LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR 2014 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana, Chairman 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

DAVID G. VALADAO, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

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

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

ELIZABETH C. DAWSON, Clerk 

JENNIFER PANONE, Professional Staff 

CHUCK TURNER, Professional Staff 

PART 2 

FISCAL YEAR 2014 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 

APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

81–322 WASHINGTON : 2013 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 1

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio 

DAVID G. VALADAO, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

————— 

1 Chairman Emeritus 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

WILLIAM E. SMITH, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
C O N T E N TS 

Page 

Government Accountability Office .......................................................................... 1 

Government Printing Office .................................................................................... 51 

Library of Congress ................................................................................................. 85 

Congressional Budget Office ................................................................................... 129 

Architect of the Capitol ........................................................................................... 163 

Open World Leadership Center .............................................................................. 203 

House of Representatives ........................................................................................ 653 

U.S. Capitol Police ................................................................................................... 839 

Written Testimony of Members of Congress and Other Interested Individuals 

and Organizations ................................................................................................ 879 

(III)


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING-P1
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2014 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2013. 

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

WITNESS 

GENE L. DODARO, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Good morning, the subcommittee will come to 

order. Today we will begin our fiscal year 2014 budget hearings for 

the various agencies under the legislative branch. 

As the members of the subcommittee are aware, the President’s 

fiscal year 2014 budget has not been transmitted to Congress as of 

yet. We understand that the delivery of the President’s budget will 

be sometime in early March. And in order to complete the work 

that this subcommittee is charged with, we have decided to begin 

our hearings without receiving the formal budget. 

Advanced information received by the subcommittee reflects that 

most of all the agencies under our jurisdiction have requested a 

budget increase over the amount of the current CR. And with our 

Nation dealing with a national debt of over $16 trillion, it is going 

to be very difficult to not only maintain current levels, but increase 

funding above the current levels. Everyone can be assured that we 

are going to do our work; we are going to lead by example. We are 

going to be efficient and effective in doing more with less. 

I look forward to working with the ranking member of the committee, the former chairwoman of this committee, Ms. Debbie 

Wasserman Schultz, as well as other members of the subcommittee. Mr. Bishop is the only member returning from the last 

Congress to this committee. And we are delighted to have you all 

here this morning. 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

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

It is a pleasure to—I am looking forward to working with you as 

well. 

Mr. Dodaro, welcome. 

The last hearing we had when I was chair of the subcommittee, 

you were still in an acting position. So I am glad to see that you 

were confirmed in late 2010 and that GAO has an experienced 

leader like yourself to address the many challenges we are facing 

during these difficult times. 

Two years ago, you sat in front of this subcommittee and asked 

for a budget to maintain 3,270 full-time equivalent positions. Well, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

it has been a long 2 years since I served on this subcommittee, 

since with sequester looming, your testimony states that you expect 

to only have 2,875 FTEs. Now, that is despite the fact that GAO’s 

congressional work has only slightly tapered off, with only 924 requests from Congress in fiscal year 2012. 

Now, I know your analysts take great pride in their work and 

work under timeline pressure from Members and committees requesting your analysis. And we usually want our requests filled immediately, as we work in an environment that changes hourly. But 

with the budget cut by 8.2 percent since fiscal year 2010 

piggybacked by sequester, GAO is hard pressed to do any more 

with less. Your agency and others will have to do less with less and 

explain the impacts for those seeking and needing your expertise. 

I believe your mission is well understood by most Members, and 

most support your work in uncovering waste and finding savings 

within agencies, including those in the legislative branch. GAO 

helped this subcommittee complete the Capitol Visitors Center construction and stave off more cost overruns. GAO continues to help 

us review the Capitol Police’s radio modernization project. 

We know firsthand on this subcommittee that you save the taxpayers money with the work that you do. More cuts to GAO are 

the embodiment of the phrase ‘‘pennywise and pound foolish.’’ As 

you lead GAO through these tough budgetary times, you, more 

than many agencies, must ensure that the work you are able to do 

remains above reproach and without question. And I would rather 

you take on less work and maintain the quality of your analysis for 

the work that you are able to accept. As you put other agencies’ 

programs on your annual watch list, we need to ensure that sequester does not put your agency on that very same list. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Mr. Dodaro, I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Bishop, do you have anything? 

Mr. BISHOP. I have no opening statement. I just welcome Mr. 

Dodaro, and I look forward to hearing his testimony. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. The GAO is requesting $524 million for fiscal year 2014. That is an increase of $9.9 million over the CR from last 

year. The request is 2 percent above the continuing resolution of 

last year. 

Mr. Dodaro, if you would introduce those staff members that are 

with you, others that wish to speak, and then we will take your 

testimony. 

COMPTROLLER GENERAL’S OPENING REMARKS

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

Good morning to you. 

Ranking Member Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, nice to 

see you again. Welcome back to the committee. 

Congressman Bishop, welcome back. It is good to see you again 

as well. 

Mr. Chairman, I have with me today four people that potentially 

could talk, including myself, that I would like to introduce, Patricia 

Dalton, who is our chief operating officer at GAO; Susan Poling, 

who is our general counsel there; and David Fisher, who is our 

chief administrative officer and chief financial officer. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

I would like to talk about what efforts we have made in order 

to manage our workload to make sure that we maintain the high 

quality of our work but yet deal with this budgetary environment. 

There are really three key things that are important for us as we 

are executing our mission to support the Congress and improve the 

performance of government. One is making sure that we have effective communication and ongoing dialogue with the congressional 

committees; second, that we prioritize our work to make sure that 

we are working on the most important national issues; and third 

is to make sure that our work has the maximum impact and good 

results for the Congress and the country. 

Now, with regard to effective communication, we work with every 

standing committee of the Congress and most of the subcommittees. I have met with most of the chairs and ranking members of 

the committees. Our staff have ongoing dialogue with Congressional staff to make sure that we understand what their needs are 

and their highest priorities. We monitor every bill that is submitted every week in the Congress with a potential requirement for 

GAO’s work. We review annually our mandates that are in the law 

to see if any of them outlived their usefulness. And we appreciate 

the support of this committee last year in eliminating 16 of those 

mandates to help us refine our workload. 

The purpose of my meetings with the chair and ranking members of each of the committees is to explain our budgetary environment, and the importance of setting priorities. And I have received 

a very good response. People understand our circumstances. I am 

not going to do more work than we can do of a high-quality nature. 

That requires us to prioritize the work with the input of the committees, and we have done that. 

As Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz pointed out, our requests 

have tapered off a bit because people understand the situation. I 

believe we are picking the most important national issues to work 

on, whether they are in health care, defense, financial markets and 

institutions, energy, environment, or transportation areas. Our 

work covers the full breadth and scope of the Federal Government’s 

activities, and I believe we are delivering great results for the Congress and the American people. 

Last year, the implementation of our recommendations resulted 

in over $55 billion of financial benefits to the Federal Government, 

which is $105 returned for every dollar invested in GAO. Since 

2002, our work has resulted in one-half trillion dollars in financial 

benefits to the government and over 14,000 other improvements in 

laws, public safety issues, improved management, and efficiency 

and effectiveness of the government programs. I believe we provide 

a good return on the investment. 

In the last 2 years, we have, as noted, taken more than an 8 percent reduction. We have taken on this challenge and reduced our 

administrative and operating costs. Our costs for supporting our 

work, including travel costs, have been reduced by 36 percent. Our 

infrastructure costs, including our IT investments, have gone down 

by 21 percent. And since 80 percent of our costs are people costs, 

we have not been able to replace attrition. The biggest impact on 

our organization is the reduced number of people. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

We are at our lowest staffing level since 1935. With sequester, 

if sequester stays in effect, we will go even below that staff level 

moving forward. I don’t believe that this staffing level is commensurate with the challenges facing our Federal Government right 

now with deficits, debt, social, economic, and security challenges. 

We have asked for a modest increase in our budget submission. I 

think it will be a prudent, wise investment for the Congress. We 

will continue to manage our administrative costs. Our increase 

would mostly go to replacing staff that we are losing through attrition and to add back some of the staff that we have lost. We will 

still be way below our 2010 levels with this request. But I believe 

that we are at a pivotal point in our government’s history in terms 

of dealing with this historic deficit and debt issues. GAO could 

make a great contribution to help Congress make targeted cuts 

that will not have unintended consequences. Congress needs us 

now more than ever. 

We are ready to step up to the challenge. We just need some 

modest support from this committee and the Congress. And that 

concludes my opening statement. 

I would be happy to entertain questions. 

[The prepared statement of Gene Dolaro follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 81322A.001
6 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 81322A.002
7 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 81322A.003
8 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 81322A.004
9 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 81322A.005
10 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 81322A.006
11 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 81322A.007
12 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 81322A.008
13 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 81322A.009
14 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 81322A.010
15 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 81322A.011
16 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 81322A.012
17 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 81322A.013
18 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 81322A.014
19 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 81322A.015
20 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 81322A.016
21 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 81322A.017
22 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 81322A.018
23 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 81322A.019
24 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 81322A.020
25 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 81322A.021
26 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 81322A.022
27 

GAO’S OUTREACH TO CONGRESS TO PRIORITIZE REQUESTS

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay. Well, before we go to questions, I would 

like to introduce Mr. David Valadao. Would you have an opening 

statement that you want to make? 

Mr. VALADAO. No, thank you. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. All right. You mentioned that the requests for 

your agency have tapered off. Is it because of unconcern or people 

have just given up hope of getting anything done over the ordinary? 

Mr. DODARO. No, I think it is a conscious result of my outreach 

to the committee chairs and ranking members to understand our 

budget situation and to prioritize the requests. 

And when we say ‘‘taper off,’’ we mean we have gone from maybe 

over a thousand requests to 924. So we are having some impact, 

but Congress is still seeking a high demand for our work. 

But I think it is a consequence of those dialogues, Mr. Chairman. 

People understand and they are prioritizing their requests. If a 

committee chair or ranking member sent in a request, on average, 

it takes us about 4 months to be able to staff that request. So they 

know we are not going to get to things right away, and we have 

to prioritize. 

The other thing we are doing that I am very pleased about is 

that we are now doing bodies of work for multiple committees. And 

about half of the request workload that we have are bipartisan requests. So we have worked with the committees to gather the most 

common interests on multiple committees and do one body of work 

to meet the needs of multiple committees. That has brought down 

the number of requests too, so we don’t have a lot of committees 

asking for the same work. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. So you are prepared for sequestration if it indeed comes about? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. We have been planning prudently for the eventuality of this. The consequences for us is that we would have to 

postpone about 60 percent of our hiring, which would further bring 

down the size of GAO’s workforce to near historic low levels. 

We would have to defer or reduce our retention programs and reward programs for our employees, who are dedicated and hardworking people, producing good results. 

We would reduce further our infrastructure costs by deferring 

some IT investments that we need for the future. And we would 

cut back on our travel and other, related costs during that period 

of time. 

But the most important aspect of sequestration for us, and we 

believe it is because we planned prudently, we are not—if the sequestration level stays at 5.3 or 5.5 percent, we wouldn’t have to 

furlough anybody. We have been planning to make sure we maximize our impact to the Congress and minimize our impact on our 

employees. But the biggest impact for us is both, now and in the 

future, not having an additional 200 or 300 people to replace attrition. So we wouldn’t be able to support the Congress as much as 

we have been now and in the future at GAO. I am really worried 

about the future of GAO. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

I mentioned to this committee in the past, I feel like a college 

football coach, where all the seniors are leaving and there are no 

freshmen and sophomores coming in. And one more year of postponed hiring, which would make our third straight year in a row, 

I will begin to start losing the junior class, too. So I am deeply concerned about the future of our agency and our ability to support 

the Congress. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay. 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

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

You know, I think it is important to just raise what the purpose 

of the Government Accountability Office is. This is the beginning 

of my 21st year in public office. And right about the time when I 

was first elected to the Florida legislature, accountability, whether 

it was through the establishment of GAO or we have an entity in 

Florida called OPPAGA, which these agencies exist so that we can 

make sure that we are spending the taxpayers’ dollars wisely and 

that we are not engaging in unnecessary waste and that we ferret 

out fraud when there is any, which hopefully, obviously, in the Federal agencies funding, there wouldn’t be, or even abusive practices. 

You know, in my remarks I mentioned it is the ultimate in being 

pennywise and pound foolish to cut GAO, to allow an indiscriminate across-the-board cut of $27.3 million as a result of sequestration to take place because, you know, ultimately making it harder 

for us to hold the agencies accountable for the spending that they 

are doing is going to mean that we waste more money, ironically. 

And I think it is also important that we remind each other that 

the sequester is not just a one-time cut. It is a reestablishment of 

the baseline. So, you know, when you are an appropriator, you understand that. And so what I would like to know is how does GAO 

plan to absorb those cuts not just—you have outlined how you 

would absorb them now, but beyond. Essentially, does that mean 

that if we don’t replace the sequester at some point soon, does the 

footprint and the ability of GAO to do the full scale of your work, 

does it diminish and decline? And aren’t we likely to have more 

waste in government if that happens? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, definitely the sequestration would have an 

immediate effect on reducing the size of GAO and make it harder 

for our workforce in the future. So, yes, it will diminish our capability to do our work in support of the Congress and identify fraud, 

waste, abuse, mismanagement, and ways to make government 

more efficient and effective at a time where we need that more 

than ever. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. 

Mr. DODARO. I am very concerned as the auditor of the government’s financial statements about our financial position going forward. And we are in an era of where there is going to be continued 

budgetary pressures for many years. And as for GAO, if our workforce is diminished, our ability to serve the Congress will be diminished, and we won’t be able to help Congress make as many informed decisions. 

I mentioned we returned $105 for every dollar invested in us last year. There are over $100 billion every year in improper payments 

in the Federal Government. Our tax gap is $385 billion. You know, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

these are areas we could do more work on and help Congress resolve. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Dodaro, is it fair to say that if the 

sequester kicks in, that we will have less accountability and more 

potential waste of taxpayer dollars? 

Mr. DODARO. I believe that would be the case, because it will 

cause people to make decisions that they wouldn’t have otherwise 

made in this period of time. I have been in government now at the 

GAO for 40 years, and when these type of things happen, people 

cut back on the administrative oversight of these programs: It is 

inevitable that will happen. And you could have breakdowns in 

management controls. I think we have too high of a level right 

now. And I would be concerned about any additional vulnerabilities 

that might occur. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And wouldn’t it be more likely that 

your workload and the requests for your work with a sequester in 

place kick in because you are arguably going to have committees 

that are going to want to know what impact the sequester is going 

to have on the programs that they are responsible for? 

Mr. DODARO. That is true. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So wouldn’t you have sequester-related requests that would add to your workload? 

Mr. DODARO. Right. I believe we would have that. And we would 

have to prioritize and defer other work to be able to handle those. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Bishop? 

GAO PLAYS KEY ROLE IN HELPING CONGRESS

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Following along the lines of the questions from Ms. Wasserman 

Schultz, you are our guide as Members of Congress, our chief investigator, our chief accountant, our chief detective. You perform 

the function that helps us to do what we should do to be responsible with taxpayers’ dollars. If you were in the position to orchestrate or choreograph how the deficit reduction should take place, 

as compared to the sequester, I would assume that, being thoughtful, that you would want to set priorities. Your agency helps Congress to be informed in setting priorities. 

So if you were not necessarily head of GAO, but you were somehow orchestrating deficit reduction and the path to a balanced 

budget would GAO be the last agency that you would think about 

cutting? Since you set the priorities, wouldn’t the GAO be the agency that you would want to be the strongest and most aggressive 

with its resources so that the people that you serve, your constituents in the Congress, would be better informed? 

Mr. DODARO. I believe a strong GAO is good for the Congress, 

good for the country, and we need to do that. I believe that we 

shouldn’t be immune from scrutiny over our budget. And I have 

come before this committee in the past and asked for a zero increase in our budget because I believe—— 

Mr. BISHOP. And you have. 

Mr. DODARO [continuing]. We need to make our contribution to 

that. But I believe with the 8 percent reduction we have already 

implemented, and another, you know, 5, almost 6 percent with the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

potential sequester, that we are getting diminishing returns now, 

and we are jeopardizing GAO’s ability to serve the Congress in the 

future. So I definitely believe, and obviously, I have a conflict of interest at this point—— 

Mr. BISHOP. That is why I asked you to imagine that you were 

not necessarily head of the GAO. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. But I am in this position for 15 years. So it 

is hard to think of me being anything else right now. 

Mr. BISHOP. I thought you were head of OPM. 

Mr. DODARO. As I said, I believe a strong GAO is necessary to 

help the Congress make these difficult trade-off decisions. And it 

is a prudent and wise investment. 

I know full well that the government is on a long-term 

unsustainable fiscal path. And what lies before the Congress are 

some very, very difficult policy choices, from entitlement programs 

to discretionary spending to revenue issues. And we can provide 

full service to help the Congress deal with the full range of those 

fiscal challenges going forward. So I believe our optimum level is 

about 3,250 people. And right now, we are 300 below that, and potentially going 400 to 500 below that with the sequester. So we are 

asking for just a modest increase, and we think we can do the job 

and help the Congress. 

Mr. BISHOP. It has been said over and over again such that I 

guess it is becoming redundant, that the sequester is pennywise 

and pound foolish, and would really, really just make absolutely no 

sense to you as a professional in terms of the function that your 

agency performs. 

Mr. DODARO. Speaking for GAO, I believe it will have an impact 

on us, impact on the Congress and the country immediately, and 

will have a long-term impact on us unless we can recover from it. 

GAO IDENTIFIES BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SAVINGS

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Valadao. 

Mr. VALADAO. My question is simple. On page eight, you mention 

an opportunity to reduce cost if we take congressional action. How 

much would that save, and are there any other opportunities? 

Mr. DODARO. On page eight. Which—— 

Mr. VALADAO. Where you state the reporting requirements for 

ARRA funding. 

Mr. DODARO. Oh, ARRA funding. Yes, that would save us several 

staff years. What the requirement is—and it made sense in the beginning with the Recovery Act—we were charged with doing bimonthly reviews of the use of the Recovery Act money by States 

and localities and once a quarter to report on the number of jobs 

created or maintained that recipients were reporting to the administration. And so we did that. But most of the Recovery Act money 

has been spent now, but the requirement for us to do the bimonthly reviews and the quarterly reporting requirements is still 

in place. So that would save us some staff time to be able to do 

that. It is not going to be our savior by any means, but it is a contribution. 

Mr. VALADAO. Are there any other opportunities similar to this? 

Mr. DODARO. We address them every year. We will be submitting 

some additional ones to the Congress this year for consideration. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

Last year, the Congress repealed 16 mandates like that. We have 

asked this committee to help us on this one since it originated in 

the Appropriations Committees. But we work with the authorizing 

committees and others to try to repeal these requirements. We do 

that; it is a routine action we do every year. And we appreciate 

your support on that question. Thank you. 

Mr. VALADAO. Thank you. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Jeff Fortenberry, we have given everybody 

else a chance for an opening statement and a question. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate your leadership, and the opportunity to talk with 

you today. And thank you for your leadership at the head of this 

most important agency. I apologize for coming in late. I don’t have 

the benefit of the earlier statements, so forgive me if I am a bit redundant. I know you are doing more with less, and it is my understanding you basically have the same staffing level that you have 

had since 1935, something like that. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I agree with the commentary that, going to 

the issue of the sequester, it is a clumsy way to do this across the 

board. Now, that is why I think that this demands cooperation between the White House and the Congress to figure out how the 

necessary task of reducing spending takes place in a more targeted 

manner that is reform minded, that helps deliver government services more effectively and efficiently, smart government. And I know 

that is your fundamental mission. 

To the specifics of something that you did, I believe it was last 

year, it might have been 2 years ago, you put out a report that 

looked at interagency conflicts, redundancies, overlapping missions. 

Can I make a recommendation to you? And I will allow you to respond. 

Mr. DODARO. Sure. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. It was very hard to unpack actually, if we implemented all of those measures that you called for, what the fiscal 

impact would be. You heard some people interpret that as a $600 

billion savings. Technically, I am not sure how that was developed. 

I looked at the executive summary, as I recall, and you carefully 

avoided talking about, as I recall, the potential, the fullness of savings there. But can you address that question? 

Mr. DODARO. Sure. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. What is the potential savings of simply doing 

smart government reform that you have already called for? One 

low level number I saw was $200 billion. But I would rather hear 

it from you directly as to what that specific number was. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. We have now a statutory requirement that 

Congress put on us in one of the efforts to raise the debt ceiling 

to do this report every year on overlap and duplication and fragmentation of the Federal Government. We have issued two reports. 

We have pointed out 132 areas where there is overlap, duplication, 

as well as the ability to achieve cost savings and enhance revenues. 

We added that on as well because it is the same objective as overlap and duplication. 

Our third report will be coming out in early April of this year. 

And it will be our first pass across the entire Federal Government. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

In the 132 areas, we make over 300 specific recommendations of 

actions that could be taken by the Congress. 

One of the difficulties that we have had, Congressman Fortenberry, is that, in a number of cases, it has been hard to determine 

what the costs of some of these programs really are because they 

are included in a number of different areas. For example, there are 

82 programs to improve teacher quality by 10 different Federal 

agencies. Nobody had a list before we did the study. Many of these 

are outside of the Department of Education. There are 47 programs 

on employment and training. Also, there is very little information 

available for most of these programs on what their performance 

has been and how effective they are. 

But the bottom line is, to your point, we have estimated that implementing these actions, depending on what the Congress does, it 

could be tens of billions of dollars. We don’t have an overall price 

tag that we put on it. It would depend on the decisions that are 

made. But we are confident that it is in the tens of billions of dollars. We think they would be smart cuts. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, then you can understand the difficulty 

of a single congressional office, where you are looking at basically 

16 staff members trying to unpack what the potential of those actions means. It would be helpful if you could maybe in terms of 

even—I understand broad categories of tens of billions—but a little 

more specificity would be helpful. Because then that actually empowers us to say, okay, is this smart, or is this not? And by doing 

this a little bit differently, you can deliver effective program services but get rid of some of this duplication that is too hard to pay 

attention to as a single Member of Congress. You are having problems with 3,500 staff unpacking the dynamics of multiple duplications of a singular mission program that actually lands in a variety 

of places. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. So do you understand what I am asking you 

to do? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. Where we have been able to do that, we have. 

For example, there is a program where the Social Security Administration does not have the information from IRS to offset the pension costs for State and local employees. We estimate and CBO has 

estimated, if Congress mandated that information be collected you 

could save between $2 billion and $3 billion. We have said there 

is a Medicare pilot program that CMS has undertaken that is different from the one authorized in the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act that rewards mediocre plans, not highperforming plans. If that pilot was canceled, you could save $8.3 

billion. Now, the pilot has gone through a year or two already, but 

there is still $2 billion or $3 billion there. We have said on Medicare Advantage, that they are not reflecting the types of beneficiaries specifically on how they adjust the rates between the feefor-service program and Medicare Advantage. That could save another $2 billion to $3 billion. 

So we have a lot of specific recommendations like that; where we 

can put a price a tag on it we put in there. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

The problem is on the 47 employment training programs, it depends on which ones the Congress keeps and which ones it doesn’t. 

It is a policy matter for the Congress to choose. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Sure, I understand it is our responsibility ultimately. Is there a central repository of those specific—— 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY [continuing]. Programs that is simply outlined? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. This year, we are putting it online in April. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Can I have it this afternoon actually? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, let me see what we can provide you right 

now. It is in process. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. That would be helpful. I think it gets to the 

heart of my earlier question. Help us empower your mission. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Specifics, even if they have to be in a bit of 

a broad range, I understand that, but tens of billions of dollars is 

too broad. Specifying, ‘‘if you did this, these changes would occur, 

you could still meet mission goals but at the same time save this 

amount of money,’’ I think that would enhance the effectiveness of 

your agency. It would further empower you and your passionate 

service for getting government right. I think it would potentially, 

as my other friends are arguing, put you maybe at the top of the 

list and make this number for every dollar invested, you get $100 

of return, stick in the minds of people. I would like to give you that 

recommendation. It would be helpful. 

Mr. DODARO. I understand what you are saying. But I also think 

it needs to be an interactive process. In other words, we need to 

point Congress in the direction in some of these areas. Where we 

have specific cost savings, we have provided them. But Congress 

would need to make some tentative policy choices and policy options, and then they could be priced out to see how much money 

we would save. You could eliminate—— 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Fair enough. I have admonished you. Now 

you have admonished me. Fair enough. 

Mr. BISHOP. Would the gentleman yield? Could you provide that 

to all of us on the committee? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Thank you. I think it is an excellent suggestion. 

FINANCIAL AND OTHER BENEFITS FROM GAO’S WORK

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Going back 40 years, I certainly don’t expect 

you to have a definite answer, but just off the top of your head, 

what percentage of the requests that you all have made to Congress, what percentage have been acted on in a reasonable way? 

Mr. DODARO. Basically, we track implementation of our recommendations over a 4-year period. We figure if it is not going to 

be acted on within a 4-year period, chances are they will not be. 

It has consistently been 80 percent of our recommendations, that 

is by both executive branch agencies and the Congress, have been 

acted upon. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

Mr. ALEXANDER. So the numbers that Mr. Fortenberry is talking 

about in savings, you have an estimate of what your suggestions 

have saved? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. That is the one-half trillion dollars I had mentioned of financial benefits. Just to give you a couple examples, we 

had pointed out acquisition and procurement problems in the Constellation program at NASA, so they canceled that and saved several billion dollars. DOD was going to have what they called tour 

normalization in South Korea, which was to move families there for 

longer tours of duty, servicemembers and their families, which was 

going to cost huge infrastructure costs. We said, you can’t afford it, 

so they scaled it back and saved over $3 billion as a result. Many 

weapons systems we have pointed out have been over budget, and 

either the Congress or the agencies have scaled them back. We 

have pointed out where DOD buys too many spare parts. They 

have taken action. They have saved about—or $800 million, in 

spare parts. We think they could save more. So we have a lot of 

those type of recommendations. 

Mr. BISHOP. Is that $800 billion? 

Mr. DODARO. Eight hundred million, I am sorry. I misspoke, but 

I corrected myself. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. We all got excited. 

Mr. DODARO. Between trillions and billions and millions—— 

CAPITOL POLICE RADIO UPGRADE

Mr. ALEXANDER. It is our understanding that you have been 

monitoring a project that the Capitol Police have been trying to implement related to the outdoor repeater sites. And it is our understanding that it has been delayed maybe 6 months. Can you tell 

us why they are being delayed? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. One of the problems is the program had an extended procurement cycle. And there have been delays in the permitting processes. But right now, and we think that the fundamental problem has been, that you have three different parties involved here. You have the police. You have the Architect of the 

Capitol who has to build the facilities, and you have the Naval Air 

Systems Command, which is procuring the equipment for the police. There is no integrated schedule to say, okay, if we do this, 

this, and that, the project will stay on schedule. Right now, for example, they have to build the outdoor facilities in order to house 

the antennas, the repeater sites that are in place. There is still no 

agreement on how they are going to do testing to ensure that the 

system components work together. There is no training schedule 

for training the Capitol Police on how to use the radios. You have 

about 1,800 officers who have to be trained. Or how to migrate 

from the current radio system to the new radio system. 

All of those details need to be worked out in a well thought out 

schedule in order to be able to tell exactly when they are going to 

finish the effort, have it completed and in place. We have pointed 

this out several times in the past, but they still don’t have a very 

reliable, integrated master schedule. And without that, your reliability of predicting when you will finally complete this is not high. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

I want to ask a follow up on the Capitol radios. 

But I do want to point out, Mr. Fortenberry, the GAO has 2,870 

FTEs, not 3,500. We are not even at 3,000. And we are several 

hundred below where they were previously. So we really are asking 

them to do more with less. 

I do want to agree with what he said, it is important for us to 

not allow the sequester to come in, to kick in, because indiscriminate across-the-board cuts are not the responsible approach. We 

have an opportunity to do that. 

We can come together and focus on a balanced approach to deficit reduction that would replace the sequester with targeted 

spending cuts, as well as closing tax loopholes for the wealthiest, 

most fortunate Americans. That is an approach that the American 

people overwhelmingly support, as opposed to the cuts-only approach that is on the table, proposed by the House Republican leadership. And, you know, the President and Congressional Democrats 

are simply waiting for the GOP join us at the negotiating table so 

that we can hammer out a compromise that takes that balanced 

approach. 

That having been said, on the radios specifically, and this is a 

continuation of, you know, of a project that was already starting to 

have problems when I was the chair of the committee. You know, 

we went through at the beginning of the process an argument over 

whether or not we actually would just appropriate the entire 

amount right away. And, you know, we struggled through that for 

a little while. And now, you know, we are at the point where the 

project timeline has slipped. The cost overruns have begun. And, 

you know, I am concerned about further slippage. And, you know, 

I am not willing to just sign off on, you know, more funds being 

released for this project until there is a better handle on the 

timeline and just actually until we are given greater confidence 

that the system that they are putting together actually has good 

oversight and is one that is going to do the job. Because remember 

the radio modernization project, Mr. Chairman, I mean, the purpose of that is left over from 9/11. I mean, you know, we are still 

dealing with the system that the Capitol Police has that has interoperability challenges. And I mean, it is 2013. 

You know, we are 12 years beyond 9/11. And this was one of the 

number one problems that was identified that our police services 

had when 9/11 happened. So what are the budget implications due 

to the time slippage? If you could give us an outline of those. 

Mr. DODARO. Sure. I understand there has been appropriated 

about $105 million. Right now, the estimate is around $102 million. 

So there is a small amount of money that we understand may still 

be available. And we have not gone in and audited it, but that is 

our understanding of what is being reported. If the project slips beyond the current schedule, which is toward the end of this fiscal 

year, and goes into fiscal year 2014, there is a possibility that additional money could be needed. I don’t have any idea right now. 

Until you have a good schedule, it is really hard to predict the 

amount of money. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We have a hearing with them on 

March 6. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

Mr. DODARO. I think the things to focus on then will be the testing to ensure system coverage. You are exactly right. The dead 

spots in the Capitol and why they had no coverage in many parts 

of the Capitol. They have installed all the internal antennas within 

the Capitol. The one thing to keep an eye on and ask about is what 

implications there would be when the renovations start at the Cannon Building for the placement of those antenna and whether they 

need to be moved again or not. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. 

Mr. DODARO. The need to review the system coverage on the outdoor testing before they accept the system, make sure everything 

works properly, and to make sure they have a good rollout plan for 

training the officers and migrating from the old system to the new 

one so you don’t have any gaps in coverage. Those are the key 

things. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Is that all? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I have others. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay. 

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am fine. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Valadao. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. One more question if you would indulge me, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Sure. 

OVERLAP AND DUPLICATION IN FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Mr. FORTENBERRY. You talked about the two reports that you 

have issued on waste and fragmentation and potential for reform. 

You talked about a third coming out in April. Is that different, or 

is that the same? 

Mr. DODARO. No, that is different. That will have new areas 

identified in it, but it also tracks the recommendations that we 

made in the first two reports. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. To the chairman’s question. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. And to your point. The information will all 

be automated and searchable. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Okay. Now, you spoke of the initial reports 

that identified 132 programs reflecting a degree of redundancy, or 

the potential for reform. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. Over half of those identified are areas of overlap and duplication. The other half to a third of the areas are cost 

savings opportunities and revenue enhancements. We have a number of recommendations on revenue enhancements. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I want to return to that in a moment after 

I finish this narrative thread. You said there are 300 actions involving those 132 programs. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. What does it look like in your April report as 

to the number of areas that could potentially be reformed? 

Mr. DODARO. Another 50. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Okay. Fifty. So we can just accumulate, assuming Congress has not done much with the earlier ideas? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

Mr. DODARO. There are some that have been fully implemented. 

Many are partially implemented. But there are many others where 

there hasn’t been any action. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. So 50 more is going to potentially save tens 

of billions of dollars more? Can you go that far? 

Mr. DODARO. I have not signed off on the final report yet, so I 

am not even going to give you that right now. I want to be accurate. I don’t want to overpromise. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. What do you mean in terms of a redundancy 

as it affects enhanced revenues? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, there is a set of the 132 areas that are focused on overlap and duplication of programs. And these areas are: 

employment training, teacher quality, science, technology, engineering and math, STEM studies, 200 programs; 160 programs in 

the housing area. For example, we recommended that the Rural 

Housing Authority and HUD potentially could be merged to save 

money. The Rural Housing Authority is making loans in urban 

counties, and HUD is making loans in rural counties. And with today’s technology, you could save. 

Then we have cost savings, where we have recommended that 

this action could save money. We put those in there, too. They are 

not overlap and duplication. Now, revenue enhancement, there are 

things like how to address the $385 billion net tax gap that we 

have right now from taxes owed that should have been collected 

under the current system that were not. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. So it is about enforcement issues. 

Mr. DODARO. It is enforcement. The Congress could give the IRS 

math authority. We have recommended that so they could fix some 

of the returns. We have recommended that IRS be given authority 

to collect third-party data in a couple other cases that IRS could 

improve enforcement. There are also recommendations in there 

about new revenue sources that the Federal Government could get, 

for example, in selling enriched uranium. There is a potential for 

that. Congress has asked the energy department, based on our recommendation, to provide some options for doing that that wouldn’t 

disrupt the market that could accrue revenue to the Federal Government. The Federal Government hasn’t adjusted user fees for a 

number of years. A number of programs are supposed to recover 

fees to cover their costs. That hasn’t happened in a lot of cases. 

Civil penalties have not been adjusted for inflation. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. They are already empowered to adjust it by 

law? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, in some cases. In other cases, they need statutory authority. We point out to the Congress where they could provide needed authority. For example, immigration fees, when people 

come into the country. That could be adjusted to better cover the 

costs of DHS rather than using appropriated funds to recover that 

money. 

Mr. BISHOP. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Yes. 

REPORT ON UNCOLLECTED TAXES

Mr. BISHOP. On the uncollected taxes, we have had the opportunity to fund additional revenue agents that the IRS has reVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:14 Jun 29, 2013 Jkt 081322 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A322P2.XXX A322P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

quested. We were told that the failure to fund these revenue agents 

allowed billions of dollars in uncollected taxes to continue. Did 

GAO do recommendations on this one as well? 

Mr. DODARO. Yes, we just issued a report, for example, where 

IRS, we believe, could redirect some of their resources to more productive enforcement activities and enhance revenue collections by 

at least a billion dollars with small adjustments to more productive 

areas. We have made a lot of recommendations over the years to 

enhance IRS’ performance measures for really figuring out what 

are the best methods for collecting and enhancing revenue. 

Mr. BISHOP. So additional agents are not necessarily the answer? 

Mr. DODARO. Not always, no. You could get third-party data. The 

most efficient source is information matching, particularly with today’s computer environment. And that is one of their best methods 

to be able to do it. Plus you need to act early. 

Mr. BISHOP. So they could do more with less is what you are saying. 

Mr. DODARO. Well, they need both agents, and they need IT, but 

they could do more to bring in more revenue if our recommendations were implemented. And this is not new revenue. This is revenue that is due under current law. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Reclaiming my time, thank you. Go back to 

that specific point on, for instance, you gave an example of teacher 

quality improvement programs across multiple agencies. You 

couldn’t even find how many there were. Once you did, there were 

dozens did you say? 

Mr. DODARO. There were 82 by I believe 10 different agencies. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. That is all I have. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DODARO. Sure. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Andy Harris, welcome to the committee. Do 

you have a question or an opening statement? 

Mr. HARRIS. No, I don’t, sir. I will pass. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay. 

PAY FOR PERFORMANCE AT GAO

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

Just a couple of items. GAO still is utilizing your pay-for-performance system. And that was an experiment that was entered 

into by a few government agencies, the largest being DOD, which 

ended their experiment after the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act. And GAO reviewed DOD’s system before it ended. But 

have you reviewed your own? I would like to know, you know, has 

it accomplished the goal of tying pay to performance? And how are 

GAO employees comparable to other Federal workers in pay since 

they don’t have any within grade increases like most executive 

branch employees? 

Mr. DODARO. First, we went off the GS system in the 1980s and 

have implemented pay for performance since that period of time 

under different systems. We have just reviewed our system, from 

a bottom-up approach with the employees, the union and others. 

We have a new performance management system that we are implementing this fiscal year for the first time. And I am very pleased 

with that system. We are working through right now with the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

union how we are going to compensate people for their performance 

from a pay standpoint. 

The problem is we have not been able for the last 2 or 3 years 

in particular to give our people comparable raises to what the GS 

step increase system would be in the executive branch. I am concerned about that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And to what do you attribute that? 

Mr. DODARO. The budget, just budgetary constraints. In the GS 

system they are mandated by law to provide the step increases. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. Right. 

Mr. DODARO. In our system, adjustments are not mandated and 

we are constrained by how much money we can give our employees 

for pay for performance. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You would say that is more of an indictment of the fact that we are not at an appropriate level of funding rather than the system that you use. 

Mr. DODARO. Exactly. Before the budgetary constraints, we were 

rewarding our employees comparable levels in pay for performance. 

I think our pay-for-performance system works well. It always 

works better if you have money. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, resources are helpful. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. I am confident in our system. We have good 

working relationships with our union. I am pleased with that. We 

will work through that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Things seem to have definitely improved from the last administration to this one when it comes to 

the relationship you have with your employees and their union representation, which is great. 

Mr. DODARO. Right. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But still, it is important to know that 

the pay grade is lower as a result of the budget challenges. 

Mr. DODARO. Yes. And I am concerned about that. We have dedicated, talented people, but they are marketable both within government and in the private sector. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And ultimately, wouldn’t you say that 

it affects the quality of your ability to recruit talented employees 

to GAO when your system, which is sound, results in a lower pay 

scale because of the budget challenges? 

Mr. DODARO. Definitely. 

Mr. BISHOP. How about retention? 

Mr. DODARO. And retention issues, too, definitely. 

STAFFING CHALLENGES

Mr. BISHOP. Are you losing employees? 

Mr. DODARO. Well, we are at about 7 percent, 8 percent attrition 

this year, about half through retirements. What I am concerned 

about at this point is also hanging onto the talented younger people 

and the Baby Boom generation, since forty percent of our senior executives and about 26 percent of our supervisory analysts are eligible to retire. We are not replacing them through the pipeline. So 

I am worried about the future of the workforce. It is an issue of 

both replacing retirees and retention. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just reclaiming my time, I want to 

ask you about Open World. Did you have something else? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

1 In 2004, we recommended that Open World estimate and disclose the value of contributed 

services from U.S. volunteers to better reflect the total scope of the program. Each year since 

2007, Open World has required all grantees to submit by March 31 of the following year a Cost 

Share Report detailing contributions made by the grantee or a third party to the program. 

2Open World officials said the term ‘‘cost-shares’’ used in Open World’s performance measures 

refers to both in-kind contributions and other private contributions that fund delegation-specific 

program expenses. 

Mr. BISHOP. No. 

GAO REVIEW OF OPEN WORLD OPERATIONS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. We will have a hearing 

with Open World, and I will have a chance to ask some questions 

from them. But GAO reviewed it from the fiscal year 2012 legislative branch bill, the Open World program. Could you just describe 

the scope of that project and what some of the results were? And 

particularly I am interested to know what kind of progress they 

have made on raising private funds and what percentage of their 

budget now consists of private funds. 

Mr. DODARO. The requirement in the 2012 appropriations required us to look at our 2004 report, where we made eight recommendations to improve their financial management operations 

and their performance management operations. We found that they 

had improved their financial management practices. They were 

now getting independent audits every year and getting clean opinions. They revised their manuals and grant procedures. In the performance management area, they had improved their practices 

there, too, with quantitative measures, and at the completion of 

our review produced a performance plan. So they were moving in 

the right directions and implementing the recommendations. The 

2012 requirement did not ask us to update the issue on the funding. But my understanding from our team, and I will provide a 

more detailed answer for the record for this—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. DODARO [continuing]. Is that most of the funding is coming 

from in-kind contributions at this point. I am not sure exactly what 

percentage it represents. But I will try to get that information and 

provide it for the record. 

[Information provided for the record follows:] 

Question. To what extent is Open World generating private funding? 

Response. In its 2011 Annual Report, Open World reported raising $406,000 from 

private funding sources to supplement its appropriations in fiscal year 2011. Open 

World is making efforts to raise funds from private sources at an annual average 

of approximately $330,000 for fiscal years 2012 through 2016. According to Open 

World officials, most of this funding to date has been used to support alumni activities not funded through appropriated funds. 

In addition, in fiscal year 2011 Open World reported $2.3 million in in-kind (noncash) contributions, mostly from U.S. grantees/volunteers that support the program. 

These contributions typically include homestays, meals, volunteer staff time, transportation, meeting space and other types of in-kind services.1

Open World has established annual fund-raising goals for both direct private 

funding and in-kind contributions for fiscal years 2012 through 2016. The annual 

target for direct private funding ranges from $325,000 in 2012 to $338,000 in 2016. 

For fiscal years 2012 through 2016, Open World set a goal of receiving annual inkind (and some other private) contributions that, when given a monetary value, represent between 20 to 22 percent of its annual appropriation.2 Planned targets remain fairly consistent at 20 percent for 2012 and 2013, 21 percent for 2014 and 

2015, and 22 percent for 2016. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That would be great. And did your review look at duplication with other agencies or programs that are 

similar to Open World? 

Mr. DODARO. I do not believe so. 

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

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Bishop, you have a final question? 

Mr. BISHOP. I am satisfied. Thank you. 

CLOSING REMARKS

Mr. ALEXANDER. Well, we appreciate it. There are some other 

questions that we will submit to you for the record. We appreciate 

you sharing your time with us this morning. We will work with 

you. 

We appreciate you all being here with us today. Thank you. 

Mr. DODARO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know that 

you and the committee members will give careful consideration, as 

always, to our requests. And I appreciate that very much. Thank 

you again for the opportunity to be here today. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Sure. Thank you. 

[Questions submitted for the record by Chairman Alexander and 

Congressman Young follow:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 81322A.023
43 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 81322A.024
44 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 81322A.025
45 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 81322A.026
46 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 81322A.027
47 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 81322A.028
48 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 81322A.029
49 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 81322A.030
50 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 81322A.031
(51) 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2013. 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WITNESS 

DAVITA VANCE-COOKS, ACTING PUBLIC PRINTER 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Next we will hear from the Government Printing Office. Good morning. How are you? Nice to see you. 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. So you will be sitting alone at the table? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. I am going to bring some people up. 

Mary Alice? 

Mary Alice Baish is the Superintendent of Documents. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. This is the testimony of the Government Printing Office of the request by you as $128.5 million for fiscal year 

2014, an increase of $1.5 million or 1 percent above the current CR. 

As we mentioned earlier, the fiscal uncertainty is very difficult to 

predict what the outcome is going to be. So we are going to be talking to you about that. We look forward to hearing from you. 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz, do you have an opening statement? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join 

the chairman in welcoming the Acting Public Printer, Ms. Davita 

Vance-Cooks, as well as Ms. Baish in a new role. Maybe you have 

been here for a while, but a new role since I was last here. Nice 

to see you again, too. Ms. Vance-Cooks and I had a chance to meet 

this week and she gave me an overview of her tenure at GPO. 

The major issues with GPO really are well covered by the National Academy of Public Administration report entitled Rebooting 

the Government Printing Office: Keeping America Informed in the 

Digital Age. So this subcommittee mandated NAPA to conduct this 

review and the NAPA panel concluded that GPO’s core mission remains valid but that the agency and rest of the Federal Government will need to continue to reboot for the digital age. 

I am glad to see that NAPA recognizes the unique role GPO has 

in disseminating information to the public. We have too many 

members who use GPO as a political football, as an opportunity to 

shine the light on government waste, simply because your name 

has the word ‘‘printing’’ in it. If they took time to learn more about 

the agency they would know what I know and what NAPA found, 

that GPO has a critical role for disseminating, authenticating and 

preserving government information. It really is an accountability 

agency. 

As GPO has repeated time and again, two-thirds of GPO’s print 

costs for congressional work goes towards content development 

with the remaining one-third going towards actual printing. And I 

think that is something that gets lost in our debate over GPO’s 

budget. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

I agree with NAPA that GPO needs to modernize its business 

model and shift its focus to disseminating and preserving content 

on line. And I know Ms. Vance-Cooks does as well, which means 

changing the current staffing model. And I look forward to a discussion with the Acting Printer about how she plans to steer the 

agency into a modern era. 

And as with every agency that will appear before the panel, I 

want to hear how your agency will implement sequester cuts if 

they go into effect on March 1st. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ms. Vance-Cooks, I look forward 

to your testimony. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Ms. Vance-Cooks, if would you introduce your 

staff members. 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Yes. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. And then present your testimony, thank you. 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Certainly. Mary Alice Biash, Superintendent 

of Documents. In back of me, would you please stand and give your 

title? 

Mr. DAVIS. Ric Davis, Chief Technology Officer. 

Mr. GREEN. Lyle Green, I am the Managing Director of Official 

Journals of Government. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Andy Sherman, Chief Communications Officer. 

Mr. SHEDD. Steve Shedd, Chief Financial Officer. 

Mr. GUY. Bill Guy, Budget Officer. 

Mr. SOMERSET. Gary Somerset, Public Relations Manager. 

Ms. WOJTOWICZ. Emma Wojtowicz, Public Relations Specialist. 

Ms. JOHNSON. And I am Yalanda Johnson, Congressional Relations Specialist. 

Mr. BISHOP. May I make a short opening statement? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Sure. 

Mr. BISHOP. I just wanted to of course welcome all of you back. 

I wanted to praise Ms. Vance-Cooks for the outstanding job she has 

done over the last year in doing more with less. I understand that 

GPO ended fiscal year 2012 with a positive net income, which is 

remarkable considering the fact that all of the agencies are cutting 

their printing costs. So I just want to congratulate you on your efforts to reconfigure the mission for the digital age and to slash your 

overhead. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Anybody else have an opening statement? Ms. 

Vance-Cooks. 

OPENING STATEMENT—ACTING PUBLIC PRINTER

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Thank you for the kind remarks. I appreciate 

it very much. 

Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, good morning, and thank you for 

the invitation to make a few remarks about the Government Printing Office. In the interest of time, as you have asked, I will briefly 

summarize my prepared statement, which has been submitted for 

the record. 

The GPO, as you know, produces, procures, catalogs, indexes, authenticates, disseminates and preserves the official information 

products for all three branches of the Federal Government. This 

year, however, we have taken it one step further. We have reVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:14 Jun 29, 2013 Jkt 081322 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A322P2.XXX A322P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

branded the GPO as official, digital and secure. This rebranding 

you will see is evident in our marketing collateral, in our social 

media, and in our strategic plan. 

We are official because the Government information that we 

produce is authentic and it has not been altered since origination. 

We are digital because we are transitioning to a digital information 

platform. We offer digital products, we use digital equipment, and 

we integrate digital processes into our workflow. We are secure because we have expertise in producing the latest, state-of-the-art secure precision functionalities in our e-Passports and in our ‘‘smart 

card’’ credentials. 

We were once primarily a printing operation. We are now smaller, we are leaner. We are more agile and we are in fact a publishing operation. And I am here today to tell you that I believe 

that the name of this agency should actually be changed to the 

Government Publishing Office because we are much more than 

printing ink on paper. We carry out our mission of keeping America informed by using an expanded range of digital as well as conventional formats, and this is because we are transforming ourselves from a print-centric to a content-centric operation. 

The transition of GPO to a digital information platform is evident in just so many ways. Our Web site, the Federal Digital System, or FDsys as it is called, has 800,000 Federal titles available 

free of charge to the public. We see more than 37 million documents downloaded each month. This is the only system of its kind 

in operation today. 

We provide mobile apps of congressional as well as agency information. We make House bills available in XML bold data format. 

We offer Government documents for sale as e-books. We create and 

host Web sites. We produce e-Passports for the State Department, 

which contain computer chips for biometric data. We offer secure 

credentials to both congressional and Federal agency offices as 

smart cards containing the latest in digital security measures. And 

we are constantly looking for future opportunities. We are pursuing 

variable printing, we are pursuing print-on-demand. We even have 

a small 3–D printer because we are trying to figure out whether 

or not there is space for us in the 3–D printing market. 

Over the past generation our transition from printing to digital 

operations has saved Congress, Federal agencies, and the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars while at the same time exponentially expanding public access to government information. This 

is the path that we are on, this is the path that we will continue 

to follow. 

The GPO’s path towards a digital transformation has been validated by the National Academy of Public Administration. In their 

recent report titled ‘‘Rebooting the Government Printing Office’’, we 

are pleased to see they in fact affirm that GPO’s core mission of 

authenticating, preserving, and distributing Federal information 

remains critically important to the American democracy in the digital age. We believe the report offers a number of thoughtful useful 

recommendations to strengthen our business model for the future, 

and we are taking these recommendations very seriously and we 

have begun to work on them. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

We also look forward to working on our budget request for fiscal 

year 2014, which will be submitted later this week. We proposed 

if you will recall a flat budget in fiscal year 2013 and we received 

one through the continuing resolution. For fiscal year 2014, we are 

proposing a modest 1.2 percent increase over the continuing resolution. Our request will include a significant shift in funds away from 

congressional printing and binding towards our revolving fund, primarily for investment in new technology to support our ongoing 

transformation to a digital platform. 

But unfortunately, the momentum that we have seen in terms of 

moving towards a digital platform will probably be impaired by the 

sequester. This means that the momentum in terms of our support 

of Congress moving towards a digital platform will be impaired. We 

have been preparing for sequestration for quite a while. It appears 

to be a very real possibility. And I am prepared to discuss in detail 

how GPO will manage itself during the sequestration, but like everyone else, we hope that the Government’s funding issues will be 

resolved very, very soon. 

Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my opening remarks 

and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you might 

have. 

[The statement of Ms. Vance-Cooks follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 81322a.032
56 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 01 81322a.033
57 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 88 81322a.034
58 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 89 81322a.035
59 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 81322a.036
60 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 81322a.037
61 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 81322a.038
62 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 81322a.039
63 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 81322a.040
64 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 81322a.041
65 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 81322a.042
66 

IMPACT OF SEQUESTRATION

Mr. ALEXANDER. You mentioned sequestration, can you tell us in 

twenty-five words or less how you prepared for it? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Twenty-five words or less, I will definitely 

try. Sequestration will cost our appropriations approximately $6.7 

million. The $6.7 million is a very large amount of money for an 

agency this small. We will attack it in two ways. We will look at 

our discretionary expenses, which means we will defer our capital 

expenses and our long-term projects. We will also impose what I 

call organizational restrictions, which is a restriction on hiring, 

there will be a hiring freeze, restrictions on travel, training, and so 

forth. 

We believe that with that $6.7 million cut that might be okay except for one fact—may I keep going? 

Here is the problem. The appropriated funds for GPO only account for 16 percent of our budget. The balance, the 84 percent, 

comes from revenue that we earn. We earn it through printing for 

Federal agencies and passports. If sequestration hits the other 

agencies, they will probably reduce printing. They may even cut it 

out altogether. If that ripples into our 84 percent revenue category, 

then we may have to furlough. We are doing everything in our 

power to avoid furloughs. This is not what we want to do. We may 

not know about the extent of the impact on our 84 percent revenue 

until May or June. 

However, there is also one other problem. The printing revenue 

that we have and that we generate is also done by printers outside 

of GPO, across the United States. There are about 16,000 vendors; 

3,000 of them we do a lot of business with. It is entirely possible 

they will see a reduction in their revenue. They may lay off, they 

may even close. This is the impact of sequestration. It will ripple 

across those businesses. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on what you just mentioned, the 84 percent is just your revolving fund? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Yes, it is. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So the impact on your revolving fund 

is both that if agencies cut back on their printing that will affect 

your revenue? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. That is correct. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But the businesses with whom you 

contract work, from the conversation we had yesterday and your 

testimony now, could go under. From my experience with all of us 

have quite a bit of interaction with our printers at home, both as 

customers and as constituents, and my understanding is that the 

printing business has a very slim margin. 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. It does. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And, you know, do you have an idea 

of the percentage of work that is attributed to GPO’s work that you 

give to many of these businesses? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Yes. Yes, approximately 75 percent of the orders that come into the GPO are contracted out to vendors. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And those vendors, what percentage 

of their work do you know is GPO’s business? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. It varies according to the vendor but some 

vendors may have as much as 80 or 90 percent. They may rely on 

it totally, other vendors may not. The small mom and pop shops 

are actually the ones I am the most concerned about. They are the 

ones with fewer than 20 employees. 

Also, if I may, I have numbers that indicate just how much revenue goes to some of the States in here if I may share that. For 

example, in California in fiscal year 2012 $22 million of printing 

went to that State from GPO. Florida was $12 million, Georgia $6 

million, Maryland $48 million, Virginia $11 million, Nebraska $1.5 

million, Louisiana half a million. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Why did you pick those States? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Because they are all represented here. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Never ask a question you don’t know the answer to. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So what is the impact beyond this 

year if the sequester is not replaced and you have to operate in fiscal year 2014 and beyond with a roughly five percent cut? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. We will see degradation in our investments. 

We rely very heavily on the funding to improve our investments in 

technology so that we can continue our digital transformation. As 

you know, to convert to digital takes money, so it is upfront costs. 

If we do not have those funds, everything will stop in terms of that 

transition. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So basically the process to transforming into a more digital agency will stall? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. That is correct. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And you will continue to essentially, 

in the minds of some Members, waste money by printing documents that are thrown away or that age and don’t stand the test 

of time? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. That is correct. Also, I would like to add that 

we also end up with the fact that we will not be able to move forward in terms of creating new and different ways in which we can 

present information. It was through the funding from Congress 

that we were able to figure out how to develop apps, develop ebooks. Now we are looking at 3–D printing, now we are looking at 

variable printing, print-on-demand. It is that assistance that allows 

us to look into the future. When we don’t have that kind of funding 

because it is that expensive, that may stop. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is fair to say that if sequestration 

takes place in 3 days the impact on GPO’s budget and the products 

that you turn out will result in less accountability because we will 

have less information available to the public that can be widely disseminated? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. That is correct. 

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AT GPO

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Bishop. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. Ms. Vance-Cooks, another 

compliment for you. I was pleased to read that the GPO is continuing to make progress in reducing the number of equal opportunity complaints. I understand that there were 27 formal complaints of discrimination filed at GPO during fiscal year 2012 compared with 34 the year before, which is a 21 percent reduction. 

Can we get for the record an update on the equal opportunity 

complaints and the resolution of those complaints? It has been a 

chronic problem over the years and I am happy to note that over 

the last couple of years it has gotten better. 

In addtion, as an iPad user, I was very pleased to read that you 

signed an agreement with Apple to sell the Federal e-books over 

iTunes and other electronic stores. Do you see that as a revenue 

raiser or more of a public service, open government type initiative 

or both? How do you go about establishing your prices? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Okay, let’s talk about the EEO first. Thank 

you for acknowledging that we have reduced the EEO complaints 

because we have worked very diligently on this. The EEO Director 

actually reports directly to me. We meet once a week. Because 

there are so few complaints now I am actually familiar with almost 

every case. We have had a number of opportunities to—I guess the 

right way to say it is to intercede. We have an alternate dispute 

resolution process now so that we try to take it off-line and try to 

resolve it. It is working, people come out and they feel good about 

that. 

We are also very sensitive about the EEO issues when we went 

through a buyout, because a lot of times when you have a buyout 

sometimes the EEO complaints increase. They actually decreased 

because of our stringent adherence to making sure that the individuals and the employees were aware of what we were trying to do, 

why we were trying to do it. Actually when I last looked at the 

data we had as high as 84 complaints in 2009, so we have actually 

dropped 68 percent. So it is actually pretty good. 

In terms of Apple, I am glad you enjoy Apple. Thank you very 

much. Actually for us it is an opportunity issue, it is an opportunity just to put the e-book out there. E-book pricing is very low. 

It is very difficult to make a margin on that. So actually what we 

are doing with the e-book market is making our presence known 

to the rest of the public that we can in fact offer e-books. Consider 

it an opportunity type of issue. 

Mr. BISHOP. Have you been able to track how many people are 

downloading the mobile applications? I think you referenced it just 

now, but have you been able to track whether the users are finding 

them easy to navigate? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Yes, we can track and we have been tracking. 

Let me give you an example. We are the ones who created the app 

for the President’s budget for fiscal year 2013, which was the first 

time it had ever been done. And by the way, we won an award for 

that one. The first day it had 53,000 visits. And so we see about 

several hundred or several hundred a day. 

Mr. BISHOP. Were those applications created in-house or were 

they contracted out? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. I am happy to tell you they were made in 

house. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

Mr. BISHOP. Final question, do you see any new technologies that 

could further transform and change the printing industry? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. We are very interested in variable printing, 

we are very interested in print-on-demand. The latest one now is 

the 3–D printing. We are not sure what kind of space we will have 

with 3–D printing but we are looking at it. And we are also heavily 

involved in mobile data networks. So we are doing a lot of things 

to make sure that we are relevant to the population. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

PRINTING PROCUREMENT FOR AGENCIES

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Harris. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. And I also congratulate you 

on having your revenue exceeding your expenses last year. 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Well, thank you so much. 

Mr. HARRIS. You mentioned that about, if I got it right, about 84 

percent of your budget comes from outside, other agencies and 

whatever—I guess you just manage the printing for or you act as 

the conduit between them and outside printers, $48 million of 

which is in Maryland. Which department is your largest user of 

that? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. The Department of Defense. 

Mr. HARRIS. And what is their amount? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. I would have to check. 

[Information provided for the record follows:] 

In FY 2012, total billings to DOD and related military agencies 

were $103.8 million. 

Mr. HARRIS. Have they given you an indication of if the sequester 

takes effect how much of that printing budget will be cut? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. No one has talked to us yet. 

Mr. HARRIS. Do you think that is good planning over at the Department of Defense? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. I think they are involved in looking at other 

things beyond printing. I think printing will probably be the last 

thing they start to look at. 

Mr. HARRIS. Do you have any idea of a timeline of when they 

might start looking at things like that since this law was in place 

for a year and a half? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. I am predicting that probably we, GPO, will 

see something within the next 2 or 3 months. I will tell you that 

we have begun our own market outreach. We have contacted a 

number of our agencies to find out what they are planning. Some 

of them are saying that they are going to wait and see. 

Mr. HARRIS. That is tough on you. 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Today in fact we are having an open house 

for our client agencies. We have over 200 clients there right now 

so that we can tell them what we can provide for them during sequestration or ongoing. And I think it is a good marketing tool for 

us, and as soon as I leave here I am going back to this open house. 

They want to know how they can manage their printing and publishing needs and we are here to help them. So we are trying to 

present ourselves as a problem solver. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 

Mr. HARRIS. So I should tell some of these printers in Maryland 

who do the $48 million that actually it appears to me that the GPO 

is not the problem. If they come ask me what is the effect of sequester on me you can’t answer because actually you are downstream from other agencies—— 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. That is correct. 

Mr. HARRIS [continuing]. That have not planned as far as you 

can tell. 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. We are downstream from agencies who have 

not yet communicated to us what their plans are. 

Mr. HARRIS. Well, thank you very, very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REPORT

Mr. ALEXANDER. In your opening statement you mentioned the 

National Academy of Public Administration. It is my understanding that they released their report with some recommendations how you can help us deal with the digital age. Have you satisfied some of those suggestions that they have made? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Yes. They actually gave us 15 recommendations sorted into three themes. The first theme, as you mentioned, 

is to take a good look at the Federal Government in the digital age. 

And they recommended that Congress establish an interagency 

process to develop a governmentwide strategy for the life cycle 

management of digital information. As part of that they want us 

to take a look at the FDLP and develop a national plan on how we 

will preserve information. Through Mary Alice Baish, the Superintendent of Documents, we have started a State forecasting study. 

In fact we started it last year, and the purpose of that study was 

to ask all the Federal depository libraries what they thought they 

would need as they go towards the digital age so that they would 

essentially be a stakeholder in this process, and we started that. 

Good data will be coming out very shortly. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay, and we understand that last year you 

printed your 75 millionth passport? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Has the State Department asked you to get 

ready for the next generation of passports? Have you all talked 

about how sequestration would effect you? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. The latest information that I received last 

night indicated that the MOU which we currently have in place 

will remain in place for 13 million units of passports. If, however, 

we have to go through a sequestration with them, or 5.3 percent, 

it would go down to about 12 million; 12 million is still more passports than we made in 2012. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, 

rather than question why the agencies aren’t treating sequestration 

as a foregone conclusion, we should be coming together to replace 

the sequester with a balanced mix of spending cuts that are targeted and closure of tax loopholes so that we don’t put printers in 

the private sector out of business because of the intransigence of 

Congress. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
71 

That having been said, I want to ask you about the NAPA review 

of GPO because they found that the agency is necessary for providing Government information to the public, but it indicated that 

GPO should try to take more of a leadership role in ensuring permanent public access to Government information. Through your 

role in providing Government documents to Federal depository libraries, for example, are you confident that these libraries are preserving print copies of these documents that one day are going to 

be considered historical? And then are there any Governmentwide 

efforts going on to determine how we preserve digital formats given 

that they change so frequently? And how would those efforts and 

your ability to take that leadership role be impacted by the sequestration? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. The law requires that the regional libraries 

basically maintain their collections permanently, not necessarily 

preserve them. The preservation is something that we are attempting to do on a digital FDsys. We agree with the recommendation 

that we need to work with other agencies as well as with the Federal depository libraries to develop the appropriate standards for 

preservation of digital content. We expect that to be part of the 

State forecasting study which will be released probably within the 

next few months. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Great. And just along the same lines, 

Mr. Chairman, on your staffing NAPA recommended that GPO develop an ongoing human capital planning process, just to guide the 

reshaping of your workforce. I thought it was interesting to note 

that your workforce has fallen from 6,450 employees in 1980 to 

roughly 1,920 employees on board today. But based on your work 

requirements today, are you staffed sufficiently to meet the needs 

of Congress and the needs of the public for your unique brand of 

information dissemination? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. The mix of the employees within the base will 

change. In fact, it is changing now. It is changing more and more 

towards individuals who have IT experience, Web development experience, those kinds of skill sets. So the actual number of people 

will remain the same, around 1,900, but the skill sets within it will 

definitely change to accommodate the fact that we are going to become much more digital. We see it already. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Is that all? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just have one more small one, but 

I don’t want to take up the time if there is another member who 

has a question. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am just happy listening to the great information. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay. 

REPLACEMENT OF SEQUESTER

Mr. HARRIS. Just one quickly. You may not know this, because 

you are not high profile, but important with the GPO with what 

it does, so it was lost to me. In the two bills that were passed last 

Congress by the House that delayed sequestration what was the effect on GPO under those two pieces of legislation passed by the 

House last Congress? Would the sequester have been delayed so 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 

that the GPO as well—and again, I am going to apologize because 

you are a lower profile organization. So I know what the effect on 

the Defense Department was, but I don’t know what it was on the 

GPO. Does any of your staff know? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. No, I really do not. 

Mr. HARRIS. So it would have delayed the sequester for the GPO? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. I am not sure. 

Mr. HARRIS. We would have solved your problem, the House has 

essentially sent something that kind of solves your problems for 

this year as far as you know, the two pieces? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. We will have to look at the legislation. 

Mr. HARRIS. Could you do that? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. And thank you for saying we are not that 

high profile. 

Mr. HARRIS. That is good sometimes. You stay below fire. 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. We will be happy to respond for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

The legislation mentioned as passing the House in the 112th Congress appears 

to have been H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012, and 

H.R. 6684, the Spending Reduction Act of 2012. While appropriations to the Government Printing Office do not appear to be addressed specifically in the legislation, 

the report accompanying H.R. 5652 indicates that it would have replaced the acrossthe-board sequester. 

GPO’S FACILITIES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one 

more quick question about the evolution of the plans or desire to 

replace GPO’s aging facilities, which when I first became chair was 

a very high priority for the agency and I am assuming you have 

moved on from replacement and I just want to know if you could 

share with us what you are doing to maximize the space that you 

have and fully utilize it. 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. You are absolutely right and correct when 

you state that it is not a high priority for us. We love that building. 

It is a historical building, it is a landmark and we intend to stay 

there. However, when you go from 6,000 employees to less than 

1,900 you end up with a lot of space. So we are actually trying to 

rent the space to other agencies that may need it. It is a beautiful 

building and I always tease Mr. Andy Sherman behind me even 

though he is in charge of congressional relations because he is sort 

of like my Re/Max guy and if he finds an agency that needs help 

or needs some kind of space then we certainly will talk to them. 

We currently have four renters which contribute about $1.7 million 

annually to our overhead which is great, it helps to pay for it, but 

we also have more space we could lease. 

Mr. BISHOP. Would you yield on that? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just a moment. Would any of your 

ability to lease space to other agencies or acquire other tenants, because your tenants aren’t private sector tenants—— 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. They are Federal agencies, mostly legislative 

branch. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing]. They are agencies who 

make lease payments with public dollars. Do you anticipate with 

sequester that those efforts would be stalled? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
73 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes? 

Mr. BISHOP. Last year you told us that you were becoming landlords. Have you increased your number of tenants since you were 

here last year? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Yes, last year we had three, today we have 

four. 

Mr. BISHOP. Who did you pick up? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. And we actually have three in the pipeline who we 

are talking to but I am not sure what sequestration is going to do 

with them. We will wait. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Have you had anybody from the private sector 

to inquire about a lease? 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Yes, but this is a Government building and 

we only want the agencies to be in that building. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Any other questions? We appreciate you being 

here today. Any other questions will be submitted to you for the 

record. 

Ms. VANCE-COOKS. Thank you so much. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. So if there is nothing else, the committee will 

stand in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning and we will hear testimony from the Library of Congress and the Congressional Budget 

Office. Meeting stands adjourned. 

[Questions submitted for the record by Chairman Alexander, Mr. 

Young, and Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz follow:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 81322A.043
75 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 81322A.044
76 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 81322A.045
77 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 81322A.046
78 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 81322A.047
79 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 81322A.048
80 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 81322A.049
81 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 81322A.050
82 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 81322A.051
83 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 81322A.052
84 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 81322A.053
(85) 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2013. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

WITNESSES 

JAMES H. BILLINGTON, THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS 

ROBERT DIZARD, JR., DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS 

KAREN KENINGER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE FOR THE 

BLIND AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED 

MARY B. MAZANEC, DIRECTOR CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

MARIA A. PALLANTE, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to 

order. Today we will hear from the Library of Congress and the 

Congressional Budget Office. The Library of Congress is requesting 

$608 million, an increase of 3 percent over the current CR, and I 

want to welcome Dr. Billington to the committee this morning, and 

we want to congratulate you. We understand that just recently you 

celebrated your 25th year with the Library of Congress. The committee wants to congratulate you and thank you for the work that 

you do, not only with the Library, but with Congress and the Nation. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. We are reminded every day or two from people 

that go into the Library of Congress, how they enjoy it. It is a gorgeous building, and the work that goes on there we want to recognize and thank you for. 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Chairman Alexander and 

Dr. Billington, for the opportunity to work hand in hand with the 

leader of what I consider to be, I think what all of us consider to 

be Congress’ jewel, the Library of Congress, a remarkable leader 

like yourself in your 25th year of service is really one of the main 

reasons that I wanted to and am so glad I have been able to come 

back to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. It is 

so wonderful to have the opportunity to interact with you in this 

setting again, and we just so appreciate your continued service. 

Now, your written testimony highlights the difficulties in maintaining the operations of the Library in light of the cuts of the last 

several years, and especially as we face the prospect of sequestration. Now, my concern is that with cultural institutions such as the 

Library, the impacts of these cuts rear their head many years after 

they actually happen, and as you have told us so many times, the 

cuts that you absorb now resonate beyond just the single fiscal year 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

in which they occur, and that impacts us anywhere from researchers who might, down the road, find incomplete information to 

Members of Congress receiving inadequate services from CRS. 

Many Members of this body often speak of the Founding Fathers 

and the principles of government that they established, and we 

should all be aware of the vision that Thomas Jefferson had for the 

Library of Congress, which is our Nation’s oldest cultural institution. 

Jefferson argued that there was, ‘‘No subject to which a Member 

of Congress may not have occasion to refer’’ as he sold his personal 

library to the Congress, doubling the size of the Library after much 

of the collection had been destroyed by the British, and we have 

come a long way since then, but nevertheless, Dr. Billington, your 

challenge during these uncertain budgetary times will be to concisely tell the story of the Library and why your services are so 

critical. 

Now, as you mentioned in your testimony, in your written testimony, the Library was able to positively contribute to the U.S.-Afghan relationship by giving the Afghan people, for example, historical Afghan records that were lost to them during the Taliban rule. 

I saw firsthand during a congressional delegation visit to Egypt the 

dedicated Library of Congress staff in that country collecting information that will one day help us fully understand the transformations that we are seeing in that country. 

During my time as chair of this subcommittee, I pressed you to 

think about what programs and services were priorities, the needto-haves, the gotta-haves versus the nice-to-haves. The Library’s 

acquisition policy is a major cost driver for storage and preservation and should be looked at with an eye towards reducing outyear 

costs, but cutting at breakneck speed for the sake of political gain 

has caused more harm than any of us should feel comfortable inflicting, and I would like us to consider, Mr. Chairman, the loss of 

24 congressional research analysts, which degrades Congress as an 

institution. As we lose staff in our own offices, CRS is needed more 

than ever for analysis of legislation and issues of today. 

Increased copyright backlogs. I was pleased to see that the copyright backlog problem that existed a few years ago has been 

cleared out, but those backlogs will begin to mount again with cutbacks as a result of the looming sequester, and that will impede 

U.S. commerce. The reduction of 50,000 catalog records which impacts local libraries that rely on these for their own use. 

Mr. Chairman, my fear is that this subcommittee will have more 

expensive projects in 5 years that are created by the lack of investment today in the Library of Congress, and my hope is to use the 

bipartisanship of this subcommittee to protect our institutions as 

the stewards of our branch of government. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to Dr. Billington’s testimony. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you. Mr. Moran, would you like to make 

an opening statement? 

OPENING REMARKS OF MR. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, but I think Jim 

knows how strongly I support him and the operations of the LiVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:14 Jun 29, 2013 Jkt 081322 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A322P2.XXX A322P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

brary, and I know we share that commitment, so let’s hear from 

Dr. Billington, but I appreciate the opportunity. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Dr. Billington, feel free to introduce any staff 

that you have with you today, and your full testimony will be submitted for the record, please summarize it and list some of your accomplishments of the past few years. 

INTRODUCTION OF LIBRARY LEADERSHIP

Dr. BILLINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is my Deputy 

Librarian of Congress, Robert Dizard, Jr., and this is Karen 

Keninger, who is the head of the National Library Service for the 

Blind and Physically Handicapped—the first time, I think, before 

this committee—and we particularly welcome her. And we have our 

executive committee and then some here. There is David Mao, head 

of the Law Library of Congress; Mary Mazanec, the head of the 

Congressional Research Service, and her deputy Colleen Shogan; 

we have Roberta Shaffer, our Associate Librarian for Library Services; Jeffrey Page, who is the Chief Financial Officer, and Maria 

Pallante is the Register of Copyrights, and there, just a second, I 

have to turn around, Lucy Suddreth, Chief of Support Operations, 

and Jim Gallagher, who is our acting head of Office of Strategic 

Initiatives, and Mary Klutts is our Budget Officer, so we have a 

full array of our leadership team here. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS

And so, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Moran, 

members of the subcommittee, I am very happy to appear before 

the subcommittee on behalf of all of us at the Library of Congress 

to talk on the subject of the Library of Congress mission and 

budget, and begin, of course, by saying that all of us at the Library 

of Congress, Mr. Chairman, are deeply grateful for you and for the 

committee’s support that you have given to the Library. 

Now, thanks to that support, that steady support through thick 

and thin over 212 years, the Library of Congress acquires, preserves, and makes accessible both the largest, most wide-ranging 

collection of the world’s recorded knowledge ever assembled anywhere on the planet by any one institution. It is also the closest 

thing there is to a mint record of the cultural and intellectual creativity of the American people. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS AS DE FACTO NATIONAL LIBRARY

We provide America with four one-of-a-kind services. First of all, 

as the de facto national library of the United States; secondly, as 

the research arm to the legislative and oversight work of the Congress; then as the U.S. Copyright Office for innovative creators and 

for that important part of our economy that deals with content; and 

the national reading resource for the blind and physically handicapped. 

The Library supports the entire library system of America with 

its cataloging, its multi-formatted preservation research and the 

free access it provides the American people wherever they live and 

learn with 37 million primary documents of American history and 

culture, complete with clean curatorial explanations for both eduVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:14 Jun 29, 2013 Jkt 081322 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\A322P2.XXX A322P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

cation and inspiration of the American people. Last year, the Library provided research and reference services to half a million individuals either on site, by telephone, or through written correspondence; 1.7 million people visited the Library’s facilities here; 

and our massive preservation program lengthened the useful life of 

nearly 6 million items in our collections. 

SERVICES FOR THE BLIND AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

We provided 25 million reading materials to the blind and physically handicapped Americans through local libraries around the 

country generated here, 129 educators from 33 States attended our 

summer teacher institutes here, and we reached more than 25,000 

other teachers the same year through our partnered professional 

development events in 43 States plus the District of Columbia. 

THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE

The Library’s Copyright Office administers U.S. copyright law, 

publicly documenting the ownership of more than half a million 

American works last year, and it plays, Mr. Chairman, a very fundamental role in the $890 billion segment of the U.S. economy that 

produces and distributes content, including all kinds of international discussions that are very important. 

THE CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

The Library’s Congressional Research Service, as you have already indicated, and as has been pointed out, provides exclusively 

to all Members of Congress nonpartisan information, analysis, and 

legislative public policy issues, responding last year to more than 

one million such requests, and the Law Library of Congress does 

additional work directly for the Congress. 

In the fiscal 2014 budget request that we will be submitting to 

you later this week, we are seeking only to maintain funding levels 

for current services adjusted for inflation, a 2.5 percent increase. 

We are already doing more with less, Mr. Chairman. Since fiscal 

2010, the Library has sustained a reduction of $52 million, or 8 

percent of our base. We now have 1,300 fewer staff than 20 years 

ago, which was before we began our massive digitization program. 

We are asking that the Congress help us maintain the Library’s 

core services for the good of the Nation now and for the future, 

even as we pass through our economic difficulties. 

FORT MEADE MODULE 5

Now, I must especially mention, Mr. Chairman, our need for 

funding Module 5 at Fort Meade, which is in the Architect of the 

Capitol’s budget, in order to preserve and store our unique and now 

overflowing collections and to continue to make them rapidly accessible for Congress and the American people. 

So, Mr. Chairman, members of this subcommittee, I thank you 

again for your support of the Library and for your consideration of 

our fiscal 2014 request. I would be happy to answer questions that 

you might have. 

[Prepared Statements of Dr. Billington, Maria Pallante and Mary 

Mazanec follow:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 81322A.054
90 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 81322A.055
91 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 81322A.056
92 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 81322A.057
93 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 81322A.058
94 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 81322A.059
95 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 81322A.060
96 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 81322A.061
97 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 81322A.062
98 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 81322A.063
99 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 81322A.064
100 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 81322A.065
101 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 81322A.066
102 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 81322A.067
103 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 81322A.068
104 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 81322A.069
105 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 81322A.070
106 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 81322A.071
107 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Fortenberry, would you have an opening 

statement that you would like to make? 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I will defer on that for a moment and then come back to questions, but I want to thank Dr. 

Billington for his outstanding service, but I will come back with a 

few questions momentarily. Thank you. 

SEQUESTRATION AND MANAGING WITH REDUCED FUNDING

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you. Dr. Billington, you highlighted a 

few things that you had done in the past to do more with less. With 

the uncertainty that lies ahead for us financially with the sequestration, can you highlight what you and your people have done to 

maybe prepare yourselves for doing even more with less? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I have addressed this 

question in some detail in my longer written statement. Assuming 

the 5.3 percent rate, it would require us to reduce this year’s budget by more than $31 million. Now, we have prepared for it, identifying savings in both pay and nonpay categories. Last week, my 

deputy announced to Library staff and I confirmed it in a message 

through our newsletter, the Gazette, that we are expecting four 

furlough days through the remainder of the year, which will account for about 17 percent of the reductions required. The rest will 

have to come from nonpay categories, which is a relatively small 

percent of the budget overall since nearly two-thirds of our budget 

is for personnel, and 90 percent of the Congressional Research 

Service is for personnel. 

As indicated in some of the more detailed testimony, some of the 

impacts would include 400,000 or more collection items not acquired, which will result in a gap in the collections that may never 

be filled, and the number of books that we are able to preserve 

through mass deacidification, the only mass deacidification program of its size and a very important program, will be reduced by 

as much as two-thirds. Binding of books will be reduced; basic 

operational services such as security and cleaning will be cut back; 

and even with all of that, CRS will have difficulty maintaining current levels of coverage of public policy issues; response times will 

lengthen; and rush requests will be particularly difficult to meet. 

The Copyright Office’s registration program will begin developing 

a backlog of copyright claims awaiting processing and a related decrease in fee income to support ongoing operations. Those two are 

related. The staff will have to curtail participation in some of the 

international negotiations and other policy efforts important to interests of U.S. trade. 

Finally, the National Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped will have to postpone conversion of about 5,000 legacy titles 

and decrease production of new titles from the expected number of 

2,100 to 1,890. This obviously reduces the availability of reading 

material provided to the blind and physically handicapped community. So those are some of the highlights. 

And of course, any sequestration would come on top of the 8 percent reduction in our budget since fiscal 2010, so I think that is the 

main outline. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
108 

ALTERNATIVES TO 4-DAY CLOSURE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. 

Billington, can you just, as we have sequester, sequestration looming in a couple of days, your sequestration plan, which is good to 

see that you have been planning and anticipating what you would 

do in the event that it actually happens, but actual outright closure 

of the Library is a pretty drastic step, but I know what your cost 

drivers are. Is there another way that you could accomplish the 4 

days over in a phased way to prevent total closure? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, there probably are some other ways, but 

the reason that we have done this was that 3 of those days could 

be attached to what are already holidays, that is to say, Memorial 

Day, July 4th, Labor Day. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. And there are other reasons for that, but I 

might defer to my deputy who has been working very closely with 

the staff on this matter. 

Mr. DIZARD. We felt that attaching to those holidays would give 

the staff a little certainty about closure days, but also make it significantly easier for us to manage. I understand your point, it is 

not ideal to close the institution. We also have talked to the unions 

about that. I would say this is still a plan. If the sequester happens, we have requirements to consult with unions and with staff 

further, so we fully understand your point. 

I will say a tangential impact of closing for 3 days is the opportunity to save some hours from the U.S. Capitol Police, which we 

are required to reduce through sequestration. If we close for 3 days, 

it could mean that we would be able to keep some entrances or 

exits open for the rest of the year. So that was another consideration. 

BASELINE REDUCTIONS AND WEB SITE SHUTDOWN

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Now, we talked about this yesterday with some of the other agencies, but if sequestration is not 

turned off, then, you know, we are talking about baseline reductions here, so you have got 4 days in your plan now, or 3 full days 

of closure and then a fourth day, but how do you anticipate dealing 

with the reduction in the baseline in 2014 and 2015, and then the 

other thing is that why is it necessary to shut the Web site down 

on the days that the Library is closed as well? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, I think, for Copyright purposes and for 

CRS and Law Library purposes we would have to have some special arrangement to keep those things open. 

Mr. DIZARD. We originally thought about possibly shutting the 

Web site down because it required staff to be there, but we realized 

for business purposes and public service reasons we would probably 

keep them open and have relatively small crews come in to man 

them. They would make up a furlough day on another day. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Including Thomas? 

Mr. DIZARD. Yes. And I would just say on the long-term impacts, 

in 2014 and beyond, as Dr. Billington said, two-thirds of our budget 

being personnel—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing]. Right. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
109 

Mr. DIZARD. The long-term impacts are inevitably going to fall on 

people, and you mentioned acquisitions and you mentioned preservation. We are trying to avoid damage to those that is going to be 

irreversible. So, unfortunately, it does, over time, eventually get to 

people. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Manifests itself in layoffs or attrition. 

Mr. DIZARD. We are hoping not layoffs. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. 

Mr. DIZARD. We hope it will be through attrition. We did a 

buyout 2 years ago, but I do not think there is a pool there to make 

that effective today. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I have other questions, Mr. Chairman, 

but they can wait. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. By the way, members will be called on in the 

order of seniority or either in the order in which you appeared in 

the committee room. We will try to hold our questions to 5 minutes 

within reason, and we will have as many rounds of questions as 

the committee feels necessary to get your questions answered. Mr. 

Moran. 

CONGRESSIONAL USAGE OF THE LIBRARY

Mr. MORAN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

get some sense of the congressional usage of the Library of Congress, particularly Congressional Research Service. Where is most 

of the request? Where is the focus that you find in terms of demand 

from the Congress for additional information for insight in particular issues? Have you kind of itemized that so we get a sense 

of which committees and what topics are using up most of your resources? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, I think Dr. Mazanec, who is the Director 

of the Congressional Research Service, ought to respond to that directly. 

Ms. MAZANEC. Thank you for that question. First, we do include 

this information in our annual report to the Congress. We serve 

100 percent of Member offices and 96 percent of committees in any 

given year. However, all individual congressional requests to CRS 

are held in strict confidence, so I cannot speak to demands from 

the individual offices or committees. In fiscal 2012 we had close to 

700,000 interactions with Congress. Of those, over 70,000 were directed requests for analysis, additional information, and research. 

We wrote over 500 new reports and we updated approximately 

2,700 reports. 

Mr. MORAN. These are impressive numbers, but they are just 

numbers. I am trying to get a sense of what, where the demand 

is coming from? 

Ms. MAZANEC. Well, the demand actually parallels the issues 

that Congress is actively working on. So lately, it has been budget 

sequestration, the deficit, homeland security, and cybersecurity. 

Health care has also been very active. A lot of the social policy 

issues, including immigration, Medicaid, Medicare are all very hot 

topics. 

Mr. MORAN. What, for example, might be the top two or three 

reports that the Members of Congress would have asked for? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
110 

Ms. MAZANEC. Some of the most viewed CRS reports on our 

CRS.gov Web site in recent weeks have focused on budget sequestration, the legal issues surrounding the federal assault weapons 

ban, and the Violence Against Women Act. 

Mr. MORAN. No, just—I know that you do not, that you do a lot 

of individual reports, but there are—I think the majority of the reports are the same report that you may update a little bit, but you 

give it to committees and the individual Members. What is the demand specifically? 

Ms. MAZANEC. What I can do is we can actually look at that and 

try to give you a more specific answer. I do not want to even guess 

at this point. 

[Information provided for the record follows:] 

Recently, CRS has assisted in the policy debate surrounding several passed bills 

of particular significance, including the Budget Control Act, the American Taxpayer 

Relief Act, and the Violence Against Women Act. CRS analysts and attorneys provided research and information at all stages of the legislative process, including 

committee mark-ups and floor debate. 

Mr. MORAN. Really? 

Ms. MAZANEC. These are some of the areas that we get a lot of 

questions about, and I would assume that we would see requests 

for our reports in addition to more targeted information, but can 

I get back to you on that? 

Mr. MORAN. I was just trying to get a sense of what impact it 

might have on the legislative process if there is a cutback in personnel, particularly if it becomes, as Ms. Wasserman Schultz suggested, perhaps a longer term reduction in capacity, I would like 

to get a sense of what the impact would be. Obviously, we are concerned about the people who visit the Library of Congress, we are 

concerned about the integrity of the quantity and particularly the 

quality of the collection, but also of the ability to respond to the 

Congress itself in terms of information. 

[Additional information provided for the record follows:] 

Fiscal constraints have resulted in reductions to staff size, research materials access, and investments in infrastructure. Specific cuts have been made after careful 

consideration and with the intent of minimizing, to the extent possible, any potential impact to Members and their staff. However, with a tighter budget, CRS has 

reduced the number of analysts and attorneys on staff, which necessarily results in 

fewer authoritative research products for Congress, and longer wait times for custom requests. 

REQUESTS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES

The other thing, Dr. Billington, that I was interested in, a lot of 

increasingly in a globalized world, we are getting a great many requests from people in other countries, and I was stunned to realize, 

I have known it for some years now, but it is stunning, you have 

more works of Russian literature, for example, than you can find 

in all of Russia. The libraries in Moscow are a lesser resource than 

is our own Library of Congress, and a lot of—you digitized and 

translated so many of these works of literature throughout human 

civilization. What is the greatest demand in terms of that accessibility from people in foreign lands? It used to be, I was shocked 

when I was on this subcommittee previously, Mr. Chairman, to find 

one of the greatest demands was coming from Iran for our works 

of western literature, which I thought was kind of interesting and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
111 

revealing. Where is the demand now, if you would not mind sharing it? 

WORLD DIGITAL LIBRARY

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, the best way we can measure foreign demand directly, first of all, is through our privately funded world 

digital library, where we are putting online, and with expert curatorial comment in seven languages, the basic historical and cultural documents with curatorial comment, translated into these 

multiple languages. This is very new in terms of numbers, but it 

is very interesting to note that Spanish language usage globally is 

greater than English language usage. For the Arab countries, we 

have 177,000 users. This is still very small in terms of the amount 

of material we have, but these documents are of extremely high 

quality, very high resolution. We have 177,000 distinct users in the 

Arab world, 122,000 in Iran, and I could go over others. This is—— 

Mr. MORAN. Well, are you saying—I just want to make sure, of 

the 177,000 from the Arab—of course, Iran is not an Arab country, 

it is a Persian. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. No, I was saying—— 

Mr. MORAN. Okay. So those are cumulative, 122 is not a subset 

of the 177? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. No, no, no, that is separate. That is a separate 

figure for Iran and the Arab countries. 

Mr. MORAN. Okay. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Now we have very active exchanges. Our exchanges with Iran have greatly increased, which is interesting because we send them American materials and they send us a great 

deal of their material. In some areas, we have the biggest collection 

in the world, but almost invariably—Russia is an example, but so 

is Chinese, Japanese, Korean—we have the biggest collection of 

their works and records outside of those countries themselves. I do 

not think we have more than the Russians do, but what we have 

is a very unique collection outside of the countries where Russian 

is the spoken language. So the Library of Congress is a world library; probably a little more than half of the books of the 34, 35 

million books and printed materials we have are in languages other 

than English, so it really is a world library. 

UNIVERSAL COLLECTIONS

The differential between what we have and what anybody else 

has, frankly, is increasing, because purchases of these things by 

other libraries have never been at a high level and the amount of 

exchange we do with thousands of institutions around the world 

means that we are exchanging U.S. Government publications for 

their materials, so we get a continuous flow. This is analog materials. We are getting materials from all over the world and as I 

say—the Library really is an important, unique resource because 

we live in an increasingly knowledge-dependent world. Leadership, 

the economy, all kinds of important uses for the future depend on 

having a rich and continuous flow, and that is why acquisitions is 

such a priority, even though we now are cutting acquisitions rather 

than personnel because personnel is already stretched so heavily. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
112 

IRRECOVERABLE COLLECTION GAPS

Acquisitions is fundamental to everything else we do because, if 

you do not have the material, and nobody else is likely to have it, 

you permanently eliminate marginal materials. Who would have 

thought years ago that we would have demand for collection materials about Kosovo, about Chechnya, about Burundi, about places 

that are not the normal collections of other libraries. It is very hard 

to cut acquisitions, but we nevertheless must give priority to personnel. We have a very interesting expanding presence, in fact, repatriation to many countries that do not have good materials. This 

is of great benefit to American foreign policy, and I think it is 

something that is winning a lot of friends for America, and, of 

course, doing a lot for our ability to understand these cultures in 

addition to the enormous usage that is already made of our national collection. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. We have asked the Members to hold their questions to 5 minutes, but we need to hold our answers to 5 minutes. 

Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, the Doctor is a huge resource. It is hard 

to hold all that in. Thank you again, Dr. Billington, for your very 

capable and outstanding leadership of what I think is an institution that is a hidden gem in America. We have got two principles 

in tension here, as you know. One is to do more with less, to be 

smart about budgets—we cannot sustain our current trajectory— 

yet at the same time to deliver smart and effective government 

services, and your niche in that space I think is extraordinary in 

terms of what you deliver, in terms of the impact of what you do, 

not only regarding the preservation of our culture and heritage, but 

as you have just stated, even affecting the international climate for 

growing awareness of knowledge as well as preservation of past 

traditions, so I want to thank you for that. 

I want to tell you a quick story as well. I noticed tonight that 

you have a display, an exhibition on the Civil War. I recently was 

able to look at your exhibit that displayed the contents of Abraham 

Lincoln’s pockets on the night he was assassinated. I was so fascinated by that, particularly the point that he had a $5 confederate 

note in his pocket. Now, maybe it is a small point of trivia, but it 

fascinated me so much so that I went out and bought a $5 confederate note to add to my own little meager collection of Civil War 

artifacts. But I think it is a demonstration of the type of unique 

service that you render to the country in preserving not only that 

which is grand, in terms of knowledge and the progress of learning, 

but that which is small, but in some ways, represents something 

very significant. So I want to thank you again for your creativity, 

your unique leadership. 

TENSION BETWEEN CUTS AND OPTIMAL SERVICES

With that said, let me go back to the central point of doing more 

with less, holding in creative tension seemingly opposite missions 

of doing more with less, being accountable to budgetary constraints, but also delivering that smart level of service that you do. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
113 

There was a question raised earlier as to what might be irrecoverable in terms of gaps in collections if that right balance between 

those two principles is not found. Can you give some specific examples of that? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, if you have a periodical that you have 

been collecting for 100 years or 50 years, and you miss a year, you 

will never recover it because you have to double the appropriation 

to make up for another year, which is not likely in the current 

budget climate. And you do not just diminish it by one-fiftieth, you 

diminish its utility, particularly to the Congress, which has to be 

up to date, by about half. So acquisitions are significantly diminished; you can cut back, and that is what we are projecting for the 

first year, but you get beyond that, and you really are cutting into 

our ability to deal with the future in an increasingly globally, interrelated world, particularly economically and in terms of security. 

COLLECTIONS UNIQUELY RELEVANT TO LARGER WORLD

If you want specific examples, you could consider one role the Library plays. There is this general point that the world is exploding 

and there are recorded conversations about everything. There are 

very few secrets in the world. The only piece of paper that the 

9/11 Commission found in the U.S. Government, created in the 

U.S. Government, that described the scenario that occurred on 

9/11 before it happened, was a report by a small division of the Library of Congress, the Federal Research Division, which does contract work for the executive branch of the government. This piece 

was in a very obscure Arabic publication that is a provincial publication. We have the only copy anybody knew about anywhere, and 

we reproduced this scenario. Obviously it was not specific in terms 

of where and when, but it described the criterion for this act of terrorism. That was revealed in a small provincial publication which 

was incorporated into this Federal Research Division report. 

So these are the kinds of things that you have a reasonable 

chance of finding in this extremely talkative world in the Library 

of Congress. I think that is pretty dramatic. 

FEE SERVICES VS. FREE SERVICES

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you. If I could interject one more thing 

if I have time, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday we heard from the director of the Government Accountability Office, and he spoke about 

agencies that already have Federal authority to set fees, even increase fees based upon the usage of their product. Is that in the 

realm of possibility? I do not know your fee structure, if it is simply 

wide open and you just simply provide the service, or are there 

higher levels of service in which you charge? Are those types of adjustments under consideration? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, it depends on what you mean. We have 

the Federal Research Division that I just mentioned, which is paid 

to do research for executive branch agencies, including classified 

work. However, once you introduce fee for service as a principle, 

you create a subtle prejudice in favor of the person who is paying 

a fee for services instead of using a free public good since the Library has the support of Congress of the United States. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
114 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. So you want to keep it as a library, that is 

what you are saying? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. People are free to use the Library, that is the 

thing, it is a free resource. Making the public more fully aware of 

the vast resources that we have to offer is certainly what we are 

trying to do with our online presence. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. So you have fees for intergovernmental contracting, I think that is what you are saying, but for general access 

of general collections there are no? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. The Library staff, which is funded by the Congress of the United States, is available to the people of the United 

States, to businesses, and to anybody else who wants to make use 

of it, and we are working to train the new successor generation 

who we call knowledge navigators who will be both experts in the 

field and be able to navigate through this tsunami of material that 

is coming in. In terms of the number of distinct users, use is greatly multiplied by the new social media, and we are very active in 

analyzing that, too. Is that just bulk material of minimal value or 

is it an expression of ideas and events that will be of permanent 

value? 

We are knowledge navigators for everybody, but we do not want 

to divert our services to commercial uses. Other executive branch 

agencies that make transfer payments for select services are an appropriate market. It may be very legitimate for other libraries to 

operate more broadly on a fee-for-service basis, but that has never 

been the operating principle of the Library of Congress. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Valadao. 

MISSION CRITICAL AND NON-MISSION CRITICAL SERVICES

Mr. VALADAO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You referenced ‘‘mission critical service’’ throughout your statement. In the opinion of 

the Library of Congress, what constitutes a ‘‘mission critical service’’ and what does not? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Sir, I am sorry? 

Mr. VALADAO. Mission critical services, you mentioned that in 

your statement. I am assuming you read the statement you presented to us. What is an example of a ‘‘mission critical service’’ that 

you mentioned in your statement? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. The Library’s mission critical services are to acquire, preserve, and make maximally accessible the widest possible 

collection of the world’s knowledge and the closest thing we have 

to a mint record of American private sector creativity, largely 

through copyright deposit. Also critical to our mission is to sustain 

as nearly universal a collection as possible for future generations 

and for needs that we cannot possibly anticipate. 

Mr. VALADAO. What is not mission critical? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Sir? 

Mr. VALADAO. What is not a mission critical? What could you cut, 

or not do? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. What is something we are cutting? We are slimming down across the board. In some agencies the mission critical 

work is made up of a lot of encapsulated services that do not bear 

any relationship to the other. In the Library’s case, all services deVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:14 Jun 29, 2013 Jkt 081322 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A322P2.XXX A322P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
115 

pend on across-the-board talent, a variety of talents, that are mutually reinforcing. So it is hard to single out any of the units whose 

heads are represented here and say, well, we will just cut or eliminate that one. 

Of course, maintaining services to Congress is our first priority, 

and within the service to the broader American people, we have 

really, in effect, defined that to be education, the promotion of 

learning and research, everything from overcoming illiteracy to the 

highest type of advanced research. The two fringes of that are 

funded primarily with private money. For example, we now have 

a new program for awarding prizes and gathering in best practices 

to promote reading and overcome illiteracy. That program is privately funded, and the advanced researchers that we subsidize, we 

are doing that with private money. The core of it and the most important part for the country, not just for the Library, is our K–12 

problem in this country. That would be the priority now, however, 

certain supporting programs we could cut back on. But we typically 

use private sources to support services that are not mission critical. 

They support the main mission, however it does not save appropriated funding to eliminate them. 

We have to minimize the loss of personnel at all costs, but I cannot give you a candidate for a service to eliminate. We just have 

to slim everything down. For instance, we will cut by probably twothirds our mass deacidification program, the only mass deacidification that is being done of paper-based collection items in America. 

So that is cutting down the lifespan of books, but that is what we 

will have to do. 

Mr. VALADAO. That is all right. Thank you. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Harris. 

ACTUAL VS. BASE BUDGET REDUCTIONS

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. This will be very brief. In 

your testimony, and they are just technical questions, you refer to 

budget reductions of the past 2 years. Is that compared to the base 

budget when you talk about budget reductions or are those actual 

dollar reductions? 

Mr. DIZARD. They are actual dollar. 

Mr. HARRIS. Okay, and so what would the actual—because you 

have over the last 5 years the total appropriation going from 613.5 

to 629.2, so what were they in the 2 years before? If you do not 

have it in front of you, you can just get it to me. 

Mr. DIZARD. Okay, we can supply that for the record. 

[Information provided for the record follows:] 

FISCAL 2008–FISCAL 2012 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SPENDING PLAN, SUMMARY OF CHANGE BY 

APPROPRIATIONS 

(Dollars in millions) 

Appropriation 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008–2012 

Change 

2008–2012 

Change (%) 

LC, S&E .................................... $394.8 $419.0 $446.1 $438.1 $420.1 $25.3 6.4 

Copyright .................................. 49.4 51.6 55.5 54.4 51.6 2.2 4.5 

CRS .......................................... 102.4 107.3 112.5 111.0 106.8 4.4 4.3 

BBPH ........................................ 66.9 68.8 70.2 68.0 50.7 ¥16.2 ¥24.2 

Total ................................ 613.5 646.8 684.3 671.5 629.2 15.7 2.6 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
116 

Mr. HARRIS. And on page 6, your testimony of 36 percent reduction in CRS expenditures and 18 percent reduction in research materials, are those from base budget or actual? 

Mr. DIZARD. It is actual. 

Mr. HARRIS. Okay, that is it. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. The 36 percent is in the area of professional development. 

Mr. HARRIS. Right. 

Dr. BILLINGTON. The 24 percent represents analysts and attorneys. 

Mr. HARRIS. No, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Bishop. 

IMPACT OF NOT FUNDING FORT MEADE MODULE 5

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. Welcome to the Library of 

Congress team. I have got a question that I want to ask regarding 

the Module 5 at Fort Meade. With the 1,250 new books coming to 

you every day and Congress not having yet provided funding for 

the construction of Module 5 at Fort Meade, how are you coping 

with your storage problem? 

Mr. DIZARD. I can answer this one, Mr. Bishop. We have a plan 

underway to move 800,000 volumes from Capitol Hill to our Landover annex, which is not an ideal option for us, because it is really 

not a good preservation facility at all. We are also moving approximately 200,000 items to a NARA facility in Illinois. These are temporary measures. They are not long-term. We are hoping to have 

the Module 5 funded. That is what we are doing temporarily as 

well as trying to consolidate space on Capitol Hill as best we can 

for collections. 

UNLOCKING CELL PHONES AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULEMAKING

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Under Section 1201 of Title 17 of the 

United States Code, relative to copyrights, I think the Librarian 

has the authority to designate certain classes of works as exempt 

from the prohibition against circumvention. I guess you know 

where I am going with that. 

Mr. DIZARD. Right. 

Mr. BISHOP. Having to do with your October 26th final rule of 

exemptions which no longer includes unlocking cell phones. The 

unlocking of the cell phone is the process of circumventing the software on the phone that limits that phone to being used only with 

a specific cell phone service carrier, which means that the consumer is effectively precluded even though he may have purchased 

a phone and paid for it, and then, of course, is limited in his or 

her capacity to use that. Can you explain your rationale for for no 

longer allowing the consumer to be able to choose the carrier that 

he or she would like to use with their own particular cell phone? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, on that, I have accepted the recommendations of the Register of Copyrights, so I think she can probably explain it more succinctly, and directly. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you for the question. So the Library, neither the Librarian nor the Register has the power to undo what 

Congress has done. What Congress did was pass the Digital Millennium Copyright Act—— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
117 

Mr. BISHOP. Right. 

Ms. PALLANTE [continuing]. In 1998 which said no circumvention 

ever. However, we will allow for a process, a rulemaking by which 

in limited circumstances, based on evidence and hearings and written commentary and research and not creating new law, you can 

make exceptions. 

Mr. BISHOP. Right. 

Ms. PALLANTE. So two times previously, consumers were able to 

come into those proceedings and make a case for unlocking cell 

phones. What happened eventually was that the market adjusted, 

which I think was one of Congress’ intents when passing the procedure, and companies began to offer unlocked cell phones in the 

marketplace in response. 

So this time around we had no record to work with after a year 

of hearings, administrative process under the APA and the Copyright Act. So the short answer is we did not have the authority to 

make that exception. You are probably reading a lot about this in 

the press, and what I would say is that the people that are writing 

about it were not parties to the proceeding, so it is almost like people are reading about a court opinion and saying I do not like that 

outcome, and I would really like the court to change it, even 

though they were not actually part of the proceeding, if that is 

helpful. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, the rules that were already in effect prior to 

the October rule that was put into effect allow for—— 

Ms. PALLANTE. It did, yes, because the market was different 3 

years ago, and one of the clear rules that Congress put into the 

statute was that this proceeding is de novo, you cannot take into 

account the prior rulemaking. It is like it never happened. 

Mr. BISHOP. So that is on us. 

Ms. PALLANTE. It is. And if I may just say on that last point, that 

is a critical comment because I think one of the other intents of 

Congress is that this would serve as a bit of a barometer for things 

that are really properly legislative and not for an administrative 

rulemaking. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much for that explanation. 

Ms. PALLANTE. You are welcome. 

SEQUESTRATION IMPACTS ON BLIND AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. BISHOP. My other question has to do with the Library for the 

Blind, and the vision impaired. This is a very, very sensitive and 

unique community, and I would like for you to tell the committee 

how you are going to assure that that segment of our population 

will be able to have access to the resources and the information 

that the Library of Congress has been able to provide over the 

years in light of sequester and with the budget reductions. 

Mr. DIZARD. Congressman, Karen Keninger, our relatively new 

director of the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped is here, so I would just like to introduce her, 

then she can very capably respond to your question. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, thank you. 

Ms. KENINGER. Thank you, Congressman. That is obviously an 

excellent question. We have been looking at what we can do with 

regard to the sequestration if it happens, and, unfortunately, the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
118 

answer is that the bulk of our funding goes into the materials that 

we send out to the people in the field, to our network of libraries— 

books, magazines, machines, Braille, and talking books; and that is 

where the cuts are probably going to have to come. 

We plan to do 2,100 new titles in audio and 500 new titles in 

Braille in a year, and we also have planned to convert 5,000 of the 

35,000 or so books that we have on analogue tape that we do not 

have yet in the digital format. We want to convert those to the digital format, and we will have to cut back on all three of those areas 

if we are sequestered. 

Mr. BISHOP. My reason for asking the question is because of the 

unique population that is served there that is almost in a ‘‘helpless’’ position. Wouldn’t it be in the public interest to establish a 

priority so that the weight of the cuts would not necessarily fall 

equally on that particular segment of the population that use that 

because it is so vital? Rather than have the sequester or whatever 

the reductions have to be fall on that segment of the vision impaired population that depends so much for those resources, perhaps somewhere else in the Library’s budget can be cut a little 

heavier to allow for the continuance of one Library for the Blind? 

Ms. KENINGER. The National Library Service has an appropriation of its own, and we certainly would like to see that remain as 

it is. It is a separate line item. 

Mr. DIZARD. That is more directed to Dr. Billington and me, and 

I will say point noted. We understand your point there. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. We are going to move through a second round 

of questions real quickly. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

TELECOMMUTING PLAN IN CRS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, and I am going to ask it 

quickly. I have several, but I will submit those for the record, but 

one of the ones that I would like a response for the record on is 

to Ms. Mazanec. We went through a bit of a struggle with the previous administration at CRS on the telecommuting process, and 

eventually the subcommittee essentially forced CRS to come up 

with a telecommuting plan, and I would like you to respond for the 

record and to me directly on how that is going. 

Ms. MAZANEC. It is going well. We will give you more details. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would like to hear it from the perspective of your employees as well. 

[Information provided for the record follows:] 

The telework program at CRS is working is well. The terms of the three year 

telework agreement that CRS management reached with the Congressional Research Employees Association (CREA) on March 26, 2010, were applied to non-bargaining unit employees as well to ensure that all eligible CRS employees were able 

to enjoy the benefits of the program. The telework agreement with CREA has been 

extended until March 26, 2014, and its terms will continue to be applied to nonbargaining unit employees. 

At the present time, approximately 51% of CRS staff who are eligible, or 264 CRS 

employees, have been approved for telework. Of that number, 21 participate in 

telework two-days per week. The vast majority of the remaining CRS staff are either not eligible to participate in telework (e.g., managers and supervisors), or have 

not requested telework. While there were initially some technology challenges, CRS 

management has worked to ensure that the telework program provides flexibilities 

for employees while ensuring that CRS can continue to meet its mission to serve 

the Congress with timely and authoritative analysis, research, and information. In 

the future, CRS hopes to upgrade equipment so that remote meeting capabilities are 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
119 

possible for teleworkers. Staff members, both bargaining unit and non-bargaining 

unit employees appear to be very pleased with the program. This accounts for why 

the telework agreement was extended for an additional year without a request by 

CREA to renegotiate its terms. CRS has received positive feedback from CREA regarding employee satisfaction with the effectiveness of the telework program. All indications are that staff members are appreciative of the additional workplace flexibility and that they wish it to continue. We believe that the telework program provides work/life flexibility and has a positive impact on employee morale. For inclement weather or other types of urgent circumstances, CRS follows Library of Congress 

policy and uses our existing episodic off-site work policy as set forth in the Collective 

Bargaining Agreement, to approve off-site work for staff needing to complete an essential project or work assignment. 

SEQUESTER IMPACT ON YOUNG READERS ROOM

Dr. Billington, just checking on the Young Readers Room, and, 

you know, all politics is local and parochial. How would the sequester affect the hours of the or even the existence of the Young Readers Room if at all? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. Well, it certainly will not affect the existence of 

it, and I should not think much the hours because we have people 

working there, of course. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. 

Dr. BILLINGTON No, I mean, that is—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Good, good. I just want to make sure 

just, you know, it is personal. 

ACCESS ISSUES WITH TWITTER ARCHIVE

I want to ask you about the deal with Twitter because—which 

is a remarkable deal to archive the Nation’s tweets for posterity. 

I mean, that is one of the many unique things that the Library 

does, and I do not think people realize but are necessary for future 

generation of researchers. I mean, but they have got to be able to 

access the billions of tweets. So there was a recent news article in 

Business Insider that highlighted issues flagged by the Library and 

researchers’ ability to search the vast database for scholarly work, 

and so the article said that among the first 4 years of tweets, it 

could take 24 hours to search. Is it cost prohibitive to improve the 

search capabilities? 

Dr. BILLINGTON. I will let Mr. Dizard answer that. I will just say 

what we have been doing is trying to assess what the intrinsic 

value of a lot of this material is, when you reduce it to 140 characters. The big question that emerges, from the point of view of future scholarly usage, is whether this is important if it remains as 

bulk data that gives you some sort of quantitative measurements 

that may mean very little because it is so vast. Or is it material 

that uniquely expresses the fundamental ideas and thinking of the 

American people and of the creative community in some ways? Our 

processes have been narrowed down. Initially we said it could only 

be used in house because outside access would involve enormous 

expense. But I will refer to Bob Dizard because he has been presiding over these discussions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. DIZARD. Right now we have 233 billion tweets. Just like for 

any collection, the first priority is to acquire and to preserve. That 

is not difficult from a technology point of view, it is not expensive. 

We estimate we spent about $14,000 in bringing those in. When 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
120 

you talk about access right now, it is cost prohibitive. If somebody 

came in and said can I have this hour of this day, we could give 

it to them. It could be hundreds of millions of tweets. It is not 

meaningful. So the access has to be both meaningful and cost-effective, and for meaningful—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You need a searchable database? 

Mr. DIZARD. You need searchable, some way to filter probably by 

time period. So the 24 hours of searching was talking about 20 billion tweets from 2006 to 2010 using our current capacity.What we 

are focusing now on—we put a white paper out publicly on this, 

and we have gotten interest from technology companies—we are 

just trying to, literally asking them to, help us in making this archive available in some meaningful way. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask 

that for the record because it is an innovative, important issue, 

and, you know, a whole resource of information that hopefully we 

will have an opportunity to be able to access in a meaningful way 

in the future. Thank you. 

CLOSING REMARKS

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay. And we have some members that have 

other committee hearings to attend. 

Dr. Billington, we appreciate you being with us here today. 

Thank you for the work that you all do, and we will see you later 

this evening. 

[Questions submitted for the record from Chairman Alexander 

and Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz follow:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
121 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 81322A.072
122 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 81322A.073
123 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 81322A.074
124 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 81322A.075
125 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 81322A.076
126 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 81322A.077
127 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 81322A.078
128 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 81322A.079
(129) 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2013. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

WITNESS 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

OPENING STATEMENT—CHAIRMAN ALEXANDER AND OTHER

MEMBERS

Mr. ALEXANDER. Today we are going to hear the testimony from the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO is requesting $45 million for fiscal year 2014, 3.7 percent over the current CR. And of 

course we all know that the financial picture does not look too 

good, so we are struggling with that. We appreciate you being here 

today. We look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

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

It is good to see you, Dr. Elmendorf. I had the pleasure of interacting with you during my absence on the committee, when I was 

the Budget Committee in the 112th Congress, and it gave me a tremendous appreciation of the scope and breadth of the work of CBO 

and the expertise that you provide us with. So thank you so much, 

to you and to your staff. 

You know, you know more than most that we are operating in 

a time of great uncertainty with the prospect of sequestration the 

day after tomorrow. In fact, the impact of the sequester is an appropriate topic for discussion today, as CBO, along with other agencies yourself, face a 5 percent, roughly, decrease on March 1st. And 

I am looking forward to hearing about the impact that the sequester has, particularly not just on your own agency, but on the economy in general. 

And lastly, I want to express appreciation to your staff, because 

Congress has passed significant budget impasse legislation that impacts the projections that your agency produces. Your agency, in 

particular, has folks who toil anonymously and valiantly and really 

provide a tremendous service. So if you could thank them for 

us—— 

Dr. ELMENDORF. I will. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing]. Because we do not get to 

always do that ourselves. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to Dr. Elmendorf’s testimony. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. We will hear from Doug, and then I will have some 

questions. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay. Mr. Bishop, do you want to wait? 

Mr. BISHOP. I will wait. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
130 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Feel free to introduce any of your staff that you 

might have, and your entire statement will be in the record. We 

look forward to hearing your testimony. 

OPENING STATEMENT—DR. ELMENDORF

Dr. ELMENDORF. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman, members of the committee. I want to introduce Bob Sunshine, who is our Deputy Director; Joe Evans, our Chief Financial 

Officer; Stephanie Ruiz, who is our Deputy Chief Administrative 

Officer and heads up our Human Resources Unit; Deborah Kilroe, 

who handles our communications; and Sandy Davis, who coordinates our legislative affairs. And we are all happy to be here today 

and have the opportunity to talk about our budget request. 

You and we both face the challenge of trying to plan for fiscal 

year 2014 when the funding for 2013 is still up in the air. As requested, our testimony focuses on 2014, but we are happy to answer any questions you have about the impact of sequestration or 

other issues related to our 2013 operations. As you know, CBO’s 

mission is to provide the Congress with budget and economic information that is objective and nonpartisan, that draws on the best 

new evidence as well as the lessons of experience, that is timely, 

and that is clearly presented and explained. 

We are proud of our success in doing that for 38 years, but we 

are always looking for ways to do even better. We are proposing a 

budget for fiscal year 2014 that would stabilize our staff at 235 

full-time equivalent positions. That would be about 7 percent less 

than the number funded in 2010, and in line with the number 

funded between 2004 and 2008. Such a budget also would enable 

us to catch up on some critical purchases of information technology 

and other items that we need to defer this year under the funding 

provided in the continuing resolution. Spending on non-pay items 

we proposed for next year would still be 15 percent below what we 

spent on average in 2008 through 2012. 

Let me just show you, pass out figures. These are from the budget request, but just so you have them in front of you as I continue 

talking. 

[The information follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
131 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 81322A.080
132 

Dr. ELMENDORF. If you look at the top figure, figure 1 shows our 

staffing from 2002 through the level we propose for next year. As 

you can see in that figure, our authorized staffing peaked at 254 

FTEs in 2010 after the Congress approved significant increases in 

our budget, primarily to enhance our ability to analyze potential 

changes in healthcare policy while maintaining the capacity to provide cost estimates and reports on a full range of other topics. The 

temporarily higher staffing enabled us to analyze particularly complex issues and to provide substantially more estimates and reports 

to the Congress. We achieved significant expansions or improvements in our work on health care and financial analysis, the effects 

of the budget on the economy and on jobs, on options for changing 

mandatory spending in other areas. 

However, constraints on CBO’s funding and of course on discretionary appropriations as a whole caused our staffing to shrink in 

2011, 2012, and this year, 2013. Figure 2 at the bottom of the page 

shows that our funding in 2013 under the CR, $44.1 million on an 

annual basis, is nearly 6 percent below our funding in 2010. That 

cut, combined with small gains in average pay and rising costs of 

benefits and other items during the past 3 years, has completely 

reversed the increase in staffing that had been set in motion, as 

you can see back in the top panel in figure 1. Our request for $45.7 million for 2014 represents an increase of $1.6 million or 3.7 percent from the funding we are receiving under 

the CR for this year. With the requested funding our small agency 

could provide a large amount of budget and economic information, 

including our regular reports on the economic and budget outlook 

over the next 10 years and the long run; roughly 500 formal cost 

estimates; thousands of preliminary informal estimates for committees as they develop legislation; about 150 scorekeeping tabulations 

for the Appropriations committees; and roughly 80 analytic reports 

and other publications generally prepared in response to requests 

from the chairmen and the ranking members of key committees. 

However, we expect that even that output would fall considerably 

short of congressional requests, despite extraordinary efforts by our 

very talented and skilled staff. We cannot currently respond to all 

of the requests we receive for estimates and other analyses. If, because of the tight budget constraints that we know you face, the 

funding we receive for next year is less than we have requested, 

then we would need to shrink further. For example, if our appropriation for next year equaled the amount provided by the CR for 

this year, we would need to reduce our staffing because costs per 

person are increasing and purchases of computers and other items 

cannot continue to be deferred. Specifically, under that scenario, we 

would finish next year with only about 220 full-time equivalent 

staff rather than the 235 we requested. That would make CBO 

smaller than it has been for any sustained period in at least 15 

years. 

Although we would consult with committees and congressional 

leadership in order to minimize the impact on the Congress, that 

further decline in our staffing from the current level would inevitably reduce the number and extent of estimates and other analyses that we could provide. Our written testimony lists some specific products that we might limit, delay, or defer indefinitely. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
133 

In sum, CBO has been shrinking for the past 3 years and we now 

have noticeably less capacity to provide information to Congress 

than we did in 2010. Our proposed budget for next year represents 

the amount that we believe will be necessary to avoid a further cut 

in the budget and economic analysis we provide. On behalf of all 

of us at CBO, we very much appreciate your support of our work 

in this difficult budget environment and we look forward to continuing to serve the Congress as it makes decisions on the critical 

issues facing our country. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Elmendorf follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
134 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 81322A.081
135 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 81322A.082
136 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 81322A.083
137 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 81322A.084
138 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 81322A.085
139 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 81322A.086
140 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I was going to ask you about sequestration, but 

we have had enough of that, haven’t we? 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

SEQUESTRATION IMPACT ON JOBS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only 

have one question, because I think Dr. Elmendorf’s testimony on 

the impact of the sequestration and the recent year budget cuts 

have had on his agency’s ability to serve Congress, I mean, I think 

it is hard to think of an agency in the legislative branch that is 

more critical in challenging economic times that we give the ability 

to do the work that we need them to do, so we can make the most 

informed decision. 

So, Dr. Elmendorf, I want to ask you a substantive question. 

During your testimony in front of the House Budget Committee it 

was reported that you said the across-the-board spending cuts 

scheduled to take place this Friday would eliminate 750,000 jobs 

in this country in 2013. Can you elaborate on that assessment a 

bit? And what about in 2014, and 2015, if we allow sequester to 

force us into long-term cuts? Do you anticipate the economy continuing to shed jobs in the future years if we do not stave off sequestration? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. So, Congresswoman, we have estimated that the 

total amount of fiscal tightening occurring this year will reduce the 

rate of economic growth over the course of 2013 by about 1.5 percent. So we are projecting growth of 1.5 percent roughly in real 

GDP. We think it would be 1.5 percentage points faster were it not 

for the fiscal tightening. That tightening arises partly from the increases in taxes, the expiration of the payroll tax cut, and the higher tax rates on higher income people, and partly from the sequestration cuts that are about to take effect. 

For the sequestration part alone, we think that those cuts will 

reduce government spending and household spending in ways that 

would take about 0.6 of a percent off the level of GDP at the end 

of this year and reduce the level of employment at the end of this 

year by about 750,000 full-time equivalent jobs. 

That occurs basically because when the government is spending 

less money over a short period of time with the economy in the 

fairly weak state it is in, and with the Federal Reserve really unable to provide much more direct stimulus itself, the withdrawal of 

Federal spending or, as I said as well, the increase in taxes, take 

money out of the spending stream, essentially, and reduce the demand for business services. 

At the same time, of course, if one allows the debt to rise inexorably, that has very large economic effects in the medium term 

and long term. But the tightening we think matters a lot this year, 

and our view about that is not idiosyncratic with us. I think a wide 

number of private forecasters have weighed in with estimates that 

are similar to ours. We have not done estimates of this particular 

effect beyond this year, so I do not know what those effects would 

be. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So if we replace the sequester with 

targeted spending cuts and closure of tax loopholes and took a balanced approach to deficit reduction, what would be the difference 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
141 

compared to just the straight impact of sequestration? Would you 

anticipate the same impact on jobs and the speed or slowness of 

our recovery? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes. So we think if the sequester were taken 

away and a comparable amount of fiscal tightening was put in 

place after this year, then we think that would add about 0.6 of a 

percentage point. The GDP growth this year would add about 

750,000 jobs by the fourth quarter of this year. 

The precise effects in the following years would depend on the 

nature of the other policy changes that were made and would depend on the timing of those policy changes, but as long as the same 

amount of deficit reduction was achieved so that the Federal debt 

by some year in the future was no different because of the sort of 

swap you are discussing, I think, as long as that level of debt was 

the same in the future, then economic output and income could be 

the same from that point forward in the future. It is the transition 

path from here to there that would vary depending on just the 

changes—— 

RECOVERY USING PURELY CUTS ONLY VERSUS BALANCED MIX

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And what is your view on the impact 

on the recovery if you take a purely cuts-only approach versus a 

more balanced mix of spending cuts and revenue? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. We do not have a good general answer for that 

question. It depends on specifics. When we have done analyses before on alternative policies for spurring economic growth, some of 

the policies with the largest bang for the buck, if you will, have 

been changes in government spending and some have been changes 

in taxes. It depends mostly on who ends up with the money and 

how much of it is spent in the short term. So changes in policy that 

have a budget cost of a dollar that lead to a dollar’s change in 

spending have the biggest effect on the economy. Changes in government policy where there is a dollar of change in the budget 

there is less than a dollar that is spent because people maybe save 

the money, that does not buy much food in the short term. Again, 

in the long term, things are quite different, but in the short term 

economic situation that we find ourselves in, it is mostly a matter 

of how much the money gets spent by the government, or by households, or by businesses. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

NO MONEY FOR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

Dr. Elmendorf, I appreciate your service and the service that 

CBO provides the Congress, because you enable us to make more 

informed judgments. So I really do not have any problem with your 

budget request, and to the extent I could make up for the sequester 

and increase it, I would do so. But that is not a possibility. The sequester is going to take place. Now, it may very well be sustained 

for some time to come. 

But what I would like to ask you to kind of refresh my memory, 

at what point, assuming that there is no change to the structure 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
142 

of Social Security and Medicare, and even Medicaid, and at traditional interest rates, at what point does total revenue equal total 

expenditures devoted to those categories alone? In other words, no 

money for discretionary spending? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. So, Congressman, I brought my other notebook 

today. 

Mr. MORAN. Okay. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. About budget and economic outlook. But I believe that spending on Social Security and the major healthcare 

programs and net interest together would start to exceed total revenues by some point later in the coming decade. I do not know exactly when. We can look that up. 

Mr. MORAN. Okay. It is the next few years, but it is taking majority of it now. So unless there is new revenue coming in, or a 

change in the structure of those programs, then there will be no 

money for discretionary programs. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes, I mean, of course the Federal Government 

can borrow money, but there will be no money coming in, in regular receipts, at that point, yes. I think that is right, Congressman. 

INTEREST RATES AND PAYMENTS

Mr. MORAN. Now, assuming that QE2 is eased out, that interest 

rates at some point have got to go back to their normal equilibrium, how much in interest are you projecting within the short 

term? You must have these numbers at the top of your head. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Note to self: Bring both books. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. I usually bring one book. 

Mr. MORAN. Because they are about 7 percent or so now, are 

they not, of the budget? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. We project that interest rates, which are, as you 

know, extremely low right now, will return to more normal levels 

within several years. And that increase in interest rates, combined 

with the tremendous amount of outstanding government debt that 

we have, leads to a real surge in interest payments, so that by the 

end of the decade that these projections for interest payments 

would be nearly the largest share of GDP that they have been in 

50 years. They are about $200 billion today, and they would be 

more than $800 billion by the end of the decade. 

Mr. MORAN. So by the end of the decade interest payments alone 

would be $800 billion. So that will be about 14 percent or so of the 

budget. It will be a little more than half what it is now. And the 

so-called entitlement programs, they are going to represent—do 

you have that in your handy notes there—they are going to represent more than 75 percent of the budget, close to, some people 

say, close to 100 percent of the budget. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. So the mandatory spending category projection, 

which is Social Security, and the healthcare programs, and a number of means-tested programs, and other programs, that mandatory 

spending is and will be about two-thirds of total Federal outlays. 

But that is the part that is growing, as you know, and under current law, discretionary spending would fall to a lower share of the 

economy than it has been at any point in 50 years, as far back as 

we have been collecting numbers on that basis. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
143 

Mr. MORAN. I think that is pretty much at that level now. I am 

just trying to figure out in the long term since we have you, you 

know, it is a little like you get together with your classmates and 

you ask the lawyers for free legal advice and the docs for free medical advice. It seems to me that this is more important to us than 

the actual budget itself, to get this insight. So there really is no alternative but to increase revenue or to restructure some of the socalled entitlement programs. That would be a conclusion of the 

numbers that you have in front of you. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. I think that is correct, Congressman. Of course, 

the correct level of discretionary spending is a matter of judgment 

for you and your colleagues and that can be moved up or down, but 

given how low it is already on track to be relative to decades of our 

historical experience, and given the remaining gap between spending and revenue, it is hard to see my way of putting a debt on a 

sustainable path that does not involve increases in taxes on a 

broad group of Americans or cuts in spending programs. 

BALANCING THE BUDGET AT THE EXPENSE OF DISCRETIONARY

PROGRAMS

Mr. MORAN. Increases on the middle class, in other words, perhaps more than the 2 percent. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Congressman, I think that is right. 

Mr. MORAN. So what I am getting at is, and I appreciate the 

chairman’s indulgence here, what I am getting at, if you were to 

eliminate the discretionary, or try to balance the budget at the expense of the discretionary programs, which is what we are trying 

to do now, has there been any analysis of what the long-term impact will be of reduced investments in physical infrastructure, in 

the human infrastructure, say education, training, and particularly 

in the research and innovation? In other words, actually you can 

say most of the innovative aspects of our growth periods have come 

from basic research and originally generated by the Federal Government, whether it be the Internet or GPS or et cetera. You could 

go all the way back to Alexander Graham Bell and his Federal 

grant. 

So has there been any analysis of what the impact of the squeezing out of the discretionary investment portion of the budget would 

cost? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. We are doing work right now, Congressman, on 

both Federal investments and on Federal policies to spur innovation. And there is some overlap, of course, on those topics, as you 

say. About half of non-defense discretionary spending can be 

viewed as an investment either in physical capital, like highways, 

or what economists call human capital, education and training for 

people. Almost half of non-defense discretionary spending can be 

invested in one of those sorts. And we are trying now to assemble 

the evidence on the impact of that investment on economic growth 

on incomes over time. As you know, certain aspects of that investment have been absolutely critical to fostering economic growth. 

Other parts of the investment have had fairly low returns because 

of not being well-targeted investments. 

So it is difficult, I think, to make broad assessments. The CBO 

has looked at the topic before. There has not been a sort of single 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
144 

number that has come out of that as the return, but we are digging 

at that again right now. I think you are right that the path of discretionary spending under even the basic caps of the 2010 law, and 

even more so under the reduced cap level that would occur under 

current law, that part of the Federal budget is being squeezed in 

a historically tight way, and there will be consequences, we expect, 

for those investments, and thus for the economy in the future. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, I think that analysis would inform all of current debate, and I appreciate the fact that you are pursuing it. And 

we would love to see it as soon as it is done. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Harris. 

SPENDING CONTROLS VERSUS BALANCED APPROACH

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you. Thank you very much for being here 

today. Let me just follow up on a couple of things. With regards 

to the effect of spending controls versus a quote, ‘‘balanced approach,’’ do I take it you are agnostic on that, on the effect, that 

you believe that it could, in fact, be exactly the same effect? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. So we are agnostic on the differences when stated in that general sense. For specific sets of policies we have done 

analyses now for a number of years on different specific policies—— 

Mr. HARRIS. Let me ask you very specifically then. Does it make 

a difference whether you increase a tax rate or you increase taxes 

by quote, ‘‘closing loopholes’’? I mean, if the same dollar is taxed, 

does it appear to make a major difference? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. It can make a substantial difference. It depends, 

again, on just what is done, but in general, raising tax rates on the 

return to work, or the return to saving, will tend to reduce the 

amount of work or the amount of saving itself. Broadening the tax 

base by taking away some loophole may or may not have that sort 

of effect—depends on what is done. In some cases, broadening the 

tax base, taking out a so-called loophole, can reduce an economic 

distortion. In other cases, though, it can amount to imposing a tax 

on work and saving—— 

Mr. HARRIS. For capital investments, for instance, that might impact negative. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes. 

Mr. HARRIS. That is what I gathered. Your numbers that go 

from, you know, our current interest, which I guess is somewhere 

around $230 billion, $240 billion a year, up to $800 billion by the 

end of the decade, is the assumption of a glide path to balance at 

any point or is the current budgetary assumptions—I mean, do you 

assume that sometime in the future our budget will balance, or are 

you assuming it will never balance? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Our projections follow current law. So under 

current law, balance is not achieved. 

Mr. HARRIS. Okay. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. In fact, debt starts to rise again as a share of 

the economy by the end of the coming decade. 

Mr. HARRIS. So given that, and the fact that we are unclear 

whether spending control versus taxes, then the discussion really 

revolves around what size of government spending relation to GDP 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
145 

you are going to have, basically, because there are two separate 

paths. If you control spending you are going to bring down the government-to-GDP ratio; if you do it by tax increases, you are going 

to maintain or it could increase depending on what your spending 

path is. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. So as you know, right, the amount of government borrowing is really the gap between spending and taxes, and 

that gap can be narrowed through reductions in spending or increases in revenues, and those different ways of narrowing the gap 

can have different economic effects. And for specific policies we do 

estimates of how those policies matter. But I am trying very carefully to avoid general statements about how changing spending or 

changing taxes is good or bad because it depends on what taxes 

you are changing and, as this discussion suggests, on what kind of 

spending you are changing. 

CBO PAY INCREASES

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you. Two very brief questions here. Your testimony says there were small increases in average pay between 

2010 and 2013 in CBO. Now, between 2010 and 2012, the average 

Federal employee got 6 percent increase in pay. Is that similar to 

the increases that you have within CBO between 2010 and 2012, 

or you can get me that information. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. I am not sure. I think that is roughly right, but 

I think we would have to check. 

Mr. HARRIS. Because although we hear that there have been no 

pay increases, and your testimony is there actually have been average pay increases. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes, that is right, Congressman. 

SGR SCORING

Mr. HARRIS. Thanks. The last thing of particular interest to me 

because I am a physician is that this change in the SGR scoring 

that occurred, this phenomenal change between November and 

February. In 4 short months it went from $244 billion 10-year cost 

to $138 billion. Now, I am just intrigued by this. Can you give me 

any insight into how we could have been so far wrong in November, or how we could be so far wrong now? Because one of those 

two is, you know, does the truth lie somewhere in between, or do 

you believe this last estimate is a good, firm estimate? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. So every time we give the Congress an estimate 

we aim to make that our best current estimate. What happened in 

this particular case is that we brought down the projected path of 

Medicare spending, leaving aside the SGR issue. Just in general, 

it looked to us after the past few years of slow cost growth in Medicare that the more accurate projection of future Medicare spending 

would be a lower path. And we have done this now for the last few 

years with lower growth observed in the Medicare program and in 

other parts of the healthcare system—we brought down the projected growth in Medicare spending, in Part A for hospitals and 

Part B for doctors and Part D for drugs. 

What that means then is that the SGR, which is meant to be a 

restraint on that, has less restraining to do, in a sense, so to reach 

the SGR target relative to this new baseline, there is less tightVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:14 Jun 29, 2013 Jkt 081322 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A322P2.XXX A322P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
146 

ening, less reduction in payments that would be accomplished by 

the SGR. And therefore, loosening the constraints of the SGR is not 

as costly as otherwise because there is less going on. 

So it looks very large for the SGR effect because it amounts—you 

know, we took down spending a little bit in a way, but that is all— 

but since the SGR is trying to achieve something relative to that 

basic projection, that little reduction in the baseline ended up being 

a very large amount. 

Mr. HARRIS. Ten years out. And that is exactly my point, because 

I guess what the estimate is based on is that the latest current 

trend in the decrease and the increase in healthcare spending is a 

long-term trend and not similar to other short-term trends. So it 

depends on what two data points. If you use the last few years, yes, 

it appears worse, but we saw the same thing in the early 1990s, 

as I recall as well. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes. So we have not assumed that this slowdown will last forever. We have assumed it will last somewhat 

longer. It seems to have begun. We think that part of the slowdown 

in growth is due to the recession and the loss of wealth and slow 

income growth, but we think that a substantial part of the slowdown is not just recession related. We can see this in all three 

main parts of Medicare. We see this in Medicaid. We see this in 

the private healthcare system. It seems to have begun before the 

recession. So something else seems to be going on to us, but what 

is very unclear is how long that will last. 

Relative to what we projected in the spring of 2010, actual Medicare and Medicaid spending in 2012, we are about 5 percent less 

than we thought. Over the course of the past few years we have 

therefore marked down spending in 2020 by about 15 percent to 

both programs. So we have extrapolated the slowdown to some extent, but we do not assume it will last at this very low level of 

growth indefinitely. We are trying to give you projections that are 

in the middle of a very wide distribution of possible outcomes. 

Mr. HARRIS. I like your projections. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Fortenberry. 

FISCAL POLICY

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Dr. Elmendorf. You wanted to talk about your budget, 

but that is not what we want to talk about. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. I did, but okay. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. A couple of quick points. One is, you mentioned that the effect of increased taxes and these possible spending reductions would have about a negative 1.5 effect, or negative 

multiplier, I guess, if you will, on the economy. I think that is an 

accurate statement based upon some international experience and 

recent data that I saw in that regard. But you did underemphasize 

the impact on long-term economic well-being by taking short-term 

measures to actually move us onto a better trajectory towards fiscal 

sustainability. So you do also have international models out there 

that are showing that, yes, short-term multiplier effects are more 

negative with cuts than originally anticipated, but long-term imVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:14 Jun 29, 2013 Jkt 081322 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A322P2.XXX A322P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
147 

pacts measured by other forms of economic well-being are substantially better. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Congressman, you are absolutely right. I do not 

think we have written a paragraph about the short-term effects of 

fiscal policy in the last 4 years that I have been at CBO without 

also mentioning in that paragraph or the next one that there are 

very important medium-term and long-term effects of fiscal policy 

as well. And everything that we have done about different ways of 

spurring the economy in the short run through lower taxes or higher spending has emphasized that unless those changes are offset by 

other changes later in this decade that the economy will be weaker 

than otherwise. 

We released together with this report, our outlook, released a few 

weeks ago. We released another report that looked at alternative 

paths for the deficit. And the ones that have lower taxes and higher spending in the short term were good in the short term but were 

bad in the long term. And we emphasized both those points in presenting that information. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. So it is a philosophical question as to how you 

are going to take your bitter medicine. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. So I think that is partly true, Congressman. But 

also there is a question about what the right timing of deficit reduction is. And when we have written reports about that, of course, 

we do not make policy recommendations, but we have written 

about a number of criteria that you and your colleagues could 

apply, and there are tradeoffs in most of those criteria. And the 

tradeoff in the timing of deficit reduction is that the quicker that 

changes take effect, the less time that households and businesses, 

state and local governments have to react, and the bigger the hit 

on the economy at the point when it is already only growing slowly 

and the Fed cannot do much more. On the other hand, the longer 

you wait the more the debt accumulates and probably the more 

doubt there would be about whether those later reductions would 

actually take effect. And I am simply quoting to you things we 

have written on many, many times about that kind of tradeoff. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. It is a fair point. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. And I think that is up to you and your colleagues to decide. 

FRAMEWORK OF CBO ANALYSIS

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Let me ask you a couple other questions that 

relate to the framework for your analysis. Go back and trace the 

history of why you do 10-year projections. This is very confusing 

when you try to—the media reports on something that we are pulling out of our data here, but it is not relatable to ordinary life 

when you are looking at 1-year types of impacts. So explain the 

history of why that framework is used. Is it still appropriate? 

Would you recommend changes to the types of analysis that you 

undertake? 

There used to be a phrase around here that we needed more dynamic scoring models built in. When you were answering Mr. 

Moran’s question, you came, seems to me, to be dangerously close 

to the whole concept of dynamic scoring by talking about a decline 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
148 

in the investment that certain types of spending actually mean. So 

I would like your perspective on that and then I want to conclude. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Okay, so you raised two different issues, I 

think. One is the timeframe and the other was what sorts of behavioral responses that should be taken into account. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Both go to the underlying set of working 

premises that set up your analytical framework. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. For many years I think CBO’s baseline projections focused on 5-year periods, then there was a point maybe 15 

years or so ago when this horizon was pushed out to 10 years. I 

think that was in response to interest from the Congress in seeing 

how policies that were being set in motion would affect the budget, 

not just over the next 5 years, but beyond that. I think in particular, at the time, there were questions about balancing the budget a certain number of years into the future, and to understand 

whether policies would do that, you or your colleagues, or our predecessors wanted to see budget projections that went out that far. 

So I think there is a very strong interest in our showing projections 

10 years ahead. 

In fact, there has been growing interest in the last 4 years that 

I have been at CBO in projections beyond the decade, and we have 

emphasized over and over again that our projections, and you know 

this well, Congressman, our projections are very uncertain for this 

year and more so for 5 years, and even more so for 10 years and 

far more beyond that. On the other hand, the Congress, I think, is 

legitimately interested in how policies that are in place today will 

unfold over long periods of time, or how changes in policies put in 

place today might change things in the long term. 

Right now, for example, the Social Security eligibility age is in 

the process of being moved up in the way that was set in motion 

in the 1980s. So we try in some circumstances to provide some 

rough sense of what happens over the longer term, even beyond the 

10 years, but I do not think it would be at all practical for us to 

do regular estimates with this level of detail. 

On the other hand, I think if we were to pull back and do fewer 

than 10 years, it would deprive you and your colleagues of important information about not just what is happening right in the near 

term, but what the trends look like beyond that. So, for example, 

this report shows over the next 5 years debt is falling relative to 

the size of the economy, but then it turns around after that. And 

it falls for a while in part because of the discretionary spending 

caps and the improvement in the economy we project, which brings 

down spending on things that tend to go up in recessions. But the 

underlying force of the population aging and expansion of the 

healthcare programs and rising healthcare costs are still there. 

They only show through in the last 5 years. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Rising interest rates. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. It has the interest rates and all the things you 

would miss if we cut this off at 5 years. 

Now, on the question of dynamic scoring—— 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. You are not locked into that by some directive 

of law. You are doing it in response to a general need as you perceive it. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
149 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes. The truth is, I do not know if the law specifies that or not. 

Mr. SUNSHINE. It would be in consultation with the Budget Committees and what kind of time frame they want their budget resolution to span. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. On the question of dynamic scoring, our cost estimates for legislation incorporate almost all of the behavioral responses by households, businesses, by physicians, what have you, 

that we can incorporate. The thing that we do not incorporate in 

our regular estimates are behavioral responses that would change 

the size of the overall economy. So changes in labor supply would 

change the total amount of work done and the total income in the 

economy. And, we do not incorporate those basically because for almost every one of the thousands of proposals we look at, the overall 

economic effects would be very small, and would be very, very hard 

to estimate. So it just is not practical for us to incorporate those 

kinds of broader responses in the day-to-day work that we do. 

However, we do a lot of analysis, separate from our regular cost 

estimates, of the economic effects of changes in budget policy. We 

do this every year in the analysis of the President’s budget where 

we do—the first thing we provide to the appropriators, in fact, is 

an estimate of the President’s policies by using our view of how 

programs work and so on, but relative to our basic economic forecast. But a few weeks later we follow it up with a report on how 

the President’s policies would change the economy, and we take account of short-term stimulus effects, but also changes in tax rates, 

changes in the composition of the tax base, changes in the amount 

of borrowing, and we show you what effect the budget would have 

on the economy, and then we say, in fact, that those economic effects would feed back and make the budget effects bigger or smaller than they would look without those effects. 

We have done this for a collection of policies, extension of expiring tax provisions. We have done a number of rounds now over the 

last 4 years of looking at how those changes in policy would have 

changed the economy. So it is not practical or useful for you for us 

to do this—to try to do this for every one of the literally thousands 

of proposals that we provide at least an informal estimate for. But 

for big changes in policy, big changes in the deficit, big changes in 

the tax code, we have done a lot of work building models and having them scrutinized by outside experts so we can give you a sense 

of the economic effects. And we hope that you are interested in that 

and we want to provide that to you. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Moran. 

BUDGET SCOPE AND RELATED MATTERS

Mr. MORAN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

build off the excellent question of Mr. Fortenberry in terms of the 

budget scope and related matters. I am glad you are enabling us 

to get into this. This is one of the opportunities the Leg Branch 

presents that other subcommittees might not. 

First of all, I object very strongly to making decisions on a 10- 

year outlook because the implication is that you know with the 

same kind of precision in the ninth and tenth year what the effect 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
150 

is going to be in the fourth and fifth year, and you do not. So you 

wind up getting very flabby estimates. If it was for a 5-year period, 

we would be, I think, far more disciplined and with a much higher 

level of predictability the impact of decisions we would make now. 

Giving us a 10-year outlook is useful, but having decision making 

based upon a 10-year timeframe I just do not think is responsible. 

But what I wanted to ask you about, your role, your principal 

role, of course, is to be reactive, to score what decisions we make. 

But in the course of that you have to have your own judgments, 

your own opinions. I mean, Douglas Holtz-Eakin had all kinds of, 

you know, opinions once he was released from his prior job. 

We are faced with the sequester tomorrow, and then the appropriation bills. All of us will have to be deciding over the next 3 

weeks, and then it will probably be extended. But we have got to 

decide, if we were given flexibility, how we should put this budget 

together. We all can agree on one thing: The way we are doing it 

right now with the sequester is the stupidest way, just cutting everything equally. I mean, that is embarrassing. But the administration, obviously, does not want to own the cuts. Nor does, frankly, 

the leadership in either party of the Congress want to own the 

cuts. 

But I think the appropriators at some point are going to have to 

own these cuts, these decisions in terms of what should be cut and 

where we should be even investing more money. You know, defense, put more money into cyber, but some of these weapons programs that are already questionable, it may be more expendable. 

Can you give us some sense of what you would do if you were an 

appropriator in terms of what—I mean, should we be trying to 

push regular appropriation bills so that we at least give the agencies the ability to operate responsibly with their programs? Should 

we try to get those appropriation bills done? And, you know, what 

would be some of the priorities that you would use if you were released? Now, we are just going to pretend in this room. We are not 

going to hold you responsible. Is this really on TV? Must be one 

of the obscure stations. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Top ratings. 

Mr. MORAN. If he is honest, it will be even higher rated. 

Doug, how do you respond to that? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. So, Congressman, my own personal views about 

policy do not and should not matter to you. The whole way the 

CBO is run is for us to give you and your colleagues a sense of the 

consequences of different courses of action you might take. But ultimately which course you choose depends on your value judgments, 

acting on behalf of us as your constituents. It is your value judgments representing us—— 

Mr. MORAN. That is all well and good, but we need to make informed judgments, and you have been looking at these numbers. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes. 

Mr. MORAN. And you just told us about some of these programs 

have some real big payoff in the long run. Why would we be cutting 

research and innovation the same level we are cutting programs 

that are pure expenditures with no long-term payoff? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. So that is why we are doing the analysis that 

I discussed, we are trying to give you a better sense about what 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
151 

the long-term economic payoff will be of particular types of spending the government does. And we are working on that. And when 

we wrote last fall about various criteria that you might use in assessing budget policy, we talked about the effects on medium-term 

and long-term economic growth and we talked about the effects of 

taxes and providing incentives, and we talked about the effects of 

government spending. And we have models that quantify the effects of changes in taxes and we are working to build models that 

quantify the effects of certain types of changes in government 

spending. 

I think there are also other criteria. It can matter to you who 

gets certain benefits—— 

Mr. MORAN. You are giving me a very generalized answer. You 

are kind of squirming out of this, Dr. Elmendorf, and I understand 

why you are trying to do that. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. You are asking me a question that I am paid 

not to answer. 

One thing I will say is that it is very difficult to run an organization without knowing what one’s funding level is at this moment, 

and without knowing what it will be 6 months from now. CBO is 

obviously one of the smallest, simplest parts of the government, 

and we have a great deal of difficulty in knowing what decisions 

to make, what projects to do, whom to hire or not hire without 

knowing what our funding—whether next year we want to have 

235 people or 220 people. 

I cannot imagine how hard that is for people who are running 

larger, more complicated parts of the budget. I think there is no 

doubt that you would have a more efficient government, a betterrun government if people trying to manage those agencies had a 

greater sense of what their funding would be further down the road 

than they do. 

RESTRUCTURE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS

Mr. MORAN. Okay, well, that makes sense. And if you indulge 

me, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just keep pushing just a little 

bit more here. 

But would you not agree, I will try this approach, that entitlement programs are not sustainable because at some point they, 

plus interest on the debt which we have ascertained, is going to 

squeeze out all discretionary programs. So if these discretionary 

programs give us the biggest bang for the buck in terms of longterm payoff, research, innovation, education, and so on, physical infrastructure, do we not have to restructure our entitlement programs sooner than is currently anticipated? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Putting the budget on a sustainable path will 

require either significant cuts in benefit programs that aid a broad 

group of Americans, or significant increases in taxes on a broad 

group of Americans, or both. The advantage of your making decisions soon is that then those actual changes in policy can occur on 

a gradual basis that give people time to plan and adjust without 

having the debt rise to a more dangerous level. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
152 

INCREASE TAXES

Mr. MORAN. Let me try just one more question. Is it possible to 

fund the government by only increasing taxes on the top 2 percent? 

Does the middle class have to pay more than they are paying if we 

are going to have a stable budget? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. To put the budget on a sustainable path, I think 

that people who consider themselves to be in the middle class will 

need to pay higher taxes, or receive less in benefits and services, 

or both. Yes, Congressman. 

Mr. MORAN. Okay, well, we got something out of that. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. I do not think that is novel. 

Mr. MORAN. No, it is not novel. I just wanted you to say it. I 

mean, when we say it nobody pays attention. If we can say, well, 

Elmendorf said that, well, maybe it is true. Okay. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. By the way, he does not use the word entitlement. It is mandatory or benefits. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Congressman. That is right. 

Mr. MORAN. Yeah, I noticed that. 

ENTITLEMENT

Mr. ALEXANDER. I do not like the word entitlement because 

somehow the public is led to believe that they are entitled to all 

of these benefits that are out there today, and I have a problem 

with that. 

Mr. Harris. Dr. Harris. 

Mr. HARRIS. I am fine. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I also have a problem with the word entitlement for another reason, because people who have set aside savings for their entire life as a guarantee for retirement income security, as well as healthcare security, should not be stigmatized by 

it as though they are receiving something that was not their due. 

Now, it is our problem and the previous generation of lawmakers’ 

problems who did not set up the actuarial tables correctly to make 

these programs sustainable in the future. But I agree with your assessment for a little bit different reason. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. That was not my question. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. My argument is that we all pay into Social Security. We all pay into Medicare. One could argue that at some 

point I am entitled to at least some of that back. But some of these 

other benefits, they are just gifts from the taxpayers. But all of a 

sudden the society has gotten to believe that we are entitled to a 

big portion of that, and I think that is what is giving us the problem. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Some distinctions are in order. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. I will quickly point on the actuarial tables, a 

decade from now there will be almost 40 percent more people eligible for Social Security and Medicare than are eligible today. The 

retirement of the baby boom generation is just putting incredible 

pressure on those programs. Each of those individuals paid in what 

they paid in over their lives, but because the total number of people who will be eligible for these programs is rising so rapidly over 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
153 

the coming decade, that is the most important factor driving up the 

costs of Social Security and Medicare over the next 10 years. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Well, then let me ask a question in relation to 

what Mr. Fortenberry just talked about with actuaries. If in 1935 

Social Security, actuarially, if we had followed what was intended 

all those years, it would probably be sound, wouldn’t it, and Medicare the same. I do not think President Johnson when he signed 

Medicare into law, saw to 2013 or 2014 that we would be buying 

some of the medical equipment in that program, and I do not think 

actuarially it was ever set up to be spending outrageous like we are 

doing. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. You are right that the growth in the cost of 

health care was not anticipated at that point and it is a reminder 

about the uncertainty about these long-term projections. Forty-five 

years ago or so, when Medicare was established, people did not 

have any idea really of what health care would constitute today, 

and that is a caution about our projections 45 years from now. But 

the program was set up in Medicare so that there was, as you 

know, beneficiaries, prospective beneficiaries pay some payroll tax, 

when they become beneficiaries they pay some premiums, but a 

large part of the program is funded through general revenues, and 

even the parts that are funded through a payroll tax, the amounts 

that were paid in, in the payroll tax 10, 20, 30 years ago went to 

pay benefits 10, 20, 30 years ago in terms of the overall government budget. So there is still the problem that when people retire 

in large numbers, as they are now, there will be a lot of pressure 

for spending from those programs. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, could I ask, I am told that somebody 

at my age in mid-60s will have paid into the system about 

$120,000 into Medicare, but on average I would draw out 

about $370,000. Are those numbers roughly accurate? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. I think they are in the right ballpark, Congressman. We have not done those calculations ourselves. I have seen 

them in other places and I think they do correctly reflect the fact 

that payroll taxes and premiums do not begin to cover all of the 

cost of Medicare. And on top of that, the fact that the cost of benefits today is much larger than the amounts that were paid in the 

past. 

Mr. MORAN. Excuse me, Jeff, I did not want to sidetrack what 

you were questioning. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. That is a reasonable point and we talked 

about that personally before. It is a powerful statistic. 

I did have just one other brief question, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Sure. 

PRIORITIZE REQUESTS

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Can you explain how you prioritize requests 

from individual Congress Members? And then what is your relationship, overlap, areas of redundancy potentially with the Joint 

Committee on Taxation, Congressional Research Service? We have 

had requests before, and I think we have sent them to you, and basically the door was shut. So would you explain that? 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Yes. We work primarily for the committees, 

meaning for the chairman and ranking member of committees, and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
154 

also for the House and Senate leadership. And when we can, when 

we have enough resources, we will also look at requests from individual Members, but the unfortunate truth is that does not happen 

very often. And I do apologize, and I spend some time apologizing. 

But when the committee is working on some direction, the committee staff—again, meaning really the staff of the chairman or the 

ranking member—inundate us often with a range of alternative 

proposals that they are trying to explore the effects of, and we follow, and we do what they want. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Okay, well, that solves that mystery. I do not 

like it, but it solves the mystery. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. In terms of the other agencies, I think there is 

not much overlap. We hope that we are providing complementary 

services to you. The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, as 

you know, does the estimates of the effects of changes in the tax 

code on the budget. When you get from us sometimes an estimate 

of the overall budget package, so for example, what you got from 

us on January 1st, there were lines of the overall table that came 

from our analysts and there were lines that came from the analysts 

at JCT who had done the estimates of the tax provisions. They separately published tables of their provisions. 

So when you see estimates from us that include tax provisions, 

those are not something different than we have done from them. 

It is our incorporating their estimates to give you a sense of the 

overall budget effects of a package. On some issues we work very 

closely with them, so in our work over the past 4 years on this 

large expansion of health insurance subsidies those are estimates 

that we do just hand in glove with them, and when you see work 

from us it will always say CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation jointly estimate this. That is not a duplication. 

That is just because of the complexity of those issues. There are 

certain things, data sets that they have and data sets that we 

have, that we meld together. 

I think for CRS, and to some extent for GAO, we talk with them 

and we learn from them sometimes. And I hope they learn things 

from talking with us sometimes. So the analysts in our shop who 

work on certain programs and know the analysts in other places 

and try to learn from each other, but those other agencies are not 

doing budget estimates of the sort that we do. And similarly, we 

cannot provide all of the information they provide. 

So I will give you one example recently. Senator Sessions, who 

is the ranking member, of course, of the Budget Committee, who 

we work for quite a bit, is very interested in the growth of meanstested programs over time. He has made requests to us and to the 

Congressional Research Service. They have tried to catalogue and 

explain the huge number of programs and how they work in a way 

that does not play to our strengths, but we have provided him with 

estimates of the growth of those programs over time and the factors that have driven the change in budgetary costs, which plays 

to our strengths. And I have not asked him directly, but I hope, I 

think, from his perspective that these are complementary sources 

of information. 

The only specific thing I know with overlap is that GAO does 

some long-term budget projections. I actually think that is quite 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
155 

useful for you. This is a very uncertain business, and it is an issue 

of tremendous importance to the country, and the fact that there 

are a few people there who are trying to do the same thing that 

some of us are doing. I think that actually helps give you a little 

stronger base to draw on. It is the only specific thing I know of 

where we sort of overlap. 

Another example, I think, of complementarity is with the Recovery Act. We did estimates of the budgetary costs of the act. We 

have been asked to do, in law, reports on the economic effects. GAO 

has been monitoring, I think, auditing the sort of use of those 

funds. Those are just different sorts of roles for us and for them. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I raised this question yesterday with the 

GAO. They have a report on government agency redundancy and 

potential areas that could be considered for consolidation as well as 

areas of revenue enhancement that are already in law. But I could 

not get a very specific number as to what that would mean in 

terms of budgetary impact, tens of billions of dollars, which we had 

a conversation about. Some people have interpreted that if everything was implemented in their report on the government duplication, it might save $200 billion, up to $600 billion. So put yourself 

in the office of a Member of Congress, where you have got very limited staff to deal with these things, and we are trying to pull piece 

pieces of information that are relevant that actually mean things 

that could become policy. And that is why it is hard to figure out 

who is the best place to go to for what. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. I think, basically, for budget estimates, for analysis of the budget, for economic analysis, I hope you would turn to 

us. But I think the work the other agencies do is very important 

for you, but fills a complementary role. And if there are places 

where you think there is overlap in what you are hearing or where 

you think there are gaps, then I hope you would just call me, call 

Gene Dodaro, and say hey, what are you guys up to? And we can 

make sure. But we do talk on a regular basis, and we try to avoid 

that. 

I think Gene feels like, and his folks feel just like we feel. We 

take our stewardship of the funding you give us very seriously. I 

mean, we are very intent on giving you the best possible information that we can, most valuable to you, and that is what we get 

up every morning to try to do, sir. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay, if there are no other questions, Dr. Elmendorf, thank you for your testimony today. Thank you for being 

here. Thank you for your service. We appreciate your response. 

Dr. ELMENDORF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all very 

much. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. We stand adjourned. 

[Questions submitted for the record from Mr. Young and Ranking 

Member Wasserman Schultz follow:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
156 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 02 here 81322A.087
157 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 03 here 81322A.088
158 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 81322A.089
159 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 04 here 81322A.090
160 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 05 here 81322A.091
161 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 81322A.092
162 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 81322A.093
(163) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2013. 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

WITNESSES 

HON. STEPHEN T. AYERS, FAIA, LEED AP, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

CHAIRMAN ALEXANDER’S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. ALEXANDER. Good morning to everyone. The committee will 

come to order. Today we will hear from the Honorable Stephen 

Ayers, Architect of the Capitol. Good morning to you. 

Mr. AYERS. Good morning. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. The fiscal year 2014 request of $605 million excluding the Senate items represents a $105 million or 21 percent 

increase over the current CR. When adding the impact of the sequestration, the request equates to $130 million, or a 27.6 percent 

increase. 

Now, we understand the importance of maintaining and preserving the buildings of the Capitol; however, considering the economic challenges and the uncertainties we face, increases of this 

magnitude are not going to be sustainable. We look forward to 

working with you to try to figure out how we move through the 

year. 

I would like to take just a minute to discuss the rehabilitation 

of the Capitol dome. We all agree the Capitol dome is the most dramatic, inspiring symbol of our democracy and our Nation. Mr. 

Ayers, you stated that, in regards to the restoration of the dome, 

none of our work is more important. I agree, and the Speaker has 

made it clear that we would like to see all of those needs met. 

Under the leadership of Chairman Rogers, we are bringing to the 

House floor on Thursday a continuing resolution to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year. While we very much 

would like to have provided additional funding of the $61 million 

to proceed with the next phase, unfortunately the current budget 

climate will not permit that; however, we have been able to include 

provisions allowing the Architect of the Capitol to move forward 

with existing available funds. I realize this will require some puts 

and takes. In other words, some projects will be deferred perhaps. 

We look forward to working with you to accomplish some of these 

goals. 

Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Good morning. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good 

morning. 

Good morning. 

Mr. AYERS. Good morning. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
164 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I join the chairman in welcoming you 

as the Architect of the Capitol, and I note that you are requesting 

$681.7 million in fiscal year 2014, which is a 19.4 percent increase 

if we include Senate items. Without the Senate items you are requesting $605.2 million, or a 21.2 percent increase. 

I do not envy your job, Mr. Ayers. You have laid out a convincing 

case to fund 17 construction projects in your budget request, 15 of 

which are classified as immediate in nature, with 2 in the high urgency category. Having spent a lot of time with you for 4 years, I 

am really familiar with the prioritization process that you go 

through on those projects and what the facilities needs are of the 

Capitol complex. Given that Congress just reduced your fiscal year 

2013 appropriation by 5 percent by allowing sequestration to go 

into effect, we have already unnecessarily made your job even 

harder. 

Fiscal realities aside, your job is to manage the condition of these 

buildings, and that means making a case for critical funding. It is 

now up to the subcommittee to prioritize these investments, and 

this while maintaining the operations of the House and the capacity at both GAO and CBO. 

My sympathies go to the chairman, who has to rob Peter to pay 

Paul among these legislative branch agencies. In all seriousness, 

my hope is that we can work with you, Mr. Ayers, to fund the highest-priority projects during these tight budgetary years and continue to save for larger rehabilitation projects through the House 

Historic Trust Fund. Unfortunately, that is an area that creates 

even more expensive projects in the future due to the continued 

degradation of facilities. 

Mr. Chairman, we should be under no illusion that we are actually saving any money by putting off the facilities projects that are 

really in desperate need of repair, upgrading, and rehabilitation. 

We are just costing ourselves more money down the road by deciding not to spend resources on these problems now, and that is why 

we will all be feeling the pain from sequestration many years down 

the line. 

Let me conclude by mentioning the $15.9 million request for 

phase IIB of the dome restoration Mr. Chairman just mentioned. 

This multiyear project to restore our Nation’s symbol of democracy 

is the epitome of why we must see ourselves as stewards who 

should strive to leave this institution and its facilities better than 

we found them. And I am sure that many of you, like me, saw the 

recent film Lincoln. It was a best picture nominee about our 16th 

President. President Lincoln saw completing this dome that we 

now sit under as a sign of future hope for a Union in the midst 

of chaos. The dome was completed in 1866, and the Union survived. 

For what it is worth, Mr. Chairman, I remember walking into 

that movie believing that our two parties in Congress could not be 

more polarized. I walked out feeling chastened that our problems 

pale in comparison to those times. 

We can channel President Lincoln as we ensure the dome is restored to her former glory and work together to replace sequester 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
165 

with a balanced approach so we can avoid compromising our future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I look forward to your testimony, Mr. Ayers. 

Mr. AYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Moran, would you have an opening statement? 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Alexander. No, I don’t have an opening statement other than to put myself on record. 

I certainly understand all the pressures that you are under as a 

subcommittee chair for discretionary account, but my sympathies 

would be with the Senate-passed level. I think that is a more appropriate level, and it was about $580 million. But, you know, we 

will see how this works itself out, particularly this week, and I 

have some questions of the Architect after he makes a statement. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Ayers, before you introduce any of your 

staff members, if you would like, we would like to express our committee’s deepest condolences to the loss of your budget officer Ms. 

Lauri Smith. We understand that she was valuable, and we will 

miss her. 

Your testimony will be on the record, but if you want to summarize it, feel free to do so. You may proceed. 

AYERS OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. AYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning, everyone. And welcome back to the subcommittee, Ms. Wasserman 

Schultz, and welcome back, Mr. Moran, as well. Looking forward 

to working with you, and thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today. 

The fiscal climate has continued to present the country and the 

Congress with serious challenges, and with these challenges in 

mind, we have crafted our fiscal year 2014 budget request to focus 

limited resources on the highest priorities and to address the growing backlog of deferred maintenance projects. 

The fiscal climate has also brought about some good leadership 

and innovative and creative thinking for us. It has led us to ask 

some great what-if questions. For example, what if we decided, as 

part of the refrigeration plant revitalization project, to relocate two 

chillers instead of replacing them. That saved us over $800,000. 

That is really good thinking. 

What if we decided to renegotiate the interest rates on our energy savings performance contracts and get them from around 7 

percent to around 4 percent? That saved us over $20 million in future payments. 

What if we renegotiated our lease payments on several of our 

warehouses and other spaces, and got out of lease payments at $60 

a square foot, and entered into leases at $11 a square foot? That 

is really creative thinking. 

And these examples, Mr. Chairman, and others represent good 

thinking, and I am so proud of the team that is behind me and the 

entire team of folks in this organization that are thinking outside 

of the box during these challenging times and finding ways to save 

money. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
166 

Competition for Federal dollars has been even more pressing 

with the implementation of sequestration, and to ensure that we 

were prepared for these budget cuts, last October we began extensive planning, set aside funds, and slowed our overall spending. We 

took these proactive steps to minimize the impact of sequestration 

on AOC employees and operations, as well as the services we provide clients and visitors to the Capitol. 

We have several large projects in our 2013 budget request that 

is before the committee now: Phase II of the Capitol dome restoration, which we spoke of; the Cannon Building renewal; and the 

Capitol power plant refrigeration plant revitalization project, and 

we look forward to continuing to work with the subcommittee on 

those projects. 

Another major effort under way for us is the installation of a cogeneration plant at the power plant. This is vitally important for 

the long-term heating capacity at the plant. It also enables us to 

stop using coal and will save considerable energy and considerable 

money into the future. 

One emerging area, Mr. Chairman, of considerable concern to us 

is the serious deterioration of stone on many of the buildings that 

make up the Capitol complex. Age, weather, and environmental 

factors have taken a serious toll on our buildings’ exteriors as well 

as other masonry features. We conducted condition assessments of 

many of these wonderful buildings, and the results confirm that 

there is severe deterioration on many of those buildings that needs 

to be addressed at some point in the near future. And in our 2014 

budget request, you will see the leading edge of this important initiative for us, including money requested to begin repairing and 

preserving the stone on the Capitol Building as well as the Russell 

Senate Office Building. 

Mr. Chairman, our basic mission is to care for and preserve these 

wonderful historic treasures that have been entrusted to our care. 

The ongoing deferred maintenance issues as well as the new and 

emerging issues I spoke about regarding stone will continue to pose 

substantial challenges for us and the subcommittee in an austere 

budget environment. Again, our staff has just done a tremendous 

job doing more with less and thinking creatively and outside the 

box to successfully save money and get our mission done in such 

challenging times. I would like to thank my colleagues for going 

above and beyond what is expected of them every day. 

I would also be remiss if I didn’t thank the Congress and this 

subcommittee for their continued support and investment in our efforts, and I look forward to our continuing collaboration addressing 

these challenges that we both face. 

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

[The prepared statement of Stephen Ayers follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
167 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 268 here 81322A.094
168 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 269 here 81322A.095
169 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 270 here 81322A.096
170 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 271 here 81322A.097
171 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 272 here 81322A.098
172 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 273 here 81322A.099
173 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 274 here 81322A.100
174 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 275 here 81322A.101
175 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 276 here 81322A.102
176 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 277 here 81322A.103
177 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 278 here 81322A.104
178 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 279 here 81322A.105
179 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 280 here 81322A.106
180 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 281 here 81322A.107
181 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 282 here 81322A.108
182 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I agree with what Ms. Wasserman Schultz said 

about the fact that we can’t argue that we are saving money when, 

in fact, it is going to cost more if we delay a project. I think she 

will agree with me that is a weak argument when you have a 

bunch of mad folks and you are in a town hall meeting trying to 

explain why there is a need to spend money, you know, so we just 

sometimes idle back and refuse to talk about it. 

DOME RESTORATION

Help me understand why your projected costs of renovating the 

dome have risen in the last 3 years about 32 percent, and we know 

that inflation has not been anywhere close to that number. So can 

you help us understand why that projected cost continues to go up 

so drastically? 

Mr. AYERS. That is a great question. You know, the renovation 

of the dome really goes back to 1990, and in October of that year, 

there was a very significant water leak through the outer dome, 

through the inner dome, right into the rotunda. From there our efforts began; to study and evaluate what the problems and issues 

with the Capitol dome were, and it took us some 10 years of study 

and evaluation to really understand that. 

Back then, I think our initial estimate for repairing the dome was $45 million, and that is nowhere close to the $125 million we 

think it will take today. And you are right, that is not inflation, 

it is really poor estimating techniques, in my view. I look at that 

estimate, and it had 3 percent contingency for doing a job as massive as that, and 3 percent is nowhere the kind of contingency you 

need. It is more like 20 percent when you begin to uncover the kind 

of damage that is out there. 

We also found that those initial estimates didn’t comply with 

code. They significantly underestimated the level of complexity and 

contingency, and didn’t adequately cover the scope of work that is 

necessary. We are quite confident today, through a series of cost estimates and independent reviews of that cost estimate, that we 

have got the right scope of work and the right number. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Actually just to ensure that Mr. 

Bishop—he has to leave for MILCON at 10:30, so you can skip me, 

and I will go after him. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Architect. 

I think you indicated that the longer we delay the projects, the 

more difficult and the more costly they are going to be to repair. 

You did give us an example when you mentioned the Cannon 

Building. 

ACCESSIBILITY TO CONGRESSIONAL BUILDINGS

Last October, the Office of Compliance released a report that 

said that the sidewalks around all three office buildings were not 

in compliance with ADA. During the 111th Congress, there were 

154 access barriers to individuals with disabilities among the three 

buildings, as well as 93 percent of the curb ramps not in ADA compliance. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
183 

What efforts have been made to address this situation? Will sequestration hinder these efforts to bring the Capitol into compliance with ADA? 

Mr. AYERS. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. The report that you spoke of, 

I think, came out this fall regarding ADA barriers that were 

around the House office buildings. In that report they pointed out 

about 270 issues with sidewalks and curb ramps, and to date we 

have fixed 50 of those. 

We have another 50 that we don’t think are correct, and we are 

negotiating with the Office of Compliance now, and we are in the 

process of planning and executing the rest of those. Most of them 

are, generally speaking, maintenance issues. If you are familiar 

with a curb cut, you know they have little bumps on the curb cuts. 

You have seen those little red portions that are in the curb cuts 

surrounding the Capitol campus. Some of those deficiencies or rather some of the bumps are worn down, so we have to replace those. 

Some of the caulking around some of those things, curb cuts, need 

to be worked on. So most of those things are just maintenance 

items. They are not serious access barriers to our buildings, I am 

quite confident of that, and we have got them well under control. 

And I don’t think, to answer the second part of your question, 

that sequestration will affect our ability to execute those maintenance items at all. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay, very good. 

I believe in the draft of the CR, you are provided with some additional authority to transfer funds for completion of the Capitol 

dome. How will it impact your operations overall if you have got 

to transfer money from one account to the other, from some accounts to other accounts? 

Mr. AYERS. So in any fiscal year we are essentially appropriated 

operations money; that is, money to pay people and money to buy 

supplies and materials. And then on top of that we have capital 

projects, capital with an A, and so we will take money from the 

capital side of our appropriation and focus it on the highest priority, which we think is the dome today. So there will be other 

projects that are in our budget that won’t be able to be done, and 

we will focus our available resources on the Capitol dome, among 

others. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I guess we will go back to Ms. Wasserman 

Schultz. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Oh, thank you. Okay. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. We are going in the order that the members 

came into the room. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

CANNON BUILDING RESTORATION

It is sort of hard to know where to begin because this is a very 

frustrating situation to find ourselves in. I want to just talk to you 

about the House Historic Building Trust Fund. Can you just give 

us a general update on the plans as they are proceeding for rehabilitating the Cannon House Office Building; and, namely, what 

will the restoration consist of? And you requested $70 million for 

this fiscal year for the Historic Buildings Trust Fund. What imVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:14 Jun 29, 2013 Jkt 081322 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A322P2.XXX A322P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
184 

pacts would it have on the Cannon restoration progress if we do 

not appropriate that amount or even any amount? What is the 

minimum? I know you are going to hesitate to give me a minimum, 

but what is the minimum that we have to add to the Historic Preservation Trust Fund for Cannon to proceed on the schedule we 

need it to? 

Mr. AYERS. So with regards to our progress to date, we have finished our planning, which really defines the scope of the project. 

After planning we go into schematic design, design development, 

and then construction documents, and then construction. That is 

kind of how any major project is phased. 

So we are finished with the planning. We are in the midst of 

schematic design now. At the end of schematic design, essentially 

that project is locked down, and the rest is execution. So our ability 

to change and add, or correct, or revise really ends in the next few 

months. After that it is locked down, and we begin to execute the 

work. So that is where we are in terms of phasing. 

The swing space we will use is in the O’Neill Building, so the 

O’Neill Building work is coming along under a GSA contract well. 

I think the base building will be done this month, or by April. Then 

we will go into the installation of furniture and fit-out that space, 

and it should be ready sometime late summer to begin to occupy, 

if that is what we intend to do. 

The Cannon Building is laid out in five or six phases. The first 

phase will start in late 2014 or sometime in 2015, and that phase 

is simply doing mechanical and electrical work in the building to 

enable us to move people out one wing at a time. The first moveout really won’t start until the 2016 congressional move cycle, and 

then the second move-out will be on the 2018 congressional move 

cycle, and then the 2020, and then the 2022 move cycle. So every 

2 years is how we plan to do that. 

In terms of the $70 million that is in our budget request just this 

year, of course when we do any major construction project, we 

would rather have all of the construction money up front. We don’t 

think that is possible. That is, of course, why the Congress set up 

the Historic Building Trust Fund. And we have laid out a process 

from now through 2025 for us to stay on that schedule, which I 

have spoken about, doing the first move-out in the 2016 congressional move cycle. And starting in 2014, it is $70 million a year all 

the way through 2025, and that is the minimum. If we don’t get 

$70 million, we cannot stay on that schedule. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So we have got to stay on pace in the 

Historic Preservation Trust Fund, or if we don’t, then the project 

will be delayed? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. And get more expensive. 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And cause us more problems because 

the more the building deteriorates, the tougher it is for us to function. 

Mr. AYERS. And maintain it day to day. 

RAYBURN GARAGE RENOVATION

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And maintain it day to day. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
185 

I have a few different questions, but I will ask the major ones 

right now, Mr. Chairman. Your budget request for the Rayburn garage asks for $32 million 

for rehabilitation, and, you know, we know that that is becoming 

a dire situation, at least from my recollection, and that is just 

phase 1. The total projected cost is $120 million. 

Given the budgetary climate, given the sequester and the possibility of this being the new baseline, what can we do? What can 

be done? What happens if you can’t secure funding for the Rayburn 

garage rehabilitation? I mean, what can you do to maintain the 

current state of the garage, and is its use jeopardized? 

Mr. AYERS. You are right, we have broken that into four phases. I think the total cost is about $120 million. I think there are a couple of options. We can begin to take it from four phases to five 

phases, or six phases, seven phases, and break it into smaller 

pieces to begin to address it. I think that is a viable option. 

I think, secondly, our maintenance team is doing a good job staying up with the most urgent problem areas today. We can certainly 

close sections off that pose an imminent threat to collapse or falling 

concrete. So I think that is an option as well. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But no way to run a rodeo, Mr. Chairman. 

I have other questions, but I will save them. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. All right. Mr. Moran. 

REDUCING OVERTIME

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I noticed that in determining how you are going to address the 

sequester, Mr. Ayers, you cut 72,000 overtime hours. That is out 

of how many overtime hours did you include in your budget do you 

have to pay for? What is the total number of overtime hours? 

Mr. AYERS. That is a great question and one I was hoping someone would ask, because we have made great strides. 

Mr. MORAN. I did not mean to set you up; I just was curious. 

Mr. AYERS. I am glad that you did. 

Mr. MORAN. All right. 

Mr. AYERS. You know, for a number of years—— 

Mr. MORAN. I am glad it is a softball question. 

Mr. AYERS. The Architect of the Capitol has expended almost 

300,000 hours of overtime consistently for about 10 years, and we 

decided a year and a half or, 2 years ago, that we really need to 

make strides in finding a different model to conduct our business. 

That is not sustainable. And in 2 years we have been able to get 

that number in half to about 150-, 175,000 hours of overtime in 

any given year. So our current budget has about 150,000 hours of 

overtime. 

Mr. MORAN. So you have budgeted—— 

Mr. AYERS. We cut it in half. 

Mr. MORAN. In the fiscal year 2013 budget, you have got 150,000 

hours of overtime. That is part of the budget request? 

Mr. AYERS. Correct. 

Mr. MORAN. Okay. Why would you have that much overtime? I 

mean, I know why people would request it, because what is it, time 

and a half? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
186 

Mr. AYERS. Correct. 

Mr. MORAN. Time and a half. So there obviously would be a substantial incentive to want to be compensated for overtime, and that 

would significantly increase their compensation. But is it because 

you do not have enough staff, or that some staff just have to work 

16 hours to do their project? I mean, do you have any quantification of the cost of this 300,000 overtime hours, for example, in prior 

years? Do you have any dollar numbers that are associated with 

that? 

Mr. AYERS. That is about $10 million. 

Mr. MORAN. About $10 million in additional personnel costs because of the overtime. 

Is this something you got into, Debbie? Am I getting into an area 

you have already covered? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No. 

Mr. MORAN. Oh, okay. Good. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just listening. 

Mr. MORAN. Okay. So we now have budgeted for 150,000 overtime hours. Normally when you are putting together a budget, the 

management would try to figure out how can I put this under regular hours to avoid time and a half. In other words, the compensation going to some members is going to be fairly high. Is this management staff that is getting the overtime primarily, or is this the, 

you know, maintenance staff at lower salaries? 

Mr. AYERS. It is a little bit of both. And I think we have made, 

you know, great progress going from 300,000 hours to about 

150,000 hours. So that represents changing schedules. Someone 

that would normally work on a Saturday on overtime, we have 

changed that shift not to work Monday through Friday now, but to 

work Tuesday through Saturday, and that eliminates that overtime. 

Mr. MORAN. Good for you. 

Mr. AYERS. I think there is still more work that needs to be done 

there, but, you know, overtime is not going to go to zero. 

Mr. MORAN. No. 

Mr. AYERS. With the number of special events and security 

events that we have around the Capitol, those things just have to 

be done on overtime. It doesn’t make sense to hire people. 

Mr. MORAN. I can just imagine, you know, a Hill article pointing out somebody in your office, you know, making $200,000 a year or 

something because of overtime. I mean, that happens with public 

safety people, and then everybody goes ballistic. So it is something 

that we want to keep track of. 

CAPITOL POWER PLANT

With regard to the Capitol power plant, because of the Nationals 

stadium and all of the development around Nationals stadium, 

which is contiguous to the power plant, that land has become extraordinarily valuable. We have got a power plant sitting on it. 

Kind of like the power plant on the Potomac River, you know, most 

expensive, valuable property, and we have got a big coal-fired 

power plant. 

Now, it is no longer a coal-fired power plant, and a lot of the 

credit goes to Ms. Wasserman Schultz that you are using gas-fired 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
187 

now, and you are going to go to cogeneration, but it is still—and 

I understand one of the problems if you were to sell the property 

is you are going to have a lot of hazardous material, I assume, because of the coal burning. 

But it is really not the best location for a power plant, and I was 

told by some people in the city that there have been efforts in the 

past to simply replace it with other sources of power, which could 

be done at an extraordinary savings; if you were to just use other 

power sources, that is hundreds of millions of dollars that could be 

saved over time. Have you looked into that as an option? 

Mr. AYERS. So certainly we have, and we agree with you that, 

you know, having a power plant right in the heart of the city is 

not the best thing. But we engaged the National Academy of 

Sciences and brought in a series of experts to help us figure out 

what is the best long-term energy source for the Capitol complex; 

what do we need to do to ensure that we are doing the right thing 

to provide steam and chilled water to the Capitol complex, because 

we purchase electricity. 

Mr. MORAN. I understand that you purchase electricity. 

Mr. AYERS. Right. 

Mr. MORAN. It is not electricity, it is not the heating, it is not 

the lighting, it is the air conditioning. That is what it basically 

does. 

Mr. AYERS. Air conditioning and heating. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, does it provide all of the heating for the Capitol complex? That is where we get all of our heating? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. 

Mr. MORAN. All of our heating and all of our air conditioning is 

coming from that? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. 

Mr. MORAN. Do you have a financial analysis of the alternative 

if we use a conventional commercial source? 

Mr. AYERS. Well, you know, that really just became cost prohibitive, because we would have to replace that some other way. We 

did a quick economic analysis of what it would cost if we shut the 

plant down, and instead of doing—making steam to heat centrally, 

which is the most efficient, and we do it at each individual building, what would that cost us? And it was just an astronomical 

number that none of us could come up with. 

Similarly, we looked at making chilled water that we use to air 

condition the buildings. What if we stopped that at the plant, and 

we did it in each individual building? The numbers just are so astronomical that it wasn’t worth investing any time to further look 

at that. 

Mr. MORAN. Right. 

Now, what do all the private-sector buildings all around it, who 

are charging now extraordinary amounts per square foot because 

that land has become so valuable contiguous to the power plant— 

where do they get their heating and cooling from? 

Mr. AYERS. Many of them make it themselves in their own individual buildings. 

Mr. MORAN. Really? 

Mr. AYERS. Absolutely. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
188 

Mr. MORAN. What is that brand new residential facility? Are 

they doing it? 

Mr. AYERS. Capitol View, I think it is. 

Mr. MORAN. Okay. They make it in their own individual building? 

Mr. AYERS. Uh-huh. 

Mr. MORAN. Really? And the Fairchild Building? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MORAN. Yeah, I would like to. I am just curious. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So the study that you did to see 

whether we could eliminate the power plant and do it in each 

building was part of the whole process we went through with the 

switch to natural gas, and wasn’t one of the conclusions that it was 

so expensive because of the age of our building, our facilities, and 

that to—I mean, if it were a brand new building, or if you were 

building it from scratch, it would be more cost effective, but because what we would have to do to the facilities, it makes it cost 

prohibitive? 

Mr. AYERS. Absolutely. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yield back. 

Mr. AYERS. A completely new distribution system, a completely 

new—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In a 100-year-old, 75-year-old, 50- 

year-old building? 

Mr. AYERS. Right, right. And it takes significant space that you 

have to find other places to put people and equipment. But certainly making steam and making chilled water in what we call a 

district system centrally and distribute that out, just as GSA does 

for GSA buildings, virtually every college campus does, is the most 

efficient and economical way to do it. Our energy costs would significantly increase by putting that capacity in each individual 

building. It would not necessarily save money. 

Mr. MORAN. That is fascinating. I am familiar with the history, 

and I know Ms. Wasserman Schultz is. It was Senator Byrd who 

insisted that it be coal fired for a few jobs and a lot of coal from 

West Virginia, but I am glad we have moved beyond that. 

I just have one last question, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask it. We 

discontinued the House page program. What are we doing with the 

House page dormitory since, ironically, that is one of the few buildings that actually passes the Facility Condition Index and nobody 

is using it? 

Mr. AYERS. It is currently vacant, and we are simply maintaining 

that. There are no current uses for that, to my knowledge. 

Mr. MORAN. Okay. All right. I guess that takes up my time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Valadao. 

Mr. VALADAO. I was interested in the page program. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Well, I would like to hear more about the building. I don’t know the size of it. I know what it was used for, but 

are there any ideas about its usefulness? 

Mr. AYERS. For the page school you are speaking of? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
189 

Mr. AYERS. We currently don’t have any plans to use that space. 

I think it really is a matter before the House Office Building Commission of what is the best use for that space. 

Mr. VALADAO. In regards to the power plant, when was it constructed? 

Mr. AYERS. 1910. 

Mr. VALADAO. 1910. I assume it was probably fairly inefficient 

when it was a coal-fired plant? 

Mr. AYERS. It certainly was. It has been added to a number of 

times. 

Mr. VALADAO. When you converted it to natural gas did it become more cost efficient? 

Mr. AYERS. Absolutely. 

Mr. VALADAO. In what ways? 

Mr. AYERS. You know, from the natural gas perspective, we use 

natural gas to boil water to make steam to heat our buildings. So 

today we use about 92 or 93 percent natural gas as our fuel source, 

and the rest is between coal and fuel oil, and the cogeneration system that we are designing and will soon start construction of really 

gets us to 100 percent natural gas use, with fuel oil as a backup, 

and gets us completely off coal. 

Mr. VALADAO. In regards to the chilled water and everything else 

used that connects to the buildings, if you were to relocate, the distance, the plumbing, etc., I assume it would be costly given the age 

of the facility? 

Mr. AYERS. Absolutely. 

Mr. VALADAO. That puts us in a tough spot, thank you. 

U.S. BOTANIC GARDEN

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Ayers, the Botanic Garden is always an 

easy target. A lot of people visit that in a year. Can you give us 

an idea as it relates to some of the other sites well visited, the difference in maintaining, costwise maintaining, the Botanic Garden 

versus some of the other sites? 

Mr. AYERS. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. You know, that is such an 

important building for us. It really dates back to our original 

founding where George Washington himself promoted the value of 

plants, horticulture, and botany in our society. It is still an important mission for us today to educate the public and Members about 

the importance of plants in our society. And they are not becoming 

any less important, that is certainly for sure. So we take very seriously that mission to educate and inform and inspire people about 

botany and plants. 

We get about one million visitors a year to that facility. At the 

Capitol, we get about 2.3 million visitors a year to the Capitol 

Building, so an enormous number of people come through there to 

learn about the value of plants. 

The plants that you see there are not necessarily grown there. 

To create such a beautiful display of plants really takes 25 acres, 

25 miles from here, to grow and cultivate the beautiful specimens 

that you see there that are brought in to put on display and then 

taken back out and refurbished. So it is really not just what you 

see here, but there is a tale behind that that really makes the 

whole thing work. So it is quite an expensive endeavor. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
190 

Mr. ALEXANDER. And that facility is where? 

Mr. AYERS. It is in Blue Plains, so it is several miles from here 

down on the Potomac River. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Is it open to the public? 

Mr. AYERS. It is open to the public 1 day a year, where the garden has 1 day that you register, and we bring people and show 

them all of the behind-the-scenes work of how we grow and propagate the beautiful plants that are there. 

Mr. MORAN. That is a lot of fertilizer in Blue Plains for those 

plants. I do not mean to interrupt you, Mr. Chairman. I am just 

wondering, are you using that fertilizer? Are you treating it with 

the sewage plant? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No, we are using it here. 

Mr. AYERS. Blue Plains is a water treatment facility. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I was wondering if that is what he was getting 

at. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. He wouldn’t go there, but I did. 

Mr. AYERS. We don’t use the product coming out of the water 

treatment facility to fertilize our plants there, but we get other 

benefits. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. He wasn’t thinking about the water treatment 

facility either. 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You took the words right out of my 

mouth with the Botanic Garden. My family is among the 1 million 

visitors. My children’s favorite place in the Capitol complex, really 

in all of Washington, is the Botanic Garden besides the Young 

Readers Room at the Library of Congress. 

And, Mr. Chairman, maybe you and I could host an event at the 

Botanic Garden to just—the only time I think Members really go 

to the Botanic Garden is when they are first elected, and that reception during the orientation week is held for them there, and 

then maybe some of them never go again. But it is an incredibly 

beautiful place. I mean, I have been over every scrap and inch of 

the gardens with my children, including my son, who really, even 

though he is 13, still gets a charge out of seeing all the neat and 

cool plants that—you know, even though we live in Florida, and we 

have exposure to a lot of different types of botany, still gets excited 

about the unique plants that he can see there. 

And I think it is an inspirational place, and it would be good, 

just like with the printing, with GPO, you know when GPO is an 

inviting target because it seems like a waste of money to be spending resources on printing, and we know that underneath the surface of what it is called is an important role for both of those facilities. So just a suggestion. 

And just the only other question I have left, Mr. Chairman, is 

just on the storage module for the Library. You listed it as an immediate need, and it is the only new construction on your project 

list, so how did it get an immediate needs rating through your facility assessment process? 

Mr. AYERS. The primary reason that that has risen to the top is 

the safety component of that project. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
191 

Mr. AYERS. So you might not think that building a new building 

for the Library has a safety component, but the reason that we 

need to build that new building is there are books on the floor in 

the library stacks. That is a safety problem. The Office of Compliance has really brought it to our attention and is urging us to fix 

that issue. 

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

Mr. ALEXANDER. Going back to something Mr. Moran talked 

about a minute ago, who goes out and measures the bumps in the 

sidewalk you were talking about? 

Mr. AYERS. The Office of Compliance does. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I guess the bumps are to keep the wheelchair 

from sliding off? 

Mr. AYERS. The bumps certainly help from a slip, trip, and fall 

perspective, but the bumps also are for the blind. So a blind person 

with a walking stick will feel those bumps and know this is where 

they can enter and exit from the sidewalk or from the street. 

SUMMERHOUSE

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Moran, do you have another question? 

Mr. MORAN. Yeah, just a couple quick ones. First of all, I betray 

my ignorance. What is the summerhouse? Is this something that 

is available to us that we are not taking advantage of? What is the 

summerhouse? Is this one of those Senators’ perks that they don’t 

share with the House, or what is it? Do you know, Mr. Chairman, 

what the summerhouse is? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. No. 

Mr. MORAN. It is in the worst condition of any building on campus apparently, at least it was last year. Now it is the second worst 

next to the Senate underground garage. Frankly, the Senate underground garage is their problem. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I have been up there before. 

Mr. AYERS. It is on the northwest part of Capitol grounds of Capitol Square. It is sometimes referred to as the Grotto. It is this little brick structure. 

Mr. MORAN. Oh, when I was single up here on the Hill as a staff 

guy, I used to go down there all the time. 

Mr. AYERS. It is a great place for dates. 

Mr. MORAN. Oh, a great spot. Oh, that is deteriorating? What is 

going on there? It is just stone. What is the problem? 

Mr. AYERS. So it is, you know, from 1879 or 1880, Frederick Law 

Olmsted designed and built that himself. You know, you can imagine the summers in the Capitol Building without air conditioning. 

Mr. MORAN. Yeah. 

Mr. AYERS. And this was a place for Members to come out of the 

Capitol and find a place for some shade, a little water, and a place 

to cool off and a place of respite, and—— 

Mr. MORAN. I get all that. What is the problem with it? Why is 

it in the worst condition? 

Mr. AYERS. It is severely deteriorated. It has not been maintained over time. There has been, trees have grown in. 

Mr. MORAN. Really? Okay. All right. Well, I know what it is now, 

and I am glad the chairman has taken advantage of it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. How much would it be to restore it? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
192 

Mr. AYERS. I think that is in our current budget at $2.2 million. 

Mr. MORAN. Gee. All right. The Rayburn House Building is considered in poor condition now. It was not until this year. That is 

where our offices are for the most part. Why is it in such poor condition? Is it all because of the garage? 

Mr. AYERS. Most of it is because of the garage. That really is 

what kicked it over into poor condition; this $120 million of deferred maintenance. 

Mr. MORAN. Okay. All right. Fine. Can I ask one little question? 

I got a new office now, I have moved into Barney Frank’s old office, 

and our only view is of the courtyard. The courtyard has all this 

pond scum on it, now it is not a particularly attractive thing. You 

leave that water in there, do you, for structural reasons to fester 

and so on until the spring? 

Mr. AYERS. Well, it certainly should not have scum and other festering things in it, and it sounds like something we need to get 

cleaned up. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, you do not have to, and you do not have to do 

it personally, but, you know, I was just curious why it is so unattractive right now. Okay. 

Mr. AYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. MORAN. Fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. I guess I was mistaken when I said I know 

what the summerhouse is. I was thinking of the place out, I guess 

it would be in the northeast of town where Lincoln spent so much 

time when he was President. What is the name of that place out 

there? It is the original site of the first veterans cemetery; is that 

correct? 

Mr. AYERS. I do not know where that is. 

Mr. MORAN. That is that old soldiers home, yeah. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. The old soldiers home. 

Mr. AYERS. Okay, the old soldiers home, sure. Yeah, the summerhouse is just a very short walk from the Capitol building. It is on 

Capitol Square. You do not even cross Constitution Avenue. 

Mr. MORAN. It is a misnomer to call it a house really. 

Mr. AYERS. It is, yes. It is often called the Grotto. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Any other questions? 

Mr. MORAN. No. I see Debbie has a picture of it which is a very 

attractive picture. That is the nicest picture of it I have seen. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yeah, I was going to say that picture 

does not do justice to how poor the shape is. 

Mr. MORAN. Oh, that is a Google picture? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. 

Mr. MORAN. Thanks very much, Mr. Ayers. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. Ayers, we appreciate your being here today and your discussions. Thank you. 

Mr. AYERS. Thank you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you. 

[Questions submitted for the Record by Chairman Alexander and 

ranking member Wasserman Schultz follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
193 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 310 here 81322A.109
194 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 311 here 81322A.110
195 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 312 here 81322A.111
196 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 313 here 81322A.112
197 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 314 here 81322A.113
198 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 315 here 81322A.114
199 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 316 here 81322A.115
200 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 317 here 81322A.116
201 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 318 here 81322A.117

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(203) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2013. 

OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER 

WITNESSES 

JOHN O’KEEFE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

JANE SARGUS, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

MAURA SHELDEN, PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER 

TAMMY BELDEN, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT 

TAMARA DAVIS, BROOKINGS LEGIS FELLOW 

OPENING REMARKS

Mr. ALEXANDER. At this time we will hear testimony from the Open World Leadership Center. The center is requesting $10 million for fiscal year 2014, the same amount that is in the current 

CR. We welcome former Ambassador John O’Keefe, the executive 

director of the center, and we look forward to hearing your testimony. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, do you have an opening statement? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I do. 

Welcome back, Mr. O’Keefe. The Open World Leadership Center’s request of $10 million is equal to the fiscal year 2012 level, 

which is somewhat surprising, given the fiscal difficulties that we 

are having. We just heard, Ambassador O’Keefe, a few minutes ago 

from the Architect of the Capitol on the critical needs projects for 

the Capitol and House office buildings that we are going to have 

trouble funding in the upcoming fiscal year. You know, our difficulty on this subcommittee is to prioritize these essential projects, 

and Open World, given its odd fit in the legislative branch, presents a major challenge for us. Also, there are 90 programs that 

fund activities in Russia similar to Open World funded through the 

State Department. 

Now, I have listened to the many supporters of Open World 

speak of the unique role that you serve in bringing judges and lawmakers from Russia and other countries in the Eastern Bloc to the 

United States, promote interaction between our countries with the 

goal of strengthening democratic principles, and those are very 

worthwhile goals, but in the smallest appropriations bill, particularly in the midst of sequestration on top of that, it is even more 

difficult to find whatever scraps are left on the table for a program 

like this one, in my opinion. 

With those concerns in mind, I have always pushed Open World 

to increase its fund-raising from nongovernmental sources. Given 

the uncertainty in Federal appropriations, private funds may provide you more of a stable funding source. 

That being said, Ambassador O’Keefe, I do thank you for the important work that you do, and I look forward to your testimony and 

an update on your fund-raising results, and we will have other 

questions for you throughout the hearing. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
204 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Moran, do you have an opening statement? 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Chairman Alexander. This was a program that was envisioned by people such as Senator Ted Stevens 

and others, had bipartisan support when it was established, Senator Inouye was a big supporter of it, and it brings to this country 

thousands of people who are considered future leaders, with a particular emphasis upon the judiciary, which is one of the most fallible aspects of the governments from which the people come, and 

it has had a lot of results. The results are not immediate, they are 

long term in terms of orienting people toward how a fair and just 

judicial system operates under democratic governance, and it is a 

program that for unique reasons was established in coordination 

with the Library of Congress using Jim Billington’s expertise, and 

$10 million seems a lot in a small appropriations bill, but it is kind 

of a pittance in terms of what it produces, and so I am a supporter 

of Open World, as other Members of the Congress are on both sides 

of the aisle, so I just want to put that out there. Ms. Wasserman 

Schultz and I have some disagreement, and both of us agree to disagree on this. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We do. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. O’Keefe, if you want to introduce your staff, 

feel free to do so. Your entire statement will be in the record, but 

if you would summarize your remarks, we would appreciate it, and 

welcome to the committee. 

OPEN STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR O’KEEFE

Mr. O’KEEFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is my particular 

pleasure to have to my left our financial management officer and 

the deputy of Open World, Jane Sargus, Maura Shelden, who does 

our public affairs programming, cultural affairs programming and 

relations with the board, Tammy Belden, who is the person who 

makes sure that we do not pay anybody who should not be paid 

and keeps very careful track of our grantees and our accounting, 

and Tamara Davis, who is a Brookings Fellow with us through August, who is also doing some of the congressional relations work. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz, 

members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate your giving me time to 

address the Subcommittee on the value of the Open World Leadership Center. You have a challenging task in sorting out priorities 

for 2014. Before I begin, I just wanted to relay to you something 

that the Librarian of Congress, our founding chairman, mentioned 

at our annual board meeting last month. ‘‘The Open World target 

is young and emerging. Their influence is not visible, but it is happening, from the periphery in, from below, not above. Open World 

is a model for how you structure an exchange program that can be 

effective with emerging countries.’’ 

OPEN WORLD AS AN ASSET, RESOURCE AND INVESTMENT

The question before you is why fund the Open World program 

when there are demands from so many parts of the legislative 

branch for each marginal dollar? The answer is that for Members 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
205 

of Congress, Open World is a resource, an asset, and an investment. As a resource, we directly connect Members of Congress and 

your constituents to rising leaders, bringing the world to your doorstep. 83 percent of our delegates meet with Members or staff. We 

have helped create or sustain partnerships, 54 this past year alone 

for people and organizations in your districts. Demand from your 

constituents for our program is three and sometimes four times the 

supply. 

As an asset, our extensive network of hosting organizations and 

20,000 alumni throughout Eurasia allows us to start programs 

quickly and effectively. At the request of Members of Congress, this 

year we will expand to Egypt, Mongolia, Turkey, and, with board 

approval, Kosovo at no additional cost or request. These programs 

are low cost with clear objectives and produce measurable results. 

Issues that are critical to Members inspire our programming, 

from Egyptian jurists whom Judge Cristol from Miami will welcome next month and whose institution may help sustain a path 

to stability in a critical region to a central Asian legislator writing 

a Constitution partially modeled on his Open World experience in 

Montana, and his relation with that state’s Senate leader. 

Crucial to the success of the program are the 7,200 families who 

have home hosted delegates in 2,200 communities in all 50 States. 

As an investment, every delegation is an investment in America’s 

future. The United States cannot simply expect to have friends the 

world over when we need them without cultivating those friendships. By creating and sustaining lasting partnerships, Open World 

cultivates a sense of shared purpose, a commonality. Our placement in the legislative branch keeps us above the often necessary 

disputes that strain executive branch relations with the country. 

We keep our connections. 

OPEN WORLD FUNDING EXPENDED IN THE US

Keep in mind also that 80 percent of our funds are spent in the 

U.S., much of it at the local level, just where we want our investment to go. Extraordinary Americans in Lincoln, St. Petersburg, 

Columbus or Arlington create effective programs and provide enthusiastic hosting that harnesses the power of local communities to 

build enduring relationships. We offer extraordinary bang for the 

buck. 

There are 246 exchange programs in the executive branch scattered through 63 departments and agencies with a total funding of 

$1.8 billion. Congress has Open World, with funding at 0.005 percent of the executive. A drop. 

OPEN WORLD’S UNIQUE ABILITY TO FUNCTION WHERE OTHER USG

AGENCIES CANNOT

Open World has the ability to function where it is difficult to 

reach the people of a particular country. Its alumni undertake 

grass-roots activities that have far-reaching effects. Our home hosts 

and our partners in communities in every state open the eyes of 

our delegates that no amount of foreign assistance training can do 

and at a fraction of the cost. We leverage the power of representative government, of you, and the communities you represent to effect basic change that ultimately benefits our country. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
206 

So why fund Open World? Because we work, because we are your 

instrument, and because we fill a critical niche that the executive 

branch cannot duplicate. The U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Michael 

McFaul, wrote to me last week, quote, ‘‘As I travel throughout the 

regions in Russia, I find that in every community I visit, the Open 

World alumni are the most enthusiastic, the most engaged, and the 

most committed to working with the United States in a variety of 

important areas.’’ 

Thank you very much, and our founding chairman has joined us, 

Dr. Billington. Thank you, sir. 

[The statement of Ambassador O’Keefe follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
207 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 327 here 81322A.118
208 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 328 here 81322A.119
209 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 329 here 81322A.120
210 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 330 here 81322A.121
211 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 331 here 81322A.122
212 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 332 here 81322A.123
213 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 333 here 81322A.124
214 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 334 here 81322A.125
215 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 335 here 81322A.126
216 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 336 here 81322A.127
217 

PRIVATE FUNDING AND OUTSIDE FUNDRAISING

Mr. ALEXANDER. Sir, Ms. Wasserman Schultz said something 

about private donations. In 2012 a Washington Post article reported that a wealthy Russian Senator had committed to a donation of more than a million dollars to the program. Can you tell us 

if that commitment was ever fulfilled and, if so, how was the 

money used and have you had other donations of that magnitude? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. Yes, sir. He originally committed $450,000 to us, 

and he delivered $150,000 a year for 3 years, starting in 2008, and 

then he was very pleased with the way it worked, so he added in 

another $550,000 I believe. 

Ms. SARGUS. $600,000 for 4 more years. 

Amb. O’KEEFE. $600,000 for 4 more years. 

Ms. SARGUS. Starting in 2012. 

Amb. O’KEEFE. He represents the Republic of Buryatia, which is 

a primarily Buddhist republic bordered by Mongolia on one side 

and Lake Baikal on the other. So the programming is devoted to 

that republic, and in fact we have a group arriving on June 12th. 

So, yes, he has delivered and he has kept that commitment, so we 

have been very pleased to work with the ERA Foundation. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador O’Keefe, I want to continue the conversation about your outside fund-raising. During the—it looks like your direct donations 

went up to $388.5 thousand in fiscal year 2011 and went down to 

$325.5 thousand in fiscal year 2012. Most of your donations around 

$2 million, though, are in-kind contributions, and with all due respect, that is a typical trick that agencies use or organizations use 

to make it appear as though their private donations are larger than 

they really are. So can you describe what your in-kind contributions are and please be clear with the subcommittee on what your 

actual cash private donations are. 

Amb. O’KEEFE. Yes, ma’am. The in-kind contributions are the 

ones that are provided to us by the host organizations. They home 

host the delegations: It saves us on hotel bills and they provide the 

meals or a majority of the meals, so we do not have to pay for that. 

They also provide transport, and these organizations also donate 

their time, and so when we ask for them to report at the end of 

every grant cycle, they report those items. Ms. Sargus actually 

tracks them and knows the accounting much better, so if you wanted to add anything to that part of it. 

Ms. SARGUS. Well, in-kind describes costs that are not covered by 

appropriated money, as you know. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. 

Ms. SARGUS. So we use the volunteers service hours, and there 

is a kind of a template. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let me just give you more clarity on 

why I am asking about them. Because counting in-kind contributions toward your private fund-raising total presumes that you 

would have been appropriated those funds if—and that you are 

saving us money from attracting those in-kind contributions. We 

would not have funded those items, so—— 

Amb. O’KEEFE. Yes, ma’am. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
218 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ [continuing]. Including them in the 

total is not entirely accurate. 

Amb. O’KEEFE. I understand what you are saying. The net effect, 

obviously, is that we would not have gotten more money from the 

Subcommittee and from the full Committee, but what it does allow 

us to do is leverage the money that you do provide us so we can 

bring more people. If we did not get in kind, if we had to do hotels 

and we had to pay the organizations for organizing, then it would 

be fewer people, less of a program, and to get to the point of your 

question, how much are we really getting in terms of cash in hand. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. 

Amb. O’KEEFE. And that amount for 2012 is an estimated 

$825,000, which is about 8.25 percent of the total. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Are you still employing a fund-raising 

contractor as you were in 2010? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. No, ma’am. In 2010, 2009, 2010 we had substantially more appropriated funds. When the appropriation went 

down, we dropped the contractor. 

EXPANDING DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My recollection is that we directed 

you in the report language to hire a development director, a fundraising contractor, and I am not sure why you would make that decision. The first thing to go should not be the only individual that 

is going to help you attract more private donations and ultimately 

make it more challenging for us to continue to fund you. As I said 

in my opening statement, private fund-raising should be a high priority for you, especially given our budget uncertainty. Without a 

fund-raising contractor, without someone whose job it is in your organization to raise private funds, I do not know how you are going 

to really significantly expand your ability to do that. 

Now, Dr. Billington, who helped obviously conceive and start 

Open World, has been an incredibly successful fund-raiser for the 

Library. Have you talked with him or the Library staff on how to 

improve your fund-raising? And do you have a plan, a written plan 

to expand your fund-raising that is from private sources? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. To answer the first question, yes, Dr. Billington 

has been involved in making requests. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So what is preventing you from going 

beyond the very limited amount of private funds you are able to secure? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. The ability for foundations to fund new programs 

shrank considerably starting in 2009 because obviously their portfolios took a hit, and so they were not funding many new initiatives—they were continuing programs that they had, and when we 

went to them and said we have got this great program, they would 

say, look, we are just sticking with what we have right now because our income is shrinking, and so that was a stone wall we hit. 

The other efforts that we have made have also come up dry, and 

we do not have a written plan. We will have one at your request, 

but not just because you requested it because I think it is a good 

idea, too. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. I mean, it is hard for me to understand. I mean, it is 2013 and we have been having this conVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:14 Jun 29, 2013 Jkt 081322 PO 00000 Frm 00218 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A322P2.XXX A322P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
219 

versation for 5 years, and you do not have a written plan when 

that has been a directive and a goal that was firmly established 

that Open World should be working towards. How do you work towards that? You had a private fund-raiser. How do you work towards that without a plan? You are only just now realizing that 

that is a good idea? This is unfathomable to me. 

Amb. O’KEEFE. I would say that the contractor did provide us a 

plan, and we went out and did all those things. Perhaps it would 

be better described to refurbish and in view of the plan we 

have—— 

OPEN WORLD PROGRAM RESULTS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You know, I have struggled to see 

what the tangible results are from the Open World program, even 

though I know it has some general value, as do all of these programs, but what is the $10 million worth of value that we get from 

Open World? And is it more—why, as a subcommittee, should we 

believe that it is more important to fund Open World than it is to 

fund Dr. Billington’s new storage facility which costs $5 million 

and has been identified by the Architect of the Capitol as an immediate need and that we are likely not going to be able to fund? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. For the $10 million that the Congress is spending 

on the program, as I said, we are an asset, a resource, and an investment. The statement that Ambassador McFaul sent to me, understand that in Russia he travels all around, and there are lots, 

as you point out, over 90 exchange programs in Russia. Why is it 

that the ones that are ready to engage with the United States are 

the Open World alumni? And this is in the regions of Russia. It is 

not in the center where a lot of the problems in terms of relations 

exist. So that is a very powerful statement about what this $10 

million has done, and if you do compare it to that $1.8 billion in 

the executive branch, we are quite effective and we are quite a bargain. We have in our performance plan—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. With all due respect, a statement 

from the United States Ambassador to Russia is not empirical evidence that we are getting $10 million worth of value out of the 

Open World program. Do you have any way, anyplace to point to 

tangible results that are based on the goals of the Open World program that are the equivalent of $10 million, a $10 million expenditure? 

OPEN WORLD’S STRATEGIC PLANS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Amb. O’KEEFE. In our strategic plan we have a number of performance measures, and one of them is the view of the participants 

on how successful the program is, and that runs at well over 95 

percent. The number of partnerships sustained or created, we have 

created a number of those, and those sister cities, those judge-tojudge programs, the programs dealing with adoption and with 

adoptive children and taking care of them, trafficking in persons, 

they all have an effect. We also track how many projects our alumni undertake. There is some sort of technical ones we have in here 

that are not of great interest to you. So at any rate, I would say 

that when you look at exchange programs, the results tend to be 

delayed in a sense. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
220 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ambassador, can I just ask you one 

final question? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Would it be your assessment that the 

relationship between the United States and Russia has improved 

or deteriorated over the last several years? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. I would say it has deteriorated. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, is there anything you can point 

to in Open World that has contributed to the improvement of the 

relationship between Russia and the United States? I have not 

been able to find it. I am the kind of lawmaker that would like to 

find it in my heart to think this is a worthwhile program in this 

budget, but—in this bill. I have consistently said that it is a square 

peg in a round hole and belongs in the Department of State. I know 

Dr. Billington and you do not want it to get swallowed up, but unless you can point to me—in my opinion, unless you can point to 

some tangible value, actual results, not the opinions of the people 

who are coming here from Russia who really enjoy the program 

and say they get a lot out of it. I mean, I am sure the people coming from Russia that get to travel to the United States and spend 

a lot of time with our people would have a 95 percent feeling about 

the enjoyment they got out of that program, but that is not tangible results. 

Amb. O’KEEFE. I would just give you one example. There are others. One of our alumni who is the chair of the Duma Committee 

on the Affairs of Family, Women and Children within the past 2 

weeks at great personal and professional risk, stood up and said up 

to 300 adopted children die in Russia each year and practically no 

one has faced criminal prosecution over the deaths. So as a result 

of her actions, a working group was set up to monitor these investigations. So why is this the result? What the Russian Duma has 

been doing, as you know, has been passing these laws that frankly 

hurt the children of Russia. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And you attribute her participation in 

Open World to her being willing to stand up and say that? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. I think so. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is that your opinion or did she tell 

you that? 

Amb. O’KEEFE. No, she did not tell me that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I mean, I am sorry, there is just a tremendous amount of subjectivity in the assessment and analysis of 

the effectiveness of this program. 

I am finished, Mr. Chairman. Now for the opposite point of view. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Moran. 

THE CASE FOR OPEN WORLD

Mr. MORAN. Yeah, yeah. You know, tradesmen do not make good 

statesmen, and too often, I think, when we put together a budget 

we look for quantifiable measurements when we are really looking 

toward qualitative factors. The relationship with Russia is an extraordinarily important one. This is difficult because we are within 

a foot of each other, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Russia is not going 

to go away. It is never going to be a small enough country population wise or economically wise that we can ignore it. We have to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
221 

deal with Russia. We have to deal with Putin. Putin has simply absconded billions of dollars. I figure he is worth $15 billion, and now 

that he is President again, he will be worth much more. It is a corrupt economy, its judicial system is not working for the benefit of 

the people. The people do not trust the judicial system, and when 

a foreigner is involved, like Mr. Magnitsky and others, it too often 

results in a political verdict that punishes Americans. And yet we 

are going to be trading with Russia. We are going to be increasing 

trade with Russia. They have extraordinarily large sources of natural resources, and they play a major factor in trade with our allies, and the Russian people deserve and need our involvement, it 

seems to me. I mean, we cannot ignore them. We have to be integrally involved in the evolution of that country. We cannot just 

turn our back and pretend they do not exist and that we do not 

need to be involved. 

So what do we do? Well, the programs within our State Department because they are part of our State Department do not have 

the credibility, the relationships that we need for them to have to 

be able to work most effectively in turning that country towards democracy and justice. So we look to other ways of doing it. 

Now, back a generation ago we would do a lot of the stuff that 

worked in our interest behind the scenes. Our intelligence agency 

was involved. We had this—at one point during the Cold War we 

had this massive collection, I think it was the Franklin book collection, a massive collection of Western literature, and we made it all 

available. People never knew it was the CIA sponsoring it, but that 

is what we were trying to do, to get to the hearts and minds of the 

people. It is now housed at the Library of Congress. In addition to 

that collection being housed at the Library of Congress along with 

the millions and millions of other books, we have a national asset, 

perhaps our most potent asset. We have an internationally recognized expert more so in Russia than here on Russian literature, 

history, and culture. Dr. Billington can go virtually anyplace in 

Russia, and anyone that is well read and cosmopolitan in their approach knows exactly who he is and respects him. They do not see 

him as part of the U.S. Government with all the baggage that 

brings with it. They see him as someone who loves Russia and its 

people and its history so much that he has devoted his life to it. 

So he has immediate entre. So how do we use that for these wider 

purposes of trying to get fair trade laws, trying to help our businesses that need to engage with Russian businesses? How do we 

stop the loss of billions of dollars of trade that is going to other 

countries today? It is going to, you know, China and Brazil and 

other countries in South America and Asia, all kinds of countries. 

We have better products, less expensive. We cannot trade with 

Russia, and so billions of dollars is being lost in trade. Economic 

opportunities, and there are also social opportunities. We have so 

much to gain from Russian literature. I mean, Anna Karenina is 

probably one of the greatest books written, not to mention all the 

other books by Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Solzenitzyn, et cetera. So all of 

this we can benefit and yet we do not have the entre we need. And 

so we came up, a number of people, and Senator Stevens was one 

of those that led the effort, to use the greatest asset we have, 

which happens to be Dr. Billington, and he has got other people in 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
222 

his coterie, if you will, to enable them to have a program to go 

around the government, to find future leaders, to get them into the 

United States, to develop relationships because, as you know better 

than anyone, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, all politics is not just local, 

it is personal. All politics revolves around personal relationships, 

and I know how vigorously you are nodding your head, you chair 

the DNC. You are more aware of that than anyone. So we need to 

develop personal relationships with Americans, regular Americans, 

not somebody tagged with, you know, the Bush administration, the 

Obama administration or any other administration, regular Americans who have personal relationships with future Russian leaders, 

to influence their ideas, their ability to express those ideas which 

are consistent with our values and principles, and that is what this 

program was all about. That is why Dave Price, who heads the Democracy Partnership, he is cochair, that is why he is so wedded to 

this, because he goes around the world, he goes into, you know, 

Russia and other countries, and he meets with these people, and 

he is embraced. Now, the people that are part of the government, 

you know, bureaucracy, it makes them a little nervous, but they 

immediately embrace people that are associated with programs like 

this, and I think this is a relatively small investment, and that is 

absolutely what it is, an investment to develop a foundation of future leaders that is going to pay off in the long run. It is going to 

pay off in greater prospect of peace and ensure that there will not 

be the use of nuclear weapons, which is certainly still a possibility, 

but it is going to pay off in economic trade in the tens of billions 

of dollars that we, that can go into our economy if we can trade 

with them. 

I know I am out of time now, but we just passed this legislation, 

and, you know, the Magnitsky bill is a very difficult piece of legislation. Now, when they cut off adoptions for American families, 

that was a reflection of the deteriorated relationship, but the statement they made about this Texas family, you know, being responsible for the death of an adopted child, they just refuted it, and my 

understanding, and this can be checked out, is one of the reasons 

why we had a few people, spokespeople say, wait a minute, let’s 

look into this, a few contacts in Russia that we could get to to say, 

look at all of the facts before you use that as a reason to legislate 

this policy that is going to further deteriorate our relationship with 

the United States. That is why I think for a small amount of 

money this is the kind of program, a pittance of what we put in 

the State Department, that can be far more effective in the long 

run than what we are able to do today with the bureaucratic machinery at the State Department. 

So that is why I support this, and why I think we, it behooves 

our government to use one of the best assets we have, which is Dr. 

Billington, in improving our relationship with Russia. So that is my 

statement. I do not have any questions. I have enough—although 

I will say there was just a GAO report, and that GAO report came 

up with some very positive conclusions, and I hope that maybe you 

will ask, Mr. Chairman, because my time is up, about the conclusions of the GAO report of the Open World program. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
223 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for all that time, but I tried 

to lay it out there where I sit since Ms. Wasserman Schultz has 

been doing that for the last couple of years as well. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. There is that fund-raiser you are looking for. 

Amb. O’KEEFE. Two of them. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Any more questions? 

CLOSING REMARKS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I do not have any more questions, Mr. 

Chairman, but Mr. Moran makes an eloquent case for the reason 

that we should have Open World. I agree, for what the goals of 

Open World are, it is a small amount of money. It is not a small 

amount of money in the legislative branch appropriations bill because we have many important priorities that are within the purview of this committee’s responsibilities, which are not primarily 

programmatic but are extremely important that we just over the 

last several hearings have gotten the full measure of the challenges 

that we have in funding those priorities, and with $1.8 billion, billion being spent on exchange programs alone in Russia and a relationship that is deteriorating, not improving, $10 million and the 

stress that it puts on this bill rather than it being in a different 

bill in the appropriation, in the overall appropriations process like 

the State Department, whether it is through pass-through funding 

or finding another way to shrink the amount of stress that Open 

World puts on this bill and that it prevents us from doing other 

things I think does not make sense nor have I seen evidence of the 

tangible results that come from the expenditure of the funds. We 

do ask for the tangible results and we hold other programs accountable. We have not had the same accountability on this program, and I think we need to come to some meeting of the minds 

on the appropriate placement of Open World in the legislative 

branch bill and the amount of funding, public funds it should receive if it remains in this bill or if there is a more appropriate way 

to fund it so that we relieve the stress on the legislative branch 

overall appropriations and the allocation that we get and make 

sure that the laudable goals of Open World are able to be achieved, 

and that your fund-raising, actual cash fund-raising without inkinds that I do not believe count is aggressive and improved, and 

lastly I will say that I have well known tremendous respect for Dr. 

Billington and am very familiar with his expertise. I would argue 

that we have his expertise and his entre to Russia with or without 

Open World. Thank you. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay. Mr. Ambassador, we appreciate your 

presence here today and your testimony. There are no other questions, so the committee will stand adjourned. Thank you. 

Amb. O’KEEFE. Thank you, sir. 

[Questions submitted for the record by Chairman Alexander follow:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
224 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 354 here 81322A.128
225 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 355 here 81322A.129
226 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 356 here 81322A.130
227 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 357 here 81322A.131
228 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 358 here 81322A.132
229 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 359 here 81322A.133
230 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 360 here 81322A.134
231 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 361 here 81322A.135
232 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 362 here 81322A.136
233 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 363 here 81322A.137
234 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 364 here 81322A.138
235 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 365 here 81322A.139
236 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 366 here 81322A.140
237 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 367 here 81322A.141
238 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 368 here 81322A.142
239 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 369 here 81322A.143
240 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 370 here 81322A.144
241 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 371 here 81322A.145
242 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 372 here 81322A.146
243 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 373 here 81322A.147
244 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 374 here 81322A.148
245 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 375 here 81322A.149
246 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 376 here 81322A.150
247 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 377 here 81322A.151
248 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 378 here 81322A.152
249 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 379 here 81322A.153
250 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 380 here 81322A.154
251 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 381 here 81322A.155
252 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 382 here 81322A.156
253 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 383 here 81322A.157
254 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 384 here 81322A.158
255 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 385 here 81322A.159
256 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 386 here 81322A.160
257 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 387 here 81322A.161
258 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 388 here 81322A.162
259 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 389 here 81322A.163
260 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 390 here 81322A.164
261 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 391 here 81322A.165
262 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 392 here 81322A.166
263 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 393 here 81322A.167
264 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 394 here 81322A.168
265 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 395 here 81322A.169
266 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 396 here 81322A.170
267 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 397 here 81322A.171
268 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 398 here 81322A.172
269 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 399 here 81322A.173
270 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 400 here 81322A.174
271 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 401 here 81322A.175
272 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 402 here 81322A.176
273 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 403 here 81322A.177
274 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 404 here 81322A.178
275 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 405 here 81322A.179
276 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 406 here 81322A.180
277 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 407 here 81322A.181
278 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 408 here 81322A.182
279 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 409 here 81322A.183
280 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 410 here 81322A.184
281 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 411 here 81322A.185
282 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 412 here 81322A.186
283 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 413 here 81322A.187
284 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 414 here 81322A.188
285 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 415 here 81322A.189
286 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 416 here 81322A.190
287 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 417 here 81322A.191
288 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 418 here 81322A.192
289 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 419 here 81322A.193
290 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 420 here 81322A.194
291 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 421 here 81322A.195
292 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 422 here 81322A.196
293 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 423 here 81322A.197
294 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 424 here 81322A.198
295 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 425 here 81322A.199
296 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 426 here 81322A.200
297 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 427 here 81322A.201
298 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 428 here 81322A.202
299 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 429 here 81322A.203
300 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 430 here 81322A.204
301 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 431 here 81322A.205
302 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 432 here 81322A.206
303 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 433 here 81322A.207
304 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 434 here 81322A.208
305 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 435 here 81322A.209
306 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 436 here 81322A.210
307 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 437 here 81322A.211
308 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 438 here 81322A.212
309 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 439 here 81322A.213
310 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 440 here 81322A.214
311 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 441 here 81322A.215
312 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 442 here 81322A.216
313 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 443 here 81322A.217
314 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 444 here 81322A.218
315 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 445 here 81322A.219
316 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 446 here 81322A.220
317 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 447 here 81322A.221
318 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 448 here 81322A.222
319 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 449 here 81322A.223
320 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 450 here 81322A.224
321 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 451 here 81322A.225
322 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 452 here 81322A.226
323 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 453 here 81322A.227
324 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 454 here 81322A.228
325 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 455 here 81322A.229
326 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 456 here 81322A.230
327 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 457 here 81322A.231
328 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 458 here 81322A.232
329 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 459 here 81322A.233
330 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 460 here 81322A.234
331 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 461 here 81322A.235
332 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 462 here 81322A.236
333 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 463 here 81322A.237
334 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 464 here 81322A.238
335 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 465 here 81322A.239
336 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 466 here 81322A.240
337 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 467 here 81322A.241
338 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 468 here 81322A.242
339 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 469 here 81322A.243
340 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 470 here 81322A.244
341 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 471 here 81322A.245
342 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 472 here 81322A.246
343 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 473 here 81322A.247
344 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 474 here 81322A.248
345 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 475 here 81322A.249
346 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 476 here 81322A.250
347 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 477 here 81322A.251
348 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 478 here 81322A.252
349 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 479 here 81322A.253
350 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 480 here 81322A.254
351 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 481 here 81322A.255
352 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 482 here 81322A.256
353 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 483 here 81322A.257
354 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 484 here 81322A.258
355 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 485 here 81322A.259
356 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 486 here 81322A.260
357 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 487 here 81322A.261
358 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 488 here 81322A.262
359 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 489 here 81322A.263
360 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 490 here 81322A.264
361 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 491 here 81322A.265
362 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 492 here 81322A.266
363 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 493 here 81322A.267
364 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 494 here 81322A.268
365 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 495 here 81322A.269
366 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 496 here 81322A.270
367 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 497 here 81322A.271
368 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 498 here 81322A.272
369 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 499 here 81322A.273
370 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 500 here 81322A.274
371 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 501 here 81322A.275
372 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 502 here 81322A.276
373 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 503 here 81322A.277
374 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 504 here 81322A.278
375 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 505 here 81322A.279
376 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 506 here 81322A.280
377 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 507 here 81322A.281
378 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 508 here 81322A.282
379 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 509 here 81322A.283
380 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 510 here 81322A.284
381 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 511 here 81322A.285
382 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 512 here 81322A.286
383 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 513 here 81322A.287
384 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 514 here 81322A.288
385 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 515 here 81322A.289
386 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 516 here 81322A.290
387 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 517 here 81322A.291
388 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 518 here 81322A.292
389 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 519 here 81322A.293
390 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 520 here 81322A.294
391 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 521 here 81322A.295
392 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 522 here 81322A.296
393 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 523 here 81322A.297
394 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 524 here 81322A.298
395 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 525 here 81322A.299
396 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 526 here 81322A.300
397 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 527 here 81322A.301
398 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 528 here 81322A.302
399 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 529 here 81322A.303
400 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 530 here 81322A.304
401 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 531 here 81322A.305
402 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 532 here 81322A.306
403 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 533 here 81322A.307
404 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 534 here 81322A.308
405 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 535 here 81322A.309
406 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 536 here 81322A.310
407 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 537 here 81322A.311
408 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 538 here 81322A.312
409 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 539 here 81322A.313
410 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 540 here 81322A.314
411 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 541 here 81322A.315
412 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 542 here 81322A.316
413 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 543 here 81322A.317
414 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 544 here 81322A.318
415 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 545 here 81322A.319
416 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 546 here 81322A.320
417 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 547 here 81322A.321
418 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 548 here 81322A.322
419 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 549 here 81322A.323
420 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 550 here 81322A.324
421 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 551 here 81322A.325
422 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 552 here 81322A.326
423 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 553 here 81322A.327
424 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 554 here 81322A.328
425 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 555 here 81322A.329
426 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 556 here 81322A.330
427 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 557 here 81322A.331
428 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 558 here 81322A.332
429 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 559 here 81322A.333
430 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 560 here 81322A.334
431 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 561 here 81322A.335
432 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 562 here 81322A.336
433 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 563 here 81322A.337
434 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 564 here 81322A.338
435 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 565 here 81322A.339
436 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 566 here 81322A.340
437 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 567 here 81322A.341
438 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 568 here 81322A.342
439 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 569 here 81322A.343
440 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 570 here 81322A.344
441 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 571 here 81322A.345
442 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 572 here 81322A.346
443 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 573 here 81322A.347
444 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 574 here 81322A.348
445 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 575 here 81322A.349
446 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 576 here 81322A.350
447 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 577 here 81322A.351
448 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 578 here 81322A.352
449 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 579 here 81322A.353
450 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 580 here 81322A.354
451 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 581 here 81322A.355
452 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 582 here 81322A.356
453 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 583 here 81322A.357
454 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 584 here 81322A.358
455 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 585 here 81322A.359
456 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 586 here 81322A.360
457 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 587 here 81322A.361
458 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 588 here 81322A.362
459 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 589 here 81322A.363
460 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 590 here 81322A.364
461 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 591 here 81322A.365
462 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 592 here 81322A.366
463 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 593 here 81322A.367
464 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 594 here 81322A.368
465 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 595 here 81322A.369
466 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 596 here 81322A.370
467 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 597 here 81322A.371
468 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 598 here 81322A.372
469 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 599 here 81322A.373
470 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 600 here 81322A.374
471 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 601 here 81322A.375
472 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 602 here 81322A.376
473 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 603 here 81322A.377
474 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 604 here 81322A.378
475 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 605 here 81322A.379
476 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 606 here 81322A.380
477 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 607 here 81322A.381
478 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 608 here 81322A.382
479 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 609 here 81322A.383
480 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 610 here 81322A.384
481 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 611 here 81322A.385
482 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 612 here 81322A.386
483 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 613 here 81322A.387
484 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 614 here 81322A.388
485 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 615 here 81322A.389
486 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 616 here 81322A.390
487 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 617 here 81322A.391
488 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 618 here 81322A.392
489 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 619 here 81322A.393
490 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 620 here 81322A.394
491 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 621 here 81322A.395
492 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 622 here 81322A.396
493 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 623 here 81322A.397
494 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 624 here 81322A.398
495 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 625 here 81322A.399
496 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 626 here 81322A.400
497 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 627 here 81322A.401
498 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 628 here 81322A.402
499 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 629 here 81322A.403
500 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 630 here 81322A.404
501 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 631 here 81322A.405
502 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 632 here 81322A.406
503 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 633 here 81322A.407
504 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 634 here 81322A.408
505 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 635 here 81322A.409
506 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 636 here 81322A.410
507 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 637 here 81322A.411
508 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 638 here 81322A.412
509 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 639 here 81322A.413
510 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 640 here 81322A.414
511 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 641 here 81322A.415
512 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 642 here 81322A.416
513 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 643 here 81322A.417
514 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 644 here 81322A.418
515 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 645 here 81322A.419
516 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 646 here 81322A.420
517 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 647 here 81322A.421
518 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 648 here 81322A.422
519 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 649 here 81322A.423
520 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 650 here 81322A.424
521 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 651 here 81322A.425
522 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 652 here 81322A.426
523 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 653 here 81322A.427
524 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 654 here 81322A.428
525 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 655 here 81322A.429
526 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 656 here 81322A.430
527 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 657 here 81322A.431
528 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 658 here 81322A.432
529 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 659 here 81322A.433
530 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 660 here 81322A.434
531 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 661 here 81322A.435
532 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 662 here 81322A.436
533 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 663 here 81322A.437
534 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 664 here 81322A.438
535 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 665 here 81322A.439
536 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 666 here 81322A.440
537 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 667 here 81322A.441
538 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 668 here 81322A.442
539 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 669 here 81322A.443
540 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 670 here 81322A.444
541 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 671 here 81322A.445
542 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 672 here 81322A.446
543 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 673 here 81322A.447
544 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 674 here 81322A.448
545 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 675 here 81322A.449
546 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 676 here 81322A.450
547 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 677 here 81322A.451
548 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 678 here 81322A.452
549 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 679 here 81322A.453
550 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 680 here 81322A.454
551 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 681 here 81322A.455
552 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 682 here 81322A.456
553 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 683 here 81322A.457
554 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 684 here 81322A.458
555 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 685 here 81322A.459
556 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 686 here 81322A.460
557 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 687 here 81322A.461
558 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 688 here 81322A.462
559 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 689 here 81322A.463
560 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 690 here 81322A.464
561 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 691 here 81322A.465
562 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 692 here 81322A.466
563 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 693 here 81322A.467
564 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 694 here 81322A.468
565 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 695 here 81322A.469
566 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 696 here 81322A.470
567 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 697 here 81322A.471
568 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 698 here 81322A.472
569 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 699 here 81322A.473
570 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 700 here 81322A.474
571 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 701 here 81322A.475
572 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 702 here 81322A.476
573 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 703 here 81322A.477
574 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 704 here 81322A.478
575 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 705 here 81322A.479
576 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 706 here 81322A.480
577 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 707 here 81322A.481
578 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 708 here 81322A.482
579 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 709 here 81322A.483
580 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 710 here 81322A.484
581 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 711 here 81322A.485
582 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 712 here 81322A.486
583 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 713 here 81322A.487
584 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 714 here 81322A.488
585 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 715 here 81322A.489
586 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 716 here 81322A.490
587 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 717 here 81322A.491
588 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 718 here 81322A.492
589 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 719 here 81322A.493
590 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 720 here 81322A.494
591 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 721 here 81322A.495
592 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 722 here 81322A.496
593 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 723 here 81322A.497
594 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 724 here 81322A.498
595 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 725 here 81322A.499
596 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 726 here 81322A.500
597 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 727 here 81322A.501
598 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 728 here 81322A.502
599 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 729 here 81322A.503
600 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 730 here 81322A.504
601 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 731 here 81322A.505
602 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 732 here 81322A.506
603 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 733 here 81322A.507
604 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 734 here 81322A.508
605 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 735 here 81322A.509
606 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 736 here 81322A.510
607 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 737 here 81322A.511
608 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 738 here 81322A.512
609 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 739 here 81322A.513
610 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 740 here 81322A.514
611 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 741 here 81322A.515
612 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 742 here 81322A.516
613 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 743 here 81322A.517
614 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 744 here 81322A.518
615 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 745 here 81322A.519
616 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 746 here 81322A.520
617 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 747 here 81322A.521
618 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 748 here 81322A.522
619 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 749 here 81322A.523
620 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 750 here 81322A.524
621 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 751 here 81322A.525
622 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 752 here 81322A.526
623 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 753 here 81322A.527
624 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 754 here 81322A.528
625 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 755 here 81322A.529
626 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 756 here 81322A.530
627 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 757 here 81322A.531
628 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 758 here 81322A.532
629 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 759 here 81322A.533
630 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 760 here 81322A.534
631 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 761 here 81322A.535
632 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 762 here 81322A.536
633 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 763 here 81322A.537
634 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 764 here 81322A.538
635 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 765 here 81322A.539
636 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 766 here 81322A.540
637 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 767 here 81322A.541
638 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 768 here 81322A.542
639 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 769 here 81322A.543
640 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 770 here 81322A.544
641 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 771 here 81322A.545
642 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 772 here 81322A.546
643 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 773 here 81322A.547
644 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 774 here 81322A.548
645 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 775 here 81322A.549
646 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 776 here 81322A.550
647 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 777 here 81322A.551
648 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 778 here 81322A.552
649 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 779 here 81322A.553
650 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 780 here 81322A.554
651 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 781 here 81322A.555
652 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 782 here 81322A.556
(653) 

TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2013. 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WITNESSES 

HON. DANIEL J. STRODEL, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OFFICE 

OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 

HON. KAREN L. HAAS, CLERK, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE 

OF REPRESENTATIVES 

HON. PAUL D. IRVING, SERGEANT AT ARMS, OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS 

KERRY W. KIRCHER, GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 

SANDRA STROKOFF, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL 

RALPH W. SEEP, LAW REVISION COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE LAW REVISION COUNSEL 

THERESA M. GRAFENSTINE, INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

OPENING REMARKS—CHAIRMAN

Mr. ALEXANDER. The committee will come to order. Today we will 

receive testimony from the officers of the House of Representatives, 

the Honorable Dan Strodel, Chief Administrative Officer; the Honorable Karen Haas, the Clerk of the House; and the Honorable 

Paul Irving, the Sergeant At Arms. Also in attendance are Ms. 

Grafenstine, the Inspector General; Mr. Kircher, General Counsel. 

Ms. Strokoff, Legislative Counsel, and Mr. Seep, Law Revision 

Counsel. And we are pleased to welcome all of you here today. 

The fiscal year 2014 budget request that we will consider is $1.2 

billion, the same level as provided in the continuing resolution 

through March of this year. We have reduced the House appropriations by over $135 million, or 10.5 percent since January 2011. Due 

to the sequestration, we must reduce the appropriations for the 

House by another $62 million. In total, the officers of the House 

comprise of 13 percent of the appropriations for the House. It is a 

small portion of the budget, but extremely important. And as we 

move through the hearing today, we are looking forward to highlighting the past efforts and focusing on where we can go in the 

future. 

With that, the ranking member, Ms. Debra Wasserman Schultz. 

OPENING REMARKS—RANKING MEMBER

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I join 

you in welcoming the officers of the House and the representatives 

that are here from other offices. Mr. Chairman, this hearing is one 

of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee’s most important, as we 

provide oversight to our very own institution. It reaffirms that we 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
654 

must hold ourselves accountable as we provide rigorous oversight 

of the House in a transparent manner. Though we may disagree on 

the priorities of funding in the House, but I know all Members 

want the operations of the House offices to meet the highest standards. If you have been in any of our subcommittee hearings this 

year, you know I believe that sequestration is an irresponsible way 

to budget. It targets discretionary spending, which is the smallest 

component of the annual budget, in an unnecessary, across the 

board, meat axe approach. And we are seeing the effects of that in 

our very own offices. At a time when most Members of this body 

are representing newly-formed congressional districts, with a need 

to open new offices or move to new locations, we find ourselves 

with an 8.2 percent decrease in the very operating budgets that 

support constituent services, our most important function. That is 

in addition to the 11.4 percent in cuts we have seen over the last 

2 fiscal years. So nearly a 20 percent cut since 2010. 

And yet the House makes the fiscally irresponsible decision to 

spend up to $3 million to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. 

These are scarce resources that would be better spent providing 

constituents with better access to their Representatives rather than 

on hiring outside counsel to defend an act that has been found unconstitutional in no less than eight Federal courts. The political 

gamesmanship on DOMA has gone on for far too long, and at far 

too great a cost. Fortunately, the Supreme Court will hear the case 

of Windsor v. The United States later this month. And I am hopeful and confident that they will agree with the lower courts and 

rule that DOMA is unconstitutional so that we can move on to the 

business of using all of our limited resources to fund the core operations of the House. 

In light of these lean budgetary times, there are many other important issues that we have yet to face. To that end, I am increasingly concerned that our ability to recruit and retain high quality 

staff is diminishing as compensation and benefits decrease. We 

have to come together and promote initiatives that improve the 

quality of life in the House of Representatives. 

The three officers here today oversee programs that are essential 

to that quality of life, such as food services, employment counsel, 

and security. I am sure Mr. Strodel remembers our plight to improve the food choices and prices in the House cafeterias, which is 

important to constituents who come here and purchase food and 

have to function while they are visiting the Capitol. Being priced 

out of being able to actually eat a high quality meal should not be 

one of the challenges that they face. 

And Mr. Chairman, lastly, I just think it can’t be stressed 

enough how important it is that we take care of our staff, that we 

make sure that working here is a high quality experience, and that 

we recognize that the more that we rob Peter to pay Paul, the more 

that we make pennywise and pound foolish decisions, the tougher 

it is for us to compete not only with the private sector, but with 

other Federal agencies who are offering better benefits, offering 

better pay, and who we will lose out to when it comes to the competitive nature of hiring the best potential public servants. And I 

think that would be a disservice, is a disservice to our constituents. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
655 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing the testimony. 

OPENING REMARKS OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you. In the past years we have all 

worked together to reduce your operating budgets by 11 percent. 

We appreciate that. Your entire testimony will be in the record 

today. But if you will summarize your testimony, we will begin, 

and look forward to your testimony. We will start with Mr. Strodel. 

Mr. STRODEL. Well, good morning, Chairman Alexander and 

Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz. Thank you for the hearing. 

Thank you for inviting me. It is an honor to be sitting here with 

my colleagues, the Clerk of the House, Karen Haas; and the Sergeant at Arms, Paul Irving. And I will briefly summarize. 

CHANGES TO THE 2013 HOUSE BUDGET

As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the full testimony has been 

submitted for the record. But, right off the bat, I just want to address the overall House budget, because in addition to preparing 

the CAO budget each October, the CAO works with House officers, 

House officials, and other offices within the House to formulate the 

House-wide budget request. In January of this year, we submitted 

the House fiscal year 2014 budget request to the OMB on behalf 

of the House. The request was flat with the fiscal year 2013 continuing appropriations resolution. Obviously, the budget request 

was submitted prior to the March 1 effective date of sequestration. 

I have been directed that the House intends to operate under the 

reductions consistent with the sequestration order, and that the 

Committee on House Administration has notified Members accordingly. 

THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S BUDGET

As it relates to the CAO budget, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member 

Wasserman Schultz, the past 3 years have been a very, very challenging fiscal environment. It is no secret. But we began, and I 

think Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you used a percentage of 20 percent 

reduction, and that is about what we had as well within CAO. And 

that is not something to say, okay, we are going to cut 20 percent. 

Where is my 20 percent? You can’t take a meat axe to do this, you 

have to be strategic. You have to use not just cuts, but strategic 

management approaches. And that is what we have tried to do, as 

well with my colleagues here, is to have nonpersonnel and, if need 

be, personnel reductions implemented in a coordinated, strategic 

way. 

THREE BUDGETARY INITIATIVES

So 2 years ago—well, almost 2 years ago we started three things. 

Number one, we did a major reorganization within CAO. We also 

started a disciplined budget management approach called zerobased budgeting, which again brings a disciplined approach. You 

look at everything you do, why it is required, what is the service 

being delivered, and what is the value being added. And that was 

helpful to us. We were able to collapse certain functions and make 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
656 

efficiencies, reduce contractor support, and so on. But to live in this 

environment for an extended period of time for these past 2 years, 

and then in the outyears that are coming, 2014 and 2015, you have 

to look down the road and say what is the future going to be like? 

How can we implement this in this particular area with having a 

minimal impact on the Member community? 

Our existence is in support of these House offices, of your office 

and your staff. And we can’t lose sight of that to protect our budget 

or create a separate bureaucracy. We are here to deliver value. And 

that is our bottom line. The challenge is to be able to provide continuing services effectively, and yet do more with less. I can’t stress 

enough how challenging it is. We have had to look at House-wide 

initiatives and ways to reduce costs to us, but also costs to the 

Member offices. And particularly as it relates to seemingly minor 

things like subscriptions, whether it is National Journal or the CQ 

Roll Call, we have been able to use enterprise solutions to reduce 

costs to the Member offices and still provide that service. So those 

are the types of things that we continue to look at. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY—CURRENT PROGRAMS AND FUTURE

PLANS

And finally, what I would like to talk about a little bit, because 

I think it is significant—and Mr. Chairman, you brought it up earlier—was information technology, the use of information technology 

here in the House, and that this is the future. It is how business 

is done here. It is how business is done in the corporate world and 

in the rest of the Federal Government. It is not going away. And 

we need to be in a position to migrate to the next generation. Mobile devices are where it is at now and where it is going to be. 

When I started in 1985, that was BC, which is before computers, 

and I can’t believe that I can say that now. We went from nothing 

to a mainframe system, which was a big box somewhere in the 

Ford Building and all these wires connecting all the offices, then 

to each office having their own IT system within their office, and 

then more recently to this cloud concept. So we do have a House 

cloud with almost 400 offices that participate in it. But now you 

have big data and storage requirements that come with that. We 

have moved from desktop to now laptop to mobile device. And so 

we need to be planning for the future as to what our needs are 

going to be. These are the types of things that we focus on. We 

work with this committee and the Committee on House Administration to come up with innovative solutions and cost reduction 

measures. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Strodel follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
657 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 792 here 81322A.557
658 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 793 here 81322A.558
659 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 794 here 81322A.559
660 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 795 here 81322A.560
661 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 796 here 81322A.561
662 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 797 here 81322A.562
663 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 798 here 81322A.563
664 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 799 here 81322A.564
665 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 800 here 81322A.565
666 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 801 here 81322A.566
667 

OPENING REMARKS—CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. ALEXANDER. We will get to that in a moment. Thank you. 

Ms. Haas. 

Ms. HAAS. Well, thank you, Chairman Alexander and Ranking 

Member Wasserman Schultz, for the opportunity to testify here 

today before the subcommittee. And I am pleased to update the 

subcommittee on activities within the Office of the Clerk since I 

testified before you last year. 

ONGOING PROJECTS—PROGRESS REPORT

Over the past year, the Clerk’s office has continued to play an 

important role in the House-wide effort to increase transparency in 

the legislative process. As directed by this subcommittee, a Bulk 

Data Task Force was established last year, which was chaired by 

the Clerk’s Office. The task force met regularly with key stakeholders to examine the feasibility of increasing dissemination of 

congressional information via bulk data download. The task force 

completed its initial report and filed the report. However, we continue to meet regularly and to expand on the initial efforts that 

have resulted in access to House bill text and summaries of House 

floor proceedings in bulk download. 

This January, we launched the second phase of our 

docs.house.gov initiative. The first phase of this project provided a 

single Web portal to access the text of bills that were scheduled for 

the House floor. The second phase expanded the Web portal to include committee documents. It is a one-stop shop for the public to 

come and see what is going on in committees and meetings and 

hearings. We appreciate the cooperation of all the committees as 

we developed and deployed this site. 

I am also pleased to report that in collaboration with the House 

Historian, we launched the History, Art, and Archives Web site, 

another major transparency initiative. The art, artifacts, historical 

information, primary documents, and research resources that are 

now able to be made available through the Web site will be invaluable to researchers and educators. 

Over the past year, we have also been busy working to implement the STOCK Act. Member and candidate financial disclosures 

were made available in 2012. That was in the fall of 2012. The next 

major requirement is to develop and deploy an electronic filing system. The system must allow the public to search, sort, and 

download data contained in these reports. Our Web development 

team has been working closely with the Committee on Ethics. And 

we are also collaborating with our partners in the Senate and the 

Office of Government Ethics on this. I want to assure the subcommittee that we are dedicating our resources to make sure that 

this is a successful effort. 

THE CLERK’S 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

In fiscal year 2014 we are requesting $24,009,000 to carry out 

our operations. Assuming enactment of the funding levels in H.R. 

993, this is $2.1 million less than current budget allocations, an 8.1 

percent budget reduction from fiscal year 2013. In this challenging 

budget climate, we continue to look for savings and efficiencies. ReVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:14 Jun 29, 2013 Jkt 081322 PO 00000 Frm 00667 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A322P2.XXX A322P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
668 

cently, the House library was expanded to include additional print 

and online research tools. We believe this will be a cost savings for 

the House community for Members and committees. We will continue to look for other ways to provide services at lower costs. 

I want to thank you for your time today. I look forward to working with the subcommittee. And I will be happy to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Haas follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
669 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 805 here 81322A.567
670 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 806 here 81322A.568
671 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 807 here 81322A.569
672 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 808 here 81322A.570
673 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 809 here 81322A.571
674 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 810 here 81322A.572
675 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 811 here 81322A.573
676 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 812 here 81322A.574
677 

[The December 31, 2012 Bulk Data Task Force report follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
678 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 814 here 81322A.575
679 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 815 here 81322A.576
680 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 816 here 81322A.577
681 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 817 here 81322A.578
682 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 818 here 81322A.579
683 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 819 here 81322A.580
684 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 820 here 81322A.581
685 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 821 here 81322A.582
686 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 822 here 81322A.583
687 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 823 here 81322A.584
688 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 824 here 81322A.585
689 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 825 here 81322A.586
690 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 826 here 81322A.587
691 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 827 here 81322A.588
692 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 828 here 81322A.589
693 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 829 here 81322A.590
694 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 830 here 81322A.591
695 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 831 here 81322A.592
696 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 832 here 81322A.593
697 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 833 here 81322A.594
698 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 834 here 81322A.595
699 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 835 here 81322A.596
700 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 836 here 81322A.597
701 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 837 here 81322A.598
702 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 838 here 81322A.599
703 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 839 here 81322A.600
704 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 840 here 81322A.601
705 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 841 here 81322A.602
706 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 842 here 81322A.603
707 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 843 here 81322A.604
708 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 844 here 81322A.605
709 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 845 here 81322A.606
710 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 846 here 81322A.607
711 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 847 here 81322A.608
712 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 848 here 81322A.609
713 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 849 here 81322A.610
714 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 850 here 81322A.611
715 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 851 here 81322A.612
716 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 852 here 81322A.613
717 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 853 here 81322A.614
718 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 854 here 81322A.615
719 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 855 here 81322A.616
720 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 856 here 81322A.617
721 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 857 here 81322A.618
722 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 858 here 81322A.619
723 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 859 here 81322A.620
724 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 860 here 81322A.621
725 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 861 here 81322A.622
726 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 862 here 81322A.623
727 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 863 here 81322A.624
728 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 864 here 81322A.625
729 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 865 here 81322A.626
730 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 866 here 81322A.627
731 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 867 here 81322A.628
732 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 868 here 81322A.629
733 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 869 here 81322A.630
734 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 870 here 81322A.631
735 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 871 here 81322A.632
736 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 872 here 81322A.633
737 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 873 here 81322A.634
738 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 874 here 81322A.635
739 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 875 here 81322A.636
740 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 876 here 81322A.637
741 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 877 here 81322A.638
742 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 878 here 81322A.639
743 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 879 here 81322A.640
744 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 880 here 81322A.641
745 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 881 here 81322A.642
746 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 882 here 81322A.643
747 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 883 here 81322A.644
748 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 884 here 81322A.645
749 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 885 here 81322A.646
750 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 886 here 81322A.647
751 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 887 here 81322A.648
752 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 888 here 81322A.649
753 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 889 here 81322A.650
754 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 890 here 81322A.651
755 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 891 here 81322A.652
756 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 892 here 81322A.653
757 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 893 here 81322A.654
758 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 894 here 81322A.655
759 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 895 here 81322A.656
760 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 896 here 81322A.657
761 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 897 here 81322A.658
762 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 898 here 81322A.659
763 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 899 here 81322A.660
764 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 900 here 81322A.661
765 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 901 here 81322A.662
766 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 902 here 81322A.663
767 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 903 here 81322A.664
768 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 904 here 81322A.665
769 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 905 here 81322A.666
770 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 906 here 81322A.667
771 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 907 here 81322A.668
772 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 908 here 81322A.669
773 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 909 here 81322A.670
774 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 910 here 81322A.671
775 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 911 here 81322A.672
776 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 912 here 81322A.673
777 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 913 here 81322A.674
778 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 914 here 81322A.675
779 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 915 here 81322A.676
780 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 916 here 81322A.677
781 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 917 here 81322A.678
782 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 918 here 81322A.679
783 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 919 here 81322A.680
784 

OPENING REMARKS—SERGEANT AT ARMS

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you. Mr. Irving. 

Mr. IRVING. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Wasserman Schultz, and members of the committee. I appreciate 

the opportunity to appear before you today to present the Sergeant 

at Arms request for fiscal year 2014. Before I begin, I would like 

to say that as Sergeant at Arms, it is indeed a unique privilege and 

honor for me to serve this institution, and I look forward to working with you and members of the committee. In the current fiscal 

environment, our office is acutely aware of the need to operate 

within tight fiscal boundaries. Our request has been crafted in the 

spirit of zero-based budgeting, where each division identified cost 

savings without jeopardizing the mission critical services provided 

to the House community. 

113TH CONGRESSIONAL TRANSITION ACTIVITIES

My full testimony, which I have submitted for the record, contains my fiscal year 2014 budget request. In terms of ongoing efforts and initiatives, every division in the office of the Sergeant at 

Arms was recently involved in the transition to the 113th Congress. This includes the distribution of new Member identification 

pins and license plates, processing of approximately 14,000 congressional identification badges, and issuing over 7,000 parking 

permits to all authorized vehicles. 

113TH CONGRESS HOUSE SECURITY ACTIVITIES

Furthermore, the employees of the Sergeant at Arms have supported, reviewed, and approved the security procedures for numerous special events, including the opening session of the 113th Congress, joint session of the Electoral College, the 57th Presidential 

Inauguration, and the annual State of the Union Address by the 

President. Support was also provided off-site to several issues retreats and the National Prayer Breakfast. Planning is currently 

underway for the annual Peace Officers Memorial Service and upcoming events on the west front lawn of the campus. 

In closing, I would like to thank the committee again for their 

support and the privilege of appearing today. I assure you of my 

commitment and that of my entire office to provide the highest 

quality support for the House of Representatives, while maintaining the safest and securest environment possible. We will remain 

focused on security and preparedness, while maintaining the level 

of fiscal responsibility demanded by the House of Representatives. 

I will continue to keep the committee informed of my activities, and 

will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Irving follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
785 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 922 here 81322A.681
786 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 923 here 81322A.682
787 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 924 here 81322A.683
788 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 925 here 81322A.684
789 

THE STOCK ACT

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you. Ms. Haas, you talked about the 

STOCK Act, and having the ability at some point to have all that 

displayed electronically. 

Ms. HAAS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Has the public called much about it? Have you 

had many inquiries as to what Members of Congress are buying 

and selling? 

Ms. HAAS. We have not had a lot of those types of calls. But that 

information has been up for a while for the Member side. The candidate information became available in September. But at this 

point we have not had a lot of inquiries about that. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECURITY EFFORTS

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay. Mr. Strodel, you talked about protection 

of IT. Do you have any level of confidence that you will be able to 

detect anything that is on the outside that might be coming in to 

a Member’s office? 

Mr. STRODEL. That is right, Mr. Chairman. 2008 and 2009 was 

a growing period for CAO and learning about the critical nature of 

protecting the House infrastructure and the House network. GAO 

had a recent study of Federal Government agencies. And in the 

past 6 years, security incidents, IT security incidents have increased 782 percent, 782 percent Federal Government-wide, Mr. 

Chairman. In the House in the last year, security incidents have 

increased 60 percent. 

We have an information security obligation to protect the House 

network, to protect the Member Web sites that use our Web vending. And that is what, frankly, is our biggest worry, that is why 

we spend our most time making sure that we can deliver and protect our network. So it is my biggest concern. The reputation of all 

the Members from their public-facing Web page is critical. It is the 

number one thing that we focus on. 

HOUSE SECURITY AND THE SERGEANT AT ARMS

Mr. ALEXANDER. Paul, you have been on your job 14 

months.What have you observed or what is the number one thing 

that you have observed that you would like to change to make life 

a little bit better for all of us? 

Mr. IRVING. Well, I would first, Mr. Chairman, have to say that 

in the 14 months I have been here I have been very impressed with 

what I have seen with the security procedures implemented by the 

U.S. Capitol Police, not only procedurally but administratively. I 

think they do a great job balancing the need to keep a secure environment, and a secure campus with the openness to the public is 

an ongoing challenge. Capitol Police does a great job, but that is 

one area certainly where I would spend most of my time, again, in 

ensuring an open and accessible campus, but at the same time one 

that is safe and secure for Members, staff, and visiting general 

public. So it remains an ongoing issue. 

CURRENT AND FUTURE EFFECTS OF SEQUESTRATION REDUCTIONS

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
790 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Continuing, Mr. Strodel, with the theme of quality of life, if the sequester is not overturned, how are you going to deal with long-term 

funding reductions in 2014 and 2015, and do you have a buyout 

plan to reduce FTEs? I mean how are you planning to deal with 

that? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Hopefully you won’t have to. 

Mr. STRODEL. Right. As I mentioned a little earlier, we have been 

in this budget environment for a couple years now, and we have 

been looking not how can we get through one fiscal year, but how 

can we be prepared for the next several with the assumption that 

it is not going to be rosy.We had a major reorganization in 2011, 

collapsed some function and reduced personnel by 5 percent. I had 

to let people go. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. How many? 

Mr. STRODEL. It was 5 percent positions, that ended up being 35 

positions of which 22 were encumbered.That is the reality of it. But 

if we have to do that, my position is you have got to look at your 

entire organization. What is the mission that you are charged 

with? And then how can you best accomplish that? Again, I didn’t 

just say, well, okay, let’s get rid of X or Y function. How is it going 

to impact the community when we make these decisions and, even 

more importantly, the individuals ultimately who I had to tell were 

no longer going to be employed? 

So with that, looking down the road into 2013 and now 2014, we 

are in a position now, because of our planning, because of zerobased budgeting, where we presumed it was going to be a 10 percent reduction. If it is less, that is great. And we still are in a position for fiscal year 2013 where I don’t believe we are going to have 

to furlough employees unless there are further reductions. But as 

we roll into 2014 and 2015, our personnel costs increase even if our 

budget stays flat. If it goes down, we are going to be in a position 

where I think we are going to need to look at buyouts, as you call 

it, the voluntary separation incentive program, and hopefully position us for, again, these outyears, 2014 and 2015 where we don’t 

necessarily have to make personnel reductions. But I don’t think 

we are in a position to actually say we can. And I think buyouts 

are on the table. 

HOUSE BUYOUT OPTIONS

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And obviously in a buyout situation 

we are targeting the most experienced staff who make the most 

money. And you are not making decisions based on the quality of 

the work or the experience that you need. You are just cutting, you 

are shedding salary and benefits. 

Mr. STRODEL. Yes, that is correct. In the buyout authority that 

is provided to the legislative branch entities, you have to develop 

a plan and submit that plan in this case to the Committee on 

House Administration for approval. You indicate the billets or the 

positions and the functions you are considering. But yes, without 

regard to performance. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
791 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH RETIREMENT PLAN CHANGES

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So in that same line of questioning, 

the budget request for the House highlights a change that we made 

to Federal workers benefits, retirement benefits in the Middle 

Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which I will note, 

Mr. Chairman, that I actually voted for, but not because of this 

provision. The act required new executive branch employees to pay 

2.3 percent more out of each check for their retirement benefits. 

And new congressional staff not only pay more, but see their retirement benefits reduced by more than 5 percent. 

Do we expect a rash of retirements as a result of this change? 

And how do we expect to attract high quality personnel and staff 

in a very competitive environment in light of that change? And 

given that these are going to be complex changes, is Personnel and 

Benefits prepared to handle more complex questions from staff as 

the law that is affecting personnel and benefits evolve in these significant changes? And how are you going to deal with that if you 

are also faced with potentially buying out your most experienced 

staff? 

Mr. STRODEL. Well, Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz, the 

point about recruiting and retaining employees here in the House, 

is significant. And I think that all of us could say our budgets are 

primarily personnel, whether it is in the officer corps or the officials or the Member offices. And that is what makes the place run. 

As you mentioned in that statute that was passed last March, or 

February and March, it created a new category of retirement for 

Members of Congress and congressional staff. But it had a grandfather provision. So what it said was that effective January 1, 

2013, and after, any new Member and any new staff member would 

now be under the Federal Employees Retirement System, but they 

would be considered a Federal Employee Retirement System RAE, 

revised annuity employee. Starting January of this year any new 

Member, not current Member, and any new employee, not current 

employee, would be under this new retirement status. And as you 

referenced, the contribution is higher. 

Current Members and staff who were on the payroll prior to January 1, 2013, contribute 1.3 percent of their pay to the retirement 

system. This new category of Member and staff contribute 3.1 percent. So you are correct, their contribution each pay period has increased. In addition, the actual retirement benefit formula for this 

new category of employees is less. For example, under someone 

who is not covered by it, that is anyone who was here prior to January 1, 2013, our retirement contribution is 1.3 percent and our 

calculation is going to be higher. 

Let me give you a quick example. If someone had 20 years of 

service here and was eligible to retire as a FERS employee, it 

would be 1.7 percent per year, so 20 times 1.7, that is 34 percent. 

I would get 34 percent of my salary or high three. A revised annuity employee, that is a new employee or new Member starting January 2013 or later, take that same 20 years, now they are going 

to get only 1 percent for each year of service. That is 20 percent 

after 20 years versus 34 percent of the high three. So that is a sigVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:14 Jun 29, 2013 Jkt 081322 PO 00000 Frm 00791 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A322P2.XXX A322P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
792 

nificant reduction in the retirement benefit that employees covered 

under this new provision would be in. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you expect it to impact our ability 

to retain staff? 

Mr. STRODEL. I think because of the grandfathering, it hasn’t created a rush to retire. But I think it remains to be seen. We have 

over a thousand new employees who are FERS RAE employees. I 

don’t think people have left because of it. I still think it is an attractive place to work and a dynamic environment. It may be too 

early to tell if it is having an impact. 

EFFECTS OF SEQUESTRATION ON HOUSE SECURITY

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I heard on WTOP this 

morning that there was the police union was complaining about reduction of security at the daycare center. It was one Capitol Police 

officer who was going to be replaced by a contract person. Why do 

these issues become such a big deal that they need to be placed 

alongside, you know, the threat of nuclear strikes from Iran and 

the installation of the Pope? Tell me where that stuff comes from. 

Mr. IRVING. I think I can address that. There were some changes 

that you are probably aware of that took effect after sequestration. 

Some posts were reduced. There were several posts also reduced at 

the Ford Building. The report that—civilian employees would be 

taking the place of law enforcement is not accurate. I think that 

there was just an initial perception. Discussions are ongoing now, 

very collaborative discussions between the union and the Capitol 

Police. So I am happy to report that that relationship is ongoing 

and going well. Unfortunately, just some initial misperceptions at 

the front end. But nonetheless, no civilians will replace armed law 

enforcement positions. The Capitol Police officer at the daycare center has remained. So there has been no change there. There is just 

one minor effect with the Ford garage and the Third Street entrance. 

Mr. MORAN. As you know, perceptions sometimes have their own 

reality. What do you do when you find something like that, a major 

story has been made out of a minor story, if even that? What do 

you do about that? 

Mr. IRVING. We just continue to collaborate with the union and 

all those other entities and stakeholders. 

Mr. MORAN. All right. I feel like I am talking with the State Department and diplomacy. Okay, I am not going to get anything out 

of you. Thanks, though. 

REQUESTED FY’14 INCREASE FOR THE HOUSE SECURITY OFFICE

Let me ask why there is an increase of 5,000 percent in the 

House Security Office. We are cutting back. Why are we creating 

a new office? And how essential is this to spend $254,000. 

Mr. IRVING. That increase is due to an anomaly in that we need 

to upgrade all of the databasing and inventorying and case management of all of those House employees that hold security clearances. So it is just an anomaly this year. The House Office of Security has been charged with ensuring that all House officers maintain their clearances, and that the clearances are passed from the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
793 

executive branch to the legislative branch. That is just a 

databasing and inventorying procedure which, again, was an anomaly for this coming year. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, I hear what you are saying, but it is not consistent with the budget justification, which says this requested increase of $254,000 will fund contract services such as E-learning, 

which will produce a security refresher course and training package, will also provide upgrades to the storage of documents. I don’t 

know, that seems like a questionable time when you are cutting 

back on Members’ allowances and other items for a security refresher course for $254,000. But I won’t pursue that. It just seems 

quizzical. What is going to be the MRA for this year? 

2013 MEMBERS’ REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCE

Mr. STRODEL. The reduction was 8.2 percent. And it averages 

about—of course the MRA depends upon where you live, where 

your district is. Eight point two percent is the reduction. 

Mr. MORAN. Let’s take the minimum, since I get the minimum. 

Here is that big boss on the Democratic side. 

Mrs. LOWEY. My goodness, my goodness. 

Mr. MORAN. And Sanford. Holy smokes. This is very impressive. 

Mrs. LOWEY. We know where the power is on this committee. 

Mr. MORAN. We were just talking about the MRA allowance, and 

trying to—so let’s assume that, I don’t know, you can use somebody 

else’s if you want. I assume I get the least because I travel the 

least distance, huh? 

Mr. STRODEL. I wouldn’t say the least. 

Mr. MORAN. Eleanor gets less maybe? 

Mr. STRODEL. It is close. 

Mr. MORAN. What does it work out to? 

Mr. STRODEL. Well, it is 8.2 percent. And the Committee on 

House Administration will be notifying each Member office specifically. 

Mr. MORAN. I am trying to figure out how much is the cut so 

that people can figure out how to budget for this year. I mean if 

it is a $100,000 reduction in your MRA, you really need to start 

preparing with a staff change, for example. That is a whole person. 

And we have less and less time as time goes on to be able to make 

those accommodations in MRA. 

Mr. STRODEL. Yes, sir. And the Committee on House Administration put out guidance to committees and Members at the end of 

last year and the beginning of this year, not knowing a number yet, 

but just putting a notice out to expect it. I recall I think it was 

around 10 percent they said to expect, and it came out to be 8.2 

on the MRA. Roughly $100,000. To the extent you need a hard 

number, I would rely on our folks to work with your finance person. 

Mr. MORAN. All right. Well, I gather most people get about a million dollars. 

Mr. STRODEL. In the past, one point three was the average. 

Mr. MORAN. One point three million dollars. Okay. And so it 

would be roughly on average an 8 percent reduction from that, 

which would come to about—— 

Mr. STRODEL. Correct. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
794 

Mr. MORAN [continuing]. $95,000 or something like that. All 

right. I guess that is about as much as we can get out of what we 

have to work with here, so I will give it back, Mr. Chairman. 

ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATION IN SERVICES

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay. Mr. Valadao. 

Mr. VALADAO. Good morning. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Not only do we need to eliminate duplication within each office and 

departments, we also need to eliminate duplicative efforts across 

different legislative branch offices. For example, on the first page 

of your testimony you reference your Web site docs.house.gov and 

your effort to expand the site by including committee records in addition to text of bills to be considered on the House floor on the 

site. Is this the same information provided on sites such as 

LIS.gov? If so, how can you reduce duplication among different offices of the legislative branch? 

Ms. HAAS. Sure. It actually is not duplicative. To step back a little bit, at the beginning of last Congress, the initiative here in the 

House was to provide more of this information to Members in a 

quicker and easy format. So that is why the first phase of this was 

rolled out, so Members and committees would have information 

posted by the Majority Leader and the House Rules Committee 

prior to bills going to the floor. Phase two of the committee process 

we don’t have one—we currently now with this phase have a onestop shop where folks can go. We have a consolidated calendar 

where you can go and find all committee hearings and meetings, 

posted testimony, official hearing information. 

So one of the outcomes of the task force that this subcommittee 

instructed us to put into place last year was that we now do have 

a coordinated effort out of this task force, so we are coordinating 

with all of our other legislative entities like GPO, the Library of 

Congress, and some of the other customers and partners that are 

here in the room today. 

Mr. VALADAO. All right. Thank you. 

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (DOMA)

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay. Ms. Lowey. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman 

Alexander, Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz for holding this 

hearing. I want to join my colleagues in thanking the witnesses for 

your testimony this morning. And I appreciate the opportunity to 

hear about your agencies’ needs, which is so crucial to the effectiveness of the Congress. 

I know we can all agree on the effects of sequestration that are 

already being felt on Capitol Hill. And I am very concerned about 

the impact that these indiscriminate cuts will have on the security 

and operations of the House of Representatives. And at a time 

when other legislative branch agencies are forced to furlough employees or reduce services, it is both disappointing and frankly perplexing that $3 million in taxpayer money is going towards the protection of the Defense of Marriage Act. Three million dollars. A law 

that multiple Federal courts and appellate courts have determined 

is unconstitutional. I myself find it unconscionable that we would 

legislate discrimination. And I cannot condone the use of taxpayer 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
795 

dollars to defend a discriminatory law at any time, especially when 

these senseless cuts have placed an even greater burden on the operations and effectiveness of this Chamber. 

Now, can you share with us what other priorities could your office address if it were not tasked with the partisan effort to defend 

a discriminatory law that neither the President nor the American 

public supports? 

Mr. MORAN. Heck of a question. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. And we need to be reminded that is under litigation now. And like Ms. Wasserman Schultz said, soon, very soon 

we should get a decision by the courts. So we need to be careful 

about what we say. But Ms. Lowey, was that a question for Karen? 

Mrs. LOWEY. Whoever chooses to answer. 

Ms. HAAS. I can tell you from our perspective, the budgets are 

tight, they have been tight for a significant period of time. And we 

have continued to work to cut costs. So at this point we are not seeing a particular impact from one particular type of cut from our 

budget. So we are able to focus on the core responsibilities that we 

have under the budget allocation that we have received. 

EFFECTS OF THE SEQUESTRATION ON HOUSE SECURITY CONTINUED

Mrs. LOWEY. I won’t press you further. Maybe I will ask another 

question. And Mr. Irving, I would like to commend you on the outstanding work that the Sergeant at Arms does. You keep our workplace secure and prepared for emergencies. And we are all grateful. 

And I understand that budget cuts will require staff vacancies to 

remain unfilled, and reductions in the purchase of communication 

technologies. Did you all before, and I apologize that I was late, but 

if you didn’t answer that, can you describe to us what effect sequestration will have on House security? 

Mr. IRVING. We have had some discussion on that. But in terms 

of security, we are very careful to balance security needs of the 

House. And there has been no effect on security itself. The effect 

primarily is on the business process of the House, which again we 

are very mindful not to have an adverse effect on. But there has 

been some lack of convenience, unfortunately, because of some of 

the closures and things. But in terms of security, there has been 

really no effect. In terms of my office personally, we have been able 

to get by with just a reduction in staff, and no effect, again, on security operations. 

Mrs. LOWEY. You talk about convenience. Give me an example. 

Mr. IRVING. Longer lines at some doors, for example. Everyone 

has been adapting quite well by using alternative entrances and allowing a little bit more time. But unfortunately, when you have to 

close one door it would increase the load at another door. So that 

is one example. 

WEEKLY HOUSE OPERATIONAL COST

Mrs. LOWEY. What is the cost, by the way, to keep the House operating, the House of Representatives, for a week? 

Mr. IRVING. In terms of security or in terms of—— 

Mrs. LOWEY. Everything. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
796 

Mr. IRVING. Oh, everything? That is certainly a broader question. 

I would probably have to ask my colleagues for some help on that 

one. I don’t think I could give you an entire answer on that. 

Mrs. LOWEY. I just wonder, Mr. Chairman, because there are 

days when we have one vote or maybe two votes for the week. And 

I sometimes think maybe we would be better having us stay home 

and work with our constituents and solve their problems. So I 

would be interested in knowing that number, what it costs to operate. 

Mr. IRVING. We can certainly get that for you. There is certainly 

a difference in the security operations when the House is in session. Much more posting and presence versus when the House is 

not here on recess. But we can certainly provide that to you directly. 

Mrs. LOWEY. I would be interested in those numbers. 

Mr. IRVING. Absolutely. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Alexander. 

DISTRICT OFFICES’ SECURITY

Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. Let me thank the witnesses 

for being here. And I apologize, I had another meeting prior to coming. I have got questions for Mr. Irving as well as for Ms. Haas. 

Your testimony, Mr. Irving, indicates that you have undertaken a 

number of efforts to improve district office security, including guidance on best practices, coordination with State and local law enforcement, and congressional offices creating a law enforcement coordinator. My concern is that with the MRAs being cut by nearly 

a fifth since 2011, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Members 

to make the necessary security adjustments at our district offices 

with the increasingly limited resources. 

Can you tell the subcommittee how the sequester and the budget 

cuts have impacted Members’ efforts to bolster their district office 

security? Could you put it in the context of the threat assessments 

that your office has very helpfully given to us to provide security 

to protect our constituents, our staff, as well as the Members at 

district events? 

Mr. IRVING. Absolutely. We spend quite a bit of time with district 

offices to ensure, as you indicated, that they follow all the processes, procedures not only for the office itself, but also when the 

Member has public appearances in district. So quite a bit of liaison 

time is spent there, also in terms of Capitol Police in terms of 

threat assessments. Any time the Member or the office receives a 

threat or someone who has directed an interest toward that Member. The effects of the latest fiscal climate certainly have been 

greater, far greater interaction between our office and Member offices, and also with local law enforcement to ensure that local law 

enforcement provides as much support as possible to the district office. Certainly there is an effect in terms of the infrastructure, the 

security infrastructure of the office, which I think is affected, by 

our current, fiscal issue. But we do everything that we can to work 

with that office so that they also receive assistance from their landVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:14 Jun 29, 2013 Jkt 081322 PO 00000 Frm 00796 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A322P2.XXX A322P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
797 

lords to provide whatever security enhancements they can to their 

respective office. 

Mr. BISHOP. As I mentioned last year before the subcommittee, 

your counterpart in the Senate has a little more flexibility than you 

have, and has a budget which is available for the use of Senators 

to do upgrades for security. We were trying to explore how we 

could do something similar in the House to help Members defray 

the costs of the infrastructure needed for district office security. To 

date, we have not been able to do anything. Still, the Senate is a 

model that we could use. Of course there are only a hundred Senators and there are 435-plus House Members. But it would appear 

that the Sergeant at Arms office could make security determinations and contribute a certain amount to each office as needed to 

help defray the cost of that security. Rather than have that go directly to the Member, it seems as if that, similar to what they have 

in the Senate, the funds could go to the Sergeant at Arms and the 

Sergeant at Arms could then decide how much is needed to provide 

those security upgrades. 

Mr. IRVING. It is certainly a challenging issue here. As you know, 

our side versus the Senate side, we have over 900 district offices 

and they have certainly a fewer number. It is a far greater challenge, but certainly something to explore. But again, in the current 

fiscal environment it is a challenge with the number of offices we 

have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Since the incident with Representative Giffords, I 

feel like we have an obligation to our colleagues to make sure that 

there is district office security and that they have the resources 

available, although we are in a limited fiscal environment here, to 

make sure that our constituents, our staff, and the Members are 

safe in district. 

Mr. IRVING. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Ms. Wasserman Schultz? 

DOMA AND THE HOUSE’S STANDING TO DEFEND THE ACT’S

CONSTITUTIONALITY

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is of the General Counsel, Mr. Kircher. Do you want to join 

the table? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Certainly. Where would you like me to sit? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is up to you. Mr. Kircher, the 

House rules package passed in January 2013 authorized the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the 113th Congress to act as the successor to the same group in the 112th Congress and defend the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. The rules 

of the House go on to specifically mention Windsor v. The United 

States, the DOMA case going before the Supreme Court later this 

month. When the Court agreed to hear the Windsor case in December of 2012, the Court raised the question of the House’s standing 

to defend the act’s constitutionality. 

Mr. Kircher, in February of this year the House’s brief to the 

Court explaining why you had standing to act in this case pointed 

to the House rules package for the 113th. So that begs the question 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
798 

was DOMA added to House rules due to the Supreme Court’s questioning of the House’s standing to act in this case. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Are you asking whether the Supreme Court’s order 

in December had an impact on the appearance of DOMA in the 

rules package? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am asking whether the question 

over the House’s standing caused you to add the House’s standing 

in the 113th rules package. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Well, I personally didn’t add anything. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, obviously, the House of Representatives did. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Correct. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But was the language in the House 

rules in the 113th Congress specifically referring to DOMA in response to the Court’s questioning of whether the House had standing in the case? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Yes, I think it is fair to regard section 4 of that 

resolution as being at least in part a response to the question that 

the Supreme Court had included in its grant of cert. in December. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So since this was a rules change in 

the 113th, and based on your answer, what gave you standing to 

defend DOMA during the 112th Congress? 

Mr. KIRCHER. You have our brief. You know the arguments. They 

are set out in the brief in detail. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Except I would like the answer for the 

record, please. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Okay. In the early 1980s, the House by resolution 

authorized then-Speaker Tip O’Neill to speak on behalf of the 

House in a case called Chadha, which was then on its way to the 

Supreme Court. The Speaker intervened. Chadha held that the 

House had standing to appear in that case by virtue of Speaker Tip 

O’Neill’s appearance. And thereafter, in about 1983 or 1984, the 

leadership of the House on a bipartisan basis formed this 5-member leadership group that continues to exist today for the purpose 

of litigating on behalf of the House, either as intervenor or as amicus as the case may be, without the necessity of going to the floor 

of the House for a vote. The House did that. The leadership group 

carried out that function throughout the 1980s. It appeared as amicus—I am sorry, it appeared as an intervenor in a number of clashes between the executive branch and the legislative branch during 

that period of time. There was never any vote in the House during 

any of those times or any issue raised on the floor of the House to 

rescind the authority of the leadership group to do that. There was 

never any challenge in the courts to the leadership group’s ability 

to do that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But just because there hasn’t been 

any challenge doesn’t mean that it was a right or that we had the 

authority as the House of Representatives to intervene. 

Mr. KIRCHER. It is certainly an argument in support of that position. In 1993, the House amended its rules, rule II.8, dealing with 

the Office of the General Counsel, and mentioned for the first time 

the bipartisan leadership group in connection with that office, the 

office that I now head. And thereafter, between that time and the 

time of the DOMA cases the House—the leadership group—did not 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
799 

intervene in any cases, but it did appear as amicus in a number 

of cases. And in none of those cases was any issue raised as to the 

House’s standing. 

There were in that period of 19—in the early 1990s—there were 

a couple of resolutions, privileged resolutions taken to the floor of 

the House questioning and raising issues as to actions that the 

leadership group had taken in litigation. This is under rule IX, I 

believe it is, the privileged resolution rule. One of those resolutions 

was sustained and another one was tabled, making it very clear 

that the House knows how to question and raise issues as to the 

leadership group’s litigation decisions if it wishes to do that. There 

was no such challenge during the 112th to any of the actions taken 

by the bipartisan group in any of the DOMA cases. 

And so if you couple all of that together with the language in H. 

Res. 5 about the House confirming the authority of the House—of 

the leadership group—to litigate on behalf of the House, that in essence is the package of arguments that we have presented to the 

Supreme Court as to why the leadership group has standing and 

has had standing throughout the DOMA litigation. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Was the creation of the leadership 

group, was its purpose originally, or has it ever been used in the 

way that the Republican leadership has chosen to use it, wherein 

the Department of Justice declines to continue defending a particular law and the House has substituted itself as an intervenor? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In how many cases? 

Mr. KIRCHER. There were roughly a dozen such cases in the 

1980s. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And in those cases the question of 

whether the House had standing has not come up? 

Mr. KIRCHER. It was not raised in the courts presumably in light 

of what Chadha held in 1983. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But it has been raised by the courts 

and you—— 

Mr. KIRCHER. In this case. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And your testimony here is that the 

reason that you inserted that language in the rules in the 113th 

was in response to the question from the Court. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Again, I didn’t insert anything. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That it was inserted. I realize that 

you didn’t personally insert it. 

Mr. KIRCHER. It certainly was in part a response to the Supreme 

Court’s order, yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So was that an attempt for you to 

give the House standing after the fact? By you I mean—— 

Mr. KIRCHER. Ranking member, you are getting very close to 

questioning me about matters on which I gave advice to the leadership, which I consider privileged, attorney-client privileged. I am a 

little nervous about getting into those areas. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay, well close is not right on, 

so—— 

Mr. KIRCHER. Okay. Right on. I am not comfortable with discussing advice that I gave to the leadership on this issue. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
800 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I will take that as a yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

DOMA AND THE HOUSE’S $3 MILLION FUNDING CAP

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay. Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Well, I was going to ask 

about some mundane stuff like why the leadership offices get more 

than $100,000 for newspaper subscriptions when we have to pay it 

out of our own MRA budget, but that seems a little too mundane 

in light of the issue we are talking about here. 

Ms. Lowey, that was not an annual cost. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Three million. 

Mr. MORAN. Three million not annually. Total? 

Mrs. LOWEY. It was my understanding—— 

Mr. MORAN. Annually. 

Mrs. LOWEY. I am not sure if it is annually or total. 

Mr. MORAN. How much have we spent on this DOMA defense? 

Mrs. LOWEY. Is that correct, am I correct that it is $3 million annually? 

Mr. KIRCHER. No. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Oh. 

Mr. KIRCHER. The contract authorizes a cap up to $3 million. 

Mr. BISHOP. It was a cap. I think Congress raised it to $3 million. 

Mr. MORAN. We raised it to 3? 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. 

Mr. MORAN. We did? 

Mr. BISHOP. Didn’t we raise it to $3 million last year? 

Mr. MORAN. It just seems like an awful lot of money. How has that $3 million been spent. What is the hourly legal fee then, $3 

million? 

Mr. KIRCHER. To date only $1.6 million has been paid. 

Mr. MORAN. But you are authorized to spend another $1.4 million. Has there been time before the Court that that is paid for? 

Mr. KIRCHER. I beg your pardon? 

THE NUMBER OF HOUSE DEFENDED DOMA CASES TO DATE

Mr. MORAN. I just can’t visualize where that $1.6 million went 

even. What have we gotten out of it? 

Mr. KIRCHER. There have been 15 DOMA cases that we have litigated around the country in the last 2 years. 

Mr. MORAN. Fifteen DOMA cases. So this is challenging a State 

who wants to depart from DOMA? 

Mr. KIRCHER. No, no. 

Mr. MORAN. Then what are you doing? 

Mr. KIRCHER. These cases involve individual plaintiffs, typically 

gay couples who have been married under the laws—legally married under the laws of their State, some in California, some in New 

York, some in other northeastern States that permit gay marriage, 

and they bring suit in court saying that under Federal law they are 

being denied Federal benefits that would otherwise accrue to opposite sex couples. Some of these are immigration cases, immigration 

benefits as in a green card for a foreign spouse. Some are insurance 

benefits, if you have an employee, a Federal employee who is marVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:14 Jun 29, 2013 Jkt 081322 PO 00000 Frm 00800 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A322P2.XXX A322P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
801 

ried to a same sex person and that same sex person is not getting 

insurance benefits because of the marriage not being recognized for 

purposes of Federal law. In the case of Ms. Windsor it is an estate 

tax that she had to pay that she would not have paid had she been 

married to a person of the opposite sex. Those are the contexts in 

which these cases arise. 

Mr. MORAN. So these cases arise and then we the Congress come 

riding in opposing their ability to have that litigated in the State 

court, huh, or a Federal court? 

Mr. KIRCHER. No, we are not opposing their ability to litigate. 

They are coming in and challenging the constitutionality of the 

statute and we are defending the constitutionality of the statute. 

Mr. MORAN. How much does the lawyer charge to do that on an 

hourly basis? 

Mr. KIRCHER. The contract provides for a blended rate of $520 

an hour. 

Mr. MORAN. $520 an hour. And how many lawyers are we speaking about? 

Mr. KIRCHER. We are talking the outside law firm, there are four 

lawyers that are working on this matter and there are also six lawyers in my office that are also working on this matter. 

Mr. MORAN. Six lawyers in your office. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Who participate in the litigation, yes. 

Mr. MORAN. And then who is the outside law firm? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Bancroft PLLC, the principal attorney is a gentleman named Paul Clement. 

Mr. MORAN. Paul. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Clement. 

Mr. MORAN. And, wow—— 

Mrs. LOWEY. If I could. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, yes, if it is okay with the chairman. I am just 

kind of a little stunned that where we are cutting back on everything else and here we are getting ourselves involved in these cases 

all over the country, clearly on the wrong side of history I might 

say. 

But is it okay to yield to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Chairman? 

QUESTIONS RAISED BY DOMA CASES

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, just for clarification you said the 

Speaker, majority leader, majority whip, minority leader, minority 

whip. Does it have to be unanimous or majority rules? 

Mr. KIRCHER. Majority rule. 

Mrs. LOWEY. That is what I thought. 

Mr. MORAN. So these are probably party line votes and off we go 

getting involved in—— 

Mrs. LOWEY. States rights. 

Mr. MORAN [continuing]. States rights. 

Mr. KIRCHER. If I could clarify. 

Mr. MORAN. Yes, please clarify. 

Mr. KIRCHER. The decision was made in March of 2011, so the 

decision was taken a very long time ago. It is not a question of 

States rights. These cases do not raise the question of whether 

States are obligated to permit same sex couples to marry. That 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
802 

issue is before the Supreme Court in a separate case, Hollingsworth, it is the Prop 8 case. That case will be heard in the Supreme Court on March 26th next week. And the Windsor case 

which involves the constitutionality of DOMA will be heard in the 

Supreme Court on March 27th. So it is likely that we will have an 

answer to both of these questions by the end of June and this will 

be behind us. 

OUTSTANDING DOMA COSTS AND POSSIBLE SAVINGS

Mr. MORAN. And we would save the $1.4 million that for some 

reason we authorized. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Well, I expect—I have not had bills since the end 

of October, so I expect there will be more bills and some of that 

will have to be paid. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. We certainly hope we will get an answer soon. 

SUBSCRIPTION COSTS

Mr. MORAN. Okay, Mr. Chairman. I was curious over this, I just 

feel so silly now raising this. Why do all the offices pay for their 

owns newspaper subscriptions and the leadership gets more than 

$100,000 for their own newspaper subscriptions? 

Ms. HAAS. Sure, that has actually been a long practice and it actually goes beyond leadership. It is the cloakrooms, it is the Speaker’s lobby, it is offices within the Capitol, leadership offices on both 

sides of the aisle and the money has come out of the Clerk’s operation. 

Mr. MORAN. Blame it on Tip O’Neill again, hmm? 

Ms. HAAS. I am not blaming it on anyone. 

Mr. MORAN. All right, fine. Mr. Chairman, go ahead. Ms. Lowey, 

did you have something else? 

STATES INVOLVED IN THE HOUSE DEFENDED DOMA CASES

Mrs. LOWEY. No, I still am focused on the questions that Ms. 

Wasserman Schultz asked and I referenced and Mr. Moran did as 

well. And it is just puzzling to me and I guess there will be a Supreme Court argument and a decision rendered, but that a majority is so focused on States rights would feel they have to intervene 

in a case—and how many cases were there, sir. 

Mr. KIRCHER. There are 16 cases in which the leadership group 

has intervened to defend the constitutionality of the Federal statute. 

Mrs. LOWEY. And do you have for the record the States in which 

they intervened? 

Mr. KIRCHER. You mean the States in which those cases arose? 

Mrs. LOWEY. Yes. 

Mr. KIRCHER. Yes. They arose in California, they arose in Oklahoma, they arose in Illinois, they arose in Connecticut, they arose 

in New York and there was one in Pennsylvania. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—Mr. Kircher notified the subcommittee after the 

hearing that there were also cases that arose in Massachusetts, 

Michigan, and the District of Columbia in addition to the states 

mentioned at the hearing.] 

Mr. BISHOP. They were Federal court, right? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
803 

Mr. KIRCHER. These were all in Federal court. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Well, it seems to me certainly based upon what is 

happening around the country and I guess the Federal courts will 

make that determination that the Congress of the United States, 

as my colleague said, was mandated or made a decision to intervene against the path of history. 

So I thank you for that presentation and I guess we will await 

the Federal decision. Thank you. 

HOUSE-WIDE SUBSCRIPTION EFFORTS TO LOWER COSTS

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much. I would like to go back to an 

issue that Mr. Moran had raised. Of course with implementation 

of the sequester and the budget cuts, all of our offices have had to 

reexamine our subscription costs for legislative information services such as Congressional Quarterly, which you are probably 

aware can cost thousands of dollars. Some of these services are 

very vital in terms of providing Members and staff with timely information and legislative analysis. While I understand that we are 

all operating under tight fiscal constraints, have there been any efforts to negotiate a House-wide contract as opposed to a group contract for these services at a lower price for each member office? Are 

there any other services that could be provided House-wide that 

could ultimately result in a lower cost per member office? 

Ms. HAAS. Sure. Mr. Bishop, if I could speak to what we have 

been doing in the Clerk’s office and maybe the CAO could talk 

about his office Hill-wide efforts with member offices. In the Clerk’s 

office we recently expanded, you may have seen, the House library. 

As part of that expansion we now make available several databases 

that were not available to member offices. We have print publications and we also have video clipping services that are expensive 

services. So this was an attempt to try to have Members come to 

the library and their staffs to use these different research tools 

that they could then—they would no longer need to pay for that out 

of their MRA. That is something we are in the process of educating 

committees, members offices that these resources are available, so 

that is something again that is coming out of our budget, it is an 

investment that we have made that we hope will free up some 

funding in member committee offices for these types of materials. 

Mr. BISHOP. They are online? 

Ms. HAAS. We have online things available, we also have print, 

we have certain news publications, magazines that are all available 

there on a daily basis for Members and staff to use. 

Mr. BISHOP. Congressional Quarterly? 

Ms. HAAS. We have that, sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. So we can access? 

Ms. HAAS. Yes, you may. 

Mr. BISHOP. Do they have to go to the Cannon Building or they 

just do it online? 

Ms. HAAS. We have both and there is an online service. But in 

263 Cannon is where it is located and we would love to have folks 

come and take advantage of that. 

Mr. STRODEL. I can add a little bit to what the Clerk has stated. 

And to step back a little bit, all of us work very closely, the SerVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:14 Jun 29, 2013 Jkt 081322 PO 00000 Frm 00803 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A322P2.XXX A322P2

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
804 

geant at Arms, the Clerk, and myself. Our organizations work very 

closely, we interact, making sure that we are not doing something 

that is duplicative. But also if they have a better idea about doing 

something I think is it ProQuest, which is a free service that Karen 

offers, the Clerk’s office offers. But we took a broader approach enterprise—meaning House wide—working with the Committee on 

House Administration. There is a site license for example for CQ 

Roll Call. There used to be 300 some offices paying an individual 

rate and now that is a negotiated reduction. I think it saved offices 

a little over $2,000 a year. 

As it relates to National Journal Daily, that is another area 

where we did negotiate a broad House wide license and there is no 

longer a charge to the member office. So where we can we have 

taken that approach. Offices still have the autonomy to decide 

what information they want and if they want to purchase something with their MRA funds, they can. But those core seem to be 

the most popular ones and we have been able to do that. 

Mr. BISHOP. Roll Call, Politico, and The Hill are all publications 

which have valuable information for us and it would be helpful if 

all of those could be negotiated at a lower rate so that we could 

have access to them at a reduced cost to our MRAs. 

Ms. HAAS. Absolutely. 

Mr. STRODEL. And to that end there was also a subscription fair 

that was held in one of the House office buildings and the community staff members were invited to come and meet with people, 

Karen’s group and ProQuest and the tools that they offer, as well 

as just generally. We had Bloomberg and other providers of information. Offices could come and get direct information and make 

their decisions. 

CLOSING REMARKS

Mr. ALEXANDER. We appreciate you all being here today. If there 

are no other questions—Mr. Moran, did you have another question? 

Mr. MORAN. Yes, but I am going to hold it to myself. I appreciate 

it, Mr. Chairman, thank you. To be continued. 

Mr. STRODEL. Mr. Chairman, if I could add one more thing. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Sure. 

Mr. STRODEL. On behalf of the CAO and as I mentioned at the 

beginning of the House wide budget, I want to thank the staff, Liz 

Dawson, Chuck Turner and Shalanda Young and Jenny Panone 

and our budget staff that worked on this information daily, weekly, 

Karen’s group, Paul’s group, House officials, it all comes together. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. We appreciate that, thank you. So the meeting 

will stand adjourned. We will meet again April 10th at 10:00 a.m. 

With the U.S. Capitol Police. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kircher follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
805 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 964 here 81322A.685
806 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 965 here 81322A.686
807 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 966 here 81322A.687
808 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Strokoff follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
809 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 968 here 81322A.688
810 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 969 here 81322A.689
811 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 970 here 81322A.690
812 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 971 here 81322A.691
813 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 972 here 81322A.692
814 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 973 here 81322A.693
815 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 974 here 81322A.694
816 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 975 here 81322A.695
817 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 976 here 81322A.696
818 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 977 here 81322A.697
819 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 978 here 81322A.698
820 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 979 here 81322A.699
821 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 980 here 81322A.700
822 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 981 here 81322A.701
823 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Seep follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
824 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 983 here 81322A.702
825 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 984 here 81322A.703
826 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 985 here 81322A.704
827 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 986 here 81322A.705
828 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 987 here 81322A.706
829 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Grafenstine follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
830 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 989 here 81322A.707
831 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 990 here 81322A.708
832 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 991 here 81322A.709
833 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 992 here 81322A.710
834 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 993 here 81322A.711
835 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 994 here 81322A.712
836 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 995 here 81322A.713
837 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 996 here 81322A.714

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(839) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2013. 

UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE 

WITNESS 

KIM C. DINE, CHIEF OF POLICE 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ALEXANDER

Mr. ALEXANDER. Good morning. The meeting will come to order. 

Today we will hear from the Chief of Police, Kim Dine. I want to 

congratulate you on your appointment, and welcome you as you 

make your first appearance before this committee. The Chief is also 

accompanied by Acting Assistant Chief Matthew Verderosa and the 

Chief Administrative Officer, Mr. Richard Braddock. And we welcome all of you. 

The fiscal year 2014 request of $363 million represents an increase of $41 million, or 13 percent over the current continuing resolution and the sequestration. This request is very much in line 

with what the House of Representatives passed in fiscal year 2013 

appropriations bill last summer. 

Chief, I want to publicly thank you and all of your members for 

what you do for keeping us safe, keeping the public safe. And we 

congratulate you for being able to do that. We know that you are 

proud of your accomplishments, and look forward to hearing your 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. 

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

Good morning, Chief Dine. Good to see you. You have had a busy 

few months on Capitol Hill, between the inauguration and the 

State of the Union. Your force has performed admirably. 

There are obviously several key challenges in front of you, including the radio modernization implementation and managing the 

effects of sequestration. We have got to come up with another word 

for that. No one knows what the heck that means, by the way. 

Maybe, Mr. Alexander, you and I can go to work on that. 

In 2009, when I was the chair of this subcommittee, and I promise, at some point, I am going to stop saying that—but we have to 

get through all the hearings first—I held a joint hearing with the 

Homeland Security Subcommittee on the security shortcomings and 

logistical failures during President Obama’s first inauguration. And 

I am really glad that the first hearing after this inauguration is 

one that was not a repeat of that scenario. So, you, obviously, in 

addition to having smaller crowds, took steps to address the 

logistical nightmare that we went through. It was definitely a 

smoother inauguration by all accounts. And so congratulations to 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
840 

your team, working with the Metro Police, in getting all that sorted 

out. 

You know, one of our major investments in the Capitol Police budget over the last several years has been the $105 million that 

we have included for the modernization of the police radios. Most 

of those funds were provided when I was chair through supplemental appropriations, because it was really presented as an immediate and urgent need to replace the outdated radios. The terrorist 

attacks of 9/11 brought renewed focus to the lack of interoperability 

of radio systems used by many law enforcement agencies, which is 

why there was great support, bipartisan support, to fund the 

project. 

During the fiscal year 2011 hearing, former Chief Morse told the 

subcommittee that the project would be implemented by the spring 

of 2012. Well, it is 80 degrees outside, and here we are in the 

spring of 2013, and there are still no new police radios in operation. We are nearly 12 years past 9/11, with a problem that we 

identified as needing urgent correction still incomplete. 

GAO has outlined several activities that must occur prior to implementation, including starting on how to train officers. Clearly, 

these activities will cause more delays. 

Chief Dine, I know you have come in on what we hope is the tail 

end of implementation, but the schedule delays may force you to 

take tighter reins, and I hope you do take tighter reins of this 

project, because I am tired of having hearings in which I have to 

say similar things over and over. And I look forward to hearing 

from you on this issue. 

During the previous administration, it came to light that the 

Capitol Police also had terrible fiscal mismanagement, with very 

little accountability in place to detect problems or keep track of 

millions of dollars. I am glad to hear the Capitol Police took the 

GAO audit seriously, and have put in place sound management 

practices, which made you a healthier organization fiscally. I look 

forward to your testimony. And thank you to all of the service and 

dedication of your officers and your civilian personnel in the department. They do a remarkable job on our behalf every single day. 

And we are grateful for their service and for their friendly faces 

that we see around the Capitol complex. Thank you so much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Chief, your entire testimony will be inserted in the record, please 

summarize it. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF KIM C. DINE

Chief DINE. Yes, sir, good morning. 

Thank you all for having us. We are pleased to be here. Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz, members of 

the committee, I am honored to be here today, and I appreciate the 

opportunity to present the United States Capitol Police budget request for fiscal year 2014. I am joined here today by Acting Assistant Chief Matthew Verderosa, our acting Chief of Operations, and 

Mr. Richard Braddock, our Chief Administrative Officer, as well as 

some members of my executive management team. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
841 

I want to begin by saying it is an honor for me to be sitting before you as Chief of the United States Capitol Police. Having been 

in this position for over 3 months, I observed the activity of the Department through an objective lens. I can say with no reservations 

that this organization is made up of extraordinarily professional 

and capable women and men who are dedicated to their work. I 

have also come to appreciate the interests of the Congress, and especially this committee, in our success. On behalf of the Department, I would like to thank you for the confidence and support you 

have shown the Capitol Police over the years. 

You and your staffs have taken the time to work closely with the 

department’s leadership team and have shown a keen awareness of 

the complexity of our mission and the challenges we face. I consider the United States Capitol Police to be America’s police department, a premier Federal law enforcement agency that works to 

ensure that the legislative process of our government can function 

without disruption or lapses in security or safety. Our mission is 

to protect the facilities you work in and around, to protect you and 

your fellow Members, your staff, the Capitol Hill community, and 

the millions of visitors who come here to be part of the democratic 

process on a regular basis. 

In fiscal year 2012, the Department screened over 12.8 million 

people entering congressional buildings, including over 2.3 million 

visitors to the Capitol Visitor Center. Our officers effected over 700 

arrests, conducted over 119,000 K–9 sweeps, and screened nearly 

23,000 vehicles. In line with our close connection to the congressional community, we also held over 1,800 community outreach visits. These are just a few examples of the many services and enforcement activities that are conducted daily to ensure the success 

of the Department’s core mission. My management team and I are 

more than keenly aware that the economic conditions of our country and the fiscal situation in the Federal Government require that 

we manage ourselves and plan for our future responsibly and accurately. 

Having recently come here from local government, with over 37 

years of law enforcement experience, I can tell you that I have 

firsthand understanding of the hardships being faced at all levels 

of government and by average citizens in communities across the 

country. Therefore, I believe it is our responsibility to submit a 

budget request that is accurate, reasonable, responsible, and based 

on critical requirements necessary to mitigate and address both 

identified and emerging threats and risks. 

The Department’s funding levels have remained relatively stable 

in recent years, much to the credit of my predecessor’s leadership 

and sound responsible management by my team of capable executive leaders. While we have seen some small increases in the budget due to expanding mission requirements, the Department also 

found efficiencies and reductions to offset many of the new requirements that we have addressed. 

One project that has required additional resources is our implementation of an extensive radio modernization project. The planning, building, and implementation of this system will eliminate 

considerable risk in our future capability to communicate and direct mission-critical activities. Just like other large construction 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
842 

projects, this endeavor has involved many partners and a complex 

combination of needs and requirements. As anyone who has ever 

done home renovations will tell you, when you start tearing down 

walls or replacing utilities, you start to discover unexpected obstacles that can delay your progress. 

Throughout these challenges, the partnership that we have with 

the Architect of the Capitol and NAVAIR remain strong. I know 

this project has had evolving timelines and scopes, but I am confident that we are on track to get this project done, with a priority 

for doing it right. In fact, I am pleased to report to you that the 

Department is able, with your support, to include the O’Neill building in the project with savings derived from this project. 

At this time, I would like to offer the committee an overarching 

summary of our fiscal year 2014 request. The Department’s fiscal 

year 2014 request totals $363 million, and represents an overall increase of 7 percent, or $24 million over the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution funding level of $339 million before sequester. 

While this may seem like a big increase over the continuing resolution level, it is less than a 1 percent increase over the original level 

approved by the House Appropriations Committee of $360 million 

for fiscal year 2013. The Department’s 2014 personnel request reflects our continuous effort at all levels of management to effectively and prudently manage our existing resources to achieve the 

best possible balance of staff versus overtime to meet mission requirements. In light of the fiscal constraints of the Department and 

the entire Federal Government, our fiscal year 2014 request again 

includes funding for only 1,775 of our 1,800 sworn authorized positions and 370 of our authorized 443 civilian positions. These are 

the staffing levels we maintained during fiscal year 2012 but have 

had to reduce even further during fiscal year 2013 due to the sequester. 

The personnel request for fiscal year 2014 represents an overall 

increase of 7 percent over the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution 

funding level, and is nearly the same as the original level approved 

by the House Appropriations Committee for fiscal year 2013. 

As we have discussed previously with the committee, the Department’s current sworn staffing levels do not entirely provide the necessary resources to meet all our mission requirements with the established sworn officer utility or the number of work hours in a 

year that each officer is available to perform work. Because of the 

need to fill the mission requirement gap through overtime, the Department has struggled to pull our sworn personnel off line to conduct training. In order to achieve mandatory training, we must utilize overtime to ensure that the officers may be off line for training 

while meeting our daily mission requirements. 

At the requested funding staffing levels, the Department’s fiscal 

year 2014 overtime projection is approximately $32.8 million, 

which is $5.5 million less than our overtime request for fiscal year 

2013. This amount will cover base mission requirements, support 

nonreimbursable events at the Library of Congress, and an offset 

to allow for appropriate security staffing so that sworn employees 

can be backfilled while they attend necessary and mandatory training. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
843 

The second area I would want to cover in some detail is our requested general expenses budget, which includes protective travel; 

hiring, outfitting, and training of new sworn personnel; supplies 

and equipment; management systems; and other nonpersonnel 

needs. We are requesting $65 million for general expenses, which 

is an increase of $3 million over the continuing resolution and $2 

million over the original level approved by the House Appropriations Committee. Three additional requirements represent a quarter of this increase, just over $500,000, for installation of security 

equipment and services for the dome rehabilitation project, the 

O’Neill building, and the radio modernization equipment rooms. 

The rest of the increase results from normal increases in costs and 

restoring annual levels reduced in previous fiscal years to meet immediate needs. 

The amount of the regular general expense request is slightly 

lower from last year’s request, and we will continue to identify 

areas that we can target for further efficiency or elimination. With 

your support, the Department continues to successfully perform our 

operational mission, and has achieved several key accomplishments 

over the last year, some of which have resulted in greater efficiencies for the Department, which include addressing several administrative challenges and approving corresponding business practices. 

Further, we continue to work to close audit recommendations 

and to address material weaknesses from prior audits by closely 

working with our Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office to address identified issues and by providing the evidence necessary to close findings. In particular, I am pleased to report the Department received, for the first time in our history, a 

second consecutive unqualified ‘‘clean’’ opinion on our financial 

statements. Also, thus far in fiscal year 2013, we have worked 

closely with the Office of Inspector General to close eight recommendations and have completed actions that we believe could 

lead to closure of another nine recommendations. Further, we are 

working on the resolution of a number of a number of other recommendations in order to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of 

our administrative programs. 

The long-term resolution of recommendations related to internal 

controls, business processes, and material weaknesses remains of 

the highest importance to our management team. I am grateful for 

your time today. As I said earlier, we realize that we have to function within the parameters of the economic and fiscal realities facing the country, and specifically the Legislative Branch. We will 

continue to work closely with you to make sure that we meet the 

needs of our mission in a reasonable and responsible manner. And 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and would 

be glad to answer any questions you may have at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Dine follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
844 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1010 here 81322A.715
845 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1011 here 81322A.716
846 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1012 here 81322A.717
847 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1013 here 81322A.718
848 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1014 here 81322A.719
849 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1015 here 81322A.720
850 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1016 here 81322A.721
851 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1017 here 81322A.722
852 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1018 here 81322A.723
853 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1019 here 81322A.724
854 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1020 here 81322A.725
855 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1021 here 81322A.726
856 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1022 here 81322A.727
857 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1023 here 81322A.728
858 

TRAINING FUNDING DECLINE

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you. We understand that training for 

both civilian and sworn employees has declined in the last few 

years simply because of the budget restraints. In your request, it 

is $2.3 million in general expenses and $2.1 million for overtime 

training. Is that going to be adequate to bring your people up to 

where you would like them to be? 

Chief DINE. The current budget request will be adequate. You 

are absolutely correct, there has been a challenge over the last several years, especially during sequester. We have obviously had to 

cut back on training, which is something that we don’t want to do. 

Generally, training is the last place that you would want to cut 

back. And that is an area that we prefer not to cut. I am obviously 

a firm believer that training is sort of a core component in policing. 

And it is one of the last places that you want to cut. 

One of the challenges that we face, unlike more traditional police 

departments, is that because we have a number of fixed posts and 

fixed responsibilities, we are unable to literally reduce staffing in 

the field, as other agencies would, and just literally have less people work. So that is related to the unique challenges that our department faces, unlike others. We have so many unique roles and 

responsibilities and places where people need to be staffed 24–7, it 

creates sort of a unique challenge for us as it relates to training. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay. 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

RADIO MODERNIZATION PROJECT TIMELINE

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief, I 

mentioned in my opening that I was told in 2011 that the radio 

modernization program project was on schedule to be completed in 

spring of 2012. We are in the spring of 2013, and now the new approximation is fall of 2013. And you know, GAO has been following 

this project from the beginning, which we asked them to from the 

Legislative Branch perspective, because there were very challenging fiscal mismanagement issues, and I wanted to be confident 

that we wouldn’t have another CVC mess on our hands. And the 

costs of the project have mounted gradually over time. I mean, 

originally what was, you know, proposed to be budgeted we knew 

would never really actually be adequate for what the needs were. 

GAO over the time has cited several potential problems that exist 

right now that I think are likely to cause more schedule delays, 

which I guess hopefully you can confirm or reassure us, including 

things like that testing activities are not yet fully defined or agreed 

upon by USCP and NAVAIR, which is the contractor managing the 

project. Migration activities aren’t yet fully defined and agreed 

upon. Hand-off dates from AOC, from the Architect of the Capitol 

to USCP or NAVAIR, or from NAVAIR to USCP aren’t clear. 

The approaches for training officers have not been agreed upon. 

So that is beyond the punch list, to say the least. And any of those, 

one thing—any of those things could cause months more delay by 

themselves. So do you have a master schedule that attempts to 

capture and manage those potential delays? And does the fall of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
859 

2013 estimate for completion account for some delay of the items 

I mentioned in training officers or testing the system? 

A couple other things which you may need to write down since 

I have a few bullets in this question. If the system is not completed 

in the fall of 2013 before the end of the fiscal year, will you face 

losing lapsing funds that we provided for the project in 2009 and 

2010? And then what are the operation and maintenance costs for 

operating the new system in fiscal year 2014 and beyond? 

Chief DINE. Thank you very much for those questions. And we 

fully understand the importance of the project. Let me first say, 

thank you for your support of this project. On 9/11, I was actually 

deputy chief of police for the Metropolitan Police Department and 

lived through that, as you all did here in Washington, D.C. So we 

all have our own 9/11 story. And out of that, in the police world, 

we learned how critical radio systems are and interoperability 

issues are. So I can’t thank you enough for your support of this 

hugely important project. There probably couldn’t be another 

project that is so critical. 

I have had, interestingly enough, the experience of putting in a 

radio system with a number of agencies in my last position as chief 

of the Frederick Police Department. That was also a very large 

project, with actually a huge geographical area. The difference 

was—and it involved a number of agencies—it did not involve the 

number of agencies that we have here, nor did it involve the complexities of internal radio systems inside buildings and all of the 

unique aspects that we have to cover here in the Nation’s Capital 

and on Capitol Hill. 

I can tell you I am going to turn this over to my CAO, Mr. Braddock, in a minute, but since my arrival I have met regularly with 

the CAO. We have received regular briefings. And I do have full 

faith between our CAO and our CIO that we will see this project 

through. We have an excellent relationship with the Architect of 

the Capitol—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. When? 

Chief DINE [continuing]. And NAVAIR. We will provide some 

timelines for you. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But is it realistic to say that fall of 

2013 is no longer realistic? 

Chief DINE. Let me turn it over to Mr. Braddock, who can elaborate on some of the timelines and some of the specifics that you 

mentioned in terms of those relevant questions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. BRADDOCK. Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are welcome. 

Mr. BRADDOCK. I appreciate the questions, and I also want to 

thank you for the GAO’s role in this, because they have been critical, not just in an oversight but also in a technical perspective. 

They add a great reality check as we move through this process. 

And it helps me to manage the program with our CIO and with our 

partners. 

In answering your question, yes, we have an integrated master 

schedule. Inside of that, each one of the partners is putting data 

relative to their tasks that they have before them. There are parts 

of that schedule that are estimated dates. And what comes out the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
860 

back end is the projection of fall of 2013. I fully expect that we will 

have delays as we move forward. You have got a technology to turn 

on that we need to work ourselves through with NAVAIR. They 

have challenges to optimize the system as it comes online. So undoubtedly there will be further delays with that. 

We are continuing to work with the Architect’s Office on the 

hand off of infrastructure. As we proceed with that, we find there 

are other challenges with that. And I will use one example. When 

we were dealing with local jurisdictions on permitting, we put estimates of when we are going to get them. But every day that slips, 

it slips the back end of the project. That is something that myself 

and our CIO manage on a daily basis. I literally get updates from 

him every day on where we are, any new risk, any new challenge. 

And we work through that with our partners. NAVAIR, AOC, and 

Capitol Police communicate on a very, very regular basis, sometimes actually every day, to work through these challenges and to 

mitigate that. 

Does the schedule account for the potential delays? There are estimates in it. It changes every day because we put new data into 

the system based on the newest data that we get. The information 

on the back end is only as good as the data that goes into it, and 

we constantly work that. My CIO has a project management team 

that looks at that schedule and challenges things that are in it 

with our partners. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can I ask you a question? 

Mr. BRADDOCK. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge 

me for a moment. So I am going to give you an analogy. I have 

been married to my husband for 22 years. And he is always on 

time. In fact, he is always early. I like to joke that he will be early 

to his funeral, God forbid. And I am always late. Although I wasn’t 

late today. I was here at 9:58. But over the years of our marriage, 

he has always told me when I am, you know, out at something for 

work or, you know, racing to get home to do whatever it is that we 

are supposed to be doing, you know, he will ask me over the years, 

Debbie, when are you going to be home? So if I am supposed to be 

home at 8 o’clock and it is 7:30, I will say—I used to say—I will 

be home in about 15 minutes, or I will be home in 30 minutes; 

probably underestimating, because I didn’t want to deal with the 

pushback, the real time that I was going to get home. So he would, 

over the years, realize that that is what I did, and I was later than 

I said I would be every time. And I would still have to deal with 

the conflict when I got home. 

So he finally said to me one day, you know, honey, it is better 

just to be honest with me up front because it is going to be less 

difficult to deal with it, and I will know. Just be straight with me. 

So I would like the Capitol Police to apply what my husband and 

I now apply in our marriage, so that it is managed better and 

things go more smoothly, to the honesty and transparency in which 

this project is going to actually finally come to fruition. 

So I appreciate that there are estimates, but I am asking you a 

direct question. Is it likely, do you think, we are going to go beyond 

fall of 2013? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
861 

Mr. BRADDOCK. I expect us to go beyond the fall of 2013, yes, I 

do. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. So, instead of having to drag 

that out of you, it would really be helpful—I mean, this subcommittee went through a lot of delays with the CVC and very 

similar experience with when it was really going to be done, and 

what the cost overruns really were and what it was really going 

to cost. And, you know, it makes it tough for us to manage and 

oversee and do our jobs. 

Mr. BRADDOCK. I completely understand that. That is why we try 

to provide a biweekly report on everything that changes in the 

project. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But we still had a fall of 2013 estimate of when it was going to be done. 

Mr. BRADDOCK. Because we are reporting out what the schedule 

is saying. I do try to caveat that, though, with—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just like I told my husband that I 

would be home in 30 minutes. 

Mr. BRADDOCK. Yes, ma’am. And part of that drives from the fact 

that there are stakeholders that ask us, what is that schedule saying? I totally agree with you. I don’t want to set a false expectation. 

I want to give you transparency and the reality of what we are 

dealing with, which is what we are trying to do every 2 weeks. 

I fully expect we are going to go past that. We still have permitting challenges to get through. We have infrastructure that still 

needs to be completed. And we have a technology that needs to 

come online and all that testing. And it is a very complex process. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Bishop. Do you tell your wife what time you 

are going to be home? 

DISTRICT OFFICE SECURITY CONCERNS

Mr. BISHOP. No. She has the problem that Debbie has. 

Chief, let me just welcome to the subcommittee this morning. I 

look forward to working with you as we continue to try to ensure 

that the Capitol complex and all those who work and visit here are 

safe. I also appreciate the great job that the Capitol Police does in 

trying to keep us all safe. 

One of my chief concerns has been the security of Members’ district offices, especially after the 2011 shooting of our friend and colleague Gabby Giffords. In the past, the Capitol Police and the Sergeant at Arms have provided Member offices with a series of recommendations on security improvements for district offices. I realize that it may not be possible to do everything we would like to 

do in this budget environment. But the Senate Sergeant at Arms 

has an account that allows the Senate Sergeant at Arms to expend 

funds for Senate Members for security reasons. Of course, they 

have fewer Senators and fewer Senate district offices than House 

Members. 

I am nevertheless very concerned that with the MRA constraints 

and the recommendations that have been made for physical security upgrades, that it is really, really stressing Members efforts at 

compliance. Have you looked into what impact sequestration and 

these budget cuts are having on Members’ ability to comply? Have 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
862 

you been able to assess the level of compliance that Members are 

able to give to the recommendations? Have you gotten any feedback 

at all about the challenges that Members are experiencing in trying 

to comply with these security recommendations, particularly with 

the challenge to make sure that our constituents who visit district 

offices are safe, our staff is safe and, obviously, the Members are 

safe? 

I have continued to raise this issue. If the Senate can do it, it 

seems as if we should be able to establish a fund within the Sergeant at Arms Office or the Capitol Police office that would allow, 

on an as needed basis based on the determination by the Capitol 

Police and the Sergeant at Arms, that certain expenditures should 

be required to provide the minimum level of security. Can you respond to that for me? 

Chief DINE. Well, good morning, sir, and thank you for your 

question. Thank you for your kind comments about the Capitol Police. I will have to probably elaborate in a written response for the 

record. But I can tell you I know that we made—we routinely—it 

is kind of a fluid process. We do make recommendations regarding 

those issues. We work very, very closely with the Sergeant at Arms 

to ensure those are done across the country. And of course, the 

safety and security of you and your Members and staff are of the 

highest priority to us. In terms of the ability to create an account 

and those types of things, I would respectfully ask if I could get 

back to you for the record and provide a more detailed response as 

to how that process works. 

[Information provided for the record follows:] 

If a Member wants to have a security survey of his or her District Office, a request is made through the Office of the Sergeant at Arms which, upon approval, 

is forwarded to the USCP Security Services Bureau (SSB). SSB will conduct a security assessment of the location and make recommendations, through the Office of 

the Sergeant at Arms, to the Member for the proper security measures and/or equipment needed at the location. It is the decision of the Member to implement the security measures. 

Additionally, as part of the District Office Security Program, SSB reviews assessments and estimates for District Offices provided by security companies to ensure 

they conform with established standards for approval by the Office of the Sergeant 

at Arms. At that point, the Member could elect to have the recommended system 

installed. The Member would submit the approval, along with the voucher, to the 

House Chief Administrative Officer’s Office of Finance for payment of the system 

and the service through the members MRA. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I have found that your employees who 

do the threat assessments and security assessments of our district 

offices are very, very, very knowledgeable and fastidious in doing 

it, and have made great recommendations. But the challenge is 

being able to comply with them, with the limited MRA that we 

have, and trying to be safe but at the same time frugal. 

Chief DINE. Yes, sir, I understand that. And I, of course, totally 

appreciate the fact that sequestration has affected all of the budgets across the board. And we will get back to you in writing about 

that and make a more detailed response. I certainly appreciate 

your concerns. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Good morning. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
863 

USCP READINESS

Chief Dine, how is the new job? 

Chief DINE. Exhilarating. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Good. That is a great word. We don’t often 

hear that around here. Exhilarating. Wonderful. Thank you for 

your service. And we appreciate the deep culture of respect and attentiveness that obviously you are continuing to foster, which has 

built upon persons who have come before you. And you are standing on their shoulders. And I expect that to be the ongoing environment that you compel the force to have in terms of attitude and 

help the constituents and us. And so it is very evident in their 

work. So I wanted to first of all thank you for that. 

Chief DINE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Affirm what clearly I think is one of your 

goals as you carry out your important mission. 

I was a graduate student here in the 1980s, and I remember 

when dump trucks were first put on the entryways to the Capitol 

as our first level of security after things began to get more tense 

in the world, and clearly, there was intelligence about threats directed at the Capitol. So, since that time, we have come an extraordinarily long way, sadly, and have had to intensify the security 

here, and in a very aggressive manner, but an appropriate manner. 

And I recognize that. 

A couple of quick things I wondered, and one is small, but one 

is larger. Back to this point of constantly being on guard and attentive, almost 99.999 percent of the time nothing happens. And so 

there is in any position, in any job, there is a tendency to grow 

complacent in that regard. So I would like to hear a little bit from 

you how you guard that type of disposition or you try to fend off 

the type of disposition so that we are always ready. 

In this manner, I would like to point out what I think is a conflict in this regard, where you have television monitors at security 

stations. All of us in public office have given speeches, and I am 

going to tell my colleagues, do not give a speech standing with a 

television behind you, because everybody will stare at the television. This has happened to me before, so I never do that. It is 

human nature. 

So I am concerned at security stations where there are televisions, it is a distraction. Now, I understand it can be useful, particularly to Members and maybe the visitors, as well as officers, to 

know when votes are occurring and what the proceedings are on 

the floor. But when you have got a show on that is not related to 

congressional business, I just want to bring that before you. Because I just know that from human nature, there is a tendency to 

want to watch it. It just happens. 

Secondly, I received a threat one time several years ago within 

the Capitol directly to my face. And again, in the wakes of tragedies that have happened to our—one of our Members, I assumed 

that the response would be immediate and that the plans for action 

would be well thought out. So I called out to the nearest officer. 

There appeared to be confusion as to what to do. Now, as I understand it, he couldn’t leave his post because he was at a particular 

door, an entryway with a high level of public visiting. There was 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
864 

another officer walking toward me. I tried to get his attention, but 

he was off duty, so that was—there was some confusion there. I 

think we got this straight now. 

But given that you are new, I did want to point that out to you, 

that this actually happened within the Capitol. And so I was not 

going to let it pass by because I found it absolutely unacceptable 

that anyone should be subjected to a threat of violence, and particularly in the wake of Congresswoman Giffords’ shooting. I was 

a bit surprised by the initial reaction, in which there did not appear to be a clear understanding as to what to do in a moment like 

that. It is understandable; we are looking for threats coming from 

the outside, trying perhaps to get in. But when one happens in 

front of you from a person who is in the building itself, again, I just 

wanted to, since you are new, I wanted to bring that to your attention. You might want to look in your file and see the report on that, 

because I think it is an important lesson for us all on how to respond and what to do. 

Chief DINE. Yes, sir. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. We will certainly look at that. We literally exist to serve you 

and keep the community here safe. I mean, that is our only purpose for existing. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Yeah. I offer those comments in the spirit of 

that partnership. 

Chief DINE. Absolutely. And we always want to provide the best 

service possible. What I have come to appreciate over the last several months is the extraordinary dedication and diligence that our 

officers provide every day. This is probably one of the most unique 

police agencies in the country, because we do so many different 

things up here. You know, we are almost an amalgamation of all 

the other Federal, agencies. That dignitary protection piece that 

was referenced is rather unique and something the Secret Service 

does in part and that we provide. We obviously provide sort of an 

urban policing presence and, as I mentioned, made over 700 arrests 

last year. The whole concept of having these posts across campus 

is a challenge, a daily 24–7 challenge, as you mentioned, that provides sort of a unique challenge to our officers because, as you 

noted, they literally cannot relax for a second. They have to be on 

guard and diligent. 

And I really appreciate the work that the officers do here across 

the board. But those particular challenges are really unique to this 

police agency. And of course, we have a number of other assignments in terms of our command centers and throughout the agency 

and investigations after the fact. 

So one of the things, in terms of boredom, is an issue that we 

are certainly cognizant of and work to offset constantly. We rotate 

officers. We give officers breaks. We are constantly talking to them 

about how important it is to be diligent and pay attention. And I 

think, overwhelmingly, they are incredibly professional, incredibly 

proficient and respectful. Like any agency, especially an agency the 

size—certainly we have our moments, but I am just immensely impressed with the quality of the people we have and the work they 

do on a daily basis. It is extremely uplifting. One of the things I 

have been doing, obviously, as the new Chief, but this is something 

I have done over the past 37 years, because while I am new to this 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
865 

agency, I am not new in the policing business, I like to get out 

there and talk to our officers and literally shake their hands and 

ask them how things are going and what issues did they face. So 

I am getting a lot of good feedback and some things similar to what 

you said. So we will continue to keep people motivated doing the 

great job that they did. And as you said, you know, we stand on 

the shoulders of the people who have come before us. I truly believe 

the police exist to serve the public or, in this case, our community 

here. That is our only reason for existing. So we always aspire to 

give you the best of all service. 

The thing about policing is that each case is unique. And obviously, you know, you raised some issues that are interesting, because one officer can’t leave a post. And of course, over the years, 

we have learned why the posts are comprised the way they are, because we had a tragedy here in our own department when our officers were killed. And we realized that we needed to have more officers on those posts. So that was a huge sea change for us. 

So thank you for bringing those issues to my attention. We will 

continue to work on the larger issue that you mentioned, and I will 

certainly look at your specific case to see how we may improve. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Just for your own background as an education here, I think it was an example of a convergence of a lot of 

unique things that maybe the scenario planning had not worked 

itself through. 

Chief DINE. Absolutely. And that is one aspect that is unique to 

police work as long as I have been doing this, I mean, every day 

is sort of a new day. And we always tell the officers, don’t say that 

this was a routine radio call or this is a routine post because there 

is nothing routine about this job. As you may know, in the United 

States, about every 57 hours, a police officer is killed in the line 

of duty. It is like clockwork. And it is an amazing criminal justice 

fact that it happens. So there is nothing routine about this profession. And I think our folks are of the highest order and know that. 

They provide incredible service. But there are certain times—— 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. The other thing, too, I think an officer should 

not hesitate, because it is the burden of the Member if the Member 

is not recognized, because a lot of time we will fly through things 

and assume there is the recognition. And again, 99 percent of the 

time, there is, because obviously you are committed to serving 

Members, and you memorize faces and the rest. But they should 

not hesitate or feel in an awkward position that they need to ask 

for ID, that they are being put in an awkward position if they ask 

for an ID. That is important for Members to actually, again, cooperate in the spirit of partnership with you, because, again, the 

objective is the same. How do we keep all of ourselves safe? And 

it is complicated. And there are a lot of things going on all the 

time. 

Chief DINE. It is complicated. One of the other unique aspects 

that you know that make this job so interesting and exciting, unlike other locations, this is not a locked down campus. This is truly 

the People’s House. So people are free to come and go, which 

makes, obviously, increased challenges for our force. But we appreciate the fact that you want that type of open campus. I know from 

time to time, different recommendations have been made. And 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
866 

again, this is different from the White House or any other location 

in that people are free to come and go, and it is truly the People’s 

House. We are proud of the fact that we protect you and the People’s House. And we appreciate the challenges that brings to our 

department. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. What was on TV more interesting than you? 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. That is a good point. 

RAYBURN FIRING RANGE RENOVATIONS

Mr. ALEXANDER. Sir, the Architect of the Capitol has asked for $4.5 million to renovate the firing range in the Rayburn garage. 

They are not supposed to be through with it until the fall of 2015. 

Do you all use that, and are there accommodations for your training elsewhere? 

Chief DINE. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question. They have requested funds to replace the firing range. We are excited about 

that. We think it is going to take approximately 19 months for construction. Having that range here on Capitol Hill is a tremendous 

efficiency for our agency, obviously. We have looked at other options, and there is no other one that is as cost-effective as that both 

in terms of non-personnel costs and overtime costs. So we are 

grateful actually for the AOC for their efforts to create a new range 

for us. 

My understanding is it will sort of be a replacement. As one is 

getting built, we will continue to be able to use the existing range, 

and we will just flip sides. I am not in the architecture business, 

but I do understand that it is actually a better location for us, and 

is actually even better for the architecture due to the duct work 

and those kinds of things. 

So it is a more logical location, and it makes the most sense for 

the department both operationally and fiscally. So while the new 

range is being built, my understanding is that we will be able to 

continue to use the existing range. And I certainly hope that answers your question. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. So ‘‘renovation’’ is not a good word then. If they 

are building a new range, they are not renovating. It seemed like 

2 years is a long time to take. 

Mr. BISHOP. Where is the new range being built? 

Acting Assistant Chief VERDEROSA. Lower level of the Rayburn, 

sir. G1 level. 

Mr. BISHOP. So you are also going to use the old one, which is 

in Rayburn? 

Acting Assistant Chief. VERDEROSA. Correct. 

Mr. BISHOP. And is the new one being built similar? 

Acting Assistant Chief VERDEROSA. On a different wing, different 

side. 

Chief DINE. Other side. 

Mr. BISHOP. Okay. 

DOOR CLOSURES AND OVERTIME

Mr. ALEXANDER. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
867 

I am going to ask both my remaining questions, not at once but 

in succession. I want to talk to you, Chief, about the door closures 

and the overtime issue. Obviously, a lot of people have been frustrated, naturally, by the door closures and the longer lines that are 

the results of sequestration. 

The original estimates from the Capitol Police were that door closures would save about $9 million. And your request is $32.8 million for fiscal year 2014. But that budget request was completed 

prior to the sequester. So I don’t really think the projection we 

have is an accurate representation of what your overtime needs 

are. So assuming the sequester remains in place and we are not 

able to replace it with a balanced approach to deficit reduction that 

is more reasonable, what do you think you are going to need for 

overtime in fiscal year 2014 with the current door closures? 

Chief DINE. Thank you for your question. If those—well, let me 

back up. First of all, we literally would have faced huge challenges 

that I am not sure we would know how to address had we not been 

able to reduce our budget and reduce the overtime through the 

door closures. As you know, we literally have more mission than we 

have people. And over the last 10 years, obviously since 9/11, that 

expanded, which is why, as you know, the budget is crafted the 

way it is with the significant amount of overtime. And given the 

amount of cuts that we have had to make due to sequester, while 

approximately half of those have come operationally, the other half, 

or $9–plus million, have come through those door closures. Those 

numbers are not annualized, though, you are absolutely correct. If 

those existed for a complete year, they would probably be between 

around $15 million to $17 million in overtime cuts if the sequester—— 

Mr. BISHOP. Will the gentlelady yield on that? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. BISHOP. Following up on that, have you considered the possible savings that you could have and still provide service if you 

kept those entrances open on days when the House is in session, 

and reduced those openings when we were not in session? 

Chief DINE. Yes, sir. We have considered so many options. I can’t 

tell you how many meetings we have had and strategy sessions 

working with leadership, working with your staffs, working with 

the Sergeant at Arms staffs. We are obviously open to any suggestion and have made multiple changes as the last month transpired. 

Mr. BISHOP. That is not workable? 

Chief DINE. I think that is some of what we have done. We have 

cut hours. We have cut closures. We looked at differences between 

when you are in session and not in session, because literally, this 

is allowing us to meet the budget mark. Operationally, I am not 

sure how else we would meet it. So I guess what I am attempting 

to say is we have done that: We have looked at hours. We have 

looked at time in session. We have looked at some posts that—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So you are already doing—do you already close certain doors when we are not in session and open 

them when we are? 

Chief DINE. I believe so. I think that is part of our plan. 

[Information provided for the record follows] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
868 

Hours of House doors have adjusted hours during ‘‘Official Recess’’ periods as determined by the Clerk of the House. All door hour changes are approved by the 

House Sergeant at Arms, Committee on House Administrations, and the Capitol Police Board. The current official map distributed by the House Sergeant at Arms also 

includes Sequestration Closures. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Since there is a little bit of uncertainty in your response, could you double check for us? 

Chief DINE. Absolutely. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Because that does seem to be a commonsense way to relieve the stress. 

Chief DINE. Yes. I can tell you that is part of our plan. There are 

some posts that we have learned over this time period were, frankly, it is one of those things—in a way, I guess, the silver lining is 

this has allowed us to go back and assess what it is, why we do 

it, why are we doing it? How long have we been doing it? And some 

of the answers were we are not exactly really sure why other than, 

a long time ago, somebody wanted X door open—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Because it has always been done that 

way. 

Chief DINE [continuing]. At 5 in the morning, even though literally almost no one is coming in, or very few people. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. 

Chief DINE. So we engaged in door counts to see how often the 

doors are used by the public and Members. And extensive analysis 

to try to come up with the best system and process to allow the 

business at the Capitol to continue with the least amount of inconvenience. Obviously, we were keenly aware of ADA issues, so we 

didn’t want to close any of those doors. We wanted citizens to be 

able to access their Representatives and Senators. So it has been 

a long, ongoing process that still to this day, we are tweaking and 

trying to attain more cuts, which again, if it was annualized over 

a year, would be more around $15 to $17 million. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a systemic 

question that if I ask it now I will be completely done, if you don’t 

mind. 

CAPITOL POLICE BOARD STRUCTURE

Mr. Irving, would you mind coming to the table? Because some 

of questions are for you. 

So I think a lot of Members, Mr. Chairman, aren’t necessarily 

aware that the Capitol Police has an oversight board. And a lot of 

the policies that are in place are set by the Police Board, not by 

the Chief. And that Police Board is made up of the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms and the Architect of the Capitol, and the 

Chief is an ex officio member. 

So Chief, you have been here for a few months, and have a lot 

of years of policing and a lot of years of police leadership. So can 

you give us a sense of what you think of the overarching governing 

of the force? I mean, does it make sense to continue to do it that 

way? 

And Mr. Irving, since you are on the board, I would like to know 

your opinion of the board. What are the kinds of decisions that the 

board makes, and how do you interact with the Chief? I mean, are 

there any changes to the board’s structure that you would make? 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
869 

Either one of you can go first. 

Mr. IRVING. Okay. I think the existing board structure I think 

works very, very well. It is by statute. It has been in place for some 

time now. Most of the decisions that the Board makes are at the 

policy level. The board will look at implementing—in any security 

measure we deem appropriate for the Capitol, House and Senate— 

the Capitol Police Board will look at sort of from a bird’s eye view, 

will look at the threat, weigh the risk, the vulnerability, the consequence. They will look at the issue from a threat-based perspective and then will weigh that very carefully with the business process of the complex. That is a lot of interaction with Members with 

the committee, with this committee, with the authorizing committee, with the leadership. And as we strive to then make a decision, we will, the Board, will make a decision, and then we will 

pass that onto the Chief and tell the Chief what to implement and 

how to implement it. The door closure sequestration closures were 

classic examples of that. The Chief presented the board with a 

range of options. The board weighed those very carefully, measuring the risk with, again, the impact on the business process of 

the House and Senate and arrived at those decisions. And as the 

Chief alluded to, we have made some tweaks, and we are being 

very sensitive to ongoing concerns. 

As we figure the best way to implement security and also save 

overtime, we realize that there are going to be some tweaks. 

And Congressman, also to your point, certainly during periods of 

high volume, when Congress is in session, and also to your point, 

we will make sure that we look at very closely the impact and 

make some tweaks. And we already have made some tweaks to our 

initial sequestration plan. 

But bottom line, from an overarching perspective, the Board provides policy guidance to the Capitol Police, to the Chief, and then 

the Chief provides the implementation. I think it works very well. 

Both Terry Gainer and I work very closely together. We are on the 

phone probably dozens of times a day. We work very closely with 

the Architect, who provides another overarching perspective on the 

historical nature of the campus and also the business process of the 

campus. So I think the structure works well. And especially with 

the interface between the board and the Members, leadership, the 

committees. 

But Chief, anything to add on that? 

Chief DINE. Just a few points. 

In one sense, having this unique type of oversight—it is unique, 

but it is not totally new to me, having reported to a mayor, but 

then also a city council, and then thousands and thousands of citizens, who frankly, I consider are our bosses as well. But I am on 

the board, ex officio, as you mentioned. Thus far during my tenure, 

there has been great communication and support. I guess the 

Board plays a role of ensuring that there is sort of an overarching 

view that the Department always sees the larger issue across Capitol Hill. They have been supportive in that regard. They played a 

pivotal role, as Mr. Irving mentioned, during sequestration. That 

was of great assistance to have sort of a buffer in that regard. And 

they also enhance communication between Members and our office. 

I was literally expecting thousands of phone calls 24–7, as I was 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
870 

used to in my previous career. And a lot of those calls have gone 

through the board. I am almost disappointed. I probably shouldn’t 

say that. So, thus far, from my experience, it has been excellent. 

A lot of communication and a lot of support. 

It is kind of a unique makeup, as you mentioned. And I am really not privy to the historical aspects in terms of how that has 

worked. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Are there any decisions that you are 

not able to make or any—I mean, what are the challenges that it 

presents to you? 

Chief DINE. Thus far, frankly, the structure has not really created any challenges, because we have had a lot of good open communication. I think the board recognizes that I am the Chief of Police, and day to day, we are running the police department. But 

they add support and guidance and support of an overview, and 

also historical aspect as to some of the long-term concerns. 

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

UPDATE ON THE BLACKMON-MALLOY LITIGATION

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief, I recognize that your tenure is really just beginning. Perhaps you may want to call on some of your staff to respond to the 

question that I am about to ask. Can you give the subcommittee 

an update on the 2001 discrimination suit filed by Lieutenant 

Sharon Blackmon-Malloy as the lead plaintiff in what I think was 

a class action suit which alleged more than 200 African American 

officers were denied promotions, retaliated against, unfairly disciplined, and fired because of their race? 

[Information provided for the record follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
871 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1058 here 81322A.729
872 

Would you tell us what new efforts have been made or that you 

will make to handle those kinds of complaints and, more importantly, to ameliorate the conditions that would lead to those kinds 

of complaints as we try to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 

1964? 

Do you have adequate resources now to deal with that? Have you 

been able to improve or streamline the handling of complaints so 

that the process is now more workable to provide full equal opportunity employment? 

Chief DINE. Yes, sir. 

You touched on a number of issues. And, let me first say, one of 

the reasons that I am a police officer and that I put the badge on 

every day is to stand up for freedom and truth and justice. That 

is why we do what we do. And that relates both internally with any 

organization that I have been a part of or led or externally in terms 

of how we deal with the public. So that is what we stand for. That 

is what we do. I just recently issued a new statement in that regard to our entire agency to send that message throughout the 

force. 

So this is not, whatever complaints that were in the past, this 

is not that same police agency. We work very hard to transcend 

those issues, to correct those issues, and to communicate and to 

treat our employees correctly and appropriately and properly. 

I can certainly get you for record an actual legal update as to 

where that case is, as well as the many specifics we have put in 

place to ensure that those types of complaints, A, are handled properly, and, B, that any possible concern that might occur does not 

occur. 

Mr. BISHOP. I would appreciate that because I think last year, 

I asked the same question to your predecessor. Of course, because 

it was in litigation, counsel was not comfortable making a public 

statement on it. I don’t know whether or not it has been resolved 

now, or if you are in a position now to make a statement on where 

you are, what the status of the case is. Has it been settled? If it 

was settled, what are the conditions of the settlement? What steps 

were ordered and were agreed to be taken to ameliorate the situation? Are there any remedial actions taken, such as back pay? I 

think the subcommittee would like to know because if some backpay issues are involved, of course that affects the resources available. 

Chief DINE. Absolutely. We can get you the exact status. I would 

just like for you and all the members to know that we each stand 

up for what is right and for equal opportunity. That is what I certainly personally have done my entire police career, and that is 

why we do what we do. 

So even though these complaints occurred in the past, they are 

of the utmost importance. If we don’t treat ourselves right, obviously, then we are not going to be able to treat the public and the 

people we serve correctly. 

Mr. BISHOP. I fully agree, and I appreciate that. 

In my other life, I was once a civil rights attorney. Almost 40 

years ago, there was a case in my jurisdiction where a local city 

police department had some conditions that were considered racist 

by the local officers. The African American officers felt that they 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
873 

didn’t get the appropriate consideration from the administration of 

the police department so they carefully severed the American flag 

from their uniforms and put them in their hat and delivered them 

to the chief during the course of the meeting, upon which, they 

were all fired. Of course, that triggered a massive lawsuit that 

lasted for decades. It was finally settled some 20, 25 years later. 

Their position was that, yes, we stand for that truth, justice and 

the American way, but it is inconsistent with the way that we are 

being treated. While I know that your intentions are noble, the 

noble intentions are not necessarily met with the actions of the bureaucracy. Consequently, I would like to follow that very closely 

and ask you if you would provide us with that information. 

Chief DINE. Absolutely. Yes, sir. And I appreciate your comments. And I will say they are beyond noble intentions. I have a 

record of, in my last position, of working with the NAACP and actually being awarded by the NAACP for the work that we did both 

with the community, with the African American community, the 

police department, and the community. So there is a strong almost 

unmatched record there, and we will continue those efforts. 

Mr. BISHOP. Of course, the other elements, gender, national origin, age, disability, all of those protected categories under Title VII. 

Chief DINE. Absolutely. In fact, that is one of the reasons why 

we came up with sort of the moniker ‘‘America’s Police Department,’’ because one of the things that we do is we serve this entire 

country. We serve millions and millions of people that come from 

literally all over the world and all over the country here to see you, 

to do the people’s business. But as a police agency, we also reflect 

what this country is and what it is all about. So that is sort of both 

an internal moniker and an external moniker that stands for who 

we are and what we do. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Fortenberry? 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I don’t have any further questions, but thank 

you gentlemen for your service. 

CHIEF DINE’S EXPERIENCES AT USCP

Mr. ALEXANDER. Chief, the few months that you have been here, 

I mean, we have had the inauguration, State of the Union, only 

times I guess that the President, Vice President, Supreme Court, 

the Speaker and all those in line to the Presidency are all together 

at one time. 

Overwhelming it has to be for those in charge of protecting that 

group. Is it what you expected? Is it more? Have you seen things 

that you want to do differently? 

Chief DINE. That is a great question. I guess that is why, when 

asked how the first 3 months have been, I used the term ‘‘exhilarating,’’ because probably describes it pretty well. 

This position, this agency engages in very, very high levels of coordination with multiple police departments, both here, Federal, 

State, local, that is required for the roles that we fulfill. You are 

absolutely correct that some of those events that you just mentioned are literally our kind of Super Bowls here; they don’t get 

any larger than that. The Inauguration, and that is thanks to all 

of the people here and the men, women of this agency, both civilian 

and sworn, I have to say, who worked just tirelessly to make sure 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
874 

that that event went off as smoothly as it did. Those are huge 

events. 

I won’t say there are really any surprises. What is key here, 

which is not a surprise to me, is communication and coordination 

and subordination of ego, I think. We are here to serve you. Fortunately, that is the way I have always looked at the police business. 

So it is important that we get along with our partners. We know 

who they are. Fortunately, I know a lot of those people, a lot of 

those agencies from my previous experience. So it is a lot of team 

work. And, fortunately, those events have gone off without a hitch. 

But the challenges we face, that doesn’t stop. It is ongoing. One of 

the things that we do that often doesn’t get a whole lot of coverage 

is we preserve the right of people that come from all over to come 

here and express their rights. So, as you know, pretty much almost 

every day there are demonstrations here, people marching, and our 

officers do an outstanding job protecting them while they engage 

in their right to express themselves. And we are very proud of that. 

So, as you know, today, there is a huge immigration march. The 

agency is going to facilitate that. That is one of the roles when we 

mention all those tasks, roles, and responsibilities, overtime, and 

those kinds of things, that often goes almost unnoticed because our 

women and men do it so well and so professionally. 

I can’t say there have been any huge surprises. I am extremely 

proud to be here. One of the things that is truly uplifting is the 

pride that the men and women of this agency have in terms of 

what they do. As I have been making the rounds and going to roll 

calls and going to posts and just meeting and greeting people, it is 

just immensely gratifying to see how much pride that our folks 

have in fulfilling their mission. And that goes for all of our outstanding civilians as well. In a police department, there are always 

a lot of coverage for what the sworn people do and the people with 

guns and badges. But, literally, the agency could not run if we 

didn’t have the civilians that we have making all these things happen. 

Mr. BISHOP. Would the chairman yield on that? 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Sure. 

CAPITOL DIVISION SURVEY

Mr. BISHOP. Chief, back in December, the labor division of the 

Capitol Police issued a survey to 380 members of the Capitol Division. Have you gotten the results of that survey? Have they been 

analyzed? And can you provide us with the feedback, an analysis 

of that from that survey? 

Chief DINE. Yes, sir. I received the survey. We have analyzed it. 

I have read the whole package that they gave me. Let me say that 

in the few months I have been here, we have met diligently with 

the labor committee. I just met with the executive board in the last 

week or two. I got an email response back, them thanking us for 

meeting with them and saying it was a productive meeting and 

they are looking forward to a productive relationship. 

Mr. BISHOP. Have any changes been made as a result of the recommendations that the survey revealed? 

Chief DINE. There are some themes in there from some of the 

general feedback in the survey of things we are looking at. One of 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
875 

the issues that is still outstanding in our agency, as you may have 

heard, a lot of directives were issued in the last year, but a number 

had to still be resolved. So there are concerns about uniforms, 

things like that. There are always concerns about training. One of 

the things that we know we need to do better, which may or may 

not relate to the survey, it just relates to running an operation this 

size, is communication to the entire force so people know what is 

going on and not. So we are coming up with some mechanisms to 

enhance that. Because I want all our members to know what is 

going on in the agency, what changes have been made, what our 

philosophy is, all those kinds of things. So we are working very 

closely with the labor folks, as best we can so we can move this 

agency forward and make improvements where they need to be 

made. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield. 

COMMUNITY OUTREACH

Mr. ALEXANDER. 

Your opening statement, you mentioned community outreach. 

Would you tell us what that means? 

Chief DINE. That actually encompasses all kinds of things. And 

I asked that same question as we were crafting this. We literally 

go to offices throughout Capitol Hill and do safety surveys and 

give—— 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Is that for the general public or for Members? 

Chief DINE. It is basically for the congressional community. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Okay. 

Chief DINE. Anywhere on the Hill where we think we can have 

some kind of interaction, do some type of demonstration, teach people something about safety and security for Members, offices, staff, 

as well as people who reside within our jurisdiction, that is what 

we do. We want to make sure that there is sort of the maximum 

communication and coordination. In a sense, that is part of what 

community policing is all about. 

Mr. ALEXANDER. Anything else? 

Okay. We appreciate you all being here today. This meeting will 

stand adjourned. 

[Questions submitted for the record by Mr. Moran follow:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
876 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1069 here 81322A.730
877 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1070 here 81322A.731
878 

[Testimony for the record submitted by outside witnesses follows:] 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
879 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1072 here 81322A.732
880 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1073 here 81322A.733
881 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1074 here 81322A.734
882 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1075 here 81322A.735
883 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1076 here 81322A.736
884 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1077 here 81322A.737
885 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1078 here 81322A.738
886 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1079 here 81322A.739
887 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1080 here 81322A.740
888 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1081 here 81322A.741
889 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1082 here 81322A.742
890 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1083 here 81322A.743
891 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1084 here 81322A.744
892 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1085 here 81322A.745
893 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1086 here 81322A.746
894 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1087 here 81322A.747
895 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1088 here 81322A.748
896 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1089 here 81322A.749
897 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1090 here 81322A.750
898 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1091 here 81322A.751
899 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1092 here 81322A.752
900 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1093 here 81322A.753
901 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1094 here 81322A.754
902 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1095 here 81322A.755
903 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1096/2000 here 81322A.756
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Ayers, S. T ................................................................................................................ 163

Belden, Tammy ........................................................................................................ 203 

Billington, J. H ........................................................................................................ 85 

Burd, James ............................................................................................................. 885 

Davis, Tamara .......................................................................................................... 203 

Dine, K. C ................................................................................................................. 839

Dizard, Robert, Jr .................................................................................................... 85 

Dodaro, G. L ............................................................................................................. 1 

Elmendorf, D. W ...................................................................................................... 129 

Grafenstine, T. M ..................................................................................................... 653 

Haas, K. L ................................................................................................................ 653 

Irving, P. D ............................................................................................................... 653

Keninger, Karen ...................................................................................................... 85 

Kircher, K. W ........................................................................................................... 653 

Mazanec, M. B ......................................................................................................... 85 

O’Keefe, John ........................................................................................................... 203 

Pallante, M. A .......................................................................................................... 85 

Sargus, Jane ............................................................................................................. 203 

Schuman, Daniel ...................................................................................................... 897 

Seep, R. W ................................................................................................................ 653 

Shelden, Maura ........................................................................................................ 203 

Strodel, D. J ............................................................................................................. 653 

Strokoff, Sandra ....................................................................................................... 653 

Tauberer, Joshua ..................................................................................................... 879 

Vance-Cooks, Davita ................................................................................................ 51 

Wenger, J. M ............................................................................................................ 891 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

(iii) 

I N D E X 

Page 

Government Accountability Office 

Opening Statement of Chairman Alexander ......................................................... 1 

Comptroller General’s Opening Remarks .............................................................. 2 

Written Testimony Inserted .................................................................................... 5 

GAO’s Outreach to Congress to Prioritize Requests ............................................. 27 

GAO Plays Key Role in Helping Congress ............................................................ 29 

GAO Identifies Billions of Dollars in Savings ....................................................... 30 

Financial and Other Benefits From GAO’s Work ................................................. 33 

Capitol Police Radio Upgrade ................................................................................. 34 

Overlap and Duplication in Federal Programs ..................................................... 36 

Report on Uncollected Taxes .................................................................................. 37 

Pay for Performance at GAO .................................................................................. 38 

Staffing Challenges .................................................................................................. 39 

GAO Review of Open World Operations ................................................................ 40 

Closing Remarks ...................................................................................................... 41 

Questions for the Record: Chairman Alexander ................................................... 42 

Questions for the Record: Congressman Young .................................................... 49 

Government Printing Office 

Equal Employment Opportunity at GPO ............................................................... 67 

Impact of Sequestration .......................................................................................... 66 

GPO’s Facilities ........................................................................................................ 72 

National Academy of Public Administration Report ............................................. 70 

Opening Statement—Acting Public Printer .......................................................... 52 

Prepared Statement of Davita Vance-Cooks, Acting Public Printer ................... 55 

Printing Procurement for Agencies ........................................................................ 69 

Questions for the Record from Chairman Alexander ........................................... 74 

Questions for the Record from Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz ............... 84 

Questions for the Record from Representative Young .......................................... 82 

Replacement of Sequester ....................................................................................... 71 

Library of Congress 

Actual vs. Base Budget Reductions ........................................................................ 115 

Alternatives to 4-Day Closure ................................................................................ 108 

Baseline Reductions and Web Site Shutdown ....................................................... 108 

Collections Uniquely Relevant to Larger World .................................................... 113 

Congressional Research Service ............................................................................. 88 

Congressional Usage of the Library ....................................................................... 109 

Demand for Specific CRS Reports ................................................................... 109 

De Facto National Library ...................................................................................... 87 

Federal Research Division and 9/11 ....................................................................... 113 

Fee Services vs. Free Services ................................................................................ 113 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

Page

iv 

Fort Meade Module 5 .............................................................................................. 88 

Impact of Not Funding ..................................................................................... 116 

Introduction of Library Leadership ........................................................................ 110 

Irrecoverable Collection Gaps ................................................................................. 112 

Mission Critical and Non-Mission Critical Services ............................................. 114 

Opening Statements: 

Chairman Alexander ........................................................................................ 85 

Librarian of Congress ....................................................................................... 87 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz ................................................................................... 85 

Priorities ................................................................................................................... 115 

Questions for the Record from the Chairman: 

Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped .......................................... 122 

Collections and Services ................................................................................... 123 

Copyright Office ................................................................................................ 124 

Library Wide Acquisition ................................................................................. 121 

Office of the Librarian ...................................................................................... 125 

Questions for the Record from Ms. Wasserman Schultz: 

Sequestration .................................................................................................... 126 

Questions for the Record from Mr. Young: 

Potential Cost Savings for IT Repairs and Upgrades .................................... 127 

Requests from Other Countries .............................................................................. 110 

Exchanges with Iran ........................................................................................ 111 

Sequestration 

Impacts on Blind and Physically Handicapped .............................................. 117 

Impact on Young Readers Room ..................................................................... 119 

Managing with Reduced Funding ................................................................... 107 

Tension between Cuts and Optimal Services ................................................. 112 

Services for the Blind and Physically Handicapped ............................................. 88 

Services for Educators ............................................................................................. 88 

Telecommuting Plan in CRS ................................................................................... 118 

Twitter Archive Access Issues ................................................................................ 119 

Universal Collections ........................................................................................... 111, 114 

Unlocking Cell Phones and Administrative Rulemaking ..................................... 116 

U.S. Copyright Office ............................................................................................... 88 

World Digital Library .............................................................................................. 111 

Written Statements: 

Director, Congressional Research Service ...................................................... 103 

Librarian of Congress ....................................................................................... 89 

Register of Copyrights ...................................................................................... 95 

Congressional Budget Office 

Opening Statement—Chairman Alexander and Other Members ........................ 129 

Opening Statement—Dr. Elmendorf ...................................................................... 130 

Statement of Douglas W. Elmendorf ...................................................................... 134 

CBO’s Funding History and Its Effects on Staffing and Output .................. 135 

CBO’s Funding Request and Its Consequences for Staffing and Output .... 136 

Sequestration Impact on Jobs ................................................................................. 140 

Recovery Using Purely Cuts Only Versus Balanced Mix ..................................... 141 

No Money for Discretionary Spending ................................................................... 141 

Interest Rates and Payments ................................................................................. 142 

Balancing the Budget at the Expense of Discretionary Programs ...................... 143 

Spending Controls Versus Balanced Approach ..................................................... 144 

CBO Pay Increases .................................................................................................. 145 

SGR Scoring ............................................................................................................. 145 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

Page

v 

Fiscal Policy ............................................................................................................. 146 

Framework of CBO Analysis .................................................................................. 147 

Budget Scope and Related Matters ........................................................................ 149 

Restructure Entitlement Programs ........................................................................ 151 

Increase Taxes ......................................................................................................... 152 

Entitlement .............................................................................................................. 152 

Prioritize Requests .................................................................................................. 153 

Questions for the Record ......................................................................................... 156 

Performance-Based Pay Increases .................................................................. 156 

Projections for Legislation ............................................................................... 157 

Funds Required ................................................................................................ 159 

IT Overlapping Requirements ......................................................................... 160 

Sequestration .................................................................................................... 160 

Architect of The Capitol (AOC) 

Accessibility To Congressional Buildings .............................................................. 182 

Chairman Remarks ................................................................................................. 163 

Cannon Building Restoration ................................................................................. 183 

Capitol Power Plant ................................................................................................ 186 

Dome Restoration .................................................................................................... 182 

Prepared Statement Stephen T. Ayers .................................................................. 165 

Ranking Member Remarks ..................................................................................... 164 

Rayburn Garage Renovation ................................................................................... 184 

Reducing Overtime .................................................................................................. 185 

Summary Statement of Stephen T. Ayers ............................................................. 167 

Summerhouse ........................................................................................................... 191 

U.S. Botanic Garden ................................................................................................ 189 

Questions for the Record From Chairman Rodney Alexander ............................. 192 

Capitol Building ................................................................................................ 196 

Capitol Grounds ................................................................................................ 197 

Human Capitol Management Software .......................................................... 195 

Library Buildings and Grounds ...................................................................... 198 

Power Plant Revitalization .............................................................................. 193 

Questions for the Record From Ranking Member Debbie Wasserman Schultz . 200 

Bids For Construction Work ............................................................................ 200 

Open World Leadership Center 

Opening Remarks .................................................................................................... 203 

Open Statement by Ambassador O’Keefe .............................................................. 204 

Open World as an Asset, Resource and Investment ............................................. 204 

Open World Funding Expended in the U.S ........................................................... 205 

Open World’s Unique Ability to Function Where Other USG Agencies Cannot 205 

Private Funding and Outside Fundraising ............................................................ 217 

Expanding Development Efforts ............................................................................. 218 

Open World Program Results ................................................................................. 219 

Open World’s Strategic Plans and Performance Measures .................................. 219 

The Case for Open World ........................................................................................ 220 

Closing Remarks ...................................................................................................... 223 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Opening Remarks—Chairman ................................................................................ 653 

Opening Remarks—Ranking Member ................................................................... 653 

Opening Remarks—the Chief Administrative Officer .......................................... 655 

Changes to the 2013 House Budget ....................................................................... 655 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

Page

vi 

The Chief Administrative Officer’s Budget ........................................................... 655 

Three Budgetary Initiatives .................................................................................... 655 

Information Technology Current Programs and Future Plans ............................ 656 

Prepared Statement—CAO ..................................................................................... 657 

Opening Remarks—the Clerk of the House .......................................................... 667 

Ongoing Projects—Progress Report ........................................................................ 667 

The Clerk’s 2014 Budget Request .......................................................................... 667 

Prepared Statement—Clerk .................................................................................... 669 

Bulk Data Task Force ............................................................................................. 678 

Opening Remarks—the Sergeant at Arms ............................................................ 784 

113th Congressional Transition Activities ............................................................. 784 

113th Congress House Security Activities ............................................................. 784 

Prepared Statement—Sergeant at Arms ............................................................... 785 

The Stock Act ........................................................................................................... 789 

Information Technology Security Efforts ............................................................... 789 

House Security and the Sergeant at Arms ............................................................ 789 

Current and Future Effects of Sequestration Reductions .................................... 789 

House Buyout Options ............................................................................................ 790 

Legislative Branch Retirement Plan Changes ...................................................... 791 

Effects of the Sequestration on House Security .................................................... 792 

Requested FY’14 Increase for the House Security Office ..................................... 792 

LY 2013 Members’ Representational Allowance ................................................... 793 

Elimination of Duplication in Services .................................................................. 794 

Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) .......................................................................... 794 

Effects of the Sequestration on House Security continued .................................. 795 

Weekly House Operational Cost ............................................................................. 795 

District Offices’ Security ......................................................................................... 796 

DOMA and the House’s Standing to Defend the Act’s Constitutionality ............ 797 

DOMA and the House’s $3 Million Funding Cap ................................................. 800 

The Number of House Defended DOMA Cases to Date ....................................... 800 

Questions Raised by DOMA Cases ......................................................................... 801 

Outstanding DOMA Costs and Possible Savings .................................................. 802 

Subscription Costs ................................................................................................... 802 

States involved in the House Defended DOMA Cases ......................................... 802 

House-Wide Subscription Efforts to Lower Costs ................................................. 803 

Closing Remarks ...................................................................................................... 804 

Prepared Statement—General Counsel ................................................................. 805 

Prepared Statement—Legislative Counsel ............................................................ 809 

Prepared Statement—Law Revision Counsel ........................................................ 824 

Prepared Statement—Inspector General ............................................................... 830 

United States Capitol Police 

Capitol Division Survey ........................................................................................... 874 

Capitol Police Board Structure ............................................................................... 868 

Chief Dine’s Experiences at USCP ......................................................................... 873 

Community Outreach .............................................................................................. 875 

District Office Security Concerns ........................................................................... 861 

Door Closures and Overtime ................................................................................... 866 

Opening Statement of Chairman Alexander ......................................................... 839 

Questions for the Record ......................................................................................... 876 

Radio Modernization Project Timeline ................................................................... 858 

Rayburn Firing Range Renovations ....................................................................... 866 

Statement of Chief Kim C. Dine ............................................................................. 840 

Statement of Ranking Member Debbie Wasserman Schultz ............................... 839 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

Page

vii 

Testimony of Chief Dine .......................................................................................... 844 

Training Funding Decline ....................................................................................... 858 

Update on Blackmon-Malloy Litigation ................................................................. 870 

USCP Readiness ...................................................................................................... 863 

Outside Witnesses Statements for the Record 

Civic Impulse ........................................................................................................... 880 

Preservation Technologies ....................................................................................... 885 

American Association of Law Libraries ................................................................. 891 

Sunlight Foundation ................................................................................................ 897 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS