee and decisions made. 

So I just wanted to make those comments in general. I am also 

concerned, although perhaps the permission was given to go out 

and raise money, it appears that this letter implies it was, but— 

you were not formed by the Congress per se, were you? Congress 

did not ask you to perform this function? 

Ms. REEDER. George White as I understand went to Akin Gump 

when there were actually a group of Congressional wives who felt 

like we needed a National Garden that would spotlight the rose, 

which is the national flower, and it came into being shortly after 

that. So these Congressional wives got together. George White approached Akin Gump to form a separate not-for-profit committee 

who could raise the funds to build the garden and then hand them 

over to the Architect. 

Mr. WARD. All private sector funds. 

Mr. HANTMAN. A 501(c)(3) was set up and submitted to the committee for approval. 

Mr. EHLERS. When was that approved? 

Ms. REEDER. That was in 1992. 

Mr. EHLERS. So it was submitted to the committee? 

Ms. REEDER. Or before. 

Mr. HANTMAN. The agreement was submitted to the committee. 

Mr. EHLERS. So these are private funds that have then been 

turned over. Were the subject of fundraising and the control of the 

funds under the Architect’s control? Was this audited at any point? 

Ms. REEDER. The fund has had its own legal counsel and its own 

treasurer and has had its own independent audit every year, and 

the moneys have been held in escrow at Chevy Chase Bank and 

the only moneys that have been expended have been in connection 

with either fundraising or blueprints, architectural designs. 

Mr. WARD. We have turned over $11⁄2 million for design services. 

Mr. EHLERS. Understand, I am not casting any aspersions on 

you. 

Chairman STEVENS. None of us are, really. 

Mr. EHLERS. But things got out of hand and now we have a real 

problem. For example, Scott’s, which is famous for beautiful lawns 

and many other things, contributed $1 million and they were expecting good recognition. I think they deserve it. But we are flat 

up against the decisions we have made before not to do this sort 

of thing. 
52 

Mr. WARD. Could I make—— 

Chairman STEVENS. Could we just go through this. We are late 

for a leadership meeting. 

Do you have any comments? 

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I will be real quick. I would like to submit this for the record from Congressman Kingston. It is a question 

to be answered later, if I could. 

Chairman STEVENS. Yes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NEY. And I promise I will be extremely brief. 

I do not like the position we are in. I do not think names should 

be assigned to things. I do not think the Visitors Center should be 

assigned a name. We had this issue that came up that somebody 

wanted a certain business name and I happened to tell them: Fine, 

there are a couple of unions; I would like to have that union wing. 

They said: Well, we cannot do that. Well, if you can have a business wing you can have a union wing. 

I do not like it. I do not like to do names. But, having said that, 

I think personally, and I will shut up here, but this was signed by 

the chair. Members, that were here at the time, told me that they 

knew this was going on. Even though I do not think we should do 

this, I do not like doing this, I do not think we should do it down 

the road, but I will still support doing what people across the country were told: Give your money and this is what happens. 

So we are in a mess. I did not know how I was going to—I said 

I did not know how I was going to go. I will support it. I just do 

not like it, but I think we are stuck with signatures from the past. 

That is what I think. 

Chairman STEVENS. I am constrained to tell you about the first 

trial I conducted in Nome years ago as a U.S. attorney. It was a 

case involving a charge of rape and the young man who was accused of that was the basketball star for the town. The jury came 

in with a verdict that said: Not guilty, but he better not do it again. 

Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, it is very hard to follow that. But 

I want to associate myself with the remarks of our distinguished 

chairman, Mr. Ney, and say that again I agree entirely that this 

is a public place and a public facility. I do not feel that there is 

a place for corporate, labor, or other names, in spite of the great 

philanthropic entities that exist throughout this country and 

around the globe who would be eager to continue this splendid 

place that in fact indeed belongs to the people. 

Yet, as the chairman eloquently stated and as Mr. Ney has said, 

we are in a real bind here, and I reluctantly feel that there probably is not any other way out, and commend you for working out 

a compromise. 

Chairman STEVENS. Do you wish to comment, sir? 

Mr. WARD. I just wanted to be sure that there is some clarity for 

what the fund is asking for. We are just asking for the standard 

donor recognition plaque, not a wall, and about 500 of these pavers. 

We are not asking for anything beyond that. 

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, just a quick one if I could. Like my 

grandma always said, quit while you are ahead. That is my personal opinion. 
53 

Chairman STEVENS. We have this question for the record from 

Mr. Kingston: ‘‘I understand from Deborah Pryce that the Ohiobased company Scott Fertilizer donated substantially to the National Garden project. They were told they would be recognized for 

this contribution. While I realize these assurances were made 

under a different administration, Scott Fertilizer donated substantial resources to the project. I would like to know what can be done 

to recognize their efforts.’’ 

We would like to have you answer that in writing if you would. 

That is a question that has been asked for the record by one member. 

[The information follows:] 

The Joint Committee on the Library recently approved the recognition plan proposed by the AOC and the National Fund where the names of major donors will 

be engraved on a free-standing, 4 foot × 6 foot bronze panel located in the Hornbeam 

Court, adjoining the Rose Garden. The other major donors have agreed that, ‘‘The 

Scotts Company—The Margaret Hagedorn Rose Garden’’ will appear on the panel 

as the first listing. 

Early this year, Ms. Leone Reeder, Acting Chair for the National Fund for the 

Botanic Garden, traveled to Ohio to meet with Mr. James Hagedorn, Chairman of 

the Board and Chief Executive Officer for The Scotts Company. They agreed on the 

plaque as an appropriate form of recognition for Scotts efforts. In addition, the National Fund will be working toward developing a Margaret Hagedorn rose that will 

be grown in the Rose Garden. 

Chairman STEVENS. So it is my understanding that the Senator 

from Mississippi would make a motion. It would be my suggestion 

as chair that we entertain a motion to approve the request for the 

use of these funds and to proceed with this project and leave the 

subject of what the standard should be for the future to be determined, with the understanding that there will be no further fundraising efforts until we do establish that standard. 

Are you prepared to make a motion? 

Senator COCHRAN. I am prepared to make that motion. I think 

the commitments that have been made were made in good faith by 

the Architect’s Office based in reliance on the April 16, 1993, letter. 

I do not know if there may be some evidence of communications 

that are not in the file here, but I think the thing to do is to support the Architect and to live up to the commitments that have already been made. 

Chairman STEVENS. Mr. Ehlers, is it agreeable to you that we 

submit that to the membership by written memorandum and ask 

them to vote, and we will report the results of that vote to the Architect and we will ask that that be—that members respond to us 

before this time next week, so we will have you an answer by next 

week as to proceeding. Mr. Ehlers? 

Mr. EHLERS. That procedure is certainly acceptable. I just want 

to clarify. You did not specifically mention the recognition issue in 

your motion, did you? 

Senator COCHRAN. Yes, I do intend to include that, the recognition of major donors in an appropriate way, and I think the way 

that has been suggested is appropriate and we should confirm that. 

Mr. EHLERS. I will support the procedure dealing with that. Let 

me also add, Mr. Chairman, as part of the discussion, there are 

other ways or additional ways to recognize these, because there 

were three major donors. Scott Fertilizer and two others donated 

$1 million each. I think it would be entirely appropriate for the 
54 

garden to continue that recognition—for example, one of them, I 

am not sure which, donated the rose garden; that the directory or 

the guide that is handed out to every visitor specifically mention 

the company that donated the rose garden. That sort of recognition 

does not violate our rule against putting things, mounting them on 

walls. 

Chairman STEVENS. It is my understanding that Senator Cochran’s request is to approve the two procedures that have been requested here today, the large bronze plate and the pavers, and we 

will address the question of recognition when you submit to us 

what you intend to do for them. Is that acceptable? You have three 

major donors that deserve recognition. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Their names are all appearing on that plaque, sir. 

Chairman STEVENS. Their names are already on the plaque? 

Mr. HANTMAN. They will be on the plaque, yes. That is the proposal, all three of their names. 

Chairman STEVENS. Then that is taken care of. That will be explained to all the members. So that we will submit that to the 

members. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Mr. Chairman, one clarification, please. 

Chairman STEVENS. Yes? 

Mr. HANTMAN. Would that allow the fund over the next 12 

months to hopefully raise funds for option two and option three and 

just add names to that same plaque if they get major donors which 

they have on the hook right now? 

Chairman STEVENS. We will—will the Senator modify his amendment to include the phase two concept and phase three for further 

donors to be recognized in a similar way? 

Senator COCHRAN. I agree with the modification that is suggested. 

Chairman STEVENS. Has staff got that? 

Ms. MIES. Yes. 

Chairman STEVENS. Anything further to come before the committee? Mr. Ehlers? 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to offer a motion and if you wish to study it further we can defer a decision 

until later. I would like to offer the motion that we ask the Architect of the Capitol to submit an annual report giving the status of 

all projects and a monthly report on those that are actively ongoing. 

Chairman STEVENS. May I suggest that we ask the legislative 

appropriations committees to put that in law? I think that would 

be acceptable. 

Mr. HANTMAN. Absolutely. 

Chairman STEVENS. So we know what to expect, and let those 

committees determine the timing for them, because that would be 

something—they meet annually for the legislative review of the Architect and I think that we should let them do it. 

Mr. EHLERS. I only request that that report come to this committee as well. 

Chairman STEVENS. Yes, it will come. We will ask the legislative 

committee to say the report comes to this committee and to the legislative subcommittees once a year. It would be the same report, 

Mr. Architect. 
55 

Anything further to come before the committee? 

[No response.] 

Chairman STEVENS. I am sorry to be this abrupt. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 5:21 p.m., Wednesday, March 3, the meeting was 

recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

Æ