[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 2009
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida, Chair
BARBARA LEE, California TOM LATHAM, Iowa
TOM UDALL, New Mexico RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
MICHAEL HONDA, California JO BONNER, Alabama
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Tom Forhan, Staff Assistant
________
PART 2
FISCAL YEAR 2009 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS
S
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-290 WASHINGTON : 2008
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania JERRY LEWIS, California
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia RALPH REGULA, Ohio
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
NITA M. LOWEY, New York JAMES T. WALSH, New York
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan
JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey
ED PASTOR, Arizona TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
CHET EDWARDS, Texas TOM LATHAM, Iowa
ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr., Alabama ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York KAY GRANGER, Texas
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania
SAM FARR, California VIRGIL H. GOODE, Jr., Virginia
JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois RAY LaHOOD, Illinois
CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan DAVE WELDON, Florida
ALLEN BOYD, Florida MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida
MARION BERRY, Arkansas DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
BARBARA LEE, California JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
TOM UDALL, New Mexico RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana
ADAM SCHIFF, California KEN CALVERT, California
MICHAEL HONDA, California JO BONNER, Alabama
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
TIM RYAN, Ohio
C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas
Rob Nabors, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2009
----------
Thursday, February 7, 2008.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
WITNESSES
STEPHEN T. AYERS, AIA, ACTING ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
BERNARD UNGAR, CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER PROJECT EXECUTIVE, ARCHITECT OF
THE CAPITOL
TERRIE S. ROUSE, CEO FOR VISITOR SERVICES FOR THE CAPITOL VISITOR
CENTER, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
TERRELL DORN, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Chair Opening Remarks
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I would like to call this hearing to
order for the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch of the
Committee on Appropriations. It is a pleasure to be here with
everybody this morning. This is our eighth oversight hearing on
the Capitol Visitor Center. It has been just about a year since
we started these monthly oversight hearings, and I have been
really proud of the progress that we have made. We have been
able to get this project back on track and headed towards a
landing on time so to speak, at least the definition of ``on
time'' that we established about a year ago, and we have been
able to stick to the number of $621 million that was settled on
by GAO and the CVC team and the Architect of the Capitol.
But, of course, now is not the time for us to be
complacent. We need to continue to be diligent and focus hard
on making sure that we can open the CVC for the November target
that we have been talking about for quite some time now.
I am really pleased to welcome our new ranking member, Mr.
Latham of Iowa. It will be a pleasure to work with you. I know
that you have a lot of experience on the Appropriations
Committee and look forward to having your input and advice and
continue the wonderful working relationship I had with Mr.
Wamp, who we will miss, who did an amazing job on this
committee helping me keep an eye on the CVC and also be a good
steward of the facilities that we are responsible for in the
Capitol complex and the Legislative Branch agencies.
So that having been said, Mr. Latham, your opening remarks.
Opening Remarks--Congressman Latham
Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and it is
a pleasure and honor to be on this committee that I served on
when I first came to the Appropriations Committee about 12
years ago, I served on the legislative branch and I want to
continue the bipartisan efforts that I felt at that time
because it was a great experience to learn so much about the
workings of our environment here, and I look forward to working
with you. I appreciate your kindness yesterday with the
chocolate cake and everything, I had a chance to sit down,
visit and get better acquainted. I really look forward to it.
I would like to introduce Doug Bobbitt back here who
actually did this bill about 25 years ago. I look forward to
working with you and the staff. I cannot be here and not thank
Zach Wamp for his help and the information that he's given me,
and I look forward to following in that tradition of working
together, because this is extraordinarily important for the
operations and obviously the safety of our campus here and
everything that we do.
Mr. Ayers, I appreciate the tour yesterday. It looks like
we are making tremendous progress and you should be commended
for what has happened in the last year. I think that the
subcommittee has played a large role in that also, as far as
keeping everyone's feet to the fire. I look forward it, the
progress that is being made there and really appreciate the
chance to be a part of this, thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome, we look forward to
working with you.
I also would be remiss if I didn't thank Congressman Virgil
Goode for his service on the subcommittee. He has also moved
and is now on the Subcommittee for Financial Services. It was a
pleasure to work with him, however briefly, and I am glad to
have Mr. LaHood here as well, who is our veteran member of the
subcommittee.
We have had a really wonderful tradition on this
subcommittee of bipartisan cooperation and that has been the
case with the CVC, and I know it will be the case as we move
through the budget hearings that will be coming up over the
next several weeks.
With that, I would like to welcome the witnesses that are
here today who at this point probably need no introduction:
Stephen Ayers, the Acting Architect of the Capitol; Bernie
Ungar, the CVC Project Executive; Terry Dorn, the Director of
Physical Infrastructure issues at GAO; and Terrie Rouse, the
CEO of Visitor Services at the CVC.
The witnesses' statements will be in the record and we will
proceed under the 5-minute rule. If you can summarize your
statements we would appreciate it, and then I look forward to
taking questions from the members. Mr. Ayers.
Opening Statement--Stephen Ayers
Mr. Ayers. Good morning, and thank you, Madam Chair,
Congressman Latham, and members of the subcommittee. It was one
year ago that I began serving as Acting Architect and nearly a
year ago that I first testified before this subcommittee. I am
pleased to say that much has changed over the past year, and
much progress has been made. I would like to thank the
subcommittee for their support and guidance on this project
over the course of that past year.
I, too, would like to welcome Congressman Latham to the
subcommittee, and look forward to working with you, sir. I
would like also to offer my thanks to Congressman Wamp for his
exceptional and unparalleled knowledge of the history of the
Capitol building, his clear professionalism and bipartisan
spirit. He's played a very important role on this committee as
well as on this project. His work is very much appreciated.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS OVER THE PAST YEAR
In the past year, we have worked with GAO and reached
agreement on an estimated cost to complete figure of $621
million and an opening date of November 2008, on which both
agencies fully agree. We also established and met a November
15th, 2007 substantial completion date, effectively stemming
project delays and associated delay costs which assured that
the complex fire and life-safety testing process could begin on
schedule on November 16th.
FIRE ALARM ACCEPTANCE TESTING
We are making good progress on this final Fire Alarm
Acceptance Testing, and since our last hearing, we have
completed or are well under way with the testing of a number of
systems and devices, including emergency generators, fire
pumps, fire dampers, sprinkler systems, FM 200 suppression
systems, kitchen hoods, the pollution control system, elevators
and escalators.
These are very complex and sophisticated tests and the
systems are performing well. We are pleased with the overall
project and we remain on schedule. As expected, minor progress
with the Fire Alarm and Control System have arisen but have
been quickly corrected by the contractor.
We are currently addressing a short-circuit test and
analysis where a portion of the fire alarm system is not
responding as we would have expected. We don't expect this to
affect our completion date and are poised to address it and
future issues as they arise.
MINOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
There are five remaining areas of the CVC where Minor
Construction activities continue. These include the Library of
Congress Tunnel, the House Hearing Room, the East Front, the
exterior grounds, and the House and Senate atria stairs. All
other construction activities are complete, have been
inspected, and the contractor is working on punch list
activity. As you know, none of these will affect our testing
and acceptance program and none of them will affect our
completion date.
In the stairwell atriums, masons have completed stone work
and are making minor adjustments to the precast terrazzo stair
treads and handrails. In the East Front, crews completed the
gallery level ceiling plaster work and masons have completed
the stone insulation around the rotunda door and are making
good progress on the floor stone installation on the gallery
level.
Outside construction trailers are being removed from the
south egg so landscaping can begin there in the near future.
Paver installation is ongoing on the east side of the site and
repair work to the pavers closer to the Capitol Building, where
they were damaged, will begin this spring.
While fire alarm testing is ongoing, we have been
completing construction activities in these five remaining
areas. While some schedule slippages have occurred in these
areas, we expect all of this basic interior work to be done by
the end of May 2008 and it will not affect our ability to open
the CVC in November 2008 nor will it affect our cost to
complete figure of $621 million.
PUNCH LIST ITEMS
Crews are working to complete punch list items such as mill
work, wall stone, floor stone and ceiling panels. A further
indication that we are successfully transitioning from a
construction project to a visitor services operation is that
audio visual technicians are now on site, adjusting the
projection systems and projection screens in the Orientation
Theaters. All of the exhibit cabinetry and components are in
place in the exhibition hall, and restaurant furniture has been
received and is in storage awaiting installation.
We are pleased with the overall progress, and at this time,
believe we are on schedule to receive a temporary certificate
of occupancy on July 31st, as planned. Between November and
January 30th, 70 Change Orders have been settled. Since our
last hearing, the magnitude of Change Order proposals being
received has continued to diminish, with most of the proposals
coming in at below $10,000.
CVC OPERATIONS
Madam Chair, we have also been working with our oversight
committees and congressional leadership on plans for the CVC's
visitor services operation. While I'll let Ms. Rouse discuss
the details of the work she has done, I would like to note that
I believe she has made tremendous progress and has built strong
relationships and coalitions in her efforts to address the
numerous open issues.
I have enjoyed working with this subcommittee and look
forward to our continued work together to prepare for the
official opening of the CVC. This project will undoubtedly
enhance the visitor experience and provide the necessary
amenities to the millions of people that visit each year. It is
designed to match the Capitol in quality and endurance, and
generations of Americans will continue to benefit from all it
has to offer. That concludes my statement, I will be happy to
answer any questions.
[The statement of Mr. Ayers follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Mr. Ungar, do you have
anything to add?
Mr. Ungar. No, ma'am. I will respond to questions.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Ms. Rouse.
Opening Statement--Terrie Rouse
Ms. Rouse. Good morning, Madam Chair, Congressman Latham,
members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here to update
you on the progress we have made to stand up the organization
that will become the AOC's Offices of Visitor Services for the
CVC.
I echo Mr. Ayers remarks concerning Congressman Wamp and
his dedication to the success of the CVC, and welcome
Congressman Latham. I look forward to our continued work on
this amazing project as we prepare to open the CVC. Since
testifying before the subcommittee in November and in the 5
months since I arrived in Washington, I have been building upon
the operations plan framework that was developed by the AOC,
Congressional Leadeship, and Oversight Committees. Essentially,
we have built a new organization from the ground up that will
be responsible for improving visitor orientation and enhancing
the educational experience of visitors to the U.S. Capitol.
CVC ADMINISTRATION
My first priority was to create a hiring plan and recruit a
team of experienced professionals. This month, the first six
members of my staff reported for duty and have hit the ground
running. In addition, as Mr. Ayers reported to the subcommittee
in November, three contracts have been awarded over the past
several months. The first was to provide food service in the
CVC restaurant, another was awarded to a small business to
develop an Advanced Reservation System, and a third was awarded
to a woman-owned small business for designing the CVC Web site.
We are now developing the necessary tools to assist the
public in finding the information they need to plan their trip
to the Capitol, as well as to learn more about Congress, the
legislative process, the Capitol, and the CVC.
ADVANCED RESERVATION SYSTEM
Specifically, Members offices can more easily facilitate
constituent tours by making real-time reservations for guests
in the Orientation Theaters in order to start the new visitor
experience with the viewing of the orientation film. The
Advanced Reservations System will also assist us in reducing
crowds in the Capitol during peak tourist season by optimizing
the number of opportunities that people will have to visit the
Capitol, as well as further ensure the safety of those in the
building by not exceeding the maximum capacity for the Capitol.
CVC WEBSITE
The new Web site will not only be an introduction to the
CVC, it will serve as the primary tool in our comprehensive
public education campaign to let people know about the CVC, as
well as how to arrange a visit to the Capitol and their
Members' offices, and how Congress works.
Most importantly, with millions of visitors anticipated in
the CVC's first year of operation, the Web site will help
manage expectations by helping the visiting public become well
prepared and well informed by providing clear, accurate and up-
to-date information.
COMMUNICATION PLAN
We are also developing a communication plan which
complements the goals of the Advanced Reservation System and
Web site by executing an effective public education campaign
about the CVC and all it has to offer. Our communications
efforts will be multi-faceted and will reach a variety of
diverse audiences from Capitol Hill residents to international
travelers, to Members' offices, visitors' bureaus, tour bus
operators, to public school children.
CAPITOL TOUR ACTION PLAN
To prepare for this influx of visitors once the CVC opens,
we have been working with the Oversight Committees on a Capitol
Tour Action Plan to ensure a positive visitor experience.
Included in this plan is the introduction of a new program, the
Congressional Historical Interpretive Training Program, or
``CHIP''. CHIP training is being designed to facilitate the
Congressional need to have all staff giving tours appropriately
trained to conduct constituent tours of the historic Capitol
Building and the CVC exhibits; provide for the safety needs of
constituents; and ensure that information provided is correctly
and accurately portrayed and interpreted.
After receiving CHIP training, congressional staff will be
properly equipped to lead constituent tours while providing the
personal touch and including local flavor on tours that is
preferred by Members of Congress.
PROGRAMS AND EVENTS
Madam Chair, along with these exciting initiatives we have
been developing a series of first year programs and events
which we would launch on opening day of the CVC. These programs
would reflect the important impact of the Constitution,
Congress, and our legislative process on the growth and
evolution of our Nation and the Federal Government. By
orchestrating these special events and programs, we will be
able to better pace the use of the building and fully test our
processes and procedures prior to the arrival of busloads of
cherry blossom tourists and eighth graders on class trips. This
is the standard practice when opening a major museum or tourist
attraction, so we intend to pattern our inaugural year events
in accordance with the industry's best practices.
CVC TO-DO LIST
Although we have made tremendous progress, we still have a
To-Do list before the CVC's official opening date is set. Most
notably, Congress must pass legislation to formally establish
the Office of the Capitol Visitor Center within the AOC. I look
forward to continuing to work with our Oversight Committees to
ensure a seamless transition into the new visitor services
organization. I want to, again, thank the Subcommittee, our
Oversight Committees, Congressional Leaders and my new staff
for their support and commitment to ensuring the succesful
opening operation of the CVC. This concludes my statement, I
would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Ms. Rouse.
[The statement of Ms. Rouse follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Dorn.
Opening Statement--Terrell Dorn
Mr. Dorn. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Latham, members of
the subcommittee. I would like to start off this morning by
noting our team is losing two of its starters this month, those
that have been on the engagement since before construction
began and survived over 20 CVC hearings.
First I would like to recognize Mr. Bradley James, a GAO
assistant director and civil engineer who is sitting here next
to the Fire Marshal. Brad is leaving the government after over
30 years of Federal service with the Corps of Engineers and
GAO. His insight on project management and suggestions for the
CVC over the past 4 years has been invaluable.
This is also the last hearing for Mr. David Merrill, a
senior analyst with our financial managment team who has been
involved with the CVC since 2001 and has dealt with the almost
monthly accounting and reconciliation of appropriations and
obligation plans and estimates to make sure that there are no
surprises in these areas. We will miss them both very much.
PUNCH LIST ITEMS
Meanwhile work on punch list items, minor construction
items and fire alarm testing continues. Gilbane reports that
the project is now 99 percent complete. The punch list,
however, continues to grow. As of yesterday, it listed over
14,000 items to be corrected. In fact, the punch list has more
than doubled since the last hearing, and if printed out would
yield a book that is about 400 pages long.
Not all items on the punch list are created equally, of
course, but as the list continues to grow, the challenge the
AOC faces to complete all by November 2008 increases. For
example, if the list stopped growing yesterday, which is highly
unlikely, the AOC and its contractors would need to complete
and reinspect over 50 punch list items every day of the week
between now and November.
AOC and Gilbane deserve credit for thoroughly inspecting
the contractor's work and creating the punch list. And if the
list goes to 20,000 items so be it. My point is in this late
stage of the project, 99 percent complete, much remains to be
done before opening. Correcting the punch list items may slow
or even undo some of the cleaning and preparations for the
opening. Continued attention in this area is still needed.
NEAR-CRITICAL PATH FOCUS
Since the last hearing, work on most of the near-critical
paths such as the East Front, exhibit gallery, and House
hearing room have slipped and bear watching. AOC and Gilbane
still expect that the work in these areas will be complete
before the fire alarm testing is completed.
For example, work on the East Front has slipped by another
4 weeks, but is still scheduled to be finished more than 3
months before the Fire Marshal is scheduled to issue his
temporary certificate of occupancy.
FIRE ALARM TESTING
Fire alarm testing remains the most critical activity for
achieving the project's certificate of occupancy making the CVC
available to open some time in November of 2008. As AOC
mentioned this morning, testing is ongoing. As expected, a few
hiccups have occurred conducting the testing, and the CVC is
working to addresss issues with programming and wiring.
Additional cost to the project, if any, is still unknown. The
effect on the project since the last hearing has been to push
several activities beyond the scheduled date to receive a
temporary certificate of occupancy from the Fire Marshal and
has reduced the available scheduled contingency or float.
Future impact to the schedule will depend on AOC's ability
to concurrently make changes to the fire alarm system and
continue acceptance testing. While the AOC does maintain a
schedule of fire alarm testing, with the amount of retesting
required in some areas and other schedule changes, it is
unclear what percent complete that testing actually is. AOC may
want to consider developing a metric to reflect the level of
effort remaining to get the job done.
Ongoing discussions between AOC and the Fire Marshal and
the Office of Compliance may find ways to reduce the amount of
acceptance testing required so preparations for operations may
begin earlier, and mitigate the cost and schedule impact of
system changes that may continue to arise.
OPEN CHANGE ORDERS
Almost 3 months after the AOC declared the CVC project to
be substantially complete, over 25 percent of the PCOs open for
sequence 2 are still open, along with the associated budget
risk. The number of PCOs that are still open remains in the 400
range, but as Mr. Ayers said, the magnitude of each one of
these changes has dropped. I agree. This is about the same
number in total as it was in November of '07. In other words,
new ones have continued to come in at about the same rate that
the CVC has been able to resolve them.
Since the last hearing, AOC issued two unilateral
contracting modifications to address delay issues lingering
because of sequence 1, that they were unable to resolve
bilaterally with the contractors. It is unfortunate that the
two sides were unable to come to an agreement, but AOC's action
is consistent with the earlier GAO recommendations about
unresolved disputes in general.
CVC CONSTRUCTION COST
The CVC's estimated cost remains unchanged at $621 million,
which includes contingency amounts for delays, change orders
and remaining uncertainties related to the project's fire alarm
testing. About $566 million has been approved for CVC
construction. AOC has $16.2 million in FY 2008 appropriations
that it plans to use for construction after it obtains
congressional approval to obligate the funds.
In the budget discussions with AOC next week you may want
to consider that AOC has estimated it will need an additional
$5.9 million in this fiscal year to fund construction. In
addition, in the '09 budget AOC has requested $31.1 million for
construction and this will leave them $2 million short of the
$621 million estimate.
That concludes my statement this morning, and I am prepared
to answer any other questions.
[The statement of Mr. Dorn follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STAFFING CHANGES
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Mr. Dorn. Before
we move into questions, Mr. Latham, with your indulgence, I do
want to mention that we have had a staff change on your side as
well. Jeff Shockey, who was the Deputy Staff Director of the
minority side of the staff and has been lead minority staff for
this subcommittee since I have been the Chair, has now moved on
to be the minority Staff Director for the full committee. Liz
Dawson, after a number of years of service to the committee, is
now the lead minority staff for the subcommittee. We welcome
the opportunity to work with you once again and continue to
work with you in your new capacity.
Mr. Latham. As well.
STAFF-LED TOUR PROGRESS REPORT
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I thank you. Ms. Rouse, I want to
start with you. We spent the bulk of the last hearing talking
about the staff-led tour issue. As you know, the omnibus
appropriations Act that was signed into law by the President
included language that made sure that staff-led tours would not
be eliminated, and that was the result of language that this
committee inserted into the bill.
I want to hear about the progress that you have made in
planning for staff-led tours and tours in general, but I want
to tailor my question a little more specifically. One of the
main things that Members are concerned about and one of the
main services we are able to provide to our constituents when
they come to the Capitol is scheduling the Capitol tour and
providing that tailored service. And I know that the feedback
that I get and that many Members get from constituents, even
people that I didn't see when they were in the Capitol while
taking their tour, they stop and thank me on the ball fields
and in the supermarkets for the wonderful experience that my
staff gave them and that was the thing that was most memorable
for them of their time in Washington, D.C. That is obviously
something we don't want to lose or to die on the vine for lack
of attention. So the devil is in the details in terms of how
you are going to implement it.
ADVANCE RESERVATION SYSTEM
I know that you issued a contract for an advance
reservation system, and the design of that reservation system
and how it directs people to sign up for tours is going to be
incredibly important in terms of whether or not they actually
get connected to their Member. I think it would be a travesty
if we fail to preserve that connection. I know we had over 140
Members sign a Dear Colleague, along with about half of the
Senate, on the importance of staff-led tours.
So how do you plan to make sure that when a constituent
goes onto the advance reservation system that they can be
connected with their Member? When we spoke the other day you
indicated that there would be an option on the screen to either
go through a guide-led tour or a tour scheduled by their
Member's office, but I am concerned that it would be--I want to
make sure that the screen is set up so that they most likely
will go through their Member.
Ms. Rouse. Thank you. After our conversation, I spent a
couple of hours with my team so I could get a clear
understanding. I will explain to you what I understand it to
be.
There will be multiple screens. In about 6 to 8 weeks we
will have a prototype that we will be able to beta test. As
described to me, when someone goes to our Web site a screen
will come up. In that screen you will have the option to go and
book your own tour. In addition, a screen will come up that
says find your House Member, find your Senator. You would then
be directed to your Representative's or Senator's Web site, and
then if someone wanted to book a tour, they would link into
your Web site, which allows either your staff person or the
individual to go ahead and book the tour.
Now if your staff person is booking a tour for an
individual, they have the option of either sending them back an
e-mail confirmation to say they have been booked on a tour, or
they can attach whatever they want to that link, whether it is
support information or whatever it is about the office that
might be worthwhile.
If someone has called that doesn't have Internet service,
and they want a hard copy, then your office will have the
option to package it any way they want. A screen will come up
giving people options. The public can go right in if they want
to, an international visitor, because this Web portal of course
makes it so they're able to book, so that individuals will be
able to do that or they can find their Senate or House offices.
MEMBER OF CONGRESS REPRESENTATION
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If I can just interrupt you for a
second. On the Capitol guide button, so to speak, that someone
would click on to go through a Capitol guide tour as opposed to
going through their Member's office, one of the things that I
think is very important and I know other Members do too is that
every visitor to the Capitol that is an American citizen and
has a Member of Congress representing them or a legal resident
that has a Member of Congress representing them, needs to be
able to find out and be told through that reservation system
who their Member is. So if you can--I think you very much
should be focused on making sure that even if the person goes
through the Capitol Guide Service reservation system that they
are told somewhere in that system who their Member is and where
our office is, so that they can have an opportunity to connect
with us, even if they choose not to have a tour from their
Member.
Ms. Rouse. That is a very good question. I probed on that
yesterday. There may be a way to harvest zip code numbers.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You just have to ask them to put it
in.
Ms. Rouse. Yes, we have to ask them to put it in. From
that, they will be able to know who the Representatives are of
their State. Depending upon how much more detail you get, you
can then get them linked directly. Most importantly, they can
always find their Representatives through the various links. We
can provide this information back to the individual office
about the people who are coming from their district. So I think
that that will be helpful. It helps you plan, it helps us plan.
Our goal is to have enough information to know exactly what we
are doing, the Capitol police will know in advance; we are all
tied together in knowing what our capacities or what our
vacancies are at any given time.
VISITOR-MEMBER CONNECTIONS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My time has expired and I don't want
to go over too much, but I do want to express the importance,
if it hasn't been clear already, that I think it is incredibly
important that an individual, even if they choose not to go
through the tour from their Member, that they are told and
connected to their Member in some way through that other
button. There is an easy way to do it. In terms of constituent
correspondence, in order to communicate with a Member you have
to put your address in, and our system is set up that way
already. So I feel quite certain that the advance reservation
system could be set up that way as well.
You also talked about printing a keepsake certificate. That
keepsake certificate will hopefully also tell the person who
their Member is.
Ms. Rouse. Exactly, each Member office can control that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But even through the Capitol Guide
Service, it is every single person----
Ms. Rouse. With the zip code.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. What I am saying is the system
should automatically have the person put in, in order to keep
going through the steps, put in their zip code or their address
because zip codes don't always do it, so that they can be told
through the process who their Member of Congress is.
Ms. Rouse. We will, we will.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. My time has expired.
Ms. McCollum. A zip code, that is nine digits, right?
Ms. Rouse. Correct.
Ms. McCollum. We are up here thinking zip codes one way and
it may be different; I don't know my 9-digit zip code.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I don't know mine either. It will
probably be the address, because I can tell you that in the zip
codes that almost all of us represent there is overlap in our
districts, so it really needs to be the address--but there is a
system that pulls up your congressional districts very easily.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You're welcome.
Mr. Honda. It should link through the Post Office.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If we can go through the Chair,
every Member will have an opportunity, and I want to give Mr.
Latham his. Thank you.
BUDGET SHORTFALL
Mr. Latham. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I share your concern
about the tours and having the staff involved. Mr. Ayers, Mr.
Dorn just mentioned that there is going to be a shortfall as
far as your budget this year, $5.9 million. Can you just go
through so the public knows about how you plan on addressing
the shortfall this year and what needs to be done?
Mr. Ayers. Yes, sir, I'd be happy to do that. I think, as
we testified several hearings ago, to complete this project we
require an additional $39 million. We thought that some of that
$39 million may be required in fiscal year 2008. So as we
prepared our quarterly spending plan and analysis in October we
felt that about 8 million of that might be needed in fiscal
year 2008 and the remaining 31 million would be needed in 2009.
That 8 million that we potentially needed in 2008, over and
above what we had requested, would be for delay claims that we
would get from a contractor, but that was October.
As we have progressed through the year those delay claims
aren't coming, so our need for additional money in 2008, we are
projecting, now has been reduced to about 6 million. The 39
million stays the same so our '09 request would be from 31 to
33 million. So as of today, our projections still say we'll
need a little less than 6 million. This is what we will need in
'08. We won't need any of that, we believe, until the fourth
quarter of 2008.
So what we have done to date is we have submitted a
reprogramming request to the committee to fence about $3.2
million of that 6 million, taking that out of completed
projects and other funds in our budget that are available, and
we will hold that until the fourth quarter. I know Mr. Ungar
and I expect that this 6 million will continue to decrease in
2008 and we may need a little less than that. We have
reprogrammed and outlined a method by which we will fund a
portion of that money and as we go through the course of the
fiscal year, if we think we will need all of it, we will find
those resources from within our budget from completed projects
and other kinds of efforts to fund that in 2008. But the
overall number doesn't change, $621 million doesn't change.
ANTICIPATED SHORTCOMINGS
Mr. Latham. On another note, I would really like to thank
you for finding the money elsewhere for the two nurses that are
going to be required for the CVC. Apparently this fell through
the cracks last year in conference, but do you anticipate any
other shortcomings like this that are going beyond the 5.9
million and any other items out there right now that will need
reprogramming?
Mr. Ayers. On the construction of the CVC I don't
anticipate any. Ms. Rouse can talk about on the operations
side. I am not aware of any.
Ms. Rouse. On the operations side I don't anticipate any.
We have been able to address our most crucial need, which is
training, in our existing '08 budget.
Mr. Latham. All right.
TRAINING AND STAFFING
Ms. Rouse. We have been able to address our pressing need
and concern, which is training, and been able to deal with
that. Our concern is ramping up time; we will bring on 226
additional staff. In general I think we are on track.
Mr. Latham. I am not sure how this effects the CVC, but we
have just become aware that there is going to be a
reprogramming request that is imminent, apparently, for a new
initiative--the metering in the Capitol, in the office
buildings. From my understanding Mr. Boehner is not aware of it
on the committee that is supposed to have oversight. I was just
curious where that is going to come from or what you are
proposing as far as this metering. Are there any other
initiatives out there that we don't know about?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Latham, that issue is unrelated
to the CVC. We will deal with it when the AOC has their budget
hearing next week.
Mr. Latham. It won't?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No.
Mr. Latham. I will respond when I come back to another
round.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Let me also
welcome Mr. Latham to this committee, and I say to you I look
forward to working with you but also that we are neighbors
right across the hall. And this is going to be, I think, a
committee that is looking forward to working with you, but also
it is a committee that we have worked together under our
Chair's leadership in a bipartisan fashion, and we will miss
Mr. Wamp and I know that your leadership will continue in these
efforts.
I was very pleased to hear from Mr. Ayers and Ms. Rouse,
especially learning of this temporary certificate of occupancy
by July 31st. I want to thank all of you and I have to commend
our Chair, because when I heard this and you said that, I said
if it hadn't been for your prodding and your diligence----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Ms. Lee [continuing]. And your focus, I didn't know if we
would be there, but I thank you very much for that. It has
really been remarkable to see how far we have come in such
little time.
60 DAY POLICY LETTER
Let me thank the entire committee and all of you for
support in our efforts that we have a real renewed commitment
to minority owned and small businesses.
I wanted to ask Mr. Ayers, first of all, a couple of
questions with regard to the letter or the policy that should
be developed, I think it was within 60 days. I want to see how
we are coming on that, and the implementation of this policy.
And when do you think we will be able to see what the 60-day
requirement entailed. I am not sure if we passed the 60 days
yet or not, I think we still have some time. I want to get a
progress report on that.
And to Ms. Rouse, I will just ask you about the contracts
that you mentioned, food service, advanced reservation and the
CVC Web site. You mentioned, I am glad to hear, small business
is one. I don't know if food service is a small business.
And CVC Web site, women-owned business. Do we have any
minority-owned businesses involved at this point?
Let me start with Mr. Ayers first and then go to Ms. Rouse.
MINORITY-OWNED AND SMALL BUSINESS INITIATIVES
Mr. Ayers. Thank you, Congresswoman Lee. As you know and we
have testified previously, we are working two initiatives on
this program. First is to create a set-aside in our
construction contracts, those construction contracts that are
over a million dollars. We have set some goals for ourselves to
ensure those contractors are subcontracting to small
businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, small women-owned
businesses and the like. Those goals have been set up in
writing and they are in place and being followed by our
procurement staff. We implemented that, I believe, in August of
2007.
Ms. Lee. Do we know how we are doing yet or is it too soon?
Mr. Ayers. I don't have a statistical analysis. I can give
you some good examples of projects I do have with me.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ayers. I thought that question may be coming.
A couple of good examples, small, disadvantaged, minority-
owned, black contractor, $3 million project, recently awarded
for the Library of Congress lighting upgrades in the stacks
there. Lawn mowing and snow removing services for the Botanic
Garden awarded to a small, disadvantaged, minority-owned black
company. Shuttle bus service awarded to a small, disadvantaged,
minority-owned black company. Sidewalk repairs and janitorial
services, over $2 million, to a small business, minority-owned
Hispanic company, as well as several others, but I can give you
a full accounting.
Ms. Lee. I would like to see that, and the dollar amount.
Mr. Ayers. I will be happy to do that.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The second initiative is working to create a set-aside for
small businesses, of all categories, for all of our contracts
between $5,000 and $100,000. This will take some considerable
effort, and we are working with the Small Business
Administration to develop an MOU whereby they will help us
develop that program. They will also help us adjudicate issues
that come up under such a program.
We have also reached out to the Department of
Transportation and the USDA to meet with them. Those two
organizations are ranked ``Green'' on the President's Quarterly
PMA Scorecard under their small business goals so we thought
they would be good organizations to meet with and learn from.
So this particular set-aside will take us a little time to
fully implement. I know our staff is diligently working on it.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. I would like to talk to you
further maybe about the 100,000 limit, because as you know, I
think that is much too low.
Mr. Ayers. That is in statute.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Your time has expired.
Ms. Lee. I am sorry, we will come back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We will come back.
Mr. LaHood.
OPENING CEREMONY PLANS
Mr. LaHood. Mr. Ayers, what is planned for the opening of
the visitor center?
Mr. Ayers. In terms of ceremonies?
Mr. LaHood. Right.
Mr. Ayers. Ms. Rouse is planning those activities. She may
be the best one to answer that question.
Ms. Rouse. We are still at the talking stage on planning,
but what we are trying to do is use some best practices from
the field that deals with museums and visitor services and plan
a series of celebrations over 18 months in honor of the opening
of this historic facility. We are still putting things on
paper, and vetting it with leadership and oversight. We intend
to have our first round of meetings towards the end of
February, and hopefully some time in March we will have some
ideas. But, I must add, we are still trying to gather our
ideas, we have gotten a lot of feedback from the Sergeant at
Arms on the House and the Senate sides and we are also looking
to historians to note what has been done in the past.
CVC GOVERNANCE
Mr. LaHood. Can you tell us, Mr. Ayers, about the
governance of the CVC and what has been put in place or what is
happening with that?
Mr. Ayers. Yes, sir. In April of 2007, I received a letter
from the four leaders of the Congress assigning the
responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the visitor
center to the Architect of the Capitol. So the Architect is
responsible for the day-to-day operation. We then went out and
recruited Terrie Rouse, our Chief Executive Officer for Visitor
Services, to run that business element for us.
CVC OVERSIGHT
Mr. LaHood. In terms of oversight, who will have
responsibility for the CVC, legislatively, either on the House
or Senate side?
Mr. Ayers. I believe that will be the Committee on House
Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration.
Mr. LaHood. So there really is no overarching organization
made up of leadership; it will be primarily the committees of
the House and Senate under House Administration and whatever
the counterpart is in the Senate?
Mr. Ayers. For the day-to-day operation of the visitors
center, yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. LaHood. And for oversight, just general oversight, I
assume that the House Administration and the Senate counterpart
will have that jurisdiction?
Mr. Ayers. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And this subcommittee as well, since
we are going to appropriate the funds.
Mr. LaHood. Since they didn't say it, I wondered if that is
the case.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. They can't operate without the money
we appropriate. So there will be oversight coming from us, too.
Mr. LaHood. There will be?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. As long as I am the Chair of the
subcommittee there will be.
CVC COST ESTIMATES
Mr. LaHood. Mr. Dorn, do you think they will stay within
the amount of money that Mr. Ayers gave today? We have gone
from the beginning of this project estimated at 230 million to
over 600 million. Do you think they are going to stay within
that figure?
Mr. Dorn. The 621?
Mr. LaHood. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dorn. Yes, sir, at this point we do. We have some
delays that have occurred, internal delays that have not
affected the completion date of the project. Some hiccups have
happened, some other things have come in at less cost than what
AOC had anticipated earlier. But considering that we have a
contingency built into the 621 estimate, we are still
comfortable that's a good number.
Mr. LaHood. On the day that the CVC opens officially in the
fall of this year, you believe that the final figure for the
construction and opening will be the figure that is in Mr.
Ayers' testimony today?
Mr. Dorn. The 621 is the best estimate we have at this
point.
Mr. LaHood. Based on what you experienced and what you
know, do you think that will hold?
Mr. Dorn. At this late stage of the job and knowing the
contingency amounts we put in, I feel comfortable with that,
and I hope Bernie feels comfortable with that.
Mr. LaHood. Do you, Mr. Ungar?
Mr. Ungar. At this point I do. I am always nervous, but at
this point we are on track for that 621.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. LaHood. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Madam Chair, and also let me add my
welcome to Mr. Latham. A couple of quick ones so I won't waste
a lot of time. In our next meeting, Ms. Rouse, would you mind
reporting back on the exact process by which a constituent can
tell who their congressional representative is? There seems to
be a little bit of confusion here.
Ms. Rouse. I will.
CVC GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
Mr. Honda. In terms of governance, I would like to get back
to the clarity of that since it was not mentioned. Is it in
writing, the governance structure of the CVC, so that when
people ask the question again, it is under the subcommittee,
and not because the Chair took the responsibility. Is it in
some form where people understand that it is under the
subcommittee?
Mr. Ayers. Mr. Honda, I am not aware that that is in
writing anywhere.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If I can just help to clarify the
answer to that question. Mr. Brady and Mr. Ehlers, who chair
and are the ranking member of the House Administration
Committee, have introduced legislation on how the CVC would
operate and the whole way that process would unfold. It is a
very detailed piece of legislation. The governance per se is
not laid out in that legislation, but House Administration and
this subcommittee will be responsible for oversight just like
we were responsible for the oversight of the construction
process as well.
Mr. Honda. For the future, it just seems like things will
change, people will change, their potential will change, and I
think that somehow that clarity has to be some place in written
form so there is no mistake or assumptions made. If we will be
ultimately responsible, it seems that area should be there, but
we can continue to discuss that.
DESIGN PROGRAM CONCEPTS
On the historian issue, you mentioned, Ms. Rouse, that
historians will be involved in designing the programs for the
next few months, and in the process are you as comprehensive as
possible where you not only include the African American,
Latinos, but the Asian American communities in this country,
and how will you know that the list that you have is validated?
Ms. Rouse. A very good question. In our programming
thinking we are trying to look to partnerships with groups who
are experts at putting together programming concepts. So we are
still at the point of putting names down, putting concepts
together for how we would do programming and then we'll begin
to vet that. We would recommend and take any suggestions people
have for possible programs. The way we'd like to address it at
this point is seminars, talks, family days, and activities for
young people, particularly inspiring young people to want to be
their fullest range of citizen. Encouraging them to vote is a
key cornerstone of what we are trying to engage in. So any
suggestions that would be available, we are willing to do it.
We want to make sure our partnerships with people are thorough
and that there is a voice for everyone. That is a key piece of
what we would like to do. We do have that voice in the
exhibition in many ways, but there is always room for
improvement.
Mr. Honda. Okay.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Honda, you still have some time.
MINORITY RECRUITING
Mr. Honda. Oh, okay. I guess the other one would be the
presence of people of color in the upper echelons of our
organizations, not only represented in the workforce but in the
leadership. Are there any plans that you have in looking at
ways to fill slots in the future with minorities?
Ms. Rouse. We have been aggressively working to make sure
that our job postings--we have 246 more positions to search
for. Many of them are in place, but we are also placing our ads
in places, in medium which are non-traditional, so people
aren't just going to USA JOBS. We are reaching out to various
minority communities and professionals to gather in candidates,
because that will be important for us.
We have been talking aggressively about doing a job fair,
actually, to fill the visitor assistant positions, what will
become the gift shop positions. So we have presence of people.
My gift shop staff has even expressed interest in making sure
that we have people who speak different languages to be able to
address the new audiences that will come into the CVC. Between
the CVC and the Library of Congress, we will probably have 4
million people introduced to the Hill here in the next year, so
we need to be able to welcome everyone.
Mr. Honda. Last question, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sure.
Mr. Honda. You mention language and I think that is going
to be critical in getting the information out and having the
community feel comfortable that they have a shot at a contract
and have a way into being part of that process. And so I would
be interested in how the language component would be utilized,
because the possibility of many other communities being
involved in what we have to offer is out there. I am not going
to say I don't have any confidence in the Library of Congress,
but I think there are issues that they have also.
Ms. Rouse. Right, Library of Congress, in terms of
communicating.
I will respond for the record on that issue.
[The information follows:]
Question. Provide details on contract language to ensure minority
competition.
Response. The provisions and clauses that follow are currently
incorporated into the AOC's solicitations and contracts.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Madam Chair, and look forward to
getting to know you better, Mr. Latham.
I would be in big trouble with my grandmother who is
watching from above, if we didn't mention the first Americans
as well as all the communities that represent the vast
diversity of the United States.
CHANGE ORDER--PUNCH LIST
I would like to talk to Mr. Dorn and Mr. Ayers and Mr.
Ungar, maybe then the three of you could just have a
conversation. Change orders and the punch list: 55 per day from
now to opening. Hmm, sounds like a problem. And the fact that
as you are clearing change orders, more change orders come in.
What is the plan here, guys, to get this--I don't want to say
under control, because you have. If you are keeping your change
orders even you have a semblance of control, but you are really
not on top of it. You have managed to keep the problem from
getting worse, but you haven't been able to clear up the
problem.
What do you need from us to help you be successful at this?
Are you having problems with contractors fulfilling their
obligation to meet things in a timely fashion or to do the job
right in the first place? This concerns me. This seems to be a
problem all over, including with our embassies. We are doing a
little better than with the embassy work being done around
here, but what is your plan?
Mr. Ayers. If I could just offer one clarification on punch
list and maybe, Bernie, you could talk about the plan to
remediate those. In terms of a punch list, I think Mr. Dorn may
have mentioned that the objective is to complete that punch
list by November. That is not necessarily the way a
construction contract is done. A punch list could be simply a
touch of paint on 2 square inches of wall or----
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Ayers, I understand all of that.
Mr. Ayers. But there are many things on a punch list that
won't be done in November 2008 is my point. So we are not
driving to a November date to complete a punch list.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Ayers, I think you know I am not worried
about touch-up paint. There are big things on that punch list.
What are you doing to clear them up?
Mr. Ayers. Bernie.
Mr. Ungar. Let me clarify one thing. Terry is right, the
list is 14,000, but not all of those are open, a number of
those have been closed. I don't have the exact count, I will
get that for you.
[The information follows]:
punch list closed items
Question. Provide a count of the number of punch list items that
have been closed.
Response. As of February 7, 2008, approximately 1,170 items have
been closed. Further, work for many other items has been completed, but
the work has not yet been inspected. The number of items on the punch
list will go up and down over the next few months as work in the East
Front and a few other areas is finished. Further, we are constantly
reviewing the list and going through it with the construction manager
to make sure that any items that could hold up opening are addressed in
sufficient time.
The process we have set up with our construction and
management contractor, Gilbane, is to basically systematically
ask the construction contractor to notify us when an area is
ready to recheck and then go and recheck the areas. We have
been doing that for some time now on our House and Senate
expansion spaces. We just recently started with our main CVC to
do that and that is in process. As you indicated, some of the
items are bigger than others, some aren't major items, but we
are in process and we probably will not be done by November. We
certainly will have all the major items that are necessary for
opening done well before then.
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE
The contractor is performing well in this area. I need to
clarify that we have instructed our contractor to give first
and top priority to supporting the acceptance testing that is
going on, because that is what is going to drive the opening
day for the CVC, and they have been doing very well at that. We
have not asked them to ignore the punch list to do that, but
that is the second priority right now. But we are working on it
and we are making progress.
CHANGE ORDERS
Ms. McCollum. Change orders?
Mr. Ungar. Yes, on change orders, as Mr. Dorn said, we use
a slightly different number. We are looking at the numbers that
have not been settled, and that has been about 340, give or
take. These are open ones that have not been settled, but just
not yet concluded for some time. I expect that number to remain
about the same until some time in March when--maybe mid to late
March-when the basic construction is going to be winding down.
We will still get some, but right now both our construction
management contractor and our Sequence 2 Contractor are
focusing first on the high priority change orders by mutual
agreement, and we are working on the others as we can. Once we
start to have a smaller number come in, they will be able to
work this off. It will take some time, but the change orders
right now that we have that haven't been processed are not
slowing up construction. We have a mechanism by which we can
still authorize the work and get the work done.
Mr. Ungar. I don't think that number is going to drop very
significantly until probably summertime. We will be working
toward a resolution of those.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Latham.
CR IMPACT ON THE CVC
Mr. Latham. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You know, if we have
learned anything from history around here, and I share Mr.
LaHood's concerns about costs and things like that, but one
thing that certainly has plagued both parties in control of
this place is we have not been able to get our work done on
time. I am very, very concerned about the impact of a CR on the
CVC, because I would hate to have us go through the estimated
$621 million, have everything in place, go to all this work,
and the day of opening we do not have any funds to operate the
place. I just pledge to the chairwoman that I will do
everything on my part to make sure we get this done on time and
make sure we get a bill signed.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Me, too.
Mr. Latham. Please describe the operational impacts and
tell us any contingency plans, and what the effects would be on
the CVC if we did not have our bill done on time?
Mr. Ayers. Yes, sir. It is best to categorize that analysis
in three areas. First on the construction project, then our
maintenance of the building, then on the operations side. From
a construction contract standpoint, it is not going to have a
significant effect on us. We may have to delay payment on a
delay claim. If that is the case, our costs may increase a
little because of that.
On the facilities maintenance portion, the day-to-day
operation, the nuts and bolts of the building, a CR is not
going to have a significant impact because I think our base is
at a level now where we can sustain that into 2009.
CR IMPACT ON CVC OPERATIONS
It will have a pretty extensive impact on the operations
side. Ms. Rouse can speak to this as well, but I know that
under the CR guidance it is going to be based on the amount of
money we have in 2008. The amount of money we have in 2008 is
not sufficient to meet our monthly payroll requirements
starting in October, the next fiscal year. So I know she is
going to have serious issues if there is a continuing
resolution.
Ms. Rouse. That is an understatement. We have 252 people we
know need to be deployed to deal with the maximum numbers of
capacity. If things bear fruit, as you well know, when a new
destination opens in Washington, D.C., the residents flood in
before the tourists flood in. So in March, we can expect,
eighth graders from all over the world, eighth graders from the
United States, and in the fall it will be residents. So if we
are not able to deal with that capacity, we will try to work
towards a management structure to do what we can, but we will
not be at our best. I think what I would like, and I am sure
what the Members of Congress would like, would be for us to be
at our best.
Mr. Latham. How about the education programs? There is
going to be, you know, public programs that you have in place.
How about----
Ms. Rouse. They would suffer. The historians and curators
who are on staff, who are volunteering their time to help us do
programs, because it is a good chance to show off what they can
do and have been doing for decades, we can probably institute
them. Anything that was a partnership activity we would have to
delay doing because it would require some other activities. So
it would have an impact. Hopefully, we would know far enough in
advance that we could come up with some alternatives, and we
would work toward those alternatives, but it would have an
impact.
CVC CONTINGENCY PLANS
Mr. Latham. Is there any contingency plan, any thought--
since this is obviously not out of the realm of possibilities.
It has happened the last 2 years under both parties' control
around here.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We didn't have a year-long CR this
time.
Mr. Latham. I have heard the rumor that there is probably
not going to be a lot of bills sent up to the White House this
year until after the elections.
Mr. Ayers. Congressman Latham, we have not addressed
contingency plans yet, and I think it is also important to
think broader than the Architect of the Capitol. Certainly in
terms of the CVC it could affect Police operations, the Senate
and House Sergeants at Arms, the Chief Administrative Officer
of the House, all of whom have a stake in the successful
opening of the CVC. So it would be good to consult with them as
well. It is early in our fiscal year. Quite frankly, we have
not addressed contingency plans for fiscal year 2009 yet.
Mr. Latham. I would just hate to see us have this big
opening and then have the place not operational. Thank you very
much.
CVC--MEETING ITS NEEDS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Let me just say that I am not
concerned about whether we end up in a CR. We got through this
last fiscal year. Moving from the minority to the majority, we
had a continuing resolution in 2007, and in 2008 we had an
omnibus act where we made sure that the needs were met. And I
feel quite certain that we will make sure that needs are met in
this fiscal year as well.
Obviously, there always needs to be contingency plans. This
is a very nimble subcommittee. The Appropriations Committee is
nimble. We have the ability to move money around to make sure
that the operations that we need to continue will do so. So I
feel quite confident that we will be able to make sure that we
manage regardless. But we should all be committed to working
diligently to make sure we do not have a CR, and that we get
our bills passed and sent to the President and do the work of
the American people that we were sent here to do.
FIRE ALARM ACCEPTANCE TESTING
I have a number of questions about the fire alarm
acceptance testing. I noted in Mr. Dorn's statement that we
have made good progress. I want to compliment the Architect and
the Fire Marshal and all the team of people that are working
together to try to make sure that this massive, massive project
is going along at a good clip. And I can see that we have made
economies and probably doubled up on testing and things that we
could do simultaneously. That having been said, I know there
have been consultants that have advised that perhaps the
process that has been laid out does not have to be as lengthy
as it is. And Mr. Dorn, you noted in your statement that the
fire alarm testing is largely on schedule. But obviously that
is the biggest pitfall that we are facing potentially if a
wrench gets thrown into the works. So any economies that we can
make that obviously do not jeopardize safety we should be
making.
The recommendations that came from consultants, so far
those have not been accepted by the Fire Marshal. Can you talk
about that, Mr. Dorn, and talk about perhaps what the
differences are and the concerns and how we might resolve that?
Mr. Dorn. I can talk about just some generalities, but they
are certainly closer to the details than I am. My understanding
is, again, there are a number of consultants, and also the
internal fire protection engineers from AOC, who recommended
that not quite as much testing of the smoke detectors, in
particular, would be needed. We would not have to take every
one of them down to test it. The Fire Marshal disagrees for his
reasons. And there may be some other testing that also could
possibly be shortened. AOC has been looking into this, and
they--I believe they brought in the Office of Compliance to try
to see what their opinions are.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Their recommendations are
forthcoming on the economies that might be able to be made?
Mr. Ayers. I have them now. They were delivered yesterday.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You have them now? Okay. Bernie?
Mr. Ungar. I might be able to summarize for you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Mr. Ungar [continuing]. The suggestions we have gotten and
where we stand with the acceptance testing plan. We had some
advice from the General Services Administration and from some
other fire protection engineers. There were three areas that
they identified where we might be able to economize to some
extent. One was the number of tests we did on each smoke
detector. Another was the extent to which we test subsystems
every time we do the smoke detector tests. Thirdly, how much we
test what has been referred to as the CONOP, the different
sequences. Basically, there are different professional opinions
on whether or not we should do all the testing on each smoke
detector, the three separate tests. The Office of Compliance,
we just got their report yesterday, they believe that we should
do the testing that the Fire Marshal has suggested, where the
other consultants believed we do not need to do all three
tests.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I see.
Mr. Ungar. I believe Mr. Ayers is going to go ahead and do
what the current plan calls for. The other items would not be
quite as much savings, but there is still some potential there.
I do not know that any decision has been made on whether we
might be able to do less subsystems testing and use some
technology to help out there or not. There are two other
suggestions that the Office of Compliance made. One was that we
might be able to do, in effect, some probability sampling of
this CONOP. I do not know that the Fire Marshal has actually
made a decision on that yet. But another recommendation that
was made could be very helpful to us in meeting the time frame.
And that is a suggestion that we should consider allowing the
operations staff to begin preparing for operations prior to the
time that we have a temporary certificate of occupancy,
assuming the testing is done in such a way as the building
would be safe to do that. That could be a very helpful
suggestion if it is adopted.
Mr. Ayers. Madam Chair, if I may?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes, Mr. Ayers. My time has expired.
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE REPORT
Mr. Ayers. I did read the report from the Office of
Compliance this morning. I would just like to commend Mr.
Eveleth and Charles Tetro who wrote the 16-page report. It is
an absolutely outstanding analysis of the issues. It is very
well written. And it takes a very sophisticated and complicated
issue and boils it down to something that is very readable and
easily understood. So I would encourage all of you to read it.
And I will give you two sentences: The Architect of the
Capitol's Life Safety Acceptance Plan for the CVC represents a
reasonable and reliable means to confirm the function and
performance of the CVC's complicated Life Safety System.
Accordingly, we agree with the determination of the Architect
of the Capitol to proceed with the acceptance testing as set
forth in the plan. So I think we are doing the right thing.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. My
time has expired.
Ms. Lee.
CVC HIRING AND STAFFING DIVERSITY
Mr. Lee. Well, just following up on my previous questions,
I just want to ask Ms. Rouse, first of all, let me commend you
for your efforts at ensuring that the hiring process and the
staffing reflect the diversity of the millions of Americans who
should be reflected in the staffing of the center. A couple of
things with regard to some of the openings. As you do your job
fairs, it would be helpful if you would send information to of
course the Hispanic Caucus, Asian Pacific Caucus, and the
Congressional Black Caucus in terms of postings, because we may
be able to help you just in your outreach efforts. And
secondly, I would like to get an understanding of the process
of how you select suppliers, and the difference between that
process and the contracting process, or is it all centralized,
or how does this work?
Ms. Rouse. And I will try to do my best, and I will provide
any additional information for the record. What we will be
using moving forward with the CVC is an initiative to reach out
to minority-owned businesses and small businesses. A lot of the
highly craft objects that will go into the gift shop, for
example, will probably come from small vendors. So we have been
gathering names. We have also put an initiative out in the
community, and our new gift shop manager is very familiar with
that assortment of artisans. So we want to make sure that they
are represented, and also make sure that they understand our
process, and are not overwhelmed by what looks like government.
So there will be a little bit of hand holding.
We did hire someone in the procurement department who can
be helpful in answering questions that often come from someone
who is not familiar with the system.
TRAINING INITIATIVES
We have some other initiatives regarding training. We are
also trying to gather names of various types of training
organizations who could be responsive to our RFP about training
for what is going to become our CHIP program and then our staff
program. It is a particular passion of mine that we be able to
have people be well prepared on the floors, not only just on
simple questions, but if they are also doing guided service.
Also as we train staff, that we are providing them with the
best possible opportunity. So it is gathering people in. It is
a combination of us having some initiatives and making sure
people know about them and it is a procurement process, larger
procurement or RFP.
Mr. Lee. Is this national? Is it a national search that you
engage in or is it primarily regional, local?
Ms. Rouse. The gift shop, to my understanding, is national.
It is knowing who is out there, if you will, and then the more
people know, they seek us out. I guess with the general RFP,
that would go as far as we possibly could.
Mr. Lee. Okay. Mr. Ayers, in terms of the contracting
process with regard to say the construction, the big contracts,
is this centralized?
Mr. Ayers. The way we run our procurement function is we
actually have a decentralized procurement office. We have a
central procurement office with our contracting officer and
contract specialists, and then, as you know, we operate with 10
separate appropriations and what we sometimes call
jurisdictions, the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court,
Library of Congress, Capitol Building. Each of those respective
offices or business units have procurement professionals in
them as well.
Mr. Lee. I see, okay.
Mr. Ayers. So in that regard we run a decentralized
procurement operation. Typically, we compete construction
contracts through the standard Federal procurement guidelines,
and we advertise, and people nationally can bid on those
things. They typically are won by more regional companies,
because they can obviously do it cheaper.
Mr. Lee. So all of the branches, the 10 branches understand
what the new requirements are----
Mr. Ayers. Absolutely.
Mr. Lee [continuing]. As it relates to small businesses,
minority, women-owned businesses?
Mr. Ayers. Right.
Mr. Lee. Thank you very much.
RECRUITMENT EFFORTS
Mr. Ayers. If I could just further embellish and compliment
Terrie on her recruitment efforts, I know that she has
advertised all of those jobs to the Federal Asian Pacific
Council, the Blacks in Government, the American Association of
African American Museums, the Society of American Indian
Government Employees, and the list goes on and on. She has
really done a great job of casting a wide net to recruit the
talent to run the CVC.
Mr. Lee. Great. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
And Mr. LaHood, I apologize for skipping you. Mr. LaHood.
GOVERNANCE AND LEGISLATION
Mr. LaHood. Not at all. I want to go back to this
governance thing, because I think it is going to be a serious
problem. Unless you are intimately involved in the legislation,
or our subcommittee is, things change very quickly around here,
vis-a-vis Mr. Latham assuming the ranking member position. And,
you know, I know that while you are Chair of this subcommittee
you will pay attention to this. But I assume that if an
opportunity is provided for you to move to another subcommittee
and chair it, you would take advantage of that. And I am just
saying this, when this project was started it was started under
Republican leadership. It was started by people who are no
longer in the Congress. And we need to have some say in
whatever legislation is developed. If we do not, we are going
to be sitting on the sidelines, and when complaints come in
about who is running things and who is responsible, we are not
going to be at the table. So if the House Administration
Committee is developing the legislation, I hope we are going to
be in the room when it is developed.
And I hope our subcommittee is going to have some role to
play. And I would even ask, if Mr. Dorn can play a role here by
looking at the legislation that is being developed, because
eventually if this thing is not working right, your office is
going to be called in to find out and figure out what the
problems are. And I do not know if you can play that kind of a
role, Mr. Dorn, but we need to make sure that all the people
that are going to have some say over this are at the table and
in the room when the legislation is developed so that on day
one, when the facility is opened, people around here know who
is running this place and who has ultimate responsibility. So I
will make that point.
STAFF TOURS
The other point I want to make is on these tours, I have a
Web site like most Members, probably like all the 434 Members
of the House, and I assume all 100 Senators do, I have a Web
site where people can click in and order a flag, request a
tour, but the vast majority of people call my office. You need
to be sure that there is in place an opportunity for all 435
offices and 100 Senators' offices, there has to be clear lines
of understanding here or you are going to have a huge mess on
your hands when individual Members want their staffs to give
staff tours.
That has become, I think, one of the services that our
offices have provided that people have really appreciated. And
I agree with what the chairwoman has said about this. People
care more about a staff tour than they do about any bill that
is ever passed around here. And if you do not get it right, you
are going to be in for you know what around here by Members.
This is as important as any piece of legislation that has
ever passed. This is critical. And you know, the idea in your
description of how people can click in and all that sort of
stuff, a lot of people around this country do not have
computers and do not have the ability to click onto a Web site,
but they do have a telephone. Everybody in this country has a
cell phone, and they know how to call their Congressperson in
order to get a tour. And listen, we do not want to mess this
up. I want you to get it right from the beginning, because if
you do not, there is going to be you know what to pay around
here.
That is my admonition on that. Thank you.
CVC OPERATIONS--APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE INVOLVEMENT
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No, thank you. I agree with you 100
percent. And let me just add that the legislation, as I
understand it, I have not read it yet, but the legislation that
has been introduced by Mr. Brady and Mr. Ehlers related to the
CVC operation includes the Appropriation Committee's
involvement, our signoff on the various processes that they
will go through. As I review it, I will make sure that we have
the appropriate amount of involvement, if we do not already.
Mr. Latham, I would ask your assistance in that, because
obviously we are going to be expected to appropriate whatever
funds are needed to operate the CVC. And let me just remind all
the witnesses that you made reference to your oversight
committees. Those are not limited to just the Senate Rules
Committee and the House Administration Committee. This
committee is an equivalent when it comes to oversight. And we
would expect that you would include us and keep us apprised and
involved, not just told, but involved in the process as you go
forward with your plans to begin opening and operating the CVC.
Thank you, Mr. LaHood.
FIRE ALARM ACCEPTANCE TESTING PROGRESS
Obviously the fire alarm acceptance testing plan is really
significant. It could potentially be the biggest factor in
whether or not we get thrown off track. And through our
oversight hearings, we will continue to keep close tabs on the
progress of that. I have really been pleased with the progress
we have been making. The margins are very close, we do not have
a lot of wiggle room, so we have to make sure that we are
vigilant, that you get what you need from us, and that you are
paying very close attention to it. And the homework that I have
is related to that as well.
ELECTRICAL VAULT CONCERNS
I want to jump to the electrical vault issue, because that
is also another problem that potentially could result in
throwing the schedule off. I know that you have been working
hard to resolve the three existing electrical vaults that were
inhibiting the paving portion of the plaza. They were put in
the wrong place, and that that is in the process of being
worked through. I have been reading the weekly reports. Can you
give us, Mr. Ungar, a status update on where we are with that?
Mr. Ungar. Yes, Madam Chair. Actually, as we speak our
architectural consultant is surveying the area. By the end of
this month we would hope to have a design from them as to how
to do the construction. Then our Sequence 2 Contractor is ready
to roll. We also have to have a contractor that has been
approved by Pepco to do a major portion of this work. We will
need to get Pepco's signoff on our design. They have agreed to
give us expedited service in reviewing that once we get the
design done. So we hope to start the first part of March. Then
it will take several months to do that. I do not suspect it
will adversely affect the opening, because we hope to have that
work done by the end of August or early September at the
latest.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. What about the 621 number?
Mr. Ungar. It is going to be more than we anticipated, but
we do have contingency funds available. So I do not believe at
this point in time that it is going to affect that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. In the spirit of making sure that
something like this does not happen again, how is it that this
happened?
Mr. Ungar. The best I can determine, and we will look more
into this, Madam Chair, apparently a while ago, when the firm
that was doing the initial survey work for us did it, it
apparently did not do thorough enough research on the depth of
these manholes and the Pepco requirements. It was not until
recently that we learned that we were not going to have enough
distance to meet Pepco's requirements. So that is what threw us
off. Once we learned we had the problem, we obviously got right
on it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Well, I know you are
monitoring it very closely, and the reports that we get give us
very specific detail on the progress. So I appreciate that.
When were those installed? I know we realized it fairly
recently, but at what point in the process were those
installed?
Mr. Ungar. I do not know that they are new. I believe there
are two existing ones. The problem is that we do not have
enough distance between those manholes and the electric vaults
with the cable. We have to add a third one. Of course, we will
have the distance requirements for that.
CHANGE ORDER MONITORING
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. On the issue of change orders,
I watch the change order section of the report every week.
There are some weeks that you have come in where you have
resolved more change orders than you have had come in. The last
couple weeks we have had more change orders come in than you
have resolved. And they are starting to drop in terms of the
amount that they cost, but it is a little disturbing that we
are not changing the number. Mr. Dorn referenced that that
could eventually--I mean months ago he referenced that the
change orders issue could eventually become a problem in terms
of the critical path.
Mr. Dorn, do you still have that concern or do you think
that the progress that has been made has been made steadily
enough that they will not affect the opening?
Mr. Dorn. As far as schedule, the AOC has been able to work
around these change orders by giving the contractor permission
to start on some of them with a not-to-exceed number, so he has
been able to mitigate most of the schedule impacts so far. What
you have I think more than schedule impact is just an unknown
cost. We have got estimates put together to give a range of
where we think those costs are going to be, but it is still an
uncertainty.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. When do we anticipate the number of
change orders coming in will begin to slow? Because that would
be nice.
Mr. Ungar. We hope that will take place in March, Madam
Chair. We have only a few areas of the CVC for which
construction is not complete. The East Front, the House Hearing
Room, the Tunnels and exterior landscaping. We are still,
unfortunately, running into some structural issues and some
conflicts in the East Front. I suspect we will have a few more
of those. I hope not, but I suspect so. I think they are dying
down in the Hearing Room. I suspect we will have a few more
come in. We also are beginning to do what we have termed some
auxiliary projects. We may get a few on those. For example,
congressional leadership would like to have us install
information desks in the CVC. We have intentionally held off on
doing that until after substantial completion so we can get the
acceptance testing done. There are a few projects like that
that we have held off on. My suspicion is we may get a few
changes. They will not be significant. But in terms of count, I
mean the numbers, the dollar amount will not be high, but the
count will be there. But I think in reality the only way to do
this any quicker would be to ask our construction manager to
bring on more staff to process these quicker. But if we were to
do that, the Sequence 2 Contractor and subcontractor would also
have to add staff. At this point, I think everybody has
concluded that it is not a major problem. We would certainly
like to get them reconciled, but it is not a major problem.
PUNCH LIST ITEMS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. As long as you are still
anticipating it is not a major problem. On the punch list
items, we recognize that you can open the CVC with punch list
items left. I mean 50 a day is not a number that scares me that
much. But of the significant punch list items that need to be
dealt with before, do you have any concern about dealing with
those and getting those put aside? And then obviously the
little touch-up paint issues and smaller ones could continue
after the opening. Do you have any concern about not getting
those accomplished by the time we open?
Mr. Ungar. At this point we do not, Madam Chair. We are
going to sit down shortly and go through these. I just might
add that the punch list right now is going to go up and down
because we have not finished work in the East Front yet and a
few other areas. We are going to be obviously reviewing those
and adding to the list at the same time it is going to be going
down. We are going to be going through that with our
construction manager, and we are going to make sure and work
with our contractor to make sure that anything that possibly
could hold up opening is addressed in sufficient time. Our
contractor has been very good about working with us in areas
like that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. In the change order section, or
wherever you think it is appropriate on the weekly report, if
you could add a progress report on how we are doing on----
Mr. Ungar. Punch list?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. punch list items, that would be
great.
Mr. Ungar. Sure.
CVC TRAINING PROGRAM
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Let me just flip back to the staff-
led tour issue, and we can close it out on that. Ms. Rouse, we
have all stressed how important it is that accurate information
be relayed by Capitol guides and by our staff when they are
giving a tour. And I know you are developing that CHIP training
program. I am a little bit concerned about whether or not a 12-
hour training program, which is more than 2 days in terms of a
workday, is necessary. Why is 12 hours a magic number? I mean 6
hours out of 2 different days for any staff person that you
want to get fully trained seems a little excessive. We do not
want to love the training program to death so that it is
difficult to get our staff members trained.
Ms. Rouse. Well, we can always look at the hours. The 12
hours, I think, works well. We worked with the training
department. Because it is not only just the historical
information, it is safety issues, it is trying to get them
comfortable with this process, integrated into what has to be
done, giving voice to the Senate and the House side in terms of
the type of information that is there and their comfort level.
Also it is a way for us to have staff who are short-term as
well as long-term really become embodied with the services of
the Capitol Visitor Center, to have them become part of us and
part of Congress. So that is the reason for the 12 hours.
I would also like to be able to, as we develop our
volunteer policy, some of these staffers may want to become
part of our volunteer corps as that is improved. So it is
really a way to get people engaged. So that is the notion of
the 12 hours. We were hoping, and we had talked to some of the
Representatives' offices, that in those first series of
classes, to use the congressional auditorium so we can do 400
at a time, so within a couple of weeks we could have almost one
thousand people trained.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. How often are you planning on
running those? Because I saw that your proposal was monthly,
once a month. That may not be enough.
Ms. Rouse. That is true. When we first start we are going
to try to backload and get as many done as we possibly can.
Then we will be able to test the waters and see how it is all
going. But initially, it will be to do as many as the demand
supplies. Of course, we will be scheduling around other events
in the Congressional Auditorium. We are also going to explore,
if necessary, a space that is not directly on the Hill, or
across the street or someplace in the event that, we get bumped
out of the Congressional Auditorium.
TRAINING PROGRAM OUTLINE
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do you have an outline of the
proposed training program? If you could submit that for the
record I would appreciate that.
Ms. Rouse. Sure.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So we can see what process you are
taking that through for training. And then my last question
before we wrap up and I give you the monthly homework is I am a
little bit concerned about your communication plan, because we
do not really have a sense of just how many visitors are going
to come through right at the beginning. Like you said, you have
D.C. Residents that will come in initially, and we expect a big
influx in the spring, and obviously with any opening you have
kinks that you are going to have to iron out, which is why you
are going through that first annual series of activities. I
would strongly suggest you not implement a marketing and
outreach and communication plan until after the kinks are
ironed out. You are not planning on inviting the world at the
point that we open, are you?
Ms. Rouse. We are in the reverse problem. I think everybody
will know that we are opening. Our goal is to make sure that
everyone who comes to the Hill is properly prepared. That is
our whole public awareness approach, that people know they
should not bring bottles of water, they should not bring their
backpacks. We often run into the fact that people do not know
how to access the people's House. So there is a lot of
confusion in the tourism publications. So we want to get the
word out so it is correct, so people are prepared from that
standpoint. That is how we see it is not marketing proactively,
it is marketing to inform. So that is our public awareness
approach.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. As far as the proactive marketing,
though, because eventually I assume you will market and
encourage people to come. That is down the road? Good.
Chair Closing Remarks
Okay. Again I want to welcome Mr. Latham. I am truly
looking forward to working with you, and appreciate all the
input that we have had from Members over time. I also want to
thank the whole CVC team and the Architect of the Capitol for
the progress that we have made. We have a long way to go, but
we have come really far in the last year. But what has become
clear to me from this hearing and over the last number of
months is the fire alarm acceptance testing is really going to
be the key to whether the project stays on schedule. All these
other things, they are sort of an annoyance, they are an
irritant, but they are not what makes my heart pound at night.
I never thought fire alarm acceptance testing would make my
heart pound at night, but it does.
CHAIR'S ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT
Mr. Dorn, you testified about the consultants having
different advice and different opinions. And I know you have
chosen at this point to go with the Fire Marshal's
recommendations according to the existing plan. But we need a
clear understanding. If you can give us each recommendation
that has been made with regards to the testing plan, which
consultant or agency made each recommendation, what the
potential impact of each recommendation would be on the CVC's
project cost and schedule, and what has been done to implement
each recommendation or the reasons why a particular
recommendation has not been pursued. And if you could prepare
that in a summary paper no later than noon, next Friday,
February 15th, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Latham, you have anything else to add?
Mr. Latham. No. I just appreciate the panel, say thank you
very much for the great job you are doing, and quite honestly,
I hope I do not get to the point where my heart pounds----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I hope not either.
Mr. Latham [continuing]. Over fire testing.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. With that, the subcommittee stands
in recess, subject to the call of the Chair.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, February 13, 2008.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
WITNESS
STEPHEN T. AYERS, AIA, ACTING ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Chair Opening Remarks
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Good morning. I am pleased to call
to order this hearing of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of
the House Committee on Appropriations.
This is our first in a series of hearings on the
Legislative Branch agencies. Collectively, the agencies have
asked for an approximately 19 percent increase. Given that in
the last two cycles we have had either a 2 or a 3 percent
increase in the Legislative Branch overall, I think that we are
going to need to pare down expectations and inject some realism
into what is likely to happen versus what I think most of us
would like to happen.
I certainly am committed to making sure that we do as much
as we can and, like we did in the 2008 cycle, deal with the
``must haves,'' the ``got to haves'' and the essentials as
opposed to the, ``gee, it would be nices.'' We are going to be
considering a $3.7 billion request from the Legislative Branch,
a $587 million increase over FY 2008. If you add the Senate
items, we end up going over $4.7 billion.
That having been said, I know the Acting Architect of the
Capitol, Mr. Ayers, has put together a proposal. Based on the
long-term hearings that we had last year, you got a pretty
clear indication of what my priority is in terms of making sure
that we look forward towards what the needs are as far as
shoring up the Capitol complex and in making sure that we
address the facilities' needs and the infrastructure's needs. I
know, in your proposal, you have done that. You have definitely
indicated all of the needs that you have and have laid them all
out there. So I appreciate that. It helps in terms of
understanding the magnitude of the problem that we are facing.
So I do not want you to take my expression of realism to be
a criticism of your request, because I completely understand
why you have laid it all out there and have expressed to us
just exactly what we are facing in terms of needs.
Our job as the Legislative Branch Subcommittee is to be the
stewards of these facilities, the financial stewards of these
facilities. House Administration oversees the day-to-day
operations, but we are the ones who fund the infrastructure. If
something is crumbling, it is our responsibility to make sure
it gets taken care of.
I know that your budget proposal this year looks toward
making sure that we are fiscally responsible by trying to focus
on paying for today what we can get done so that it is not more
expensive tomorrow. And I think that is a really responsible
way to approach it. But we are still going to have some very
tough choices, just like we always do.
I am looking forward to hearing your remarks.
Mr. Latham, welcome to your first budget hearing on the
Legislative Branch Subcommittee.
Congressman Latham's Opening Remarks
Mr. Latham. Thank you very much.
I look forward to the testimony today and to hearing your
request.
I have a particular concern about all of the deferred
construction and all of the pending problems that we have out
there. Hopefully, we can target our funding to things that are
really needed. I look forward to hearing your testimony but
also to asking you a few questions. So thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Latham.
Mr. Ayers, your statement has been received and will be
entered into the record at this time. If you could proceed with
a short summary of your statement.
Opening Statement--Stephen Ayers
Mr. Ayers. Thank you, Madam Chair and Congressman Latham.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding our
fiscal year 2009 budget request.
It was a little over a year ago that I began serving as
Acting Architect and nearly a year ago that I first testified
before this subcommittee on our budget operations and
accomplishments.
This budget represents change for the AOC. It represents a
change in leadership and a change in direction. It represents
change from a reactive organization, one that has often been
caught flatfooted and faced with significant problems, to one
that looks forward, plans and takes action to anticipate
problems and to prevent a crisis.
This has also been a year of growth for the AOC.
Specifically, we have seen our scope of responsibility grow
from 15 million square feet to nearly 16.5 million square feet
and from 370 acres of land to more than 450 acres today. With
that additional responsibility comes added cost for
maintenance, staff, utilities and physical security.
At the same time, the historic buildings and other physical
infrastructure in our care continue to age. In addition, as
fire and life-safety standards have become more stringent since
these buildings were constructed, we face significant
requirements to abate Office of Compliance citations and
improve fire safety conditions throughout the Capitol complex.
We are committed to ensuring that these deficiencies are
corrected and that significant resources are put toward these
issues.
UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS
We have a backlog of more than $600 million in deferred
maintenance and $800 million in capital renewal projects. As
the AOC continues to be unable to fund these projects, this
``bow wave'' of unfunded requirements continues to grow. We
have developed this budget through a deliberate planning
process, and it reflects only the highest-priority initiatives
for funding our core activities. We have already made some
difficult choices and have not requested funding for a long
list of projects, additional staffing, and several operational
initiatives.
We also recognize that this is a significant request in a
time of fiscal restraint. We believe that, without this
important investment in facilities, they will continue to
deteriorate. We believe it is fiscally responsible to request
the funding needed now instead of waiting until facilities are
in a crisis and beyond repair, thereby costing millions more to
restore, renovate and renew.
If not addressed, facility requirements will only continue
to grow more serious and more expensive. Therefore, we are
requesting $642.7 million for fiscal year 2009.
Our 2009 annual operating budget request of $384.4 million
provides funding for operations and for maintaining the
infrastructure that supports the Congress as well as AOC's
internal infrastructure systems. This increase of $48.1 million
is driven primarily by the upfront investment requirement to
meet legislated energy usage decreases as well as to fund the
initial full-year operations of the Capitol Visitor Center.
The second component of our budget request is $258.2
million for capital projects. Chief among our responsibilities
is maintaining, preserving and upgrading the national treasures
entrusted to our care. Determining which work is done first and
where our limited resources are best used involves a deliberate
approach and multi-year project planning. Our primary focus is
on ensuring that fire and life safety deficiencies are
corrected first.
AOC ACHIEVEMENTS
Madam Chair, as I noted earlier, the past year has been one
of significant achievement for the AOC. In addition to meeting
the substantial completion date for the Capitol Visitor Center,
some of our other accomplishments include adding the Library of
Congress's new National Audio Visual Conservation Center to our
inventory; signing into effect a collective bargaining
agreement with AFSCME Local 626; completing office moves for
the 110th Congress, including 181 House offices, 20 House
committees, 21 Senate offices, and nearly 840 Senate staffers.
Additionally, we have closed out 65 of 98 items or citations
from the Office of Compliance. We also have closed out 54 of 72
GAO recommendations aimed at improving the organization. And we
have received our fifth consecutive clean financial audit
opinion from our independent auditors.
Internally, we continue to foster a results-oriented
workplace and encourage communication and teamwork throughout
the organization. I am pleased to report that a direct result
of our efforts is a decrease in our injury and illness rate for
the eighth year in a row.
We greatly appreciate this subcommittee's support and the
investment that Congress has made in our facilities and
infrastructure in recent years. However, as these buildings
continue to age, they will require significant repairs and
renovation, and this will require significant investment. We
are committed to working with the Congress to address this
backlog of maintenance and repair projects.
Over the past year, the AOC has accomplished much and has
experienced several successes. These achievements can be
directly attributed to the dedicated and professional
individuals that make up our team. In my role as Acting
Architect, it is a great privilege and an honor for me to work
alongside them every day.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to present our
FY2009 budget, and I am happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[Mr. Ayers' statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FDA BUILDING PROJECT
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much, Mr. Ayers. I
appreciate your testimony, and I also appreciate that you are
focusing on life-safety and security issues. We did have a big
security focus last fiscal year, and we continue to have one.
I note that you have the list of recommended construction
projects versus deferred construction projects. I am going to
want to ask you about that at some point during the hearing.
Because I know it will come up, I would like to ask you to
touch on the FDA building for a couple of minutes. We made an
investment in security enhancements for the FDA building last
year of $16 million so that it could be used as swing space and
so that we could work toward getting that ready for our plans
to begin renovating and addressing the life-safety issues in
the Cannon building. That is around 2012, from what I
understand. So, in order to be able to use that space, we have
to get it ready. That decision was the result of bipartisan
approval in the 108th Congress, and it was signed off on by the
House leadership at the time.
This fiscal year you have requested $15 million, which, to
my understanding, begins the reconfiguration of the interior of
the FDA building. Can you briefly describe what the whole
project entails, why it is important to the future of the
Capitol complex, and just describe the current state of the
100-year-old Cannon building and the 75-year-old Longworth
building for us, please?
Mr. Ayers. Yes, ma'am.
The Cannon building is celebrating its 100th anniversary
this year. It has never had a top-to-bottom major renovation,
and we do have some significant infrastructure problems there.
It is one of the buildings that is in the worst condition
throughout the Capitol complex. So, as you noted, it is in
deteriorating condition. We have several HVAC issues. We have
numerous life-safety issues. We have egress problems,
electrical problems and the like. That building does need a
top-to-bottom renovation, and we do hope to be able to do that
in accordance with our Capitol Complex Master Plan in 2012 or
2013. That is a major investment.
So, to enable that to happen, of course as building
managers we would love for that building to be vacant. That is
the most expeditious way to do it and, of course, the least
expensive way to do it. That is simply not a reality here in
the Capitol complex, so we have to go out and find space in a
phased way to go about that Cannon renovation.
FOB-8 is, we think, the best alternative to do that. As you
noted, we were directed by the Congress to acquire that space
in 2003. In that building, we plan to lease, approximately
200,000 square feet of space so that we can renovate the Cannon
building one floor at a time. So to do that, first, we have to
acquire some leased space and renovate that leased space to
accommodate staff. Our position is we cannot move Members to
FOB-8, so we are going to have to reconfigure Longworth and
reconfigure Rayburn suites to be able to move Members, floor by
floor, out of Cannon and then move staff and other committees
and the like to FOB-8.
BEST ALTERNATIVE FOR SWING SPACE
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Let me interrupt you for a quick
second and ask, I know that there were different options
considered for how to deal with the swing space. Why is leasing
space in the FDA building the best alternative to get the swing
space that we need? There were other options that were looked
at. Why was this settled on as the best one?
Mr. Ayers. It was the least expensive.
Two of the other options that we looked at, one of them was
to add an addition to the Rayburn building. If you look at the
west front of the Rayburn building, that end of the building is
open, and there is a plaza there that faces west. So we could
fill that end of the Rayburn building in and do that
construction and use that as swing space. That was
significantly more expensive than leasing space.
Similarly, we looked at new construction and what that
would cost, and that was also more expensive than leasing
space.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I would like to, at this time, enter
into the record a letter that was signed by former Speaker
Hastert, former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, and former Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi, dated June 4th, 2003, which requests the
approval to move forward with the renovation of the FDA
building and obligates the House to move forward.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
My time has just about expired, so I will move on to Mr.
Latham.
LONG-TERM COSTS
Mr. Latham. Yes, I just want to maybe follow up on that.
Long-term, what is going to be the cost to renovate Cannon,
and the cost of the FDA building? What are we looking at and
how long?
Mr. Ayers. The FDA building, we have invested approximately
$19 million in that to date. We think the total security
upgrades and fit-out of that space to accommodate the swing
space would be about $45 million to $50 million. On top of
that, our annual lease costs are estimated by GSA at $10
million to $15 million per year for that 200,000 square feet.
So that is the FDA building, or FOB-8.
CANNON RENOVATION
In terms of the Cannon renovation, our parametric estimates
now are about $450 million for that top-to-bottom, phased
renovation.
In terms of schedule, we believe that the FOB-8 building
will be finished around 2012. We could, through 2012, begin
moving people into that building, leading to the potential to
start on Cannon in late 2012 or 2013.
Mr. Latham. Okay. And you are saying that you are not going
to move Members over there? You are going to move committee
staff, other staff in the Cannon building over there? So it
will be disruptive, obviously. How are you going to do it?
Floor by floor?
Mr. Ayers. We still need to go through all of those
planning assumptions, but, certainly, our going-in position
and, I think, the Committee on House Administration's going-in
position is that moving Members to FOB-8 just won't work. So we
are going to have to do that through staff moves and committee
moves and support function moves.
At this time, we do think that the best way to do Cannon is
floor by floor.
Mr. Latham. Okay. How many suites on each floor are you
talking about?
Mr. Ayers. I think there are 40 or 41.
Mr. Tiscione. The maximum is 41.
HOUSE METERING PROJECT
Mr. Latham. Okay. On the metering issue, I brought it up in
the last hearing on the CVC, I think it does relate to the CVC.
The reprogramming request for the metering project--and it is a
little frustrating to me that this, apparently, was--a request
or a directive was given at a time when we were under a CR, and
negotiating with the Senate. We underfunded the Members'
representational accounts, yet we are still, at the same time,
asking for about $4.2 million to be put in the metering.
Can you tell me what all this entails? What actually are
you trying to do? Is $4.2 million enough in the scope of this
project?
Mr. Ayers. The metering effort is focused on the House side
of the Capitol complex, so we intend to meter all utilities.
That would be water, steam, chilled water, and electricity at
the power plant.
So that would entail the installation of about 130 meters
throughout the House side. Most of our buildings are configured
where we have multiple feeds for electricity, steam and chilled
water for redundancy issues and maintenance purposes. So each
of those feeds to every building will need a meter so that we
can get accurate metering.
So, to do that, we will install all of those meters. They
need to be tied back through wiring and infrastructure, back to
a central computer station; then, from that computer, wired
back out to each facility. Part of the scope of this effort is
to provide a display in the lobby, in some cases multiple
displays in each of the House buildings, which will show real-
time the energy usage for that particular building.
We do think $4.3 million is the right amount of money. We
have engaged a third-party cost-estimating consultant to
prepare that cost estimate for us, and we have had a long-term
relationship with that company. They do very good work.
Mr. Latham. Okay. I think my time has expired.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes.
Mr. LaHood.
CVC GOVERNANCE LEGISLATION
Mr. LaHood. Madam Chair, I just want to note for the record
that the House Administration Committee has passed a bill
designating the House Administration Committee and the
appropriate Senate committee to have jurisdiction, or
governance, over the CVC. There is no mention of any other
committees. It would be my intention--and, I would hope you
would support this--that either you or this subcommittee would
go to the Chair of the House Administration Committee and see
if there is a possibility of amending the bill to include other
committees that are going to have responsibility for funding.
Otherwise, I think we ought to consider amending the bill on
the floor.
So I will just state that for the record, because we had
quite a discussion about who is going to have governance over
the CVC. You made it pretty clear that you thought our
committee or at least a committee of Appropriations should have
some say in who is going to have governance, and that is not
apparent at all in the bill that was passed out of the
committee. So that is just for the record.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If the gentleman would yield----
Mr. LaHood. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I completely agree with you. My
understanding was that we were referenced in that legislation.
If we are not referenced adequately, then I would support an
amendment at any point in the process to ensure that we are.
And I would go to the House leadership and ask Mr. Latham to go
to his leadership to ensure that the appropriators are part of
that process.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Absolutely.
JACKSONVILLE BANDSTAND
Mr. LaHood. Mr. Ayers, as you might recall, I gave you a
note about a very parochial issue that I have been working on
for a number of years as a member of this subcommittee having
to do with the moving of the so-called ``Jacksonville
bandstand'' to the Capitol complex. I do not want to take the
time of the subcommittee, but if you could provide a written
response to me as to what direction I should go to make that
happen, I would appreciate that.
CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR CRITICAL NEEDS
You know, this idea of renovating buildings and your budget
submission here are probably--well, it is overwhelming to me,
as one committee member, because I think it is very difficult
for this subcommittee to get our arms around that and to really
fully understand the importance of it, which leads me to ask
you:
What happens if the subcommittee and the full committee do
not allocate the amount of money that you are requesting? Do
you have contingency plans for staging some of these things and
for alerting us to what are the most urgent? I mean, are all of
these things urgent and of high importance, or are there ways
that you can alert us to the ones that are most important?
You know, a $48 million increase is quite extraordinary.
You know as well as I do the kind of fiscal constraints that we
are facing around here. I have no idea what we are going to do,
but I wonder if you have given thought to the idea that you may
not get all of the money that you are requesting.
How do you come up with a plan to accommodate what you feel
are critical needs around here for aging buildings?
Mr. Ayers. Yes, sir. Of course, I did receive your note,
and we have been in contact with your Chief of Staff on the
Jacksonville bandstand, and I will provide a written response
to you on that as well.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
Mr. Ayers. I am happy to do that.
In terms of the contingency plans, this organization, I
think, has really grown in recent years, and we now have the
tools at our disposal so that we can look forward and make
predictions as to what is our worst building and why. We have
this computer program that can predict what investments need to
be made and how they will affect the condition of a particular
building. That is called the ``Facility Condition Index.'' It
is a standard tool from the Federal Facilities Council that we
have been using for about 2 years now.
So I think we have the tools in place to help predict when
we need to make certain investments. So that tool, combined
with the Capitol Complex Master Plan, helps us phase over time
everything that needs to be done in all 33 buildings in the
Capitol complex. They are important tools that enable us to
inform you effectively of what needs to be done and when it
needs to be done.
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
Secondly, our project prioritization process that we have
described in past hearings and in our budget book, we do
classify every project that is on this list as immediate,
meaning it needs to be done now, and that is what we have
included in our budget request; high urgency, which needs to be
done in the next 2 to 4 years; and then medium and low urgency.
So we have mapped out what we think needs to be done right
now, what needs to be done in the next 2 to 4 years, and what
can really be pushed out for several years. We have those tools
at our disposal, and we will continue to work with the
committee using those tools to evaluate various funding
scenarios.
PROJECT BACKLOG
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman's time has expired.
I want to follow up on the question that Mr. LaHood asked
because, really, we have a resources-versus-demands concern
with your agency.
We held a hearing last year on your long-term needs. You
noted a large backlog of projects that exist. We had some back-
and-forth last year on where your program put the projects,
above the line or below the line, and we moved some projects in
this committee from below the line to above the line, which I
would not be surprised if we did again.
As I get a better understanding of what is on the list
above and below your line, we will ask you specific questions
about how those things fell out. You know, we tried to fund
what we could, and we tried to help you prioritize, and you did
a good job prioritizing.
Can you give us a sense of how high your annual
appropriation would need to be sustained for the foreseeable
future to really address your infrastructure needs and demands?
Then the other issue is I know you are doing things
internally to address the backlog because, obviously, you are
not going to get everything that you have requested. So what
tools and funds are you using that are available to you to
address the needs that we cannot provide directly for you?
Mr. Ayers. Yes, ma'am. In our budget binder, we worked to
map out on that chart, graphically, ultimately, what is in
front of us, and I am sure you have taken a look at that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes.
REINVESTMENT IN FACILITIES
Mr. Ayers. One of the important parts of that chart is this
gray bar, which represents the reinvestment in facilities.
Typically, the Federal Facilities Council and other agencies
recommend a 2 to 4 percent reinvestment in your facilities
based upon your plant value. Our plant value is about $8.9
billion, which would lead us to an approximate $180 million
reinvestment in deferred maintenance and capital renewal
projects. You will see that we have mapped that out on this
chart at the 2 percent level, and are escalating that for
inflation over the next 20 years. That kind of an investment
over the long haul is what is necessary to prevent this kind of
backlog from recurring. That's item A.
Item B reflects that we need to make some investments now
to abate the backlog so that we can get to sustaining those
deferred maintenance and capital renewal projects at a flat
rate versus sort of spiking up and down every fiscal year.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Are you able to move money around?
Have you been doing that to address the backlog? I know we
approve your reprogramming requests from time to time. What
kinds of things internally are you doing to address the need to
maximize your efficiency?
APPROPRIATION BUDGET INITIATIVES
Mr. Ayers. One of the important initiatives that I wanted
to take as I became Acting Architect was to get one budget view
of the AOC. We have often used our 10 separate appropriations
in a parochial way, that only money from that particular
appropriation can be used, for example that only House money
can be used in the House. Well, I think the responsible thing
to do is to take a much broader look at all 10 appropriations
and move money around to address the most important needs.
So, over the course of the past year, we have done that and
have taken money from one appropriation to place it on a more
important need. So we have that ability now. We have been using
that for the past year.
I think our minor construction funds that the committee
provides annually in the House and Senate and Library of
Congress also help us to take care of a backlog of maintenance
and deferred maintenance and capital renewal projects on an
ongoing basis.
LONG-TERM APPROPRIATION CONCERNS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Can you describe in the next 5
years, if your appropriation does not rise significantly, what
is likely to happen? I mean, what are some of your key
concerns?
Mr. Ayers. Certainly. We are going to have electrical
problems and temperature and humidity control problems in many
of our buildings. Of course, we will work to abate those by
taking money from everything else that is in our budget so that
we work to abate those problems, because that is the core
mission.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But you are robbing Peter to pay
Paul.
Mr. Ayers. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul, but our core
mission is to ensure that Congress can do their business. You
need electricity, you need water, you need heating and cooling
and electricity to do that. So we will take away from every
other project we have to focus on those mission-critical areas.
PRIORITY PROJECTS NOT IN REQUEST
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Before my time expires, do you have
any immediate priority projects that were not included in your
request?
Mr. Ayers. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You do. What were they and why?
Mr. Ayers. The reason we did not include them in our
request is because the first stab we took is to take all
immediate priority projects. Then we looked at those and said,
does each one of those make sense?
Some of them did not make sense. For example, the Dirksen
infrastructure renovation project, we just received the money
to fund phase one of that, so phase one is going to take us
this entire fiscal year, so it makes no sense to ask for phase
two money now.
There were probably five or six of those kinds of phasing
decisions that we made because, if you appropriated the money,
we really could not use it right now.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So you had other projects that were
more ready than--even though those were an immediate priority,
you had other things that were more ready than an immediate
priority?
Mr. Ayers. We could not physically execute them, that is
the key.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I understand.
My time has expired. Mr. Latham.
Mr. Latham. Thank you.
MINOR CONSTRUCTION REPROGRAMMING CONCERNS
I think you are making the point of my concern in this
reprogramming request. I think $2.4 million is proposed to be
reprogrammed for minor construction. Can you give us some
examples of what that is? Are there any life-safety-type
projects that are being deferred because of this?
Mr. Ayers. Yes, sir. Well, several of our appropriations
have a minor construction account. In the House, it is, I
believe, $5 million a year. In the Senate, it is probably
comparable. It is $1 million or $2 million at the Library of
Congress. I think it is $3 million or $4 million at the Capitol
Power Plant. That money is used for emerging requirements in
any given fiscal year.
For example, this year in the House, we are using that
money to take care of a new egress point for the Longworth
building. We have some pretty significant egress concerns in
the Longworth that were brought to our attention by the Police
and the House Sergeant at Arms, so we are using much of that
money this year to fund that project.
On an ongoing basis, we will use that money for life-safety
projects that come up. We use it for emerging congressional
items. For example, I recall that the Committee on Homeland
Security, if that is right, Frank, was developed--
Mr. Latham. My point here is you are taking half of that
money for this reprogramming request from these emergencies
that you are talking about, which would tie your hands if you
did have, you know, other emergencies. You know, looking at
the----
Mr. Ayers. That is true.
DEFERRED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Mr. Latham [continuing]. Request, you have two full pages
of deferred construction projects here that are not being done.
You know, where I come from, if you have a hole in the roof,
you do not go out and buy a new electrical meter to find out
how much energy is going up through the hole in the roof. You
fix the roof.
I am just very concerned. You have over $800,000 in
reprogramming that is going to stop the backup connections as
far as the data center from Ford. I mean, there are a lot of
very important things that are not going to happen because we
are doing this thing that unfortunately no one knew about. I
mean, even the House Building Committee, there was no
consultation, no talk about it.
My concern, really, is that we are spending money on things
that maybe sound good, but we have real needs here that are not
going to be met because we are diverting resources to things
like this. I don't know if you have any comment.
Mr. Ayers. Your point of minor construction money being
there for emergencies and emerging requirements, that is
exactly what it is for. If those come up, our ability to use
that account for those emergencies would be diminished.
Mr. Latham. Okay.
HOUSE METERING AND ENERGY REDUCTION
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Just to follow up on Mr. Latham's
question and comment, it is important to note that the AOC is
required by statute to reduce its energy use by 30 percent by
2014, and the estimated cost of that is $300 million.
So, Mr. Latham, with all due respect, the House metering
project did not come out of the clear blue sky. It is part of
the ongoing effort, including the Greening of the Capitol
Initiative, but the statutory requirements on the part of the
AOC to reduce its energy use by 30 percent. And the specific
funding that is being used for the House metering project is
something that will--the analogy that I know that has been used
by some of the staff in the Architect of the Capitol's Office
is that, if you are dieting, you do not know how much you need
to lose unless you have a scale that you can stand on. Knowing
that, the energy use of the House office buildings is going to
be important for us to know how far we have to reach our goals.
So, with all due respect, this is not funding that came out
of the clear blue sky, and it is not a requirement that was
just made up. It is a statutory requirement that we have to
work toward.
Mr. Latham. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Latham. Was there any discussion between the Speaker,
the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader who sit on the
House Building Committee about this?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I cannot specifically answer that
question, but there is a statutory requirement that the AOC
reduce its energy use by 30 percent, and there are a variety of
ways of doing that. And this is one in which we can move the
ball down the field significantly in order to accomplish that
goal.
I am hoping, Mr. Latham, that we are not going to quibble
about this House metering project. It is an incredibly
important project. We need to make sure--I mean, it is $4.5
million that was able to be moved around internally by the
Architect of the Capitol. We absolutely need to know the energy
usage that we have in order to make sure that we can reduce our
energy usage, which is important. I was someone who pushed,
since the beginning of the time that I took over this
committee, to ensure that the most important fire and life-
safety and security projects are funded and have held the
Architect's feet to the fire to ensure that.
So we have a combination of priorities. We are certainly
not going to be jeopardizing the security or the safety of the
people who work here and who visit here. We are going to make
sure that we get the things that we need to done.
CR PLANS FOR THE CVC
I want to ask you about the issue that came up last week
related to the potential for a continuing resolution, because I
do not want there to be the perception left that we would
somehow not be able to operate the CVC in the event of a CR.
So what are your plans, Mr. Ayers, for mitigating any
impacts on the CVC if there is a continuing resolution for part
of fiscal year 2009? What help would you need from this
committee?
Mr. Ayers. Well, I think the most important thing that we
talked about at the CVC hearing was the operations of the
Visitor Center. We think we are going to be okay on the
construction side. On the facility maintenance side, we think
we will be okay. But there will be significant issues on the
operations side, as we will have to fund our full-year
contingent of employees, and we will not be able to make our
monthly payroll.
I think, in order to do that, first we would need some
flexibilities in the CR language from this committee, allowing
us to adjust the percentages there. I think that would really
be helpful for us.
Secondly, we would simply need to----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Is that how you have managed under
past CRs?
Mr. Ayers. We did receive flexibilities specifically for
the Visitor Center in 2007 that enabled us to continue the
construction and operations portion. So similar language, I
think, would be helpful and would help us to avert a crisis in
early 2009.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Good.
Mr. Ayers. Similarly, we would work to reprogram funds from
other sources if we needed to.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My time has expired.
Mr. Latham.
Mr. Latham. To that point, what does that do to other
projects? I mean, just in Roll Call this morning--the House, I
know, has the best intentions of getting its work done. The
Senate, apparently, from the story----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Apparently.
Mr. Latham [continuing]. Has thrown it off already, so we
could be looking toward at least--you know, last year, it was 3
months under CR. This next year, it could be easily from
October 1st to March, 6 months.
What does that do to your operations--I mean, you are
moving funds around, but we have a lot of maintenance projects
and a lot of other things that are going to be real problems.
And I do not want to see the CVC open up and then have to close
the next day because we cannot pay staff or because we cannot,
you know, operate the facility. I mean, that would not be a
good start for us.
CVC REPROGRAMMING--FUNDING SOURCES
Where do you see the money coming from? What effect is that
going to have on the maintenance?
Mr. Ayers. Certainly, with any continuing resolution, we
lose buying power. We cannot start any new construction
projects that we would typically start in October or November.
If we are not going to start those until January, February or
March, we lose some buying power through that process, of
course, with inflation of construction materials. So there is
clearly that concern.
There is no doubt that with the money in our budget that we
would reprogram that something else would not get done because
of that. We have not specifically identified which projects
they would be at this point, but we would develop that list and
work with the committee on those priorities to determine what
projects we would put on hold or would delay or cancel to move
funds around.
GREENING OF THE CAPITOL INITIATIVE
Mr. Latham. One of the parts of the Greening of the Capitol
Initiative is that it requires you to purchase 100 percent
renewable electricity and only natural gas for the House
portion of the Capitol plant. Are there additional costs to
that, or how much more is this costing us to fill that
requirement?
Mr. Ayers. There are several requirements. One is the
purchase of natural gas, and we did receive money this year to
do that. It is $2.7 million to purchase natural gas for the
House's portion of our gas usage.
Mr. Latham. Is that additional from what the normal costs
would be?
Mr. Ayers. Additional, correct. That is exactly right.
In addition, to purchase renewable electricity, we have
estimated that to be about $512,000, and that is in addition to
our normal electricity costs, and that money was provided this
year. We are working to implement both of those right now.
ONGOING INITIATIVES--CAPITOL POWER PLANT
Mr. Latham. Are there any other ways that we could look at
redoing the power plant, or any other suggestions out there to
maybe modernize the generation plant here with fuel cells or
energy cells, anything like that? Have you looked at what that
would cost to actually do something to make the facility
efficient?
Mr. Ayers. We have several ongoing initiatives to increase
the efficiency of the power plant as well as to reduce its
carbon output. One of them is a cogeneration facility. We have
completed a feasibility study for installing a cogeneration
plant. That will increase efficiency significantly, but it
requires a very significant upfront investment of $150 million
to $200 million, so we have not put that forth at this point.
We have not looked at fuel cells to date, but we are
looking at some options currently, mapping out a feasibility
study for a carbon sequestration project. We have completed a
study to convert from our general fuel oil to an
environmentally friendly fuel, and that looks like it is going
to be feasible for us. We are working through the permitting
process now to see if it has any effect on our environmental
permit.
Mr. Latham. Being from Iowa, I think you ought to use
ethanol or soybeans.
I will be right back.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Udall, are you ready?
Mr. Udall. Yes, I am ready.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. You are up.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CAPITOL POWER PLANT OPERATIONS
I am very interested in what the power plant is running on
right now. I think one of the facts that has not been pointed
out to everybody is that the folks living right in the shadow
of the power plant are the House pages. If it is running on
coal, then we are putting out all of the pollutants that you
get from that.
So what is the power plant running on now, Mr. Ayers? Is it
running on gas rather than coal?
Mr. Ayers. We use three fuels at the power plant: coal,
natural gas and fuel oil.
Mr. Udall. What is the mix right now? What percentages are
coal and natural gas?
Mr. Ayers. I do not know those off the top of my head. I
will respond for the record, unless my staff knows.
Mr. Williams. Approximately fifty percent coal, 45 percent
gas and 5 percent fuel. But that is from an annual perspective.
Mr. Ayers. Approximately at 50 percent coal, 45 percent
gas, and the remainder is fuel oil today.
Mr. Udall. Has anybody ever looked at the impact on the
area in terms of the emissions that are put out?
Mr. Ayers. Certainly, as to the emissions that come out of
the power plant, we are in compliance with our permit from EPA
and the District of Columbia. As part of that permitting
process, certainly they look at those critical local areas as
well as the broader community in issuing those permits.
Mr. Udall. Has the power plant always met all of the EPA
standards and laws and regulations? Has it ever been in
violation in terms of its permit?
Mr. Ayers. There are occasions where their emissions will
spike, and it requires us to report those to the District of
Columbia, and we do that. So we had one of those. In my
recollection of many years at the AOC, I recall one. That,
quite frankly, happened about 4 or 5 months ago, and this was a
duration----
Mr. Udall. What was the spike, or what was the violation
there?
Mr. Ayers. We were burning fuel oil and had a fuel oil
valve failure, so that caused the fuel mixture to be incorrect.
So the opacity of the product coming out of the stacks went
over our opacity limits for 3 or 4 minutes.
So anything like that we are required to report, and we do
that.
Mr. Udall. Talking about CO2 now, if you are burning coal
50 percent of the time, if you are emitting coal 50 percent of
the time in that power plant and there are the CO2 emissions
from that, all of the other work that we are doing on Capitol
Hill to reduce our carbon footprint would be dwarfed by what
you do in that coal plant. So I would just encourage you to try
as much as possible to shift over to natural gas and to look
like you are doing a cogeneration in other kinds of areas where
you can make a real difference in terms of CO2 and the
pollution.
Yes, go ahead.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You voted, didn't you?
Mr. Udall. Yes. Yes. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
ETHANOL 85 FUEL PUMP
Mr. Udall. My understanding is that the AOC has installed
an ethanol 85 fuel pump. Is that right?
Mr. Ayers. No, sir, it is not installed yet.
Mr. Udall. But you are planning to do that?
Mr. Ayers. We did receive direction and funding to do that,
so we will move out to do that.
Mr. Udall. When do you think that will be complete?
Mr. Ayers. That is probably 6 months, approximately 6
months from now.
Mr. Udall. How many vehicles do you have that would be able
to utilize that in your fleet right now?
Mr. Ayers. Our vehicle fleet is about 120 vehicles, and
today we have, I would estimate, 10, maybe less than 10,
vehicles that are capable of that.
So once we have that product, we will begin to renew our
fleet and to renew our leases with E85-compatible vehicles. Not
only do we fuel AOC vehicles, but we fuel many other vehicles
on the Capitol complex as well.
Mr. Udall. So as soon as you get that pump up and running,
your push is going to be to move your fleet so that many more
of your vehicles can do that, I hope, can utilize the pump.
Mr. Ayers. Correct. Yes.
Mr. Udall. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome.
UTILITY TUNNELS REMEDIATION UPDATE
I want to shift the focus to the utility tunnels
remediation. We had an entirely separate hearing on this issue
last year, and I want to get a sense of where we are in terms
of the progress on this project. We have allocated $50 million
in supplemental funds to begin making those tunnels a safe
working environment for your employees. Now, this year, you
have requested another $127 million for fiscal year 2009. There
is a 5-year timeline.
So if you can give me a status update, including what has
been accomplished to date. Are we still on schedule and on
budget? Specifically and most importantly, are we doing
everything we can to guard the health and safety of the tunnel
workers? I know that we have been, and I want to make sure that
we are continuing to do so.
Mr. Ayers. Yes, ma'am, we are continuing to do that. We
don't have any concerns with health and safety issues at the
moment. We don't believe the Office of Compliance does either.
We are on schedule; we are on budget to finish the utility
tunnel reconstruction at the end of 5 years, which I think is
June 2012. It does require significant investment, obviously.
To date, we are working extensively in the Y tunnel, doing
some asbestos abatement and debris and dust cleanup in that
tunnel. We have under construction two new egress points in the
Y tunnel at this point. We have done some major electrical
upgrades, some significant fan upgrades.
So we are comfortable with where we are. I believe the
Office of Compliance is comfortable with where we are. They
have reviewed our 2009 budget request as well and are in
agreement with where we are going.
PROJECT BUDGET REQUEST
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The total cost of this project is
approximately $300 million, and you have requested almost half
of that amount in this fiscal year. Why so significant a chunk
of the project in 1 year?
Mr. Ayers. Well, most importantly, our tunnel work needs to
get started this summer, it needs to continue. If we do not
continue that on an ongoing basis, we are going to face, I
think, increased costs by not doing that.
Our team has mapped out how we are going to fix that
project by the end of that year. You can see, in any typical
construction project, you ramp up and then you ramp down. So we
are in this year now, which is really the most significant
budget request. I think, next year, we will be in the $80
million range, and you will continue to see that go down until
we finish that job in 2012. So this year is the most expensive
year on that project.
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE CITATIONS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. On the Office of Compliance
citations, can you talk about where those citations--how you
prioritize those and where those are? How many of the requested
funded projects are Office of Compliance citations? What is the
total dollar value of all of your existing citations, and how
do you prioritize those generally?
Mr. Ayers. Well, our prioritization process generally will
move all of those citation projects to the top of the list. So
as to the first 10 projects that are on that priority list, all
10 of them have citations against them. So the prioritization
system worked, and that totals $148 million, so it is the first
10 that take care of that.
In terms of citations, since 1998 when the Office of
Compliance really became effective at reviewing facilities,
they have issued 39 citations comprising 98 items. Of those 98
items, we have closed out 65. Much of the work you see here
will continue to help us abate those. You will notice, if you
look at----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. How are you doing in avoiding having
more citations? Is your number of citations going down?
Mr. Ayers. Absolutely. We have not received any new
citations since the utility tunnels, and prior to that, it was
sometime well before that. So there is nothing new out there.
We have a pretty aggressive safety and health program that we
use to prevent those things from happening.
You will note in the project list that our prioritization
process does not focus on House or Senate or Capitol or
anywhere else. You will see that the Library of Congress has
nine open citations and that our budget is filled mostly with
Library of Congress money. So that prioritization seems to
work.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You will note that the Senate does
not even have any items on the list, so you are right;
apparently, you do not favor one or the other.
My time has expired. Mr. Latham.
MEETING ENERGY REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Latham. Thank you.
You are under the energy-efficient mandate as far as the 30
percent reduction. Additionally, the Greening of the Capitol,
the 50 percent reduction.
Can you just, for my benefit, being new on the committee,
give us an idea of the specific projects you are doing to meet
the mandates and what it is going to cost and how long--by
2015, as to the reductions, the 30 percent mandate reduction?
What exactly are we going to do, and what is it going to cost
to get there?
Mr. Ayers. Your numbers are correct, that the Energy Policy
Act of 2008 does require a 30 percent energy reduction per year
over 10 years. This is over a 2003 baseline.
So, to do that, the most important thing we think we need
to do to achieve those reductions is to conduct formal energy
audits of our buildings. You will see some budget requests in
our project list to conduct those energy audits. That is the
most important thing, that we get those professional energy
surveyors in to look at those projects and to scope those and
to do the life-cycle cost analysis that tells us, ``Don't waste
your money here, but invest it here, here, here, and here. This
is where you are going to get the most savings.'' So we need to
do that first and foremost.
Secondly, our estimate of the 30 percent reduction is
nearly a $300 million investment to get that over 10 years. We
recognize that that is going to be very, very difficult to do.
We are working now and have been for several months on using
the flexibilities of energy savings performance contracts,
which are pretty extensively used in the executive branch,
sponsored by the Department of Energy, where companies will
come in, review your facility and say, ``I will replace all of
your lighting systems, and I will replace these 17 motors, and
I will make the investment of $50 million,'' and it does not
cost you any money up front. You repay that company over the
course of many years through the savings generated in your
electricity bill.
So we think that, really, to achieve the 30 percent and the
50 percent, we are going to have to make extensive use of these
energy savings performance contracts. We are close to being
able to kick that off in the Capitol Power Plant, the House
office buildings and the Senate office buildings now.
ENERGY REDUCTION PROJECTS
Mr. Latham. The audits that you are asking funding for,
have they specifically noted the types of projects? Or is it
just changing light bulbs? Are we talking insulation? Are we
talking refurbishing.
Mr. Ayers. In terms of what is in our energy savings
performance contracts, the contractor that reviewed the House
has recommended extensive lighting upgrades throughout all
buildings, and has recommended fairly extensive HVAC upgrades.
I think those are the big ones, lighting upgrades and HVAC
upgrades and control of all of that mechanical equipment.
Mr. Latham. Okay.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
LIFE-SAFETY SECURITY PROJECTS
You know, we focus in this committee on life-safety and
security projects with your agency, and this year is going to
be no exception. You have requested about $24 million worth of
life-safety and security projects for fiscal year 2009, and
that is excluding the utility tunnels.
What are some of the most significant life-safety and
security projects? How critical is it that we fund those in
2009? And like I said, if you can more specifically tell the
projects that were not included that were high priority.
Mr. Ayers. Certainly, the most important life-safety ones
are those first 10 that are on the list. So I think we really
need to fund those first.
If we look at 11 and 12, you will see two really important
security projects that I know are important to the Sergeant at
Arms and to the Capitol Police. So focusing on those first I
think is very, very important.
In terms of what we did not put on the list, there are a
couple of important concerns, immediate requirements that we
didn't put on the list, but I think those are genuinely not
executable for us, so I wouldn't recommend we do anything about
those: Adams Building exterior doors, egress studies----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So they weren't ripe yet? The ones
that we need to do as a high priority aren't ripe to do yet?
Mr. Ayers. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is basically why they didn't
make it to the fund-this-year list.
Mr. Ayers. They are ready to be executed. If you funded
them, we could execute them. The designs are complete and ready
to go. But we don't think it makes sense. Like the Dirksen
project, we can't do phase two before we do phase one.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
Mr. Ayers. We just started phase one because of funding
issues. So it doesn't make sense. Even though it needs to be
done now, we simply can't do it.
POWER PLANT OUTSOURCING
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right, okay.
Shifting to power plant outsourcing, there are a lot of
Members in the past that have talked about outsourcing the
operations of the Capitol Power Plant. And GAO recently
reported that the AOC doesn't have the information that you
need to make a decision on that, and they recommended that you
collect information so that you can do that.
What are you doing to act on GAO's recommendation? Because
the power plant has been a significant issue and will continue
to be a significant issue for this committee and for other
Members and for this community.
Mr. Ayers. Madam Chair, GAO got it right this time. Their
recommendations were right on the money. You can't make
staffing projections of going from 85 to 46 or 57 or all of
those without the real data in front of you. So to get that
data, we have to go through every piece of equipment that is in
the plant, develop a preventive maintenance and operating plan
for each of those pieces of equipment, map those out into the
number of work hours required to care for each piece of
equipment and to operate it. You map all of those hours out,
then you add them up and determine what your real staffing
needs are.
We are engaged in that process now and have been for 4 to 5
months. I think it is going to be towards the end of this
fiscal year before we have that data in our hands. So I think
we are really not going to be in a position to make decisions
until then.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. And it is this fiscal year?
Mr. Ayers. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. That concludes the questions
that I have.
Mr. Latham, do you have anything else?
Mr. Latham. I do not.
Chairs Closing Remarks
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I wouldn't be me if I didn't issue
some homework. You have really laid out well this year what the
Architect of the Capitol office is facing in terms of our
infrastructure needs, and I am happy about that. Chairman Obey
has asked each subcommittee to look toward the future and think
beyond fiscal year to fiscal year. Although we are a little bit
of a weird duck when compared to other subcommittees, we need
to try to do that as well.
It is obvious that without significantly higher
appropriations over time you will struggle to properly maintain
our facilities and the grounds, and that is going to begin to
exponentially increase the costs the later and later we put
them off.
So what I would like you to do is submit a report to us by
next Friday, February 22nd, with information on the total value
of the Capitol complex, the amounts now available to maintain
and renew it, industry best practices on what percentage of the
facility's value should be spent on maintenance and renewal,
and given these factors, the level of appropriations you need
in fiscal year 2009 and beyond to address infrastructure
demands.
I want to start to lay out the next several years and to
begin to plan how we are going to do this and be able to help
you and work in partnership. It will also help me figure
allocations.
We sometimes are the stepchild of the appropriations
process, but we have to make sure that these facilities remain
intact, not just structurally but also historically for future
generations. So if you would submit that information to us.
With that, the subcommittee stands in recess, subject to
the call of the Chair.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 5, 2008.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS BUDGET
WITNESSES
JAMES H. BILLINGTON, THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
JO ANN C. JENKINS, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
DEANNA MARCUM, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR LIBRARY SERVICES
JAMES GALLAGHER, ACTING ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR STRATEGIC INITIATIVES
RUBENS MEDINA, LAW LIBRARIAN
MARYBETH PETERS, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS
DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
JEFFREY PAGE, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Opening Remarks--Chair Wasserman Schultz
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Good morning. I would like to call
this hearing of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the
House Committee on Appropriations to order. Welcome, Dr.
Billington, Ms. Jenkins.
Today we are going to proceed with the budget hearing on
the Library of Congress' appropriations request.
We have a number of items that we need to go through. I
appreciate the opportunity to talk about the Library's request
today, and I appreciate very much, Dr. Billington, that you
have put together a very reasonable and sound budget proposal
that recognizes the really extreme and unfortunate budget
difficulties that we find ourselves in, some of which are
reflective of the economy, but a lot of which are reflective of
the fact that we are and have been hemmed in by an
administration that has limited the number, the top line
number, that we are able to work with. So it is not through
lack of trying that we have been unable to provide you with the
resources that I know you very much need.
I can assure you that we will continue to fight to get you
the resources that you need. And I think it is pretty
unpredictable what the outcome will be in terms of the
appropriation process in this fiscal year, but I know that I am
committed as the Chair of the subcommittee to make sure that we
not cut beneath the bone and start to really damage and harm
your agency. I am absolutely committed to making sure we don't
do that.
Before I proceed, I would like to welcome Mr. Bonner to the
subcommittee. Mr. Bonner is the newest member of the
Appropriations Committee and the newest member of our
subcommittee, and when he gets here, today will be his first
hearing.
The Library has made a $606 million request for fiscal year
2009. That is a 7.7 percent increase. As I said, it has no new
initiatives in it. There are only $12 million worth of program
increases. There are only two legislative branch agencies of
all the agencies that we will be hearing from that have asked
for less than a double-digit increase. So I appreciate the
effort that you have made, because I know it is a very
difficult circumstance and situation.
I appreciate that you have asked for only $12.5 million for
the Digital Talking Book program. We obviously want to make
sure that we proceed in a timely way to accomplish that,
recognizing the letter that you sent to our committee last year
that you would be able to manage with the $12.5 million over a
6-year time period and, importantly, only have about a 10-
percent drop in the amount of players available. I am glad that
we are able to operate within those parameters.
That having been said, we are still going to be in a very
tight budget environment, and we are going to do our best to
provide you with the resources that you need, but it is still
going to be hard.
And with that, I would like to turn to Mr. Latham for any
opening remarks he has.
Opening Remarks--Mr. Latham
Mr. Latham. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome to the
folks in the Library of Congress, which I consider to be a
national treasure, and Dr. Billington a national treasure also;
and share your affection, I think, for the people of Russia; my
interest goes back many years ago. I just welcome you and look
forward to hearing your testimony.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Latham.
Mr. LaHood, do you have any remarks you want to make at
this time?
Mr. LaHood. No, ma'am.
Welcome Witnesses
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Great.
Well, I would like to welcome our witnesses this morning.
We have received your statements. Each of the statements will
be entered into the record. We have Dr. James Billington, the
Librarian of Congress, and Ms. Jo Ann Jenkins, the Library's
Chief Operating Officer. There are also a cadre of Library
staff that I recognize in the audience.
And I do have to say, Dr. Billington, it has been an
absolute pleasure to work with you and your staff over the last
year. We have been able to spend quite a bit of time on a
variety of issues and a variety of programs, and I am
privileged to have been included in some of the rollouts of
your programs and really want to commend you on the tremendous
leadership that you show as the steward of the Library.
I know you often talk about the Congress being the largest
and most important patron of the Library, but your stewardship
of the Library is second to none. And the Library is the beacon
that it is in the world because of your leadership.
So if you would proceed with a summary of your statement,
we welcome you to the committee.
Opening Statement of the Librarian
Dr. Billington. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Mr.
Latham, Mr. LaHood and members of the subcommittee. It is an
honor to be here to present the Library of Congress' fiscal
year 2009 budget along with our Chief Operating Officer, Ms. Jo
Ann Jenkins, to my right, and behind me other members of the
Executive Committee.
I want to thank you, first of all, Madam Chair, for your
continued interest in the vision and goals of the Library
demonstrated by your participation in our Veterans History
Project, in your eloquent opening of our Kislak exhibit, and
for your support on many other fronts.
And, Mr. Latham, I also want to welcome you back to the
subcommittee. I enjoyed being on your ``Congressional Report''
to Iowa show several years ago and look forward to working with
you and with all the members of the subcommittee. And Mr.
LaHood, we are working with him on the Lincoln project and he
is a great friend of the Library's as well.
We have submitted a very modest budget request for fiscal
2009 based on fiscal 2008 operating levels, levels that were
achieved with some painful cuts in the Library's budget. We
limited ourselves to requesting funding only to meet mandatory
pay raises and unavoidable price level increases--that is a
great majority of the increase--and also just to sustain basic
current services, and to rescue from the brink of collapse the
unique program that the Congress mandated and funded in 2001
for preserving the growing volume of important information and
knowledge that is needed to serve Congress, but is produced
only in impermanent digital form.
NDIIPP RESCISSION
The fiscal 2007 rescission of $47 million from the National
Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program,
NDIIPP, resulted in a total loss to the program of $84 million.
We have requested $6 million in fiscal 2009 and have provided a
5-year plan for keeping this program alive. Collecting and
preserving ephemeral digital content is increasingly important
for serving information needs of the Congress and for
validating our new network way of doing business by sharing
ongoing costs and expertise with a trusted network of vetted
partners in states like Florida, Iowa, California, Minnesota
and many others.
DIGITAL TALKING BOOK PROGRAM
We have had to accept that our long-planned rollout of the
transition to a digital format for talking books and playback
machines will be prolonged from 4 to 6 years with difficulties
for the blind community that I explained in my longer
statement. We understand that in order to provide even this
reduced level of annual funding for this critical program,
Congress reduced funding levels in several of the Library's
other accounts, including a $10 million reduction to the
Copyright Office's no-year funding balance, a $4 million
general pay reduction, and over $5 million in reductions to our
Library Services program. In addition tothese direct cuts, the
Library has also had to absorb roughly $16 million in mandated cost-of-
living increases in fiscal 2007 and 2008.
LIBRARY MISSION AND RESOURCES
Madam Chair, as you have already said, and as I repeat and
always will with a certain awe and appreciation, deep
appreciation, the Congress of the United States has been the
greatest single patron of a Library in the history of the
world. I think Congress can be proud of the record of acquiring
and preserving, even in difficult financial periods, the
largest and most varied collection anywhere in human history of
the world's knowledge and of this nation's creativity. We
respect the Congress' understandable desire for austerity in
this year's budget request, and its authority to limit and
redirect funds within the Library's appropriations, but I feel
obligated to say that if we are stretched much further, we may
soon reach a breaking point.
We now have more than 1,000 fewer staff to do far more work
than was done 20 years ago when I became Librarian, and that
was before we began the Herculean task of superimposing a
digital library and services on top of a traditional analog
library. We have already cut back on vital core missions and
are stretching out the useful life of the technological
infrastructure of the Library, but we cannot and should not put
in jeopardy the important role that the Library plays in the
information infrastructure of America, particularly in this
information age.
Despite the many challenges, this is a time of great
promise for the Library, as we continue using digital
technology to transform the way we do our work and deliver our
services to Congress and the Nation in all divisions of the
Library. Relying largely on private philanthropy and in-kind
donations, our outstanding, dedicated staff will in the year
ahead transform the public spaces of the Jefferson Building
into an interactive learning center for the increased number of
visitors who will be coming to the Library when the Capitol
Visitors Center opens. We will also bring into full operation
the magnificent new National Audio-Visual Conservation Center
in Culpeper with the support and funding of the Congress and of
the unprecedented gift of more than $150 million plus expert
guidance from the Packard Humanities Institute. And we will
begin putting on line, with the support of UNESCO and a number
of other national libraries, a World Digital Library of primary
cultural documents in seven languages.
Madam Chair, we recognize that difficult choices will
continue to have to be made during this time of extraordinary
budget constraints, but the Library is an essential part of our
knowledge-based democracy. The Library collects, preserves and
makes accessible free of charge, both here on Capitol Hill and
everywhere else on the Internet, important materials in
languages and formats that no one else does. We are in many
ways the Nation's strategic information reserve. This Library
has never been more important for the economic security and
civic health of America than now in the midst of the
transforming digital revolution. So I ask for your support for
our modest funding request for fiscal 2009, and we look forward
to working with this committee to craft a budget for fiscal
2010 that will be able to ensure for the future the Library's
historic mission of serving the Congress and the Nation in very
challenging and changing times.
Thank you. I would be glad to answer any questions.
[Dr. Billington and the Library's other prepared statements
follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DIFFICULT FUNDING CHOICES
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Dr. Billington. I
do have to tell you that I look forward to presiding over the
subcommittee in times when we are more flush so that I can
craft a bill that is not as disappointing as I know our bill in
the last cycle was. We have been in a ``do the best we can''
situation. The Speaker always talks about how the budget is a
reflection of our values, and certainly we are in a little bit
of a battle right now over which expression of values we should
be making. And so that struggle will continue, I think, for a
number of months until it is finally resolved one way or the
other.
I do have a number of questions. I am sure Mr. Latham and
Mr. LaHood do as well. I want to just focus on some of the more
difficult things that we have facing us.
The choices that this subcommittee has to make are between
the wonderful programs that exist in the Library of Congress
and the crumbling infrastructure that we have in terms of our
facilities here; the life safety and security issues that we
have to address, both short-term and long-term needs. And all
of that is in the same bill, and it is a very small pie. And it
is juxtaposed with the other appropriations subcommittees whose
programs affect individual people's lives. So we are not just
competing against ourselves, but we are competing against the
other subcommittees who have significant needs. And so our
allocation is always the most difficult thing, because once we
get the allocation, where we go from there is what we have to
work with.
DIGITAL TALKING BOOK PROGRAM
So I want to get right into the Digital Talking Book issue
because we provided about $67 million for Books for the Blind
and the Physically Handicapped in the 2008 omnibus, and that
was almost a 25 percent increase over fiscal year 2007. And you
noted in your statement that part of that increase was the
$12.5 million that we gave the Library so it could move forward
with the Digital Talking Book program. We also gave you
transfer authority so that you could move additional resources
into that effort if available, and we felt that was important
because we wanted to make sure that if you had the ability to
move some money around and provide additional resources, that
that would be possible.
The Digital Talking Book program is extremely important,
and we want to be able to provide you with enough funding in
2009 to keep it on track. You sent us a letter last year
affirming that you could get through a 6-year rollout of this
program with $12.5 million, and begin the additional work that
GAO outlined, and address some of the concerns that they rolled
out. So I would like to know what progress you have made to
date. When do you plan to start distributing the first Digital
Talking Book players?
Dr. Billington. Well, maybe I should ask the Associate
Librarian for Library Services, Dr. Deanna Marcum, to address
it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you want to step to the table.
Dr. Marcum. We have done a lot of work with the existing
funds. The contract has been let for the production of the
playback units. Work is under way to convert books to the new
format. We realize that with the smaller amount, the difficulty
we are going to have this year is that we won't be able to
convert to digital form as many of the retrospective titles as
we had planned. But the work is moving forward. I think Mr.
Cylke and his staff have done a very good job of making the
best use of the money available.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is good to hear. And I want you
to know that it is a priority for me to make sure that we go
this far and no farther with this program, because your
original request last year of $19 million was just too large a
nut for the proportion of the bill that we were crafting from
last year. And I really appreciate the effort that you made in
working with us to try to find the sort of bottom-line number,
which I know we are at now, that could make sure the program
moved forward and we didn't lose the opportunity.
The worst thing that would happen is if we had the
technology that is in use now become completely obsolete, the
players go out of existence or lose their useful life, and not
have players to replace them. We can debate about whether or
not you should be going into the private sector for commercial
players or should we be developing one on your own, and I know
we had that discussion last year. But for the most part, I
think we are on track now, and I hope Mr. Latham is willing to
work with me to make sure that we proceed over the next 5
remaining fiscal years to make sure we don't go below the $12.5
million.
And my time has expired.
Mr. Latham.
Mr. Latham. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Bonner apparently has a Budget Committee----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I just wanted to make sure people
knew he was welcome.
NDIIPP FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Latham. And we welcome him to the subcommittee.
Dr. Billington, to what extent have the Library's long-term
digital transformation plans been disrupted by the rescission?
You talked $47 million in the rescission. If you could just
speak to that, what effect that has had.
Dr. Billington. Well, with the NDIIPP program, we lost not
only the$47 million that had been appropriated long before, but
we also lost $37 million in matching money that had been pledged.
Mr. Latham. Who pledged that; private donors outside?
Dr. Billington. No, no. Collaborative partners. We have a
whole bunch of collaborative partners. We have an enormous
number of people who are involved. And it took a long time to
negotiate these arrangements. Of the original appropriation of
$100 million, $75 million of that was for matching funds to
enlist partners, because the mandate from the Congress was to
plan and begin implementing a national program to archive what
is important to retain from the Internet. So we have already
done a fair amount of matching, but for a lot of these
arrangements you have to get the approval of State legislatures
and all kinds of trustees of private repositories, and do all
kinds of legal work.
So there was still a fair amount of unspent money for which
we already had pledges. It was already committed, but not
spent, and in the rescission, all of this was picked up. So we
have now reconfigured in view of the rescission, and therefore
we come in with a request for $6 million to keep this program
alive and to keep the network principle alive so that
everything doesn't fall to Federal appropriations.
NDIIPP ACCOMPLISHMENTS
I think a lot of that good work will go on because people
realize how important it is. And there have been a lot of
meetings, a lot of work in setting metadata standards, the
electronic equivalent of cataloguing, and establishing a whole
lot of procedures, looking into the whole question of how we
maximize access as well as preservation.
This information found on the Internet is very impermanent.
It changes a lot. A lot of it has been lost already. We already
have data in the system, in addition to developing the
standards and the architecture that can be ramped up even with
the certain fact that the technologies are going to change--you
don't want to have to redo the system each time. That has taken
a long time; a lot of progress has been made. We already have
66 terabytes of stored information in the system in various
repositories. We have developed a 5-year plan based on this
very much-reduced level of $6 million a year that will increase
stored information 10 times over to 650 terabytes. A terabyte
equals about the content of 1 million books. So you are talking
about the equivalent content of 650 million books. It is an
awful lot of information.
We estimate roughly that we lost 75 percent of the content
in that rescission, but that we can recapture a great deal of
it with this program. And so we have here a very detailed 5-
year plan with rollouts and figures and statistics which we
will give the committee to indicate what can be saved.
A good deal has been lost. A good deal was lost before we
began this program, but NDIIPP is still the major program for
enlisting and involving partners. It is a good thing because a
lot of institutions have been thinking only of their own, what
they want to save for their own faculties or for their own
research purposes. Now they have to think in terms of the
national need, and they are going to make--even though it may
be stored in another institution--it available to the Congress
at all times so that we can get instant access as if we
physically had the materials ourselves.
Mr. Latham. How are we doing on time?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. A couple more seconds. We will give
you a little leeway.
Mr. Latham. Okay. So, in essence, what the rescission costs
in outside money, $84 million, can we recover some of that
outside with the $6 million a year that you are talking about?
Are we going to be able to get these people to come back into
the fold with the $37 million that was lost?
Dr. Billington. We would hope so. I mean, we have a lot of
them already in the fold. In fact, the major point of this is
to maximize partnerships. We may not have as much money to give
them, but we want to keep as many of those partners as we can.
In the 5-year plan, we have--I forget the exact number, but we
can give you the rollout--something like 130 partners we
project to get back into the system. Many of them are already
here. They never left us.
This program has already had a great impact because it has
alerted a wide variety of institutions. There was a beautiful
article, an op-ed piece, in the Washington Post by Francine
Berman, who heads the San Diego Supercomputer Center; and James
Barksdale, the founder of Netscape, who is one of our principal
guides on the technology side. They wrote that, if we were to
stop and not be able to continue to archive the Internet, it
would be like destroying the Library in Alexandria because more
and more things are available only in digital form. This
country invented this technology, and we still have the world's
greatest intellectual industry doing all kinds of interesting
studies, and more and more of which is only in digital form.
This is the business of superimposing acquisitions, digital
knowledge and information. This is of enormous value to the
United States, which invented the technology, and so many
ideas, but if we don't archive these acquisitions and keep
them, we aren't going to be able to answer questions that will
only be answerable from digital content, increasingly from
Congress, and also for the support of the government and our
economy in general.
Mr. Latham. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Latham.
Mr. LaHood.
THANKS TO THE LIBRARIAN
Mr. LaHood. Dr. Billington, thank you for being here.
I agree with what has been said earlier. I think the
Library is the jewel in Washington, D.C. I think that the
actual building is one of the most beautiful buildings in
Washington. I tell people to be sure and come into the building
and see the beauty of it. I also think that under your
leadership and your team, the Library has really moved into the
21st century in ways that probably most Members of Congress
have no way of knowing.
I also want to thank you on two counts: One, for accepting
our suggestions to find ways to get more Members of Congress to
come to the library. I know you are working on that very hard
and have come up with some creative ways to do that, to get
Members to use the Members room, and to come to the Library and
see the great exhibits that you have. And I also want to thank
you and your staff for all of the work that you have done to
make the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission successful by
allowing the staff of the Commission to work in your facilities
and to use many of the resources that are available in the
Library.
DIGITAL TALKING BOOKS FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
I know that this budget request for the Books for the Blind
and the Physically Handicapped is very troubling to you.
And I will just tell you this, Madam Chair, I am going to
be one member of this subcommittee that is going to try to find
a way to find the money. Look, budgets are about priorities.
Our priority ought to be a way to not extend our ability to
move books into the digital world by extending it 2 years, but
to try to find the money to do it in 4 years. Budgets are about
priorities, and one of our priorities on this subcommittee
should be to find the money to do this. And so we haven't been
given our allocation. The Congress hasn't even adopted a budget
yet.
And so I want you to know, and I want the Librarian to
know, and I want the blind community to know this is one Member
that is going to try and find the money so that we can do these
digital books in 4 years, which is the commitment which we made
to these people, the commitment that Congress made to them. To
extend it out 2 years means that a lot of these people are not
going to have the ability to have access to these books because
they are going to be sitting on shelves. And I think it is
incumbent upon the Congress to say to the handicapped
community, we care enough and think enough about your ability
to read important literature and books to give you the ability
to do that. That ought to be one of the priorities of Congress,
and it ought to be one of the priorities of the subcommittee.
So I am going to do everything I can to find the money, to
offer amendments if we can't find the money as a subcommittee
to offset our ability to fund this. I think it is one of the
most critical things we can do for the blind community and to
send a message that reading is important, that having access to
these books is important, and that because you are handicapped,
it shouldn't delay your ability to read books. And----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaHood. Of course.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Because I would also ask that you
speak to the President of the United States when you have an
opportunity and encourage him to be willing to compromise on
what the overall top-line number is that we have to work with,
because it is programs like this one that end up suffering when
we have an austere and incredibly difficult number to work
with.
We have talked about the nice-to-haves and the got-to-haves
in this bill. This Committee is one of the committees that
suffers the most as a result of the allocation decisions that
have to be made, because when they are choosing--when either
your leadership or our leadership is forced to choose between
Labor-HHS programs, and infrastructure needs, and
transportation and energy and water projects, there is no way
that we will be made a priority, and you have programs like
this one that end up suffering because they are housed within
the allocation that is given to this committee.
Mr. LaHood. Look, Madam Chair, I am not going to lay the
blame on the President, I am going to blame the Congress. We
are the one that passed the rescission, we are the one that cut
these programs, we are the one that made the decision. We are
on this subcommittee as freely elected Members of Congress to
make priorities. We are going to set our own budget.
Do you know what I told some folks back home? The President
proposes his budget, which he has done on February 5th, and we
dispose. We are going to have our own budget. It is going to be
on the House floor here one of these days. And as members of
this subcommittee, we have an obligation to fund programs that
we think are a high priority. And I happen to think this one is
a very high priority, and I am going to fight like hell to make
sure we can find the money somewhere within our allocation to
speed up the digitizing of these books from 6 years to 4 years.
We owe it to these folks to do that. That ought to be our
priority.
You know, the President can propose his own budget. We have
our obligation and our responsibility. That is why we are
elected. That is why we are on this subcommittee. That is why
we have these hearings, to set our priorities. This ought to be
our top priority this year.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I hope that yours and
your colleagues on your side of the aisle's votes reflect both
priorities as well when it comes to the needs that we have in
this subcommittee as well as others, because there are many
competing needs in this subcommittee.
Mr. LaHood. Well, look, Madam Chair, I will work very hard
on my side of the aisle. When our Legislative Branch
Subcommittee comes to the full committee and comes to the House
floor, this Member will be out front working very hard to make
sure that this program is a priority for the Congress. I think
it sends a good message across the country.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It is my responsibility, and I will
mention that your time has now expired, but it is my
responsibility to make sure that all of the competing
priorities in this committee, of which there are many, and the
Talking Books for the Blind and the blind program is only one
of them, and not one that I can say is the most important--
there are many competing priorities in this subcommittee. This
a program that received $67 million in the last fiscal year,
$67 million and a 25 percent increase, one of the largest
increases in our entire bill. So there should not be an
impression left that this is a community that has been
forgotten or left out in the cold or ignored.
This particular program most likely will have to be
stretched out over a longer period of time, and there is only
going to be a 10 percent reduction in the amount of players
available. So let us make sure that we provide the resources
and not politicize an issue unnecessarily.
Mr. LaHood. Well, look, I want to respond to that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes, Mr. LaHood.
Mr. LaHood. It is also my responsibility as a member of the
committee, too. I know you are the Chair, but I am an equal
member of this committee.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You certainly are.
Mr. LaHood. If you don't see this as a priority, I am
putting you on notice, Madam Chair----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am reclaiming my time, Mr. LaHood.
Mr. LaHood. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. LaHood.
Mr. LaHood. If you want to do it that way, I will do it
that way. I yielded to you when you asked to be yielded to on
my time.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And I have let you speak for 8
minutes. So if we are going to have a give and take, then we
can have a give and take.
Mr. LaHood. Well, you don't want to give me a give and
take, so I will come back a second round.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LaHood. If you can't have it your way, then you don't
want it anybody's way.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. LaHood, with all due respect, I
gave you an opportunity, a lengthy opportunity, to speak. And
if we are going to have a give and take, I am happy to have
one. I didn't interrupt you.
Mr. LaHood. Then let us have a give and take.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, let us just proceed under
regular order, and that way we can make sure that we are not
arguing.
Ms. Lee, welcome to the committee.
Ms. Lee. I am welcome to be here. At the right time, I
think. I apologize for being late. I had three things going on
at one time. But thank you, Madam Chair, for this hearing, and
good to see you both.
CONTRACTING WITH MINORITY AND WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESSES
Let me just ask you a couple of things with regard to the
minority and women-owned business contracting initiative that
we began last year. We are, I guess, waiting to see some draft
language as it relates to the involvement and utilization of
minority and women-owned business. Can you kind of tell us
where you are on that and what the status is; and the type of
contracting that you actually do in terms of procurements; and
if you know whether or not what the numbers are at this point?
Ms. Jenkins. I can't give you the exact numbers right now,
but we have submitted to the committee the appropriate language
that you asked for in the past bill to capture data and design
a program for minority contracting.
I will tell you that roughly 50 percent of our contracts
already go to small businesses with the exception of some few
technology contracts. Almost all of our contracts are small-
dollar contracts. I started my career being a competition
advocate in the Small Business Administration, so I know a lot
about this area, and it is something that we are putting in
place to try to capture that data.
I don't have the exact percentage of the number of minority
businesses, but we have just gotten the authority to also do
8(a) contracting, and so we are moving forward with putting
that program in place as well.
LITTLE SCHOLARS CHILD CARE CENTER
Ms. Lee. I look forward to reviewing that.
Let me ask you also about the child care center, the status
of the child care center, and also this issue about the low-
income assistance for the child care center, and also an
update. Do you have any renovation plans at this point, and
where? Again, based on our initial conversations, do we know
yet where children will be housed during the interim?
Ms. Jenkins. I will answer the question first about the
subsidy. Right now we do not have a direct subsidy from
theCongress to subsidize the child care center tuition cost. We have a
very active fundraising committee with the Little Scholars program and
we do a number of employee fundraising events. I myself contribute to
the Little Scholars Child Care Center.
But I know that the House employees have an authorization
from Congress to subsidize tuition. We don't have that at the
Library, so we do not currently subsidize the tuition. We have
about 27 employees at the Library of Congress and about 21
Members of the House have kids who are at the Little Scholars
Child Care Center.
Ms. Lee. Madam Chair, sooner or later I would like to
really look at that, because I think the employees should have
that available at the Library of Congress.
Ms. Jenkins. And then you were also asking about St.
Cecelia's and the renovation?
ST. CECELIA'S RENOVATION
Dr. Billington. When this was originally purchased for the
Library through the Architect of the Capitol by Congress at a
reasonable price, the first priority was to establish a daycare
center, which was much needed, and so we did that right away.
The understanding was that the Congress, having purchased this
property, would turn to the Library to convert it into low-cost
housing for people who come to the District to use the immense
scholarly and cultural resources in Washington. These are
mostly young and international people who really can't afford
Washington-area prices. That need has become all the more
urgent since the cost of hotels and living space in Washington
has skyrocketed. Most people are on expense accounts;
journalists, lobbyists and others.
I had consulted with the French and German Governments on
setting up something similar to this. Frankly, Paris and Berlin
have plenty of low-cost housing; they don't really need it.
Washington is probably the world's greatest repository of
underused scholarly material for a host of reasons. The Library
of Congress first and foremost, but also the National Archives
and many government libraries, are huge resources in this city
that are underused because it is too expensive for younger
scholars to do research work here. We are trying privately to
raise the necessary funds.
We have been encouraged by local foundations to come up
with a plan, and we have privately raised about half the amount
of money that would be needed to renovate the building. We have
to pay something to sustain the whole complex. The basic
building is very solid. We have worked out plans, which we have
discussed over the years with the community. I think it would
be a real addition to Washington and a tremendous help to
people who really want to use the research facilities, but just
can't afford to come here. It would accommodate between 35 and
40 people at a time for a couple of weeks of intensive work.
We hope to complete the private fundraising and have it run
professionally.
Ms. Lee. So the children who will be displaced as a result
of the renovation?
Dr. Billington. The private fundraising involves funds for
the temporary displacement of the child care center, but that
will continue to run. We won't go ahead with the renovation
project unless we are sure that the child care center is
provided for.
Ms. Lee. The Board hasn't decided where the children will
go?
Ms. Jenkins. The Board has a couple of options that we are
looking at, but it would be within a 3-month period of time
once we secure all the funding.
[The information follows:]
Center for Visiting Scholars
Question. What is the current plan for renovating the St. Cecelia's
facility, including accommodating the childcare operation while the
facility is closed for renovation?
Answer.
Under the current plan, the facility at 601 East Capitol
Street, SE., would be renovated to house the Library of Congress Center
for Visiting Scholars along with the childcare facility. Funds needed
for renovation would come from donations (no appropriated funding for
construction would be requested by the Library).
The AOC has conducted condition assessments and the LOC,
using a contract architecture and engineering firm, has determined the
extend and cost of renovation required. The AOC is working with the LOC
and its contract architecture and engineering to explore design options
that will accommodate the programmatic and technical requirements in
the most economical fashion.
Accommodation of the existing Little Scholars Child
Development Center is a major consideration. Under the current plan,
the Center would be relocated during renovation to modular buildings in
Page School Park. The earliest that relocation would occur is Summer
2009, but the project plan is still evolving and may be impacted by AOC
utility tunnel work on Second Street between North Carolina Avenue and
the Senate buildings.
The Library is working closely with the AOC and the Child
Development Center's Board of Directors and Center Director to
coordinate utility tunnel work with all aspects of the temporary
childcare operation; including planning, schedule, accessibility,
environmental impact, security and safety compliance.
Because of utility tunnel work and to reduce costs, other
temporary childcare options are also being explored. Other options may
include relocation to modular facilities on Library grounds,
accommodation on the existing site, and temporary use of local school
and daycare facilities during summer months.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. And I absolutely agree
and look forward to working with you on the child care center.
5-YEAR PLAN FOR NDIIPP
I want to follow up on some of the things that Mr. Latham
talked about in the NDIIPP program. I do want to commend you
for developing the 5-year plan, and I realize we have, again, a
difficult budget situation. You are choosing between your
children when you put together this budget proposal. But with
the 5-year plan and the $6 million that you have requested, it
appears, and correct me if I am wrong, that you have made some
good progress in terms of making adjustments to ensure that you
could continue to progress down the path that has been laid out
to accomplish your goals. Is that a fair assessment?
Dr. Billington. Yes.
Ms. Jenkins. Yes.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So I just want to make sure,
obviously, again with this program as well that we can't get
any worse. I mean, the $47 million rescission that occurred,
which occurred in the fiscal 2007 cycle as a result of that
year's budget not being accomplished, and with us having to
first do a CR and then focus on the 2008 fiscal year, really
caused us a significant problem. I know that NDIIPP is a high
priority for the Library. And I think it is important to point
out that these are materials that if we don't make sure that we
continue down the path of preserving them, that they could be--
well, many will be lost; is that right?
Dr. Billington. Absolutely. It is impermanent in two
senses. It is impermanent because it is very short-lived
material that is very perishable. The systems for decoding have
changed. A lot of early digitized material can't be read
anywhere, so it is impermanent in that sense.
It is also impermanent in the sense that a great deal of
value-added material is lost; for instance, venture capitalists
all over the place are coming up with new services. A lot of
scientific work is on line, but if nobody subscribes to the
service that somebody is providing, it just vanishes. It is not
as if it is printed and there are only a few copies; it just
simply vanishes. Nobody maintains the source, and a lot of
things have vanished that way.
PRESERVING LIBRARY COLLECTIONS
This is an attempt to preserve and add to the Library's
artifactual collections and have digital materials and to
integrate it so you can have one-stop shopping. It is really a
program that, for every year it is deferred, you lose. You
don't even know exactly what you have been losing.
Perhaps the least understood and underappreciated thing
that the Library of Congress does is simply preservation.
Everything on which creativity, intellectual advances,
scientific studies are recorded since 1850 has been on
perishable paper or perishable magnetic tape. This is the
price, and it is a price worth paying, of a democratic society.
Everybody gets access to things. But information is on high-
acidpaper, on acetate or nitrate film, on any of a variety of
impermanent media.
We have all the audio-visual heritage consolidated at last
in one place in Culpeper, Virginia. We have a better chance of
preserving that. The Library of Congress produces three-
quarters of all the film preservation of archival quality ever
done in this country. Our role in preservation of the Nation's
cultural creativity and intellectual production is absolutely
central in our throw-away society. The Congress itself
recognizes the importance of this preservation by creating
boards for film preservation and for sound preservation.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My time is going to expire. I want
to be respectful of the other Members.
CAPITAL SECURITY COST-SHARING
The payments to the State Department to provide security to
your field offices, that is, I know, a frustration for you, and
it is becoming an increasing frustration for me. I really think
it is significant to note, again in the category of competing
priorities, it is clearly critical that you have overseas field
offices. I know that that is related to your ability to collect
international collections, and there is a lot of important work
that is being done by those offices. But 32, almost 33 percent
of your entire request goes to funding the security that is
provided to you by the Department of State. Is this the last
increase that you have coming down the pike, or is there more
in the future?
Ms. Jenkins. For costs of security?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. For the assessment.
Ms. Jenkins. No. In fact, they have told us that next
year's request will be $5.4 million as part of our shared
costs.
Dr. Billington. This is very high overhead, about 49
percent overhead on direct program cost.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My understanding, and I sort of
asked a question that I already know the answer to, but at some
point doesn't the security cost actually eclipse the cost of
the program?
Dr. Billington. Not quite, but it is----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It is close, isn't it?
Dr. Billington [continuing]. Getting there.
Ms. Jenkins. We are not sure whether or not the State
Department is going to continue this indefinitely. Part of this
was a result of 9/11, and they had to enhance security in all
of the embassies, and they fair-shared it. We are hoping that
it is not indefinite.
[Staff Note: The Library is required to make payments for
this program through 2018.]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I think it is something that we
really need to address, and I will ask the subcommittee members
for their help when that time comes.
Mr. Latham.
DIGITAL TALKING BOOKS AMENDMENT
Mr. Latham. First of all, I want to associate myself with
Mr. LaHood as far as the digital book program. The subcommittee
last year, going to full committee, only had $7.5 million in
the appropriations bill. Mr. Kingston and I had an amendment in
full committee to raise that; we compromised $12.5 million,
which was successful, but it kind of robbed Peter to pay Paul
in the entire budget. But this is an absolutely critical need
as far as I am concerned. I very much agree with Mr. LaHood
that we have got to do something about it.
IMPACT OF A CR AND UNFUNDED CRITICAL NEEDS
There are a couple of concerns I have. One, as far as the
Senate, I know we are going to do our work in the House. The
Senate has said they are probably not going to do any
appropriations bills this year, so we are going to be in the
CR. What effect is that going to have?
Also, in your statement you talked about $52 million you
did not request for critical needs. If you could kind of give
us an idea of maybe the most significant part of the critical
needs that are not in your request, that would be very, very
helpful to me.
Dr. Billington. I am glad to do that. First of all, almost
half of our critical needs are technological infrastructure. We
are world leaders in providing high-quality, dependable,
educational things K through 12 for a very, very large
audience. We get over 5 billion electronic transactions every
year.
We have about 100 million repeat users.
I can get you the exact figures, but it is straining our
technological capacity.
Library Services has been eroded a great deal. They have
taken about 70 percent of the substantial erosion of staff
since 1992. I have statistics on that I can give you as well.
There is a whole list I can give you of all those
divisions. It is nearly $52 million that we identified as
important needs.
We didn't go forward. We also didn't go forward with a very
much needed logistics center, which we have been proposing for
several years. We didn't even put that in this budget. Added
together, you are getting close to $100 million in
infrastructure needs.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latham. Did you request, if I may interrupt----
Dr. Billington. We did not.
Mr. Latham. You didn't request OMB?
Dr. Billington. I beg your pardon?
Mr. Latham. Did you make in your request submission--did
OMB cut this, or did you----
Ms. Jenkins. We don't go through OMB. We decide----
Dr. Billington. This is our decision.
Mr. Latham. We have a mutual disadmiration for OMB.
Ms. Jenkins. This is actually our internal process.
Dr. Billington. This is our internal process for
establishing critical resource requirements. This isn't just a
vague wish list; these are things in our process. We have
identified infrastructure needs that are pretty crucial,
particularly the information technology infrastructure.
Mr. Latham. Okay. Well, that is--I appreciate it.
Dr. Billington. Also some requests from CRS.
RETIREMENTS IN CRS
Mr. Latham. That is where I was going next. I just wanted
to ask Dan one question.
Going back to when I was first on the subcommittee, about
12 years ago, CRS had a real problem with retirements.
The institutional knowledge that we are going to be losing
is significant. I just wondered if, for the record, you would
talk about that and where you are today with the problem.
Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you very much.
Over a decade ago, back in 1996, we identified the problem
that 50 percent of the CRS staff were eligible to retire by
2006. We went to the Congress and said we need to have
knowledge transfer. For example, as new agricultural economists
come in, they need to be working with the agricultural
economist who has been here for six farm bills. So we asked the
committee, and the committee was able to give us additional
funding for 2 years in a row to be able to assist us in this
succession plan.
And so every year we have asked CRS staff, when do you
anticipate retiring, knowing plans change. So if six experts in
natural resources are here and three of the six may retire,
then that would be our top priority.
Over the years what we have done with our staff's
cooperation is to determine when they plan to retire; and then
we are able to place the highest priorities on competencies
facing a total loss of expertise, like we have one geneticist,
we have one gerontologist. You need those competencies to be
able to maintain the complete faculty of experts available to
you. We have been successful with the CRS staff working
together on this.
And if you recall, the reason for these concerns is that we
expanded our staff by over 2\1/2\ times as a result of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, and these people are
now retiring. We are now undertaking this same effort for our
senior levels as well, with succession planning utilizing new
management positions because our leadership is also able to
retire.
And in the last 5 years we now have 41.8 percent new staff
on CRS. And our planning is working, and I think it is a good
model. It is my understanding some elsewhere in the House may
be looking at what we did. It shows that all the staff in CRS
were committed to making this work.
Mr. Latham. It is a real success story. I know the
Government Printing Office has a similar problem. Maybe they
could talk to you about how to do this.
AGING LIBRARY WORKFORCE
Dr. Billington. I might add that about a quarter of the
entire staff of the Library of Congress could retire right now,
including expert curators. We have collected items that nobody
else would have. Who would have thought 10 years ago that
places like Kosovo, Chechnya, Burundi, Darfur--for that matter,
even Afghanistan--10 or 15 years ago would be in the headlines.
Not to mention Iran; we have tripled our exchanges with Iran.
We are collecting all these great works from overseas. We
don't just collect where the overseas offices are, in Islamabad
for example, but also all through Central Asia and Afghanistan.
They acquired on their regular collection routes a mimeographed
copy of the autobiography of Osama bin Laden.
There is a tremendous amount of expertise that we are in
danger of losing, and we didn't even put that on the critical,
critical list.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
Dr. Billington. So this is the----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I know. That is my concern, that
there are items here that aren't even on the critical list, and
we still have to keep priorities.
Ms. McCollum, my apologies for skipping you. I didn't see
you when you came in.
PRESERVING MUSIC IN DIGITAL LIBRARY
Ms. McCollum. I want to talk about some of the future
projects and resources, especially the issue for preserving
things in the digital library. My question is: I am working
with public television in Minnesota, and they are trying to
preserve things like Newton's Apple and some of the other kinds
of science programs and educational programs that they have
before they disappear.
And I think the way that you described it is absolutely
fantastic. It does just literally disappear if it isn't
recorded into a readable format.
Where are you on having the music collection being
available digitally? Because I know we have focused on books,
but there is also the issue of music which is enjoyed by
everyone. And even some in the deaf community, depending upon
what they can do to speakers and amplifiers in the privacy of
their own home, can have a sensory delight that they might not
have been able to enjoy several years ago.
And I am sure, you know, people who listen to Talking Books
also listen to great music. So where are we in preserving and
moving forward with the music collection?
Dr. Billington. The music collection is one of the glories
of the Library. In our American Memory program, we have
digitized numerous items of American history and culture, and
have put online the papers of Washington, Lincoln, Madison,
Jefferson and so forth. We are also now putting on more and
more of the cultural materials, particularly in musical
notation. We, in fact, had--and you were kind enough to welcome
him--Tom Hampson, the great American baritone, singing songs of
the Library's music collection in ten cities across America. We
have a lot of his recordings, the songs that were popular
throughout American history, online.
We have two recording labs in the new Packard Center, the
new Packard Campus, for preserving music. We have a lot of new
equipment. We are both preserving it and putting it online to
make it accessible. All of this stuff is free online.
We are adding the cultural materials, particularly musical
materials. We already have quite a few. The next stage of our
American Memory digitization is to develop an online
encyclopedia of American music.
There is even a certain amount in the process that includes
producers, and distributors. It is probably the best, most
comprehensive music collection in the world.
ACCESSIBILITY OF MUSIC COLLECTIONS TO THE BLIND AND DEAF
Ms. McCollum. I understand that. But my question is, how
are you coming along with it?
You are underfunded in that particular category and you are
underfunded in other categories--as was discussed earlier--and
while the Chair is working to move the Talking Books forward,
access to the music collection also has an impact on many in
our diverse communities.
Let me give you a concrete example. I am a former history
teacher. One of the best ways to engage and really understand
the Civil War is the music of the era. Much of this music
reflects the experience of the immigrant communities that were
torn apart after coming here and finding themselves in war,
which many of them came here to escape. Recordings also
demonstrate how one of the most famous songs, Amazing Grace,
went back and forth between the North and the South.
So if I am a studious reader of Civil War history, and
historians refer to Civil War songs quite a bit; and I want to
round out that educational experience, and I have been, let's
say, using Talking Books, what kind of funding do we need to
get the music that would go with that? If I read the history--
if I listen to or read the history books, I should also have
the opportunity to truly understand what that historian was
telling me about by experiencing the music myself.
Ms. Jenkins. Great. And we can provide that for the record.
[The information follows:]
Digitizing Sound Recordings
Question. What music has been digitized and made available online?
What are your plans for future digitizing and making accessible
recorded sound material from the Library's collections?
Response. Sound recordings are tied up by copyright term
restrictions for a period of time, longer than for any other creative
works. Because audio recordings did not come under federal copyright
protection until 1972, all recordings released before that date, even
those dating back to the 1890s, are still protected by state and common
law. Without rights holder permissions, the Library would not be able
to place the first 80-plus years of our music recording heritage online
until the year 2067. The only exception to this are recordings made by
the Edison Company, many of which the Library has made available on the
American Memory website.
Licensing recordings for internet usage is a complex and
specialized function that the Library has been unable to undertake on a
large scale. Last year we obtained permission from several record
labels to stream about thirty commercial recordings in their entirety
on the Library's ``Amazing Grace'' website. While modest in scope, this
agreement was precedent setting. On a much larger scale, the Library is
actively pursuing an agreement with Sony/BMG Music that will allow us
to stream audio on the web from the pre-1926 acoustic-era recordings in
their catalog, which includes all Columbia and Victor recordings. This
website, which we are calling the National Jukebox, will make thousands
of long out-of-print recordings available for instantaneous listening.
In 2003 the Library began the transition from analog to digital
audio preservation. Since that time, approximately eight terabytes of
digital audio have been created from a number of significant
collections, including thousands of live concerts recorded by the Voice
of America, jazz pianist Billy Taylor's collection, the Ann Sneed
collection of live jazz performances, and the Charles Mingus
Collection.
Dr. Billington. There is a fair amount online, and there is
much more, including lesson plans, that the teachers we have
trained have developed. In fact, seven congressional districts
have established programs for training teachers in how to use
these online lesson plans.
The idea of getting music back into the curriculum was an
important part of the Song of America tour that we did with Tom
Hampson; he conducted Master classes. We hope to repeat the
tour.
Invading the audiovisual world with things of quality takes
you to where kids are living and gets them back into reading,
gets them to ask questions, gets them inspired as well as
excited.
The correlation between music and math is very, very
strong.
Ms. Jenkins. Deanna.
Dr. Marcum. I do want to note, we have a plan in the Music
Division for putting pre-1923 music, the public domain music,
online in the Performing Arts Encyclopedia; and we will be
happy to send you the list of the collections that have already
been digitized, along with those that are scheduled to be
digitized.
Ms. McCollum. Madam Chair, just a little follow-up, because
I am thinking ahead.
If we have got the music online, what kind of bridging are
we putting in for those with visual impairments who are using
online to access the music? Are we planning our technology far
enough ahead so we can adapt?
Are we working with the deaf community and the blind
community to find out how they access the Internet, so that we
make sure that we don't start setting up these parallel
systems, which are expensive to run, but at some point we are
running one efficient system that serves all Americans?
You can get back to me on that.
Ms. Jenkins. Okay. Because everything we put up online is
Section 508 compliant, and we are very much including access
for the blind community in our thinking.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentlelady's time has expired so
I would appreciate it if you would get back to her.
[The information follows:]
Providing Digital Sound Recordings to the Blind and Deaf Communities
Question. How are you addressing the needs of the blind and deaf
communities with the digital collections?
Response. Audio digitization at the Packard Campus includes the
production of a preservation quality sound file and a browse quality
access file. We have just initiated a digital audio playback service
from Culpeper to researchers in the Recorded Sound Reference Center on
Capitol Hill via a secure closed network. We will soon bring online a
streaming server that will hold access copies of all our digitized
audio. The content in this server will grow at an increasingly high
rate as the preservation capabilities of the Packard Campus develop.
This growing digital content will be available to the public for
instantaneous listening and playback-on-demand in the reference center.
There are more than 10,000 patrons on the music rolls of the
National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped
(NLS). Each year NLS serves approximately 1,400 patrons with braille
and large print sheet music, and also recorded materials that include
general music appreciation as well as self-instruction on various
instruments and/or songs on certain instruments. The special format
music collection grows each year with the addition of hundreds of new
music titles, recorded and sheet music.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. LaHood.
DIGITAL TALKING BOOKS FUNDING
Mr. LaHood. Dr. Billington and Ms. Jenkins, could you
provide for the record the amount of money it will take to
speed up digitizing the books from 6 years to 5 years and from
6 years to 4 years? I think the distinction here for digitizing
books is that the Library is the sole source of these
materials. People can't go in their own communities, they can't
go to other places in the country to get these books. You are
the source of--you are the sole source of it.
And, again, to slow down this process, I think is a real
unfairness. And so if we have these figures, then we will know
precisely what we need to do to find the dollars to make this
one of the priorities of this subcommittee, of the
Appropriations Committee and of the Congress.
Ms. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
[The information follows:]
Digital Talking Book Program Cost of Four and Five Year Implementation
Total program implementation cost is $76.4 million. $12.5 million
was appropriated in fiscal 2008. Annual costs of a four year
implementation would be: $12.5 million in fiscal 2008 and $21.3 million
(or additional funding of $8.8 million) in fiscal 2009, 2010, and 2011.
Annual costs of a five year implementation would be: $12.5 million in
fiscal 2008 and $15.975 (or additional funding of $3.475) in fiscal
2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.
THANKS TO LIBRARY STAFF
Mr. LaHood. Thank you again for being here. Thank you for
the services that you and your team provide not only to the
Members of Congress--Dan and his team do a great job.
Dan, I know that over the years you and your folks have
done a great job in making all of us look very good in the way
that we write bills and the way that we submit bills and the
way that we gather information and make sure the bills we do
introduce make sense, based on good research.
So again, we are grateful to all of you for what you do.
Dr. Billington. Could I just say one more brief word?
Because I have talked about a lot of things and services; we
haven't talked about the staff and the people. We have many
people who are doing incredible work.
The country can be proud of the Library staff. You are
talking to me and Jo Ann and others; but the fact of the matter
is that everything the Library accomplishes depends on the
quality of the staff, and we haven't even discussed our needs
in that area.
We have one regular training budget. We aren't able yet to
have the kind of succession planning that was present in CRS
with such positive results. We have a lot of training to do. We
are going to have to replace a lot of people who are retiring.
There is a dedication and there is a quality in the staff.
That is why actually most of our requests this year are really
just to make sure we get the mandated pay raises and don't have
to squeeze other programs further.
I just did want to make it clear. I have been here a fairly
long time, and I really do feel that there is a tremendous
amount of work that is hardly noticed. It is really a tribute
to the public service and dedication and the idealism of the
Library's staff. When we are talking about these other things
that we are going to do, we are only able to do them because of
the staff. For instance, in cataloguing, it is a basic service
the Library provides to the country. With many, many less
people, Dr. Marcum's people are cataloguing more. They have
steadily increased the amount of output.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. A big number?
Dr. Billington. I mean, to a very significant degree.
363,000 print items in fiscal 2007 versus 270,000 in fiscal
2003.
We talked about infrastructure. The real infrastructure is
the people that bring all of this static material to life and
make it interactive, abroad or nationally.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are absolutely right. That is
the factor that always is underrepresented and
``underrecognized,'' if that is a word or an appropriate word.
FUND-RAISING COORDINATION
I want to focus on some of the other parts of your request.
We have the Audiovisual Center that has now been completed.
There has been a grand opening, and you have a $2 million
request to fill 22 positions at the Audio Visual Conservation
Center. We talked about this before.
The center is a wonderful addition to the facilities that
we have, and it will obviously go a long way towards advancing
the goal, preserving these collections. But when we--when you
are in the process of seeking private funds, it does result in
a difficulty if you have not sought and received all of the
private funds necessary to both build and operate a facility
like this. Your successful collection of the donation results
in an additional obligation on the Congress to fund the needs
of the center that you have raised money for.
So I cautioned you in our conversation in my office, and I
will do so publicly, that--I really want to encourage, when you
are doing that fund-raising, which I encourage you to do--we
all do it, because obviously we clearly need some relief on the
public resources that we can provide--that you raise all of
your needs, at least get yourself as much of the way there as
possible, and coordinate with us a little bit more closely on
how we can make sure we know what is coming down the pike for
our planning purposes.
STAFFING REQUEST-AUDIO VISUAL CONSERVATION CENTER
But what are some of the examples of the work that the
Library will be able to do if you fill those positions that you
can't do now? And what will happen if we can't fund those
positions?
Dr. Billington. Well, the center is simply not fully
operational. This isn't a new request, but restoring money that
was taken out in last year's budget, the last year of 5 years
on the program. Frankly, the success of the enormous private
donations by the Packard Humanities Institute was dependent on
Congressional assurances of support.
Funding for the staff was reduced by $2.374 million.
Because of building delays, staff were not hired, creating a
surplus in no-year funds for the program. Congress reduced the
funding for staff, taking annual funding rather than no-year
funding, which resulted in a shortfall for fiscal year 2009.
So what we are requesting now is $1.781 million to be
restored for 23 positions. The Packard Campus now is only about
half operational in terms of what it will be able to do.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. What will we be able to do if they
are funded, and what will we not be able to do if they are not
funded?
Dr. Billington. If they are not funded--I can give you the
exact amount of what we won't be able to preserve.
This moving image and recorded sound material has now been,
for the first time, pulled together in one place. A lot of it
has been in caves, in storage, and in various warehouses.
Wereally need to move full steam ahead.
The fundamental business of preservation is cut in half on
this. This is not a new request. We have funding to continue
for 1 year, but we are not able to attract people to Culpeper,
Virginia, if they only are being offered a 1-year assignment.
This is essential if we are going to develop that, if we
are going to honor what was the understanding under which we
were able to get this enormous donation. In reality, it is much
more than $150 million because there was a lot of in-kind
support--I mean, David Packard is one of the world's great
experts on the technical side of film preservation. We have the
benefit of his expertise as well as his money and his
architectural skills, hopefully, with the landscape.
It is a great credit to the Congress, but we will only be
able to do about half as much as we could with full funding. I
can't tell you how many films, but I can tell you that our
audiovisual heritage, which has not been well preserved by
those who generated it, is in a very perilous state. The
Culpeper facility is by far, technologically, the best and
largest in the country--I think in the world, really.
I can give you, if you want estimates of what this means
more precisely than that----
Ms. Jenkins. We will provide it for the record.
[The information follows:]
Impact of No Additional Funding for Culpeper Staff
Currently, Library Services' staffing and production levels in the
areas of acquisition, processing, and preservation are lower than they
were prior to the transition to Culpeper. Without the requested Packard
Campus staffing, the Library:
Will not be able to take advantage of the dramatic
increase in the capacities and capabilities of the Packard Campus for
preserving and providing access to the collections.
Will not be able to bring online new preservation programs
built into the campus, including color film preservation. Digital video
reformatting will be limited to the simpler formats.
Will not be able to administer and maintain the facility's
complex systems, equipment, and software.
Will not be able to acquire as many new collections and
make them available for researchers.
Dr. Billington. This is to close out the agreed basis on
which we proceeded to raise the private money.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It is in the spirit of making fully
informed decisions about the tradeoffs that we will have to
make.
Dr. Billington. I want to assure you that next year we will
deliver to you all that will be needed if we privately
fundraise for something; and we will also let you know what we
may be able to reduce with your help and the help of the staff.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Mr. Latham.
LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS OF OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Mr. Latham. Dr. Billington, is your inspector general here
today? I have a couple questions.
Mr. Schornagel, the question relates to the law enforcement
authority that apparently you have or believe. I just ask what
statutory authority do you have to perform law enforcement
functions like carrying a firearm, making arrests and executing
warrants?
Mr. Schornagel. Like most inspectors general in the Federal
Government--and there are over 60, and they all have criminal
investigators and some have statutory law enforcement, the
larger ones. The rest of us get our law enforcement authority
through deputation from the U.S. Marshals Service, and we need
that to obtain and execute search warrants and make arrests.
Mr. Latham. The legislation basically granting independent
IG authority to Library of Congress, Capitol Police, Architect
of the Capitol inspectors general specifically excludes law
enforcement authority. Is this something you think Congress
intended to have for the inspector general?
Mr. Schornagel. Well, none of the statutory language for
the non-Presidentially appointed IGs specifically address law
enforcement authority. So our language is similar to everybody
else's, including the Government Printing Office. That office
exercises law enforcement authority.
So we are really no different than other agencies such as
the National Archives or the Smithsonian.
Mr. Latham. Are there other people deputized also under the
Marshals Service?
Mr. Schornagel. Yes. As a matter of fact, probably about
30-some inspector general offices are.
Mr. Latham. No, under your Library.
Mr. Schornagel. Just our criminal investigators.
Mr. Latham. How many?
Mr. Schornagel. There is one full-time and two part-time.
Mr. Latham. The request to be deputized from the Marshal's
office has to come from the entity, and in this case, the
Library of Congress. Who submitted the request for you?
Mr. Schornagel. I did.
Mr. Latham. You did?
Mr. Schornagel. Yes.
Mr. Latham. Okay. The agency is actually supposed to do
that.
I am curious. It says basically you are deputized in the
Department of Justice.
Mr. Schornagel. Correct.
Mr. Latham. What kind of authority do you have? And
specifically, have you had any ability to do intercepts or
wiretaps?
Mr. Schornagel. No.
Mr. Latham. You do not. Okay.
Do you have a memo of understanding from the Department of
Justice?
Mr. Schornagel. Yes, we do. Correct.
Mr. Latham. Okay. Where does the liability lie?
Mr. Schornagel. The liability for what specifically--
Mr. Latham. If, in fact, something happened, is it the
Justice Department, is it the Library?
Mr. Schornagel. It is the Justice Department.
Mr. Latham. Okay. I have a real concern here that we
basically have--a separation of powers issue where we are
funding the position that is supposed to work for the
legislative branch. It is deputized under DOJ.
Who is your authority as far as any kind of enforcement
authority? Is it the Attorney General?
Mr. Schornagel. Well, he is the one who we are required to
refer criminal cases to. It is the same organization, whether
it is a leg branch IG or the executive branch.
For example, the Government Printing Office has been
exercising the exact same law enforcement authority that I do
ever since they have been statutory, for like 15 years.
Mr. Latham. Can you cite the statutory permission?
Mr. Schornagel. Well, the Inspector General Act of 1978 is
a law that is referred to in my act; it has the same language
in the IG Act for the Government Printing Office.
Mr. Latham. Okay. From my understanding, it is excluding--
--
Mr. Schornagel. It is implied rather than explicit, the law
enforcement authority, and it is common operation that all
statutory, non-Presidentially appointed IGs get their law
enforcement authority through deputization from the U.S.
Marshals Service.
We are considered by the Federal Government a law
enforcement organization. And we cannot rely on police
organizations to help us fulfill our mission. We found police
organizations unreliable, and I have also experienced delays
when we have had to rely on these organizations.
Mr. Latham. Well, my concern is you are basically under the
control of the administration--the executive branch, Madam
Chair----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes.
Mr. Latham [continuing]. You know, I don't care what
administration it is--but being paid through the legislative
branch; and there is a real concern I have here with the
separation of powers.
The Government Printing Office has specific authority, and
from my understanding, you are specifically excluded from
having law enforcement authority.
Mr. Schornagel. No, I don't believe that that is true. As a
matter of fact, this whole thing came up on the Senate side
last year, and we went through the same types of issues. It was
referred by Senate Appropriations to the GAO for a legal
opinion, and it confirmed my position. There are no legal
barriers from our exercising law enforcement authority just
like all the other IG offices do.
Mr. Latham. Would you provide a copy of the GAO opinion?
Mr. Schornagel. Sure.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you could do that for the record,
we would appreciate that.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Latham, if you could begin to
wrap up.
Mr. Latham. Just on the issue of the firearms, who issued
the guns to you and your staff? And who certified the
qualification for the firearms?
Mr. Schornagel. We buy the guns ourselves and we certify
the same facilities----
Mr. Latham. You personally buy them?
Mr. Schornagel. Yes. We borrowed them for quite some time
from the Library's police force. We certify under the same
procedures and the same facilities as the Library of Congress
and Capitol Police and the other inspectors general.
Mr. Latham. So you personally bought the guns, but you did
borrow them for a while?
Mr. Schornagel. Correct. And that is common practice in the
inspector general community.
Mr. Latham. I have nothing further for now. I just have
real concerns about separation.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am going to follow up right now.
Mr. Schornagel. Well, I would like to clarify one thing.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Latham's time has expired, and I
want to continue this conversation, because my understanding
is, your general counsel suggested that you didnot have the
authority to carry firearms.
Mr. Schornagel. That is what brought this issue up a little
over a year ago.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Excuse me. If your general counsel
suggested that you do not have the authority to carry firearms,
why did you hire a different attorney to write you a different
opinion that you liked better?
Mr. Schornagel. Because inspectors general--in fact,
specifically in legislation that is in both the House and
Senate now, changes to the Inspector General Act of 1978
recognize that an agency's general counsel does not have the
best interest of the inspector general in rendering opinions.
And that is why one of the requirements in this legislation is
that IGs have their own counsel and not rely on the opinions of
the agency's General Counsel.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My understanding is that statutory
authority was very limited and that you were not included in
that.
Mr. Schornagel. I don't believe that is correct.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, according to the general
counsel who was the one that you hired to give you advice----
Mr. Schornagel. I disagree with our general counsel.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. But we don't go around hiring
attorneys until we get the opinion we want.
I appreciate your bringing this issue up, Mr. Latham. And
we'd appreciate the information that we requested for the
record.
Mr. Latham. GAO statement, if I may.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No. Go ahead.
Mr. Latham. I want to see the opinion from the GAO noting
the authority to do this.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sure.
Dr. Billington, if you could provide that information for
the record, we would appreciate that.
And I can assure you, Mr. Latham, that we will spend some
time on this, because it is a matter of concern. I appreciate
your raising it.
I am sorry. Mr. LaHood.
Mr. LaHood. I am fine.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are all done.
FOOD SERVICE PROVIDER AND CAFETERIA STAFF
All right, there has been some concern about the Library's
cafeteria union and your interim food service provider IL
Creations, which I know has taken over for a 3-month period.
Their interim contract is expiring, and I guess there is an
opportunity to extend that contract for a period of months, but
I am concerned about the benefits issue that exists right now.
On the one hand, IL Creations appears to have said that it
doesn't make sense for them to negotiate with the union because
they are only a temporary replacement for the former
contractor; but at the same time they feel confident enough
that they rewrote benefits packages for at least some, if not
all, of the employees. It sounds like, to me, the company is
trying to not negotiate with the employees because they are
only a 3-month contractor, but change their benefits without
negotiations.
So it seems to me there is a problem going on here. Can you
address that, please?
Ms. Jenkins. Absolutely.
Let me first state that we have a procurement out to find a
new vendor for the cafeteria services. We did that because of
the large number of complaints that we had received.
We have gone through the bid process twice, trying to get
other vendors to come in and bid on this. But there are some
limitations because of the small time window in which they can
sell food to the general public--unlike here in the Capitol,
where there are thousands of people. So we actually went out
under my direction to find a vendor.
We found IL Creations, which has a number of other
government contracts providing similar services. They have now
a short-term contract, but the intent is for them to operate
under a bridge contract for a 20-month period, which is the
processing time that it takes for us to put the bid back out.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My understanding is that they are
now considering, if they haven't already, applying for the
actual full contract.
Ms. Jenkins. We haven't put it back on the street. Our
intent would be that they would be open to bid on it, just like
anybody else would.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. They will continue past the 3-month
period?
Ms. Jenkins. The intent is they would have a 20-month
bridge contract.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Why wouldn't they be subject to
negotiating a collective bargaining agreement with the union if
they are going to be here for 20 months? That is almost 2
years. That is ridiculous.
Ms. Jenkins. They are, in fact, negotiating with the unions
right now, with IL Creations.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. According to the information I have,
they have been refusing to negotiate with the union and, at the
same time, changing benefits indiscriminately without
negotiating.
Can you specifically address the benefits issue?
Ms. Jenkins. Sure. It is absolutely untrue that they are
not negotiating. They have had several negotiating sessions.
The contractor has discussed the possibility of providing full
costs for all the employees for health benefits.
There is one employee who would not have full coverage for
her children, and that was the issue. So it is not--85, 90
percent of the employees----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Twenty-eight workers, total.
Ms. Jenkins. Twenty-eight workers, but for 27, the
contractor would be paying the full cost.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But that is just because 27 of the
28 of them don't need family coverage; they are single-coverage
employees.
So we are talking about--that is the purpose of negotiation
in collective bargaining, that you make sure that you can
bargain for all of the workers and not just say, Well, it is
only one, no big deal; we will take care of the 27 out of 28.
Ms. Jenkins. Absolutely, I agree. They are in the middle of
bargaining; and I think that what we have here is the
communication between the employees and the union and the
contractor.
We spoke to them as late as yesterday to make sure they had
set up additional bargaining sessions to try to resolve this
before we even entered into the 20-month contract. I had been
assured by the existing contractor that he has reached out not
only to the union, but also to the employees.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Is he specifically negotiating the
benefits--the health care benefits?
Ms. Jenkins. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. He is? What I have been told--
Ms. Jenkins. Those are preliminary discussions.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is not a final decision?
Ms. Jenkins. No.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you could, keep us apprised on
the negotiations.
Ms. Jenkins. Yes.
[The information follows:]
I.L. Creations and Cafeteria Employees
The Library's contract with Sodexho Inc. for the provision
of food services at Library facilities expired on December 21, 2007.
The Library awarded a 90-day contract on December 31, 2007 and signed
an 18-month ``bridge'' contract with the I.L. Creations on Friday,
March 7, 2008. During this period, the Library will issue a request for
proposals and vendors, including I.L. Creations, will have an
opportunity to bid for the Library's food service business.
In accordance with District of Columbia law, I.L.
Creations retained the former Sodexho employees during the initial 90-
day period and provided training on their system and procedures. The
Library, as far as the law allows, has encouraged I.L. Creations to
communicate and negotiate in good faith with its employees.
John Boardman, executive secretary-treasurer of the Hotel
and Restaurant Employees Unitehere, Local 25, which represents the
cafeteria workers at the Library, and I.L. Creations are scheduled to
meet on Friday, March 14, at 2 p.m. to begin negotiating a new
bargaining agreement. A new contract will include terms for benefits.
These issues are central to the current dispute between I.L. Creations
and its new employees.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I realize those workers are not
direct Library employees; but I have experience in my own
congressional district with a similar issue, and it is not
something that I would like to see happen again the way it
happened in my own district.
We are going to have a vote coming up, and I don't want to
bring the members back.
Mr. Latham, do you have anything?
Mr. Latham. I may have one or two for the record, but we
will have votes soon.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I have a couple others, so I am just
going to continue.
OFFICE OF WORKPLACE DIVERSITY
The Office of Workplace Diversity. It has been brought to
my attention that the Library has plans to just completely shut
it down and eliminate the employees. And you are shaking your
head, so apparently that might not be the case.
But the information that I have is that the Office of
Workplace Diversity staff is being subject to a reduction in
force. They have 16 people. The overall staffing of that office
is about 8 percent minority and 56 percent female.
What is going on with the Office of Workplace Diversity? If
you are subjecting all the employees to a reduction in force,
then what are your plans to make sure that there continues to
be an Office of Workplace Diversity.
Ms. Jenkins. There will absolutely be an Office of
Workplace Diversity.
It is no secret that we have had a number of performance
issues in the office. I asked earlier this year for the IG to
come in and do a management review. He completed that
assessment, I believe about 3 or 4 months ago, and made a
number of recommendations, many of which address the issues of
the performance in the office as well as the high number of
people working in that office compared to other leg branch
agencies.
I have to say that I came to the Library 14 years ago to
deal with workforce diversity issues, so it is something that
is very near and dear to me. Of those 16 people in there, about
85 percent are eligible to retire.
What we are doing now is trying to address the inspector
general's recommendations to us about how to create the Office
of Workplace Diversity that the Library is going to need in the
future so that it is able to focus on recruiting
underrepresented populations, like Hispanics and the disabled.
We have briefed the staff.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Are you reducing the entire force,
all 16? Because the EEOCO has not been subjected to the same
comparative criticism as the rest of the office. So there were
concerns.
Ms. Jenkins. No. What we are doing is, we are going through
a process in which we have met with each individual staff
member. They have been allowed to submit recommendations or
changes concerning areas in that office that need improvement.
We will probably come back to the Congress to ask for
authority to offer early-out retirement.
We will be putting in place a structure of what the office
needs to look like, and those people will be placed
appropriately according to their skills within that office. But
it is not our intent to put anyone on the street,and I don't
think anyone mentioned the words ``reduction in force.''
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Does that mean you do not have plans
for there to be a gap between whatever plans you have to change
the Office of Workplace Diversity and your reinvention of it,
to where there won't be a period of time----
Ms. Jenkins. There won't be gaps in service. Absolutely
not.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am concerned about it in light of
the issues you have had recently in terms of hiring and
diversity specifically and want to make sure you don't leave a
gap that would result in more problems than what you already
have.
Closing Remarks and Additional Assignment
That concludes the questions that I have.
I do want to reiterate and stress my appreciation for the
Library's really significant and successful effort in giving us
a budget that is realistic and that we can use to try and make
sure that we limit the pain that we have had in the last couple
of years.
I want to ask you for your assistance with some of these
issues, specifically as it relates to the Office of Workplace
Diversity. If you can by next Friday, March 14, give us a
report that has an explanation of what exactly you are
proposing to do with the Office of Workplace Diversity and when
your plans are to do that; an explanation of why you have
decided to pursue such a broad course of action and why you
think it is the best option available, and how you will
continuously maintain the functions of the office regardless of
how you decide to proceed from here.
I would also like you to give us some information about the
Department of State security payments and any suggestions as to
how we might address it differently.
It is untenable to have a program that is eclipsed by its
security needs; given that we have a number of competing
priorities, we have got to try to stem the tide on that
situation.
With that, the subcommittee stands in recess until tomorrow
morning at 10 a.m. when we will hear from the Public Printer on
GPO's FY 2009 request.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 6, 2008.
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BUDGET
WITNESSES
ROBERT C. TAPELLA, PUBLIC PRINTER OF THE UNITED STATES
NADINE ELZY, DIRECTOR OF EEO
Opening Remarks by the Chair
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Good morning. I would like to call
the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch of the Committee on
Appropriations to order.
Today, we are going to hear from Robert Tapella, the new
official Public Printer of the United States, confirmed by the
Senate and sworn in, I assume, by the President, correct? Is
that who actually swears you in?
Mr. Tapella. Well, in this particular case, it was the back
office clerk of the Hotel Michelangelo in New York City, who
happened to be the notary public right after the President
signed the commission. The President did sign the commission.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Good. We are looking forward to
hearing from you.
The focus of the hearing will be the fiscal year 2009
request from GPO, which is $174 million, not quite the single-
digit increase that we had from yesterday but a 40 percent
increase over fiscal year 2008. That is a large request, but it
is important to note that GPO has sustained very minimal
increases over the last 2 fiscal years. There are shortfalls in
the congressional printing account that we have to cover. We
have to address building maintenance. Really, if there is an
example of an agency that has crumbling infrastructure and
needs help, it is GPO. And then a lot of the rest of the
increase is for the FDsys system, which is the new digital
repository for all Federal documents.
The key things that are part of the request, which I know
the Printer will outline, are $8 million to cover accumulated
congressional printing shortfalls, which we might have a way to
address; $21 million to continue developing the FDsys system;
and $17.5 million to maintain and repair GPO's aging buildings,
which we'd like to hear more about what your ideas are for not
having to continue to prop up your buildings.
I know there are a lot subcommittee members that have
competing hearings within the Appropriations Committee this
morning, so they will be coming in and out, and we will just
proceed and recognize them as they get here.
Again, we are operating in a very tight budget environment.
Things are not getting any better for us in the legislative
branch, and we are going to try to make sure we fight for at
least adequate funding for the absolute things that we have to
have for each of the legislative branch agencies, and you are
no exception.
So, with that, Mr. Latham.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Latham
Mr. Latham. Thank you. I just want to say this is probably
the nicest printing job I have seen as testimony, as I would
expect.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Really.
Mr. Latham. I just want to welcome you.
I know you have got several concerns. I look forward to
hearing the testimony on those, particularly about retained
earnings and investments and technology. Since the Federal
Government is probably not going to get much smaller in the
next few years, I would be really interested in hearing what
you think we need to do to be of assistance for you.
With that, thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome.
Mr. Tapella, we welcome you to your first hearing in your
official role as the Public Printer. Your full statement will
be entered into the record, and you can proceed with a 5-minute
summary.
Opening Statement From the Public Printer
Mr. Tapella. Terrific. Thank you.
Madam Chair, Representative Latham, this is my first
appropriations hearing as Public Printer, although I have been
part of GPO's management team for over 5 years. During that
time, GPO has been transformed into a modern, efficient and
effective partner to all three branches of Government,
providing a broad range of products beyond just printing.
Our original objective in transforming GPO was to ensure it
would survive. Through the hard work of our dedicated employees
we achieved that goal and more, and now GPO is beginning to
thrive.
I am pleased to report that we recorded net income for the
fourth consecutive year. We increased overall revenue to levels
that have not been experienced at GPO for more than a decade,
primarily as a result of the production of electronic
passports, as well as other in-plant operations. Efforts to
economize and increase efficiency also contributed measurably
to our financial results.
For fiscal year 2009, we are requesting a total of
$174,354,000, which will enable GPO to meet projected
requirements for GPO's congressional printing and binding and
information dissemination operations during fiscal year 2009;
recover the shortfall in congressional printing and binding
appropriations accumulated in fiscal year 2007 and projected
for fiscal year 2008; provide investment funds for necessary
information dissemination projects in the Federal Depository
Library Program; complete the initial release of FDsys; and
perform essential maintenance and repairs to our aging
buildings.
In short, the increase requested by GPO asks Congress to
pay its bill for past congressional printing and to make
investments in GPO's future, which will help us continue to
reduce the real dollar costs of congressional printing in the
future.
Playing a numbers game, we are asking for nearly 50 million
additional dollars. As a percentage of our prior
appropriations, it seems like a big percentage; and GPO loses
in that comparison and so does the taxpayer. In real economic
terms, the technology investments that Congress has made at GPO
over the past few decades have significantly reduced the cost
of congressional printing. Were it not for the foresight of
your predecessors in making these technology investments at
GPO, our basic costs for congressional printing would be about
$300 million a year.
GPO's approved funding for fiscal year 2008 is under $90
million, a reduction of more than 70 percent in real economic
terms. The savings have come from productivity improvements and
staffing reductions made possible through the use of improved
technology.
Now, in my official remarks, I have how a bill becomes a
law. There are basically 24 steps in the legislative process.
GPO is involved in 12 of them. Over 500 GPO employees gave
direct support to Congress last fiscal year.
Technology is at the center of GPO's operations today.
GPO's Federal Digital System is the backbone. Of the total
funding investments requested by GPO, nearly half are directly
related to the establishment and operation of GPO's Federal
Digital System. This includes modernizing congressional
publishing, replacing production workflow systems, and
digitizing the FDLP legacy collection.
For the salaries and expenses appropriation of the
Superintendent of Documents, the increases for fiscal year 2009
are required to cover mandatory pay and price level increases,
as well as projects that are all directly linked to FDsys. The
projects are geared to ensure the broadest access possible to
Federal Government information and the highest level of service
to the American public.
GPO needs a modern and efficient facility. I would like it
to have green building certification. I have begun working with
our oversight committees on a plan, a plan that would require
no direct appropriations, allow us to remain on our current
site, maintain current employee head counts, provide additional
space for legislative branch use, and not face an untenable CBO
score.
I believe we could have legislation passed this year to
make the new building a reality. In the meantime, however, we
have a number of deferred maintenance items that we must
address, and so in our appropriations request we are asking for
some help.
I would like to address the success of our security and
intelligent documents business. It is profitable. Some are
suggesting too profitable. I am not certain yet. Because of the
unprecedented demand for passports last year and the prudent
increases in passport inventory so far this year, GPO is
experiencing accelerated revenue recognition, not necessarily
excess profits.
GPO is unlike most other Federal agencies in that all GPO
activities are financed through a business-like revolving fund.
The revolving fund functions as GPO's checking account with the
U.S. Treasury. The fund is used to pay all of GPO's costs, and
the fund is reimbursed by our agency customers when they pay
GPO invoices.
The price we charge the State Department for blank
passports is negotiated with the State Department. It is based
on our estimated production costs, plus reserves for capital
projects apportioned out over an estimated quantity of books
produced.
There are 66 different line items used to price
thepassports, and we periodically review the pricing structure with the
State Department. We bill the State Department for actual passports
produced on at least a monthly basis. However, not all of the expenses
included in the price we charge the State Department for passports are
booked at the same time as the revenue. Because of our business type
accrual accounting, the expenses are not recognized until the
investment has been placed into service. There is a timing difference:
revenue first, then expenses, and not necessarily in the same year.
As you may have noticed, in last year's annual report in
our financial results table we show net income from operations.
We then show planned uses of net income. This clearly
identifies the impact of the accounting rules on our
recognition of revenue and expenses.
We have established formal committees with the State
Department to discuss and formalize long-term capital
investments. These investments will be recognized this year in
our financial results table as planned uses of net income.
Finally, the real question that needs to be answered is
what is the appropriate level of profit for GPO under Title 44?
Is it 2 percent? 5 percent? 10 percent? 20 percent? Or should
it be measured by unencumbered cash on hand? As Public Printer,
I must confess too much profit is a much better problem to deal
with than whether or not we can meet payroll.
Madam Chairman, Representative Latham, we look forward to
working with you. With your support, we can continue GPO's
record of achievement.
This concludes my remarks, and I would be happy to answer
any questions.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much, Mr. Tapella.
[Mr. Tapella's statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Welcome Mr. Bonner
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Before we move into questions, I now
want to officially recognize and welcome Mr. Bonner of Alabama
to the Appropriations Committee and to the Legislative Branch
Subcommittee and to your first meeting. And you are absolutely
forgiven for your absence yesterday since the committee
schedules us with way too many competing priorities.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Madam Chair.
THE FUTURE OF GPO
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It is a pleasure to have you on the
committee, and we will proceed under the 5-minute rule.
Mr. Tapella, you talked a little bit about your vision for
the future, but can you give us a sense of where you want to
take the GPO over the next 5 years? GPO began as a normal
printer; and now it appears there has been some significant
evolution.
Mr. Tapella. GPO was founded originally as Congress's
printer in 1861, through legislation in 1860. In 1895, all
Government printing was put under the Government Printing
Office. In addition, the Superintendent of Documents operation
was also put under the Public Printer. Everything worked fine
until about 1993, and then the Internet happened, and it was
explosive technology.
As Public Printer I have a responsibility to make certain
that the documents of our democracy are made widely available
and kept in perpetuity. That responsibility falls to our
Superintendent of Documents operation. Today, less than half of
all Government documents are printed first and then
distributed. They are born digital, and they are made available
to the public through Web access and other sources. So the job
of the Public Printer, I believe, and our primary mission, is
keeping America informed.
It just so happens that the method that was used prior to
the invention of the Internet was the printing press. But in
1993 Congress gave us authority to operate a Web site; and, in
fact, we are one of the few Web sites that is actually
congressionally mandated, which is our GPO Access site.
So when we look at GPO we are really in the communications
business. We always have been. And we are in the Government
information business. It just so happens that today printing is
not the only widespread communications medium. Now, looking at
GPO, we have a couple of different things.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Be mindful that I only have 5
minutes.
Mr. Tapella. Okay. Then I will stop.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No, you can answer the question.
Just be mindful that I only have 5 minutes.
Mr. Tapella. In terms of printing, what we are doing in
house, we are focusing on security and intelligent documents,
and we are focusing on the official journals of Government.All
other Government printing, for the most part, is being jobbed to the
private sector. We procured 98,000 jobs last year from the private
sector. We are going to continue that. We are looking at new and
innovative ways of dealing with that, for example, our partnership with
FedEx Kinko's, where any Federal Government agency can go to any FedEx
Kinko's and get convenience printing done. We are doing term contracts.
We are doing small purchase agreements.
When we look at what we are doing in plant, we are focusing
on the work of Congress, the Federal Register, and then the
business of security and intelligent documents, which includes
the passports. It also includes, because we have won the
contract so far, the Department of Homeland Security's Trusted
Traveler program card. And so our business is expanding. It is
printing, but it is also the injection of technology and
integrated circuits into something we print.
PASSPORT FACILITY SECURITY
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
I have a number of other questions, but last year we put
language both in our bill as well as in the report related to
passport facility security. GPO had previously been staffing
the passport facility with just security guards--I know you
have a different term for them--but nonsworn officers; and
given the homeland security concerns that exist with a
situation like that, the committee felt strongly that it should
be sworn officers that protect that building. Can you talk to
us about what you have done since that language was included in
the bill?
Mr. Tapella. Yes. In fact, now our passport facility only
has sworn officers. Understanding, though, that the majority of
the work that is done there in terms of the security need is in
the area of access control.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
Mr. Tapella. We have placed security officers at access
control points, and they are now doing that. We are in the
process of hiring additional officers, sworn officers that will
be working in the rest of our facility for response to
incidents; and we are still using contract officers for access
control elsewhere at GPO.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Can you talk about the GAO report?
Mr. Brady and I just signed a letter asking----
Mr. Tapella. Correct. We have not yet had our initial
conference with GAO regarding it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Mr. Tapella. We look forward to it. Our Inspector General
has conducted several reviews. The Capitol Police have
conducted reviews. All of our security to date has been
following the advice we received from both the Inspector
General as well as the Capitol Police in previous reviews, and
we are looking forward to the outcome of the GAO review to see
how we could better protect our facilities.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And that would be a more
comprehensive look at security around GPO?
Mr. Tapella. Correct. At the end of the day, though, the
real way to get security is to get us into a proper facility
that is designed with security in mind and not something that
was built in 1940 for which there were no security concerns.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are a good advocate for your
agency, and my time has expired. Mr. Latham.
Mr. Latham. Thank you very much; I, too, want to welcome
Mr. Bonner to the committee; I look forward to working with
you.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you.
PASSPORT PRODUCTION LEVELS
Mr. Latham. You said in your opening statement that you are
thriving and, financially, performing well; part of that is
because of the dramatic increase in the number of passports,
obviously, with people going to Mexico and Canada and having to
have passports now. Where is the cliff on that? I mean, I think
we are going to pretty well fill the need here shortly and your
revenues maybe are going to go the other way.
Mr. Tapella. I share your concern. What we are looking at
is a situation where we had peak demand last year.
Mr. Latham. Right.
Mr. Tapella. We are building reserves right now. We are
getting forecasts from the State Department for what the
passport demand will be for this year. And, quite honestly, I
have no idea. I wish I had that crystal ball that would tell
us. What we are trying to do is be prudent about it.
Now what you also have is a situation where it is not just
the passport. There is now going to be the Western Hemisphere
travel card, the WHTI card. We also have the Trusted Traveler
Program, which is DHS's version. Now GPO is in the process of
designing and producing the DHS travel card.
So, in terms of our business, we have got the DHS side of
it. In terms of the pass card, we are not involved in that.
What impact those will have on passports I do not know. A lot
will have to do with prices.
Mr. Latham. Are those going to be fee-based?
Mr. Tapella. I believe so, yes. The State Department
charges approximately a hundred dollars for a passport. My
understanding is the pass card is going to be about half that
price. That may drive business that way. And I personally do
not know what the DHS Trusted Traveler card is going to cost.
WORKFORCE REPLACEMENT
Mr. Latham. Okay. I know in our conversation in my office--
you expressed real concern, as many agencies and the Library of
Congress have, about the workforce and the kind of bubble that
you are under. You have got an aging workforce. You are trying
to transform technology. Talk about that.
Mr. Tapella. GPO has been very fortunate over the years in
that we have a highly skilled workforce. We also have a
workforce that is aging. This past Tuesday was GPO's birthday,
147 years; and we recognized employees who had 62 years of
service, 50 years of service, 49 years of service. And when we
were looking at those with 35-plus years of service it was a
very large quantity of employees. And it certainly is a concern
of mine, and that is why we are looking at technology moving
forward. We need to have the technology in place so that, as
our workforce retires, we do not necessarily have to replace
them to do old technology work.
For example, Microcomp replacement, which is our
composition system that we use for Congress, we started using
that in 1973. And we talked about this in your office. That was
back when eight-track tapes were the way that you got music.
Today, it is MP3s and video MP4s.
Mr. Latham. I was a little offended you thought that was
old technology.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You really want to go there?
Mr. Tapella. But the question is, as we are doing the work
for Congress, we need to have a modern composition system. Now
one of the problems we face, as people retire that know
Microcomp--and we have really skilled employees that know that
system--as they retire, we do not have replacement employees;
and the learning curve on that system is incredible. What we
would like to do is retire that system and make certain that we
have the funding for it. For example, it is in this year's
funding request, and we will need funding in the outyears so
that we do not run into a crisis. We are not yet in a crisis.
We are planning ahead.
Mr. Latham. Okay. How are we doing?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You have a minute.
TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT
Mr. Latham. Okay. Tell me about the investment that you are
talking about in technology. Are you going to be able to
completely transform? What kind of needs are you talking about?
Can you kind of expand on what----
Mr. Tapella. Included in the printed testimony is the
information technology projects of GPO. Our backbone is the
FDsys. We have the Microcomp replacement, which directly
affects Congress. It also affects how we create some other
documents. We have our manufacturing workflow system, which is
primarily for Congress, because it is all the printing that we
do for Congress as well as the Federal Register.
We then have what is in Superintendent of Documents, which
is the digitization of the legacy collection. Those are the
documents that we want to make available to the public
electronically that are currently only in paper form.
And then we have Oracle, which is kind of our backbone
system. We are at this point funding Oracle completely out of
our retained earnings.
We have not asked Congress for any investment capital. We
are, however, asking Congress to invest in the composition
system that does Congress's work. We are asking for investment
in the manufacturing workflow system which does Congress's
work. And we are asking for investment in digitizing the legacy
collection, which is under the S&E appropriation.
You know, technology is where we are going. The costs are
going to be great. What we are asking for is the initial
investment so we can continue to make the change.
Every year, the costs go up; and so the question is you
either pay now or you pay later. And if you pay later, you are
paying a much greater expense.
Plus we run into the issue----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We are going to have votes in about
15 minutes----
Mr. Tapella. Okay.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. So I truly appreciate
your answer. I do not mean to cut you off.
Mr. Tapella. That is okay.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I really want you to be able to
fully answer the question. Thanks. We are going to come back.
Thanks. I appreciate it, Mr. Latham.
Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome.
Mr. Bonner. And, again, it is good to be with you all.
I will note that my name plate is taped on. So I do not
know who I am covering over, but I hope it is someone who is
not in jail or deceased, either one.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is not a message about your
permanence or lack thereof.
Mr. Bonner. And just for the sake of full disclosure, this
room has a lot of memories for me. I was the chief of staff to
my predecessor, who was the chairman of the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee, and we met in this room. And so to all of our
staff, one day you may be sitting here too, because that is
where I used to sit; and I was very proud to be there.
Mr. Tapella, just a couple of questions.
If you are 147 years old----
Mr. Tapella. Correct.
Mr. Bonner [continuing]. You do not look it.
PASSPORT AVAILABILITY
The distinguished chairwoman and ranking member both raised
questions about passports. You mentioned it in your testimony.
Few issues cause more concern to our constituents than when
they cannot get a passport. They wake up on Friday and realize
they are leaving on Saturday, and they do not have one, and
they look to their Member of Congress to make magic occur.
So I know your process in it is somewhat limited, and I am
certainly not laying the blame for those delays on you, but
could you elaborate a little bit more in terms of what your
agency is doing to ensure a timely production of passports with
regard to your work with the State Department?
Mr. Tapella. First of all, during last year's peak demand,
our customer is the State Department. The State Department's
customer is essentially the American public. At no time did GPO
fail to meet the requirements of the State Department in
getting them the blank passports, which they then process and
personalize. So throughout the entire process GPO always met
its commitment to the State Department, and they had other
issues with adjudication and whatnot that were not under our
control.
Last year, we were running literally 24-7 in the
manufacture of passports. We have also invested in a new,
secure production facility that will have a second complete
passport operation. It is geographically away from Washington,
DC. We are on time and on budget on that facility; and we
expect the first passport to come off the line in April,
although we do not expect full production, obviously, until
probably the summertime as we start doing the shakedown.
We are building up reserves in passports, and we have a
considerable amount of reserve to date. We have been producing
for the State Department 550,000 passports a week; and we have
been doing that almost nonstop since peak demand, since we had
the capability of even producing that. So we are building up
reserves so that State Department has that available.
We will have the second passport facility on line beginning
sometime after April for full production; and we always have
the ability to run 24-7, if necessary, in the existing passport
facility.
Mr. Bonner. Madam Chair, if I could ask one more question.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You have 2 minutes. The 5 minutes is
yours.
Mr. Bonner. I have a lot of other questions I would like to
get to and maybe could put some in the record to be answered.
POTENTIAL FOR PASSPORT FRAUD
Mr. Bonner. But sticking with the passports, there has been
a lot of concern about fraudulent drivers' licenses, about
fraudulent Social Security cards and other forms of
identification. I am not up on what the issue of fraud is with
passports. Is that an issue?
Mr. Tapella. It is certainly of concern to us. And when we
look at how we price a passport for the State Department, it
includes a few pennies for technology refresh. Included in it
is a relook at security features that can be added. And so when
we look at the cash that we receive for today's passports, we
are putting money aside so that we can continue to upgrade
security as we move forward. That is of great concern, and we
spend a lot of time investing in that.
Mr. Bonner. I was told to be on time, which I was late
yesterday--I didn't show up yesterday, and I was a few minutes
late today because we were in Budget all night until 12:30. And
I was also told when the Chairwoman says you have 5 minutes,
you have 5 minutes and not 4 minutes 59 and not 5.01, so I
yield back my remaining amount of time.
SHORTFALL IN CONGRESSIONAL PRINTING
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.
Mr. Tapella, I want to focus a little bit on the
congressional printing shortfall, because the deep vein of
funding that members seem to like to use as a source for
amendments is the printing and binding account. And you have
requested an $8.2 million increase. Yet when we reduce that
account we sort of say to ourselves, well, we will pay it back
later. Your $8.2 million increase is your request to cover the
shortfalls in that account from 2007 and 2008. But there is
some confusion I think in exactly what that account is for, how
it works, and what happens when you have a decrease.
Let's say you do not have enough money to meet the printing
costs and we have had an exponential increase in printing needs
that we have generated. If we cut the funding for that account,
the members I think need to understand what that means and what
happens. So what happens if we do not cover Congress's portion
of it?
Mr. Tapella. If you do not cover Congress's portion, we
still print what Congress requests; and it goes into
essentially our accounts receivable. Now what happens, we have
a revolving fund; and it has a very limited amount of
unencumbered cash. And when Congress does not pay its bill, it
means that we cannot invest back at GPO in the items that we
need, for example, the Oracle system.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And why is that? Why does that even
matter?
Mr. Tapella. Why does that even matter?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah. What is the answer to ``so
what''?
Mr. Tapella. The answer to ``so what'' is GPO would stop
functioning. You know, if staff do not have computers that they
can use, if we cannot pay our postage bill, if we cannot do the
normal day-to-day functions that are covered by our retained
earnings, GPO will cease to function.
Now, essentially what we are doing is we are covering the
shortfall temporarily--and I use the term ``temporarily''--out
of existing funds. But it means if we cannot make investments,
it affects us. Eventually, I guess someday it could affect
paying employees as well. Back in February of 2003, GPO did not
have enough available cash to meet payroll on the day that we
were supposed to. We eventually found it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. When was this?
Mr. Tapella. That was in February of 2003, right back when
we joined GPO; and I do not want to be in that situation again.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah. I ask the question that I know
the answer to deliberately because members often use your
accounts as a slush fund, because it is difficult to find
places to move money in this bill. And members usually move
money out of your accounts and think that there is no pain and
no impact. And while it is not people, it is just printing,
there is a significant impact, and it could be people at some
point.
FACILITIES REPAIRS
In that same vein, you have a $17.5 million request next
year to maintain and repair your really aging facilities. And I
do not know, Mr. Latham, if you have been by. I have not been
through GPO----
Mr. Latham. I need to.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah, I do, too.
But I did drive by there; and it looks like a really
exciting place to work environmentally. How would you
characterize the condition of your main facilities? And, the
money that you are asking for, what is it going to be used for
in terms of addressing those needs?
Mr. Tapella. In terms of our main facility, we have a
seven-acre campus five blocks from the Capitol. We have four
buildings currently on site: buildings one, two, three, and
four. The newest was completed in 1940. The oldest was
completed in 1901. We have old elevators. The infrastructure is
weak. They were designed at a time when we had nearly 9,000
employees. We are now down to about 2,000 in the metro area.
I am sure there are some environmental issues there. We are
doing the best we can to remediate as we identify environmental
issues.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. What kind of environmental issues?
Mr. Tapella. There has been asbestos, which we mitigated.
In fact, the last suite to be mitigated was the Public Printer
suite on the eighth floor.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thankfully.
Mr. Tapella. Thankfully. At one point, we had a smelting
factory on site. Our roof leaks.
PLANS FOR A NEW FACILITY
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So in the last 30 seconds that I
have, you have a vision for what to do about your facilities
that is not just the sort of spit and wax and tape that $17.5
million would use.
Mr. Tapella. Correct. I would like to build a new facility
on the back lot of GPO. I would like do it in a public-
partnership so it does not require any direct appropriations.
We would then make available the existing space to a developer
to basically tear down to the concrete structure, remediate any
of the environmental impacts, and make it available for lease.
In the proposal that I mentioned in my opening statement,
we believe that not only is there enough space for GPO, but
there could be a considerable amount of space available for the
legislative branch should there be a desire to use that space
above what we are currently doing in terms of housing some of
the Capitol Police and Architect of the Capitol functions.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Latham.
PRINTING INK
Mr. Latham. Hopefully, we can wrap this up before the
votes.
But something--being from Iowa, what kind of ink do you
use?
Mr. Tapella. What kind of ink do we use? Predominantly soy-
based----
Mr. Latham. I was hoping. A good answer.
Mr. Tapella [continuing]. As mandated by the Federal
Government in fact.
Mr. Latham. Well, because there is an environmental
concern, too, obviously, with waste coming from other types of
ink. That was a very good answer.
IMPACT OF A CONTINUING RESOLUTION
The Chair gets tired of my asking this question of every
witness, and do not think I am picking on you, but if there is
a CR this year, how would that affect you?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Next time I will just ask the
question for you.
Mr. Latham. That is okay. I think I have asked everybody we
have had.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Just kidding.
Mr. Latham. And, if nothing else, it will stimulate a lot
of thought as to what happens in that scenario.
Mr. Tapella. You know, that is a good question. And a lot
has to do with how busy Congress is this year. Because the more
work Congress requests, the more money we need inCP&B. If
Congress is not particularly active, then we are not charging Congress
as much.
It also depends on how you structure the continuing
resolution and what numbers you use in terms of constructing
it. In the last continuing resolution, we were able to hold our
own. But, obviously, you see there is a shortfall, or we are
projecting a shortfall, for this fiscal year. We are going to
project one for next year as well. And that means that we are
going to have to hold off investing in a number of projects for
GPO as we continue to fund that shortfall.
And then the question becomes, what is our temporary
funding and does multi-year count as temporary funding or not?
And I do not have the answer to that question.
Mr. Latham. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome.
Mr. Bonner.
PRINTING PAPER
Mr. Bonner. If Mr. Latham is going to ask what type of ink
you use, I guess I should ask, since Alabama is one of the
largest timber producers, tell us a little bit about the paper
you use and how much is recycled.
Mr. Tapella. Actually, in terms of actual recycling--for
example, we print the Congressional Record on 40 percent post-
consumer waste recycled paper. Other products have at least a
minimum recycled content.
When we look at what is actually recycled, let's see, GPO
has been recycling wastepaper since 1860.
Mr. Bonner. You were a trendsetter.
Mr. Tapella. We were a trendsetter.
Last year, we recycled 1.5 million worth of corrugated
materials, which includes, obviously, the boxes and whatnot. In
2007, GPO recycled over 5 million pounds of paper.
Mr. Bonner. And in terms of the nonrecycled paper, do you
know is most of it produced in this country? I recently visited
a printer in my district, and they were telling me how much
cheaper it is to get paper from other countries. And I do not
know if that is a part of your budget equation or not.
Mr. Tapella. I believe, and I actually have to defer--do
you know?
Mr. Turri. I don't believe we have any.
Mr. Tapella. To our knowledge--our Chief Operating Officer,
Bill Turri--to our knowledge, we are not importing paper from
outside the United States.
Mr. Bonner. I am not saying that is a bad thing. I am just
curious.
Mr. Tapella. Right. To my knowledge, we are not.
Mr. Bonner. Madam Chair, thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much, Mr. Bonner.
I have two questions I want to get on the record during the
meeting, and then I will be finished as well.
EEO ISSUES
I want to talk about the number of discrimination lawsuits
and complaints that you have pending now at GPO. Because there
have been some recent news articles. I know in the weekly
report that you submit you catalogue or indicate the ones that
have been added each week.
Obviously discrimination is a very serious accusation and
one that should be taken extremely seriously; and I am hopeful
that you do. I want to make sure that you are doing everything
that you can to not just minimize but prevent discrimination
from occurring at your agency.
So, based on the number of pending lawsuits that you are
facing--and I think you are at 16 right now, is that correct?
Mr. Tapella. Well, there are 16 for this year, yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Just for this year. And what is the
total?
Mr. Tapella. Actually, when we talk about this, it is a
couple of different things.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Basically, I want to know how big of
a problem do you think discriminatory behavior is at GPO and
what are you doing to address it?
Mr. Tapella. If I may, may I defer to our EEO officer I
brought with me, Nadine Elzy?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes.
Mr. Tapella. Thank you. Nadine.
Ms. Elzy. Good morning.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Good morning.
Ms. Elzy. First of all, I want to mention that we do take
at GPO--I am personally committed to EEO and to equality--but
we do take the complaints very seriously. In fact, I have an
open door policy. So that way any employee----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Can you first answer how many are
pending?
Ms. Elzy. We have 16; and then we have an additional 20
that are pending, whether they are Equal Employment----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thirty-six.
Ms. Elzy. Right. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
and some other venue.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is over what period of time?
Ms. Elzy. Over a period of 5 years.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Ms. Elzy. Because some of the complaints have been either
in District Court or at EEOC for a substantial period of time.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. They are in various stages of the
process right now?
Ms. Elzy. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So how big of a problem? Thirty-six
lawsuits----
Ms. Elzy. They are not necessarily lawsuits, they are
formal complaints.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thirty-six accusations of
discrimination that the person felt aggrieved enough to file an
actual complaint seems like a lot to me for an agency your
size.
Ms. Elzy. I did some reviews last night to see how we look
in comparison to other agencies that are similar in our
particular size.
The Broadcast Board of Governors has 1,600 employees, and
they have 30 complaints for a comparable period of time.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission itself for the
same period of time had 21.
The Small Business Administration, which is almost our
size, had the exact number of complaints.
So I just tried to look at other agencies in the Federal
Government who use the same process who had comparable sizes
and their complaints.
But I do want to emphasize that a lot of our complaints are
resolved even before they get into the formal process, because
I do have an open door policy. Our Chief of Staff also allows
employees to come to her so they do not even get into the
formal process.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So the policy, beside an open door
policy--I mean, what do you do in terms of the environment for
your employees to make sure that the variety of diverse
employees that you have have a comfort level? And also
supervisors in particular do not feel like any type of
discriminatory behavior is acceptable and that they realize
what discriminatory behavior is?
Ms. Elzy. We have done--last year, every manager and
supervisor had to take EEO training so that that way they would
become familiar with the process.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Was that new?
Ms. Elzy. No. It was a core commitment. So everyone had to
complete that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Ms. Elzy. That is one of the things we say as far as taking
the issues seriously.
One of the other things that we have done is that we have
put out information to employees on our intranet about what the
process is so they are familiar with that.
So those are some of the things that we have done.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you.
The other issue I wanted to cover was the environmental
steps that you have taken in terms of greening the GPO. I noted
the percentage of recycled content in your paper. We are trying
to show that the Capitol and the legislative branch is a model
for reducing the environmental impact that our operations have.
And I know you have made some headway in those areas, but what
are your plans going forward to significantly improve that
effort? Because, obviously, going from long ago having a
smelting operation inside the facility to now, hopefully we
have moved a long way.
Mr. Tapella. Well, number one, as the chief executive, I
have made a stand on it, that sustainable environmental
stewardship is important at GPO. Last week, I appointed an
executive to be responsible for environmental stewardship.
We are looking at many different things in terms of how we
are doing our internal procurements. We are looking at our
buildings. And, quite honestly, the most important way for us
on the building front is to get into a new, environmentally
friendly building. And I would like it to have LEED Platinum
Certification. I would like to reduce the plant paper waste we
have for printing the Congressional Record and Federal
Register, and that involves switching the type of equipment
that we use to produce that equipment.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Now, are those things you need our
assistance with down the road? Are you going to be asking for
additional appropriations to move in that direction?
Mr. Tapella. I do not anticipate that we would be asking
for any additional appropriations for our environmental
programs. I believe that it is good business, and I think
everything that we are going to be going for will show a
payback that will allow us to make those investments out of our
retained earnings.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You think it will improve your
bottom line?
Mr. Tapella. Absolutely.
ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENTS FROM THE CHAIR
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. With no other members having
questions, just making sure that that is the case, I would like
to ask you to do two things----
Mr. Tapella. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. Within the next week.
Obviously, it is important that our legislative branch
agencies do everything that they can to make sure that there is
an environment in the workplace that is free of discrimination
and intimidation and that it does not take place in their
organizations regardless of whether it is comparable to other
agencies of your size. So, with that in mind, I would like GPO
to submit a report by next Friday, March 14th, detailing what
policies and programs you have in place to make sure
discrimination does not occur within your agency. You have
outlined it somewhat here, but I think doing it in a public
way----
Mr. Tapella. Absolutely.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. This way sends a
message to employees and, in particular, supervisors that it is
not asituation that we will tolerate. And that report should
include how many active EEO cases there are at GPO, what those cases
relate to, the status of those cases, how the number of cases compare
to other agencies, and what programs and policies GPO has in place to
make sure that discrimination does not occur within your agency.
Mr. Tapella. Okay.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. In addition to that, in the area of
greening and making a more environmentally friendly environment
at GPO, particularly because that is a key way that we can
reduce our impact and our carbon footprint in the legislative
branch--and I am glad to hear you have taken steps. I again
asked a lot of questions I knew the answer to today, but I
wanted to get your efforts out in the public arena that you did
not necessarily include in your statement.
So I would like you to submit a report by next Friday,
March 14th, on what actions you have already taken to reduce
your environmental impact, what additional steps you plan to
take in the near future, and how you funded or plan to fund
those actions, and what you anticipate the long-term benefits
of those actions to be.
Mr. Tapella. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. With that, the subcommittee stands
in recess until next Wednesday, March 12th, at 10 a.m., when we
will hear from the Directors of CBO, the Office of Compliance,
and the Open World Leadership Center on their fiscal year 2009
budget requests. Thank you.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 12, 2008.
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, AND OPEN WORLD
LEADERSHIP CENTER
WITNESSES
TAMARA CHRISLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
PETER ORSZAG, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
AMBASSADOR JOHN O'KEEFE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP
CENTER
Opening Remarks--Chair Wasserman Schultz
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Good morning, I'm pleased to call
this hearing of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, of the
Committee on Appropriations to order. This morning we are going
to hear from three legislative branch agencies, the Office of
Compliance, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Open World
Leadership Center. Each agency is looking for an increase.
Unfortunately, all three are looking for double-digit
increases. And I don't have to tell anyone in this room that
that is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible to
accommodate in varying degrees.
The Office of Compliance has asked for a 29 percent
increase over what was what was appropriated last year. There
are a couple of programs that I know you are trying to
implement. And we look forward to working with you on trying to
fund those initiatives within the resources that we are
allocating, and I can assure you we will all be pushing for the
most significant allocation that we can get.
CBO is asking for a 15 percent increase. CBO has struggled
over the last several years with only minimal increases, hits
to your IT program and significant demands on the personnel
resources of the agency. I know that I get many complaints and
concerns from Members, not because CBO is just too slow but
because the increased workload has put more demands on your
limited staff. A lot of Members would like to see scoring occur
more quickly than you are physically able to do right now. And
also, I know we have a health care component that you want to
add and beef up because of that being such a significant
priority.
And Open World, Open World is a fan favorite. We want to
continue to try to work with you to be able to appropriately
fund the program. And I am looking forward to the report that
is due on March 31 so that we can see what your suggestions are
so we don't have to struggle with how we fund you every year.
The program has a lot of Member advocates. And I am one of
them. But we also have so many, as we found at the hearing last
week, we have so many needs that need to be addressed,
competing priorities in this committee that also have
advocates. And I just worry that Open World will continue to be
shrunk because of the competing priorities. And I think it
would be far more productive for us to work together, and I
know I worked with Mr. LaHood last year in trying to find a way
to fund you to the degree that we could and not have this be a
consistent problem over time.
All of your statements are available and will be entered
for the record. And with that, I want to turn to Mr. Latham. I
want to apologize for beginning the meeting at 10:30. However,
there was some procedural action on the floor that was
unexpected.
Opening Remarks--Mr. Latham
Mr. Latham. It is very unfortunate, without any kind of
notice, it was delayed when we did not have votes on the floor
at 10:00. We could have started.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The Democratic Caucus was notified
that we needed to be on the floor right at 10:00 as a result of
the procedural actions initiated by the Republicans, and so I
used my judgment and felt it was----
Mr. Latham. It was very unfortunate with the witnesses
here. I cancelled some things this morning to be here on time.
And with these folks here, it is very, very unfortunate. It is
a bad precedent.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, speak to your leadership, and
we won't have to do that in the future.
Mr. Latham. Well, it is not a matter of my leadership.
Unfortunately, this is what it has come to around here. It is
without any notification or anything. We would appreciate
knowing about it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Me, too.
Mr. Latham. Mr. LaHood, I will yield to you.
Opening Remarks--Mr. LaHood
Mr. LaHood. Madam Chair, given the fact that the Republican
leader is going to offer a privileged resolution immediately
following this vote and then, according to your precedent,
because it is an important matter, I believe the committee
should recess so that we can go upstairs and listen to the
resolution, and there will be a vote on it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We are not going to recess to listen
to a privileged resolution. We can recess for the vote.
Motion to Recess
Mr. LaHood. I move the committee recess while the
privileged resolution is being considered and come back after
the vote, and I ask for a vote on that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We will take that up at the
appropriate time.
Mr. LaHood. Now is the time. I made the motion to recess,
so we can go upstairs.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The privileged resolution has not
been offered.
Mr. LaHood. It is going to be here, and as soon as it is
offered, I believe we should have the opportunity, just as you
decided that we were going to suspend for a half-hour, we
showed up at 10:00, no notification that the----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I didn't have any notification, Mr.
LaHood, that there would be procedural motions. At 9:55, I was
told.
Mr. LaHood. There is a very important matter on the floor.
I motion that we recess and go----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I will accept that on unanimous
consent. But this is not how we are going to conduct this
committee in the future. This was a result of a procedural
action. I certainly didn't mean to be discourteous. I didn't--
it wasn't like I was preoccupied or doing something else. I
just thought we would be jumping back and forth, and I felt it
was very important that we hear and have undivided attention
for the three agency heads that we would not have if we had
begun at 10:00. So as a result, that was my judgment call, as
is the prerogative of the Chair.
I don't think it is wise to adjourn and not be able to
finish the hearing for these three agencies in the time we have
allotted to listen to testimony that does not require us to be
on the floor, Mr. LaHood. If you are upset that I delayed the
proceedings because of a procedural vote, then I understand
that you are upset about that. But if we can't complete the
hearing because we are getting into a tussle for no reason,
then I think that would be unfortunate.
So I am happy to adjourn for----
Mr. LaHood. I am not saying adjourn. I am saying recess.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am happy to recess for the vote. I
would prefer to be able to complete three agencies----
Mr. LaHood. Well, I will tell you this, Madam Chair, Mr.
Latham is the ranking member. He shows up here before 10:00. I
show up at 10:00. No courtesy was given to him to tell him----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I didn't have any notice.
Mr. LaHood. Do you want me to speak, or do you want to
speak? No courtesy was given to him. He is told by your staff
director at about 3 or 4 minutes after 10:00 that you have sent
an e-mail over here saying that because there is a vote, which
was not taken until--started until 10:16. You have the
Librarian of Congress here. You have all these Librarian of
Congress staff people sitting here. We have started these
meetings in the past, gone upstairs and voted on the general
vote and come back. And we have staggered it. We have done that
many times. So at least you could have notified the ranking
member. We showed up here on time.
Now, look, if there is an important matter on the floor,
you set the precedent. I didn't. And if the Republican leader
is going to offer a privileged resolution on a very important
legislative vote that was taken last night, some of us would
like to go up there and listen to it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is your prerogative, Mr.
LaHood. The motion passed with unanimous consent.
Proceed with your statement, Mr. Latham.
Mr. Latham. I am done. I just welcome the panel.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You can each proceed with a summary
of your 5 minutes.
Mr. LaHood. So you are not going to recess the meeting?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I said, if the motion is adopted by
unanimous consent.
Mr. LaHood. So are we going to recess?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We are going to recess when the
privileged resolution is on the floor. Is it on the floor now?
Mr. LaHood. Yeah. They are reading it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, the committee will stand in
recess until the conclusion of the reading of the privileged
resolution. We will reconvene at the end of the remarks.
[Recess.]
Opening Statement--Tamara Chrisler
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Ms. Chrisler, you can proceed.
Ms. Chrisler. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Latham, distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am honored
to appear before you as the executive director of the Office of
Compliance. And I would like to, on behalf of the office, thank
the subcommittee for its continued support of the office and
our work.
Because of the initiative taken by the subcommittee last
year, our office has received access to House e-mail, which
will be instrumental in reducing our costs for our
publications, and our education and outreach programs. And we
are grateful for the subcommittee's support. We are grateful
for the indirect and direct recognition that the subcommittee
has given our work. Because of that recognition, we have been
able to build better relations with agencies, specifically the
Architect of the Capitol, and we have been engaged in
productive communication. We have been able to collaborate with
agencies toward the abatement of hazards.
And we are very, very excited about the possibility of
engaging in a new initiative, which is our Prevention and
Reduction Initiative, which is the theme of our fiscal year
2009 budget request. As a point of clarification I would like
to indicate that while my written testimony for the record
emphasizes that there is a 4.9 percent increase over the
requested fiscal year 2008 appropriations, it is a 28.9
increase over the actual appropriated funds that the office
received in fiscal year 2008.
The new items that I would like to highlight very briefly
with the subcommittee are the requests that we are making to
support our Prevention and Reduction Initiative, which are two
FTEs, and funding for those FTEs for conflict prevention and
reduction of hazards, a trainer and an ombudsperson; $10,000
for a Zero Accident Initiative that we would like to initiate
for our Safety and Health Program; funding for COLAs, restoring
salaries and fully funding FTEs that were allowed for our
office in fiscal year 2008. We are also requesting a third FTE
for a fire and safety engineer.
Of the 2007/2008 items that I would like to highlight for
the subcommittee, the office is requesting $50,000 for utility
tunnels expertise; $25,000 for a self-certification program for
District and State offices; $25,000 for a health and safety
plan review as a collaborative effort with employing offices;
as well as $19,000 for a campus-wide survey, so that we have a
good understanding of what our constituents know about their
rights and responsibilities under the CAA, so that we can focus
our education and outreach efforts.
I thank you for allowing my testimony today and I remain
available for questions.
[Ms. Chrisler's statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Statement--Peter Orszag
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Mr. Orszag.
Mr. Orszag. Thank you very much for having me here. I spent
my first year as CBO director trying to survey what we do and
what could possibly change, and the request that you have
before you is a reflection of the time that I spent doing that.
Just three points of context before I get to the specific
requests. The first is that it has already been noted, we are
very intense in people; 90 percent of our budget is for
salaries and benefits. And over the past 4 years, the average
increase in our appropriation has been under 3 percent. That
has not allowed me to compete as effectively as I would like to
with soaring salaries for economists and other skilled
professionals in the markets that we compete for.
Second, the Congress is asking more from us. Just as a few
reflections of that, the PAYGO rules; the Senate's long point
of order; the desire to have us score things not just after it
moves through committee but at markup and during various stages
of committee procedures is different than it was in the past.
And a reflection of that increased activity, in calendar year
2007, we testified 38 times relative to 18 times in calendar
year 2006. In calendar year 2007, we issued 771 formal cost
estimates relative to the 558 in 2006. Across a variety of
metrics, there are increased demands that are being placed on
us that we are trying to respond to.
And then, third, as I have tried to emphasize in other
settings, health care costs are the key to our fiscal future.
They are rising rapidly more than any other factor, including
aging and demographics. The rate at which health care costs
grow will determine the path the Federal Government's spending
will be on in the future. And I believe that you all are not
getting enough options and analyses on what can help bend that
curve. And CBO can play a role in providing that kind of
analysis to you. So we are trying to bulk up our health staff
to provide that for you.
So, with those three things in context, the request that we
have submitted to you totals $42.7 million. That is a $5.4
million increase over this year's funding level. Roughly $2
million out of that $5-plus million would go for a very large
expansion in our staff, 15 FTEs, 15 full-time equivalents, or a
6 percent increase in our staffing level, in order to
accommodate increased work on health care and some of the other
demands on our time coming through the scoring process. Even
with that increase, I know it would still be about half the
size of other agencies that do similar work, like the Office of
Management and Budget.
And just very briefly, in conclusion, I come to you
reluctantly. And I understand that as the head of the Budget
Office, asking for a significant increase is a bit of an
awkwardness. But I believe that the demands that are being put
on the agency are such that in order to serve you effectively
and efficiently, the proposal that you have before you is
necessary. Thank you.
[Dr. Orszag's statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Statement--John O'Keefe
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Dr. Orszag.
Ambassador O'Keefe.
Mr. O'Keefe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, Mr. Latham, distinguished members of the
subcommittee, I would like to thank you for your engagement and
support of Open World and also for taking time this morning to
consider our budget request for fiscal year 2009 for the Open
World program, which is having a significant impact on the
emerging leadership generation in states of the former Soviet
Union.
I also would like to thank our chairman, Dr. James
Billington, for being here with us today, and a special nod to
the Open World staff for their dedication and hard work.
Thirteen thousand leaders have come from all political
regions of the former Soviet Union for short but intensive
stays in communities scattered throughout all 50 States. From
local as well as national leaders and from all branches of
government, working with Congress, the U.S. judiciary and
executive branch departments, this program has created networks
and produced results not matched by any other exchange program
in the region. Ten percent of the newly elected Russian Duma
are Open World alumni. Our flagship Rule of Law Program has
brought to the United States more than 1,000 Russian and
Ukrainian judges and supported 19 sister court relationships.
Alumni of Open World's program swept the top 3 literary prizes
in Russia in 2006. And Chief Justice Roberts of the Supreme
Court devoted the first 2 pages of his 14-page annual report to
the Federal Judiciary to write about the visit of Open World
alumnus Justice Yuri Sidorenko.
Ukraine sees its future in ever closer ties to Europe and
the United States but faces challenges of reforming itself and
integrating with the larger democratic community. At a recent
major international forum on Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic future,
the organizers said that, ``Open World alumni were the most
articulate and best organized group at our event.'' Visitors
from the 5 other partner states and the Caucuses in Central
Asia have forged close ties to Members of Congress and State
legislators. We are adding Kazakhstan in April and Turkmenistan
in the fall. Taken together, these countries standing athwart
geopolitical tides share more than 2,000 miles of borders with
Iran and Afghanistan.
Madam Chair, members of the committee, this is a time of
extraordinary possibilities for both this program and countries
that are participating in it. Russia is entering a new phase
with an uncertain power sharing agreement. The president-elect
has said that a new program in perinatal public health set up
by alumni of Open World should serve as a model for Russia.
The Russian parliament is building a parallel program to
Open World which will bring large numbers of Americans to
Russia. Last month, we provided to the Russian foreign ministry
and legislative branch a detailed blueprint of how we work
under Congress, which created Open World. This new model for
professional exchanges will serve to strengthen the legislative
branch long overshadowed by the executive. It will help open up
new avenues of cooperation between our legislatures and theirs
in the next several years.
The chairman of the Committee on International Judicial
Relations, Judge Robert Henry, will join his Russian
counterpart in St. Petersburg to lay out ways, through the Open
World program, to work even further and closer with the Russian
judiciary as it matures as an independent branch of government.
Open World's placement in the legislative branch allows us to
attract an unusually large and varied group of young leaders
from throughout this region in a context one step removed from
the immediate day-to-day preoccupations of foreign policy. In
each country and region, we are building up a group of
professionals moving into positions of influence. And they have
experienced for themselves how institutions are made
accountable to the people they serve. All the participants have
returned home to their countries. All 13,000. More than 6,000
Americans have hosted them and in the last year alone provided
$1.8 million in in-kind accommodations and meals for our
participants. Many Americans are both willing to be repeat
hosts and to travel often at their own expense on return trips
to cement these partnerships.
And through the excellent efforts of the Open World team,
we have slimmed down our already lean operating costs during
the past year, saving close to a half million dollars.
I have been heartened by the recent statement by our
chairman, Dr. Billington, who has been involved in exchanges
both as a participant and an administrator for almost 60 years.
He considers this the most politically important program he has
seen since the establishment of the immediate post-war programs
of the late 1940s. Reviewing the reduced 2008 budget and
considering placement of Open World at its January meeting, the
Open World Board of Trustees determined that it should remain
in the legislative branch and that Open World management and
board should explore all funding sources.
With a full understanding of pressures on your budget, I
respectfully ask for your support--the support of the committee
members in the effort to sustain the program at a time of great
promise. Open World touches on so many areas that it may be
that its appropriation could draw from more than one account. I
would welcome an opportunity to work with you, with your staff,
and with members of the subcommittee on finding the funding
solution.
Our many participants in America and states of the former
Soviet Union can then harvest from the remarkable base of
collaborative efforts that Congress has brought through this
unique program to the vast and strategically important
heartland of Eurasia. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
[Ambassador O'Keefe's statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OPEN WORLD REPORT ON ITS FUTURE
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Ambassador O'Keefe.
We will proceed with the question period. The committee
last year directed Open World to complete a report, which I
believe is due March 31, that required Open World leadership to
explore options for the agency's future both in terms of where
you might be housed and how you might continue to be funded at
a level that would allow the program to continue at the level
of quality that you have always operated. I think we are going
to struggle to fund you at $9 million, never mind the $14
million that you have asked for, which would bring you back up
to your pre-fiscal year 2008 level. What is the status of the
report?
Mr. O'Keefe. I do have a draft report that we want to get
to the board members, of which you are one, before we submit it
to Mr. Obey and to Senator Byrd. So we have a draft, and we
have options that were required in the report laid out with, I
think, some good background in there as well.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Are you familiar enough with the
draft report to feel that it is going to offer us some
suggestions on how we might relieve the ongoing pressure that
the committee will face in trying to fund you?
Mr. O'Keefe. It is more on a question of status because
that is what we were asked for. But it also has elements in
here that I mentioned in my testimony of seeking more than one
source of funding within the congressional appropriation
process.
OPEN WORLD POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. What percentage of your
participants are from the judicial branch in both America and
in the former Soviet states?
Mr. O'Keefe. Well, cumulatively we have about 1,100 out of
13,000. That is about 8.75 percent. This past year we have
brought over 1,400 people, and 144 were judges and prosecutors
and people like that. So we are running about 10 percent, and
that is for all the countries.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And you don't have any funds come
from the judicial branch or any affiliated judicial entities or
legal entities?
Mr. O'Keefe. No. We don't have funds coming from the
judicial branch, though there is funding because our objective
is to form partnerships, and we don't get the funding, but U.S.
judges get funding to do the return visits. So when Judge
Robert Henry goes to meet Sidorenko, the State Department
International Speakers Program will pay his way over, and then
we do the logistical support because we have the network and
the contacts.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Has Open World pursued private
sources of funds?
Mr. O'Keefe. Yes, we have. Last year we received, aside
from our appropriations, about $750,000 in private funds.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. $750,000. Isn't there a way to
improve upon that number? I mean, it would seem like this is a
program that would attract some significant private financial
support. And is there a plan in place or is that part of your--
is that going to be part of your report? I would hope--and I
have encouraged you before to begin--that you would begin an
aggressive fundraising program from the private sector.
Mr. O'Keefe. Yes. One of the things that I was hoping to do
with the 2008 budget was to get a development person because
you really do have to have someone focus on this full time. And
so, yes, we do--we will increase our efforts. We have sought
from various organizations partnering arrangements. So with the
Ukrainian ambassador we were looking at ways for the Ukrainian
government to offset the transportation costs of some of the
Ukrainian participants. We have worked with organizations to
partially fund programming. The House Democracy Assistance
Commission is going to bring 20 people over, 20
parliamentarians over in autumn. So they will get them here and
do their training, and then we put them on a supplemental Open
World program.
So we have, I would say, several strategies. Number one is,
find people who are doing things that we are complementary to.
And then find donors who are willing to give us money. And
then, third, look toward other governments who have an interest
in Open World to help us in offsetting some of the costs.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
My time has expired.
Mr. Latham.
IMPACTS OF A CONTINUING RESOLUTION
Mr. Latham. Thank you. I have been asking every panel here
the same question. We have a real possibility of a continuing
resolution maybe until March next year. I just wonder how that
would affect your operations and new initiatives if, in fact,
you were in a CR flat-lined budget.
Mr. Orszag. I will go first. Obviously, we will do what we
have to do. But for my agency, it will be very difficult to get
to where we want and I believe need to be for you, especially
on the health front because the recruiting cycle is such that
it would require, you know, if assuming post-March you did fund
some expansion, a very rapid ramp-up. In addition, it obviously
depends on exactly what level the CR is at. But I will just
come back again, and say that I am doing the best I can to make
CBO, as I like it put it, a cool place for policy wonks because
that is the only thing I have got to compete on because the
salaries at the Fed, let alone hedge funds and other places,
are substantially higher than what we pay. And I am recruiting
the same Ph.D. economists, and I can't do that forever.
Mr. Latham. Okay.
Ms. Chrisler. Our Prevention and Reduction Initiative is
largely based upon requested FTEs.
Mr. LaHood. Could you speak up a little bit, please?
Ms. Chrisler. Certainly. Our Prevention and Reduction
Initiative is largely based on our requested FTEs. I think a
continuing resolution would make it very problematic for us to
begin that initiative, though we would seek to work with what
we are given, and we would certainly maintain what we have and
do as much as we can with whatever we are funded. We in the
past have been fortunate enough to not have to reduce employees
to be able to maintain our programs and to continue with the
work that we do. That is certainly what we would continue, and
hopefully we would be able to perhaps begin development and
research of some of the initiatives--but not engage as fully as
we would hope.
Mr. O'Keefe. It would pose some serious problems. First of
all, as I mentioned in my testimony, as soon as I came in, I
cut a couple contracts, looked at how we were doing travel,
moved it from summer when it was expensive, to the winter to
bring people over at a less costly time. So we have kind of
grabbed a lot of the savings. And whenever you are running a
program like this, when you have to operate at less money, you
want to try to keep the heart of your program, which is the
delegates coming over here, the Americans involved with them,
you want to keep that up. And you want to cut into your
overhead. Well, we have attacked that a lot. Probably what we
would need to do, and we are already looking at some of the
strategies, is that we could move some of the travel a bit
later and still accomplish what we want to accomplish. But the
fact is that we would be bringing fewer delegates.
ADVANTAGES OF OPEN WORLD BEING IN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
Mr. Latham. You know, the big question with Open World has
been where you should be funded. Can you explain to us what
would happen, from the Russian point of view, from the people
that you are working with over there, if there was a perception
that the program was an extension of foreign policy of the
executive branch? What is the advantage, disadvantage to
staying with the leg branch?
Mr. O'Keefe. Well, I think the main advantage is, because
we are in the legislative branch, because our chairman,
obviously, is a distinguished scholar and widely recognized in
Russia, we can attract individuals who would be reluctant to go
on executive branch programs. And if you are looking for
emerging leaders, you are looking for people with some
ambition. They are going to be very careful, especially in
these times, about what kinds of programs they get involved in.
And so because in a sense we are neutral, we are nonpartisan,
we don't have to get into the necessary fights that you have
every day involved with diplomacy. This helps us a lot.
The second thing is, with 13,000 alumni, the program is
known in the regions, and people who have moved into leadership
positions are often Open World alumni. And that gives you a
little bit of an immunity, as it were. So you move to the
executive branch, the first thing that happens is the alumni
network falls apart because executive branch programs don't
fund the alumni networks. And your quality of participants
drops, and I just think it would be a real diminishment of the
effectiveness, long-term effectiveness of the program.
Mr. Latham. Would there be an official position like from
Russia?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Your time has expired.
Mr. O'Keefe. The Russian position is that there is an
existing law that says individuals cannot take money from
another government. And we are grandfathered, so that law does
not apply. If we change status, the Russians could reinterpret
the law.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. LaHood.
SUPPORT FOR OPEN WORLD PROGRAM
Mr. LaHood. Ambassador O'Keefe, as you know, I have been a
strong supporter of this program. I became acquainted with it
as a result of a Federal judge in my hometown of Peoria who has
participated in the program for well over 10 years and has
traveled to Russia each year during the time that he has been
involved in the program. And we have had Russian judges visit
our community in central Illinois. The idea that emerging
democracies can learn about our system of justice and our, you
know, and other elected officials I think is an extraordinary
opportunity. The truth is, if you were to put this program
under the State Department or the Defense Department, it would
be tainted with their policies.
Under the Library of Congress, which has some of the best
thinkers in the world, you know, there is no policy. There are
lots of policies that can be and lots of things that can be
studied under an agency of an administration. They come in to
that, that program comes under the umbrella of the policies of
that administration. And at that point, it doesn't have the
kind of flexibility I think that would be allowed as an entity
under the Library of Congress where you do have scholars and
thinkers and people who can talk about all kinds of different
opportunities.
So this idea that it should go somewhere else I think would
be a huge, huge mistake. And I hope your report does not
recommend that. Because I don't agree with that. I have
followed this program for many, many years.
EXPANDING OPEN WORLD TO IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
Let me ask you this, has there been any thought given to
taking this program into Afghanistan and Iraq?
Mr. O'Keefe. As I understand it, last year there were some
inquiries. And I did get an inquiry actually just this past
week for Albania. Our legislation allows us to operate anywhere
provided we give a 90-day notice to the appropriating
subcommittees after the approval of the board. The fact is,
moving into Afghanistan, you need an infrastructure to make it
work. Right now we have a good network in the former Soviet
states. If that is the sense of the board and the sense of the
Congress that we should do that, we could do it. I mean, we are
capable of doing it.
Mr. LaHood. Well, I think it is something that you ought to
really take a look at. And I do believe this, I believe that
one of the ways that you could fund this is through the
enormous amount of money that is being expended in both of
those countries. Some of it perhaps could be set aside and
shifted to Open World so that you could begin the process of
bringing those emerging leaders, whether they be mayors in
cities in Iraq or Afghanistan or whether they--look, Iraq is
setting up a whole judicial system. And what a wonderful
opportunity for these judges to come to America and for our
judges to go over there, and you know, we are right at the
starting gate on this. And as we continue to spend enormous
amounts of money in Afghanistan and Iraq, you know, I would
encourage you to talk to the administration about some funds
that might be made available even in the next budget to begin a
program either with mayors, municipal leaders or judges. You
have got such a great track record in these emerging
democracies in the former Soviet Union that I think it makes a
lot of sense.
So this is one Member who is going to continue to support
your efforts and support the idea that you ought to stay within
the Library of Congress so you are not tainted by the policies
of any administration.
Mr. O'Keefe. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Bonner.
SIZE OF AGENCIES AND REQUESTED INCREASES
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Since I am the newest member of this committee, could you
give us a quick breakdown on how many employees you actually
have in your offices and what your--again, what your budget
request is in terms of a percent increase?
Mr. Orszag. Sure. We are allocated 235 full-time equivalent
staff members. I am requesting an increase to 250. Our
increase--our budget, our proposal to you, our request to you
is for a $45.4 million increase, which is slightly under 15
percent.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you.
Ms. Chrisler. We currently have 21 FTE positions. We have
20 funded at this--well, we are able to fund 20 at this point.
We are deferring funding for one for cost savings. We are
making a request for three additional FTEs in this upcoming
fiscal year. Our current budget request is $4.3 million which
is a 28.9 percent increase over the allocated funds we have
received for fiscal year 2008.
Mr. O'Keefe. We are authorized at this point 11 people. We
have eight. So we can put them all on one elevator with a
little room left over. We had a reduction in our budget of 35
percent in 2008. And we are seeking to restore it, which comes
out to a little over 50 percent increase because of the change
in denominators.
FURTHER DISCUSSION OF OPEN WORLD EXPANSION
Mr. Bonner. And I know that is in the record. Forgive me
for asking you for putting it back on, but I think it is useful
because, as the Chairwoman indicated, we are facing some
difficult decisions, and everyone's priorities are different.
Yesterday on the House floor we voted to approve $12 million
for a new greenhouse for the Botanical Gardens for orchids,
which I don't think anyone would disagree is important, and
perhaps it is cheaper to build a new greenhouse than to
continue to rent the space that we currently have. But when our
own budgets reflected a 2.7 percent growth in our MRAs, Member
Representational Accounts, that allow us to hire our staff, and
we serve around 635,000, 650,000 people that have put us in
this position, I think we have to be able to ask questions so
that we can go back when we are asked questions of all of our
bosses, the American taxpayers, and say, well, this is why we
should justify a 25 percent or 50 percent increase, even if it
is warranted.
Specifically, following up on Mr. LaHood's question--and
Mr. Ambassador, can you give us any report back in terms of
meaningful dialogue that would ensue that would possibly allow
some of the good work that you have done in other countries to
be considered in Iraq and in Afghanistan?
Mr. O'Keefe. Sir, you would like a report----
Mr. Bonner. If that meets with the approval of the Chair, I
just think it would be--I mean, we have--our Nation has
focused--here we are coming up on the anniversary of our
involvement, and it seems that we have focused so much of our
resources, so many of our men and women, and many of whom have
not come back, in those two countries. And I think it would be
useful to know, going forward, if this is something that you
are--your group could consider as part of your long-range
mission, especially as you are seeking an increase in funding.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You can feel free to respond for the
record. But I will note that because we are struggling to even
fund them at the limited amount of funds that we were able to
provide them with in the last fiscal year, expanding their
mission beyond the nations that we are already covering would
be next to impossible. So I think they would probably be faced
with shifting resources that we are able to provide to them to
Iraq and Afghanistan if that was something that they felt, that
the board felt, was appropriate. I can tell you that the
concern that I have is that this program perhaps has been too
Russian-centric for too long and did not move beyond--and that
they have now moved into the other Soviet Bloc countries. And I
think it is an excellent suggestion to look at Iraq and
Afghanistan and Mr. LaHood's suggestion that perhaps the
billions of dollars that we are spending in those two countries
could be--it would be a water droplet to take some of that
funding and try to get it put into this program. So if you can
respond for the record but just with that note of caution.
Mr. O'Keefe. Yes, sir. I will be pleased to give you a
report by April 4, 2008.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I ate up about 30 seconds
or more of your time in answering that.
UTILITY TUNNEL ABATEMENT EFFORTS
Mr. Bonner. I have just got one more quick question for the
Office of Compliance. Could you give us an update on the
asbestos in the tunnels?
Ms. Chrisler. I certainly can. As the subcommittee is well
aware, the Office of Compliance and the Office of the Architect
of the Capitol entered into a settlement agreement to abate the
hazards in the tunnels. And pursuant to that settlement
agreement, many things have been happening with the Office of
Compliance and the Office of the Architect of the Capitol. Each
has liaisons who are in direct communication with each other
constantly about the progress that the Architect of the Capitol
is making with respect to the tunnels. And specifically with
respect to the asbestos concerns, my understanding is that
everything is on track, that everything is moving forward,
specifically the asbestos removal in the b, y and g tunnels is
on track, as well as the replacement of the r tunnel. I have
with me our general counsel, Peter Ames Eveleth, who can also
provide additional information.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much, Mr. Bonner. I
want to follow along that same line of questioning. The
Architect has asked for $127 million to meet the terms of the
settlement agreement. Is that the appropriate amount of money
to bring it in for a landing?
Ms. Chrisler. Yes. We have actually had a conversation
about this, as I mentioned and once again would like to
recognize the subcommittee for the work that you have done to
open the door for engaged communication with, specifically, the
Office of the Architect of the Capitol. And because of that
increased communication, we have been able to sit down with the
Architect and discuss many things, among which have been their
request for appropriations, and we are certainly very
supportive.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And would you characterize the
project as being on track?
Ms. Chrisler. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And they are making the appropriate
amount of progress based on the settlement agreement?
Ms. Chrisler. Yes.
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE REDUCE AND PREVENT INITIATIVES
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Good. On your request, I have sort
of oversimplified the categories that requests go into when
talking about how we are prioritizing things in the
subcommittee. And there are the things that you must have, the
things that you would like to have, and the things, sort of the
nice-to-haves and got-to-haves. And utility tunnels are
obviously a must in terms of funding. Your Reduce and Prevent
Initiatives I would put more in the it-would-be-nice
categories, that would, I think, take the OOC's mission beyond
what you were originally created to do, which is to be a
regulatory agency to ensure compliance and to do inspections
and then work with offices to try to reach compliance. It would
definitely be nice to be able to have you work with offices and
have a trainer so that you could have offices know in advance
how they can be compliant without running into a citation
situation, but I just want to caution you that we are going to
do the best we can, but I am not sure that the Reduce and
Prevent Initiative is going to be a viable option given our
limited resources.
And the reason I am prefacing my question with that,
because your answer to Mr. Latham on the continuing resolution
was that you would not be able to really pursue the Reduce and
Prevent Initiative. But that is not part of your mission. That
is a thing you would like to expand to correct?
Ms. Chrisler. Part of the mandate that we have under the
statute is, as you mentioned, safety and health. It is to run
the dispute resolution program, and we are mandated to provide
an education and outreach program. Part of the education and
outreach program, as we see it, is to train stakeholders, to
provide training, to provide education in any form that is well
received regarding their rights and their responsibilities
under the Act. So we see the prevention and reduction--we see
the trainer, we see the ombuds position--as part of our
mandate, as part of that education and outreach mandate.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Are you able to do education and
outreach now?
Ms. Chrisler. Absolutely.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So you are meeting your mission?
Ms. Chrisler. Not to the extent that we would like and
certainly not to the extent that we believe the statute
mandates us.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So you would like to do more, but--
--
Ms. Chrisler. We would like to do more. We are doing what
we are able to do now, yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is what I wanted to get on the
record.
Ms. Chrisler. If I also may?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sure.
Ms. Chrisler. We do believe that the Prevention and
Reduction Initiative with the trainer, with the ombuds
position, would be able to save money for the agencies. There
are recent studies, as recent as 2006, in the private sector,
in the government sector as well as in academia, that suggest
that having trainers, having ombudsmen not only reduces
litigation costs by 75 percent, but it also reduces the number
of discrimination claims that are filed. So not only do we see
this as part of our mandate, we see it as a cost-saving
initiate for the Congress as well.
AOC CITATIONS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do you coordinate or has the
Architect of the Capitol coordinated with you on which projects
it would request in terms of the citations that it has from
your office and what those were in priority order?
Ms. Chrisler. They have shared with us their site
management plan, and we have been engaged in discussions with
them on that. We want to continue discussions and engage in
more discussions about how to address the hazards that have
been the subject of citations as well.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Is that a long way of saying sort of
but not enough?
Ms. Chrisler. In a way.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Just checking. Because when we
get their list of priorities, I sort of always wonder whether,
based on the citations that you have issued, whether your
priorities for relieving the citation or eliminating the
citation, addressing it would match with their priority order.
Ms. Chrisler. As you know, our priority system is the RAC
system, the Risk Assessment Codes. And RAC one is the most
dangerous; followed by RAC two; RAC three; and RAC four. That
is how we categorize the citations and the hazards. The
Architect has a program. They prioritize differently.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And I would encourage and I will
encourage the Architect of the Capitol as well as you to more
closely coordinate the prioritizing of the list that they
request funding for from us because life safety and security,
addressing those hazards is really critical. And my time has
expired.
ACCURACY OF CBO ESTIMATES
Mr. Latham. Thank you.
Dr. Orszag, not necessarily directly budget related, but in
a broader sense, I have been around here for a little while,
and I have seen CBO estimates, OMB estimates. In 3 months into
a fiscal year there can be a variation of projected surplus or
budget deficit of $100 billion. Please tell me how you can
instill confidence in us that any kind of projections are real.
A broader question I guess as far as dynamics go, is how do we
actually get real numbers that are--closer to accurate? It is
not a reflection on you, because this has been going on a long
time.
Mr. Orszag. First is yes. The deficit numbers in particular
will move around. I think we do as well as any other
organization in those projections. So one metric is, is there
anyone else doing better than we do? And I think the answer to
that is no. And the reason that the numbers aren't, you know--
do move around is the deficit is the difference between two big
numbers. And we are trying to protect both of them, and you are
a little off on either one, and the deficit number is going to
move a lot. We are continually reexamining the projection
methodology.
I will give you an example. On the revenue side, it turns
out that when we are too high one year, we tend to be too high
the next year. Technically, it is called serial correlation.
There are projection efficiency gains in terms of projection
methodology if we can reduce that, and we are exploring
technically whether we can do even better than we currently
are. So I guess all I can say is Paul Volcker once said, pick a
number or a date but never both. And, unfortunately, I don't
have that luxury right now. We do the best we can.
We are trying to do even better, and we are continually
reexamining methodology. I understand your frustration. The
other thing that we try to do though, is the process puts a lot
of emphasis on that point estimate; it will be $27.7 billion.
We are trying to provide a lot more information about the
spread of uncertainty around those numbers. And you will see in
our documents, based on those previous projection errors, what
the 95 percent confidence integral is and sort of what the
spread of possible outcomes are. We have been going beyond that
now in saying--you know, there is a lot of emphasis, for
example, on the budget outcome now for 2012--rather than just
saying our projection is X, we think that is our projection,
and based on our previous errors, what is the probability that
the budget will be in deficit? So we are trying to provide more
information. The world is, unfortunately, not as predictable as
one might like.
Mr. Latham. And I guess that is my point about dynamic
scoring. The real-world effects of tax increases or tax cuts,
revenues rather than just saying, we don't take that into
consideration.
Mr. Orszag. Yeah. Let me comment on that. We do take into
account lots of behavioral response. So if you change a
spending program or you change something, there will be
responses that individuals undertake. So if you, expand a
public health insurance program, we have, you know, our
estimates suggest some people will switch from private
insurance to the public insurance program, for example. So we
incorporate that kind of behavior outcome. We shut off, though,
in the formal scores any macroeconomic impact. And that is
where the heart of that dynamic scoring comes. We have and we
will continue to provide--for example, on March 19, I believe
we are putting out a full analysis of the President's Budget.
In that document, we include not a dynamic score but a dynamic
analysis of the President's Budget including those
macroeconomic feedback effects. The distinction between dynamic
analysis and dynamic scoring, it comes back to that single
point estimate. Given the imprecision in macroeconomic
analysis, we are reluctant to just say, here is what the
macroeconomic impact is. We use a variety of models, and then
we can show you the range of results in an analysis as opposed
to a score in a way that we can't when we have to just pick a
single number.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thirty seconds.
SCORING THE FARM BILL
Mr. Latham. One question. And I honestly will get to the
budget here in a minute. The Farm Bill that they are trying to
write today is a 5-year Farm Bill. They are saying the direct
payments will stay the same for 10 years, except for the 9th
year, and then there won't be, any direct payments. So that
they can raise 4 of the 5-year Farm Bill about $3.4 billion
because in the 9th year, they say that we won't make the
payments, which is crazy. We know it will happen. How do you do
that?
Mr. Orszag. How do we score it? Or how do we----
Mr. Latham. Well, that is the way you score it.
Mr. Orszag. We are required in a whole variety of settings
to score to the letter of the statute. So if the statute says
that will happen, generally that is what is incorporated into
our score. In many situations, outside observers or other
policymakers recognize that what the statute literally says has
a very, very low probability of actually occurring.
Mr. Latham. Do you put a notation at the bottom saying,
this is crazy, it will never happen?
Mr. Orszag. I have noticed that that tends to happen now in
the outside discussion regardless of what we do or don't say.
Mr. Latham. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. The time has expired.
Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you.
Dr. Orszag, let's keep with you for just another minute.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Can I just interrupt for a moment?
Let me go to Ms. Lee because she hasn't asked any questions at
all yet.
Mr. Bonner. Sure.
CONTRACTING POLICY FOR WOMEN AND MINORITY-OWNED BUSINESSES
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning. Forgive me for being late, but we are, again,
in three committees at the same time. But I wanted to just ask
you the question I ask each agency with regard to what we
learned last year as it relates to the inclusion of minority
and women-owned businesses in your overall subcontractor or
contracting efforts. And we actually put forth language last
year in the bill that put out a requirement that each agency
develop a formal written policy regarding the involvement of
minority and women-owned businesses, and the disabled. And I
wanted to make sure you are familiar with the requirement and
that we have, I think, a March deadline determining what the
plan is for your agency and also the workforce. What is the
composition? Racial/ethnic composition, gender composition of
the workforce getting paid? Do you have that broken down by
division, pay grade, job classifications? Or how do you keep
that information?
Mr. Orszag. Sure. Do you want me to go first? First, with
regard to the contracting, I believe we have submitted our
report to you. For our agency, this is a very tiny part of the
budget. So it is not as large a concern as our staff, which is
a significant concern.
And I will be frank, I have struggled and we have struggled
to improve our diversity. One of my problems is that, given the
nature of our workforce, we draw a lot from, for example, Ph.D.
economists. And last year, U.S. graduate schools, the share of
Ph.D.'s granted to minorities who are U.S. citizens was well
under 5 percent. And those people tend to be very heavily
recruited, and we are doing the best we can.
I will point out, actually, I am very pleased; we just
recruited a new minority female manager in the health unit who
will be joining CBO in the next month or two. So we are trying
hard, and we are doing the best we can. We are not where I
would like to be. We do keep the data proposed by--split out by
division and split out by management and professional staff,
support staff and what have you.
We have been doing much better on females than on
minorities, and we are trying to rectify that. In fact, at some
recent briefing for new employees, I believe there was one male
out of a group of--a large group. So it is just a reflection of
doing better on females. And we need to do better on
minorities. But we can categorize the data in any way you would
like.
Ms. Lee. We will ask you for a copy formally.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Chrisler. The Office of Compliance is well aware of the
requested policy, and we have developed a written policy. We
have implemented our policy, and we actually have contractors
that meet the criteria as set forth in the policy. We have
contractors currently meeting the criteria. We do not keep
demographics on the number of minorities or the number of other
sectors.
Mr. Bonner. Madam Chair, could she speak up for the record,
please?
Ms. Chrisler. I am sorry.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It is for the record. Is the mike
on? He cannot hear you.
Ms. Chrisler. Yes. We have established a written policy. We
actually have contractors that we work with who fit the
criteria, and though we do not keep demographics of the racial
or gender complement of our staff, our staff is small enough
that we can provide that information for the record.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Great. Thanks.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ambassador O'Keefe.
Mr. O'Keefe. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Congress may have to go vote, but if
you can answer the question.
Mr. O'Keefe. I will be happy to answer the question. In
terms of our of staff, one-third of the filled FTEs are women.
One-eighth is minority. We do have a language requirement that
individuals either have Russian or one of the languages of our
target countries.
I will have to take the question on contracting. We have
not let any new contracts recently. And I will provide that
answer for the record. I just would note that in our overall
program of the 13,000 delegates we brought over, 51 percent are
women.
[The information follows:]
Open World Leadership Center For the Record
open world contractors--minority and women-owned businesses
As of March 27, 2008 Open World has 6 contracts:
3 Non-Personal Technical or Professional Contracts
2 are with a non-profit organization
1 is with a small woman-owned minority business
3 Non-Personal Technical or Professional Contracts with
Individuals
1 contract is with a woman unincorporated sole proprietor
1 contract is with a woman who is not incorporated
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Wonderful. That is what we like to
hear.
Mr. Bonner, Mr. Ruppersberger does not have any questions.
CBO HEALTH CARE ANALYSIS CAPABILITIES
Mr. Bonner. Okay. Just one more final question then.
Dr. Orszag, obviously healthcare is a major issue for our
country, and we are trying to wrap our arms around it. Some of
the Presidential candidates are calling for radical change that
would obviously cost more money, perhaps with greater
opportunities for service. But in a National Journal article on
January 5th, I saw where you expressed concern that your budget
request, that there is an insufficient number of staff at CBO
to handle the growing number of healthcare requests. I believe
that was attributed to you. How many staffers of the 235 that
you have at CBO currently are handling healthcare requests? And
of the requests for additional funds for additional staffers,
how many of that number would be dedicated to healthcare?
Mr. Orszag. With regard to your first question, roughly,
when I took office, or earlyish last year, there were roughly
30 FTE's working on healthcare. Now there is a little bit of
question about how you include like the person I just mentioned
who is going to be coming on board. But we are now at about 45
or so, which actually is a very significant increase for a
public institution in roughly a year with 235 people.
The problem is, that shift is coming at the expense of all
other things we do, Defense and Agriculture and all the other
things that we are being called upon to do. I nonetheless felt
like it was critical, given that healthcare costs are where it
is at over the long term and that previously I think we had
terrific staff, but they were being deluged with so many
requests that some of the concerns that had been expressed
about response times and other things I think were particularly
salient in that area, which is also why I shifted resources
into that arena. Of the 15 FTE requests that we have, something
like 12--I am sorry, 9 would go to health, and others will kind
of backfill some of the shifting that I have been doing.
CBO HISTORY OF SHIFTING RESOURCES
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.
On the healthcare analysis----
Mr. Orszag. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You have only been with the agency
for a year, but maybe your staff can help you answer the
question as far as the history of the agency. When Congress's
priorities shift, has CBO traditionally tried to beef up its
staffing in the areas of expertise that Congress is relying on
over a period of time?
Mr. Orszag. Yes. And one, actually one of them, I will just
be forthright, one of the concerns about the shift in staff
that we are doing is whether there is a lot of sort of
drumbeats about healthcare, and then you all decide, oh, no,
that is not that important. I have decided that is a calculated
risk that I will take, at least for the foreseeable future,
healthcare will be such a dominant part of the policy agenda
that it is worth it to put more resources in there.
Yes, there have been cycles in the past, and one of the
concerns is that we sort of ramp everyone up in an area, and
then you all say, no, we are not interested. And I am taking a
calculated risk on that. I hope you will back me up on it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We are absolutely going to try to do
as much as we can for you in that arena.
Mr. Orszag. I just meant on the risk that Congress will
remain interested.
I am not lobbying.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I do not think our constituents will
give us much choice about the healthcare issues, given that we
have upwards of 15 percent increases in healthcare costs, and
that does not appear to be waning any time soon. And regardless
of whether we have significant proposals coming down the pike,
we all know there are so many different ideas on how to
approach healthcare, so I think it is a wise portion of your
request.
CBO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Can you tell me about your IT resources? I know that you
have also asked for an increase in your information technology
resources. What is important about that?
Mr. Orszag. I think there are a couple things that are
important about that. First, one of the ways we kind of skirted
by over the past couple of years is by not doing as much in
terms of replacing sort of the normal cycle of IT
infrastructure.
Secondly, we are very concerned about protecting our IT
infrastructure and the security that surrounds both the Website
and various entry points and what have you. We deal with
proprietary tax information and other things that need to be
very specially protected. So part of the request is to make
sure that we are adequately funding security and part of it
is--IT security, that is--and part of it is to make up for the
lag, and that has been one of the areas that we have been
skirting by on basically.
CVC INSPECTIONS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The last thing I wanted to cover was
that I neglected to congratulate Ms. Chrisler on her permanent
appointment as the executive director of the Office of
Compliance, because last year when you were here, you were only
the acting. And through the change in the law, we were able to
make sure that we could remove that portion of your title.
I did want to ask you about the CVC inspections. I know you
expressed some interest, I do not know if it goes to the level
of frustration, but I know there was some difficulty last year.
And this committee has been very focused on trying to exercise
oversight over the Capitol Visitors Center. And you were
interested and concerned that you get into the CVC and do pre-
inspections as soon as possible, and there was some resistance
on the part of the AOC for you to do that. How is that going,
and what have you found?
Ms. Chrisler. It is going very well. We have begun pre-
inspections in February. We are slated to conduct pre-
inspections in February, June and October. When we went in for
the pre-inspections in February, we were able to inspect some
of the areas that had been completed. We have begun weekly and
biweekly teleconference calls with the Office of the Architect
of the Capitol so that we can finally conduct pre-inspections
of those areas that were not completed in February. And we will
continue along this path so that our inspections are as timely
as they can be.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So you can also confirm that,
through your pre-inspections, it appears as though we are still
on track to open towards the end of November and that we will
not experience any significant problems or violations in your
pre-inspection.
Ms. Chrisler. That is correct. We have not found any yet.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is what I like to hear.
Ms. Chrisler. This Friday we will be conducting radon
testing, actually, so we are moving forward with the Office of
the Architect of the Capitol.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Great.
Mr. Latham, do you have any other additional questions?
SELF-CERTIFICATION OF DISTRICT OFFICES
Mr. Latham. Just one real quick. You are requesting $25,000
for the pilot self-certification in House and Senate district
offices.
Ms. Chrisler. Yes.
Mr. Latham. And how do you go about choosing--I am not sure
everybody wants you to choose them--how do you go about that,
and how many offices do you expect to participate?
Ms. Chrisler. This is a new initiative----
Mr. Latham. Right.
Ms. Chrisler [continuing]. That we will be undertaking, so
we have not gotten to the point where we have selected any
offices. We are hoping this program will allow the offices to
engage in self-certification so that we can ensure that we are
meeting our mandate to offer the services to all of our
congressional stakeholders, not only on Capitol Hill, but out
in the districts and State offices. Certainly part of the
funding that we are requesting would enable us to begin this
program, and part of the beginning of that program would be to
develop plans and to develop procedures by which we would
initiate the checklists and the program.
Mr. Latham. Okay. I will stop there.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I have completed my questions as
well.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes.
ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENTS FROM THE CHAIR
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We appreciate the opportunity to
review your budget and talk to you about your priorities. I do
have some homework for each of the agencies. You do not have to
write it down, because I will give you a copy of what we are
requesting from you.
For the Office of Compliance, in last year's House passed
bill, we included a provision requiring legislative branch
agencies to reimburse the Treasury for any payments made on
their behalf for awards or settlements under the Congressional
Accountability Act. And so, by next Wednesday, March 19th, if
you could submit a report of the Office of Compliance's
position on this language.
For CBO, you are asking to expand by 10 percent over the
next 2 fiscal years due to the growing demand for your
services. And I can tell you that--Mr. Latham, if you have not
found already--the Members that I have spoken to on both sides
of the aisle are just really concerned about making sure of
that, because obviously the credibility of CBO's information is
extremely helpful. I know Members that want to expand you by
much more than what you have asked for. So if you could, by
next Wednesday, March 19th, please submit a report on what
CBO's current work load is; how you are addressing it now using
existing FTE's; what specific requests are being turned down
due to a lack of additional FTE's; and also, how you are having
to prioritize your requests. Please include an explanation of
how you prioritize your work as well.
And then Open World, assuming that Open World continues to
be housed within the legislative branch, which I think it is
important to note I am not opposed to, I am interested in the
program shifting more towards expansion countries. With that in
mind, by next Wednesday, March 19th, please submit a report on
how you would shift your operations if we included a
restriction limiting the use of funds for Russian participants
to no more than 50 percent of the total program, which is in
line with some of the questions that were asked today. Please
describe how you would change your current operations under
such a provision; what, if any, additional countries you would
target; and how long it would take for you to move towards this
model. And additionally, because you seem to indicate that the
draft report will not include suggested alternative funding
sources--I mean, I am hopeful that it does--but if it does not
have suggested alternative funding sources, I would like you to
provide some suggested funding sources, particularly in the
area of the judicial branch. Since approximately 10 percent of
your participants are from the judicial branch, then this is
really an area that I think you are going to need to seek, to
pursue as a funding source, because we are simply going to need
to relieve the pressure off this bill over the long term.
And before I close out the hearing, Ms. McCollum, do you
have any questions?
Ms. McCollum. No, I do not, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome. Thank you very
much.
With that, the subcommittee stands in recess until 1:30
this afternoon, when we will hold our next oversight hearing on
the Capitol Visitor Center.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Afternoon Session
----------
Wednesday, March 12, 2008.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
WITNESSES
STEPHEN T. AYERS, AIA, ACTING ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
BERNARD UNGAR, CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER PROJECT EXECUTIVE, ARCHITECT OF
THE CAPITOL
TERRIE S. ROUSE, CEO FOR VISITOR SERVICES FOR THE CAPITOL VISITOR
CENTER, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
TERRELL DORN, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Chair Opening Remarks
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I would like to call the Legislative
Branch Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations to
order.
This is, I believe, our ninth CVC oversight hearing. What
we are going to be doing is continuing the vigorous oversight
that we have been conducting over the course of a little more
than a year, reviewing the issues and concerns that have come
up since the last hearing, and just generally getting a project
update.
It appears as though everything is still on track on the
overall number and the overall date. We have not lost either
time nor expanded the projection on the overall cost of the
project, which is really exciting; and I think we are
approaching about 6 months straight now where we have not had
either a slip in the date or an expansion of the amount of the
cost. So I think we all should be extremely proud of that.
This afternoon, we will hear from Stephen Ayers, the Acting
Architect of the Capitol; Bernie Ungar, the CVC Project
Executive; Terry Dorn, the GAO Director of Physical
Infrastructure Issues; and Terrie Rouse, the CEO for Visitor
Services at the CVC.
I am looking forward to hearing particularly from Ms. Rouse
on the progress on the staff-led tours system and the Advanced
Reservation System as well. We want to continue to work with
you and make sure in particular that the system not be designed
so far down the road that if we have concerns that develop that
it cannot be adjusted and that there be plenty of opportunity
for Member input since this system is obviously going to serve
our constituents.
So we are looking forward to hearing from you. Your
testimony has been received, and it will be placed into the
record.
Mr. Latham.
Opening Statement--Congressman Latham
Mr. Latham. Thank you.
I also commend you for keeping everything on time since the
last hearing in February. And it looks like you are on track
for the 31st to get the certificate and stay within the costs,
and I commend you for doing that. So I look forward to the
testimony.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Latham.
Mr. Ayers, if you could proceed with a summary of your
testimony for 5 minutes. Thank you.
Opening Statement--Stephen Ayers
Mr. Ayers. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the
subcommittee. I am pleased to be here, once again, to report on
the progress to complete the CVC and to prepare for its opening
later this year.
Joining me today, as you noted, are Bernie Ungar, our
Project Executive, and Ms. Terrie Rouse, our Chief Executive
Officer for Visitor Services.
FIRE ALARM AND LIFE-SAFETY TESTING
The comprehensive fire alarm and life-safety testing
continues to be performed as planned and remains on schedule.
In fact, last week our crews began working planned double
shifts, which will continue for the next 6 to 9 weeks, to
ensure that our testing work is completed as quickly as
possible.
Minor issues have arisen and are quickly being addressed by
the contractor. Recently, we began making required fire alarm
changes and have determined that this change and associated re-
testing required can be done without adversely affecting the
project's schedule or estimated $621 million project budget. In
the interim, testing of the system as currently configured is
continuing as scheduled.
Overall, we remain pleased with the progress being made.
Specifically, as the fire alarm testing is proceeding, we are
completing minor construction in the following areas: the
Library of Congress tunnel, the House Hearing Room, the East
Front, the exterior grounds, and the House and Senate atria
stairs.
With regard to this remaining work, I am pleased to report
that masons have completed floor stone work in the Crypt area,
Rotunda, and Gallery levels inside the East Front. The
installation of stone stair treads between the Rotunda and
Gallery levels has been completed up to the first landing, and
we expect this work to be fully complete later this month.
CONSTRUCTION UPDATE
Stone restoration on the Crypt level is essentially
complete, and restoration crews have begun work at the Rotunda
level. In the Exhibition Gallery, all of the glass floor panels
have been installed, and the video screens for the virtual
theatres and other exhibits are being installed as we speak.
Professional cleaning crews are now cleaning most of the CVC's
public spaces, including Emancipation Hall, the Orientation
Theaters, and the dining areas. Outside, the remaining two
trailers on the South Egg have been relocated, which will
enable the Sequence 2 contractor to continue with exterior
landscaping work.
Activity continues in the House Hearing Room as workers
install bronze grilles, trim, and handrails and continue to
work on the dais. In the House atria stairs, metal workers
completed installation of the bronze hand and cap rails around
the spiral staircase. In the Library of Congress pedestrian
tunnel, ceiling panel installation and terrazzo floor work is
ongoing.
Crews are working to complete punchlist items such as
millwork, wall stone, floor stone, ceiling panels, plaster
work, carpeting, doors, and other finishes. At the end of
February, there were approximately 14,000 items remaining on
the punchlist. We have satisfactorily closed nearly 2,000
items.
To expedite the punchlist resolution, the Sequence 2
contractor will be calling for inspections when most of the
work is done in a particular area, rather than waiting until he
believes all of the work has been fully complete.
In February, 42 change orders were fully settled. The
magnitude of change order proposals being received continues to
diminish, with most new proposals coming in below $10,000.
Gilbane and the CVC project team continue to focus their
efforts on settling the largest outstanding change orders first
and as quickly as possible.
CONSTRUCTION TRANSITION
As part of the transition from a construction site to a
visitor services operation, the Capitol Superintendent's Office
is phasing in its cleaning crews into the Visitor Center. In
addition, audio-visual technicians continue to make adjustments
to the projection screens in the North and South Orientation
Theaters, as well as the Congressional Auditorium. At this
pace, Madam Chair, we continue to believe that we are on
schedule to receive a temporary certificate of occupancy by
July 31st, as currently scheduled.
In anticipation of this milestone this summer, Ms. Rouse
and our team continue to work with oversight committees and
congressional leadership on plans for the CVC's visitor
services operation.
That concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer
any questions.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.
[Mr. Ayers' statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Ms. Rouse.
Opening Statement--Terrie Rouse
Ms. Rouse. Good afternoon. Madam Chair, Congressman Latham,
members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to
update you on the progress we have made to stand up the AOC's
Office of Visitor Services for the Capitol Visitor Center.
STAFFING AND RECRUITMENT
As I discussed last month, one of my priorities has been to
recruit staff to help me achieve our mission to inform,
involve, and inspire generations of Americans who visit the
CVC. I am pleased to announce that our Deputy Chief Executive
Officer for Visitor Services, Mr. Maurice Parrish, joined our
team last week.
Working in concert with our oversight committees, we
recently advertised to hire more than 50 visitor assistants.
They will play a very important role as they will be our front-
line ambassadors with the visiting public. In addition, we are
looking to bring on another 20 staff over the next few months,
including a gift shop manager and other building staff.
I am committed to hiring a diverse and professional staff.
In that regard, we are planning a job fair for April and are
actively reaching out to members of the congressional caucuses,
including the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional
Asian Pacific American Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus,
and the Congressional Native American Caucus, to help inform
potential candidates of job opportunities with the CVC.
My goal for the CVC mirrors those of the AOC: to
aggressively work to hire personnel and award contracts to
individuals and companies that reflect the diversity of our
country. As we seek items for our gift shop, we are making a
special effort to reach out to small businesses as suppliers.
We have formed an expert committee comprised of our curators
and historians to verify the authenticity of merchandise and to
identify items that will further our educational and
programmatic themes.
ADVANCED RESERVATION SYSTEM
Madam Chair, I am pleased to report that we have made
significant progress on the development of the Advanced
Reservation System. We have been working with a number of key
stakeholders, including congressional offices, the Capitol
Guide Service, AOC and CVC staff, and many others to develop
system requirements.
The visitor experience and our mission to inform, involve,
and inspire begins when the citizen contacts his Member's
office or visits the CVC Website, not with the first step into
the Capitol building. For that reason, the Advanced Reservation
System and the CVC Website will provide people with a number of
opportunities to contact their Representative or Senators.
Based on the feedback from our stakeholders, our contractor
has begun developing a prototype of the system. The Advanced
Reservation System will include many advantages to Members'
offices that are not currently available, including:
24/7 system access through the CVC Website;
Staff access to the Advanced Reservation System from any
location through the Internet allowing requests and
reservations to be handled immediately and personally;
``Find a Member'' links prominent throughout the CVC
Website;
Improved tour booking process providing longer advanced
booking window, real-time reservations, and generating
constituent reservation history reports;
Members' offices may send, via e-mail or regular mail,
personalized confirmations to constituents; and
Inventory management tools designed to prioritize
constituent tours.
Use of the Advanced Reservation System will result in
improved visitor experiences the day of the tours. For example,
inventory management will help reduce lines and adjust visitor
volume throughout the day.
CVC WEBSITE
As requested, we have provided the subcommittee with some
graphics that illustrate what visitors will encounter online on
the CVC Website when they plan a trip to Washington that
includes a tour of the Capitol. Since the system is still under
development, those graphics are not representative of the
actual layout or visual style. However, they provide an idea of
how your constituents could be linked to your office to book a
Capitol tour.
On every page of the CVC Website there is the opportunity
to navigate to the home page for the House or the Senate, both
of which have several ways to look up Members of Congress,
including by ZIP Code.
There is a prominent link on the right side of each and
every page. Once a constituent selects the option, ``visiting
the Capitol'', he or she is given an additional opportunity to
contact their Representative or Senators.
Madam Chair, the CVC's programming is designed to reflect
the important impact that the Constitution, Congress, and more
than 200 years of law have had in shaping the fabric of daily
life in the United States. As you can see, we are making great
strides to make the CVC a welcoming and educational environment
that will inform, involve, and inspire all who visit here.
Thank you again for the opportunity to update the
subcommittee on our activities, and thank you for your
continued support.
That concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions you might have.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Ms. Rouse.
[Ms. Rouse's statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Dorn.
Opening Statement--Terrell Dorn
Mr. Dorn. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Latham.
Since the last hearing, testing of the fire alarm systems
has continued, along with installation of building finishes and
some minor construction. Although several of the project's
near-critical paths, such as the East Front stone work,
continue their slip in schedule, timely completion of the fire
alarm acceptance testing remains the biggest risk to the
project's schedule and its budget.
CONSTRUCTION UPDATE
The CVC team is working to resolve new issues they have
uncovered, such as inadequate smoke exhaust in atria
stairwells, and older issues, such as the exhibit galleries' FM
200 system. AOC does not expect these issues will affect the
project's ability to open in November of 2008. As long as the
AOC and the fire marshal are able to cooperatively find
workarounds to allow testing and preparation for operations to
continue simultaneously and no new delays are encountered, we
fully expect that the CVC should be available for opening in
November.
The AOC's cost estimate of $621 million continues to appear
reasonable. However, the full impact on the project's
contingency caused by recent necessary changes is still
uncertain. Even with the project at 99 percent complete and
final testing underway, it will be important for the CVC team
to continue monitoring the project's contingency balance and
the final project estimate.
Madam Chair, that concludes my prepared statement, and I am
available to answer any questions you and the Members may have.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much, Mr. Dorn.
[Mr. Dorn's statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TESTING ISSUES
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I want to start with the comment
that you made, Mr. Ayers, that testing will be completed as
quickly as possible. I hope you really meant completed on time,
so that it does not affect the overall schedule. And so a
little reassurance would be nice.
Mr. Ayers. That is exactly what I meant.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Good. Just checking.
One of the things that I am concerned about in reading the
weekly reports--and I really appreciate that information,
because it helps us in knowing what your progress is, and those
reports are very detail oriented--I think they are mutually
beneficial. This smoke control system and the short-circuiting
problem, I think that is the thing that is the most worrisome
as far as being able to reach a resolution and it not impacting
the schedule. So can you give us a sense of where we are in
solving that particular problem?
Mr. Ayers. Certainly. Madam Chair, you mentioned two
problems. One is a smoke purge system from the north and south
atria stair, and you also mentioned a short circuit.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I might have combined
problems.
Mr. Ayers. I will give you an update on both of them.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEM
Mr. Ayers. Certainly on the short circuit analysis, we have
resolved that issue. We have come up with a resolution, and we
have now directed the contractor to implement that. So we have
worked out a retesting regimen that will not affect our testing
timeline, nor do we think this will affect our $621 million
estimate. So we think that problem is solved, and we are in the
implementation phase now.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Mr. Ayers. On the north and south atria stair, we were not
able to achieve the required air flow out of those atria
stairs. We have worked some engineering solutions over the past
several weeks, and we are in the process of implementing them
now and will then schedule a retest. We are pretty confident
that the re-work that we have done will correct those air flow
issues in the atria stairs.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Dorn, do you care to comment?
Mr. Dorn. I think they are both technical problems that
have technical solutions. I do not think it is going to touch
the $621 upper end right now, but it certainly does have an
effect on the available contingency in the budget. AOC can
address the dollar amounts for you better than I can, and maybe
a different forum would be better because they are still
negotiating.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Great.
Mr. Ungar. Madam Chair, I just wanted to mention that from
a budgetary perspective, we have got the cost estimated for the
atrium fix, and we do not anticipate it being a problem with
respect to the 621 number at this point.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Good. And what about the timing?
Mr. Ungar. It should not be a problem.
ADVANCED RESERVATION SYSTEM PROCESS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Excellent.
I wanted to focus on the Advanced Reservation System and
the progress on staff-led tours. And I have said this before,
so I want to underscore that when our constituents go to your
Website they need to be made aware of staff-led tours and not
automatically funneled into guide-led tours. And I know that
the layout that you gave us is not necessarily how it is going
to look graphically, but when you go to--is this the home page?
Does Mr. Latham have these materials, too?
Mr. Latham. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If I go to the home page of the CVC,
I think the link needs to be large enough so that you can very
quickly find how to tour the Capitol. Because primarily that is
why people are going to go to the CVC Website. And, right now,
the way this looks is the only place that you know that you can
get a tour is this little tiny word ``tour'' over here in the
upper right-hand corner if you are on the home page of the CVC.
I do not think that link is big enough or prominent enough, and
I would strongly encourage you to make it much more prominent
so that people could find it more easily.
Ms. Rouse. OK. Note taken.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Secondly, when you click on that
link and go to the place where you could make a reservation, on
the page that says home slash tour reservations, you have three
buttons: contact your Senator, contact your Representative, and
use the Advanced Reservation System. I am worried--I mean, of
course, if you want a tour and you read those three buttons you
are going to click on use the Advanced Reservation System,
because that is what you are trying to do, is make a
reservation to tour the Capitol.
So I would suggest that you change the wording--instead of
``contact your Senator and contact your Representative'', it
should be ``book a Capitol tour with your Representative or
your Senator'', or however you choose to word it so that people
who want to do that will choose between going to the Advanced
Reservation System and taking a guide-led tour and say, no, I
really would like to do a tour through my Member's office and
meet my Member and their staff. You would not be likely to do
that if it just says ``contact''.
Ms. Rouse. We can change the language to help people better
understand how to navigate that, yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. That would be incredibly
helpful. And my time has expired. I can continue later.
Mr. Latham.
Mr. Latham. Thank you.
CVC TOUR OPERATIONS--TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Ayers, currently, as far as transportation and buses,
the buses drop people off at the West Front of the Capitol and
are prohibited from going around the east side. Is that going
to change when you open up the Visitor Center? Are the buses
going to be allowed to pull up to the entrance to the CVC?
Mr. Ayers. Well, we do not expect tour buses to be able to
use First Street. They are currently unable to use First
Street, and those prohibitions will continue. On the east side,
we do expect to encourage tour operators to drop off visitors
at Union Station. From Union Station, we have worked closely
with the District Department of Transportation to work out a
bus route from Union Station up First Street, or down
Louisiana, up Constitution and across First Street.
So, ultimately, we will be able to drop people off on the
east side of the Capitol along First Street using public
transportation or using the other bus services that are
currently able to use that street. The ones that do not carry
luggage underneath will continue to be able to use First
Street.
CAPITOL HILL ACCESS
So in summary, there are two options. One, there is a bus
drop off on the West Front and another bus drop off for tour
buses at Union Station, and then people can either walk to the
Visitor Center or they can use public transportation.
Mr. Latham. I can just see a busload of 4-H'ers coming from
Iowa having to get dropped off at Union Station and get on a
Metro bus--I just am not sure it is totally satisfactory, in my
mind, anyway. I think it is going to be very difficult. And if
you drop them off on the west side, that is a real hike to get
clear around to the front of the Visitor Center.
Are there any other ideas or solutions to this? Have you
talked--who says you cannot pull the buses up to the east side,
to the entrance?
Mr. Ayers. All of those types of vehicles are currently
prohibited across Capitol Hill, and that is certainly from the
Capitol Police and the Capitol Police Board.
Mr. Latham. Okay.
Mr. Ayers. If I could just offer one clarification, it is
not--from Union Station up, it is not your standard Metro bus.
D.C. District Department of Transportation has offered to
establish a new Circulator bus route along that route.
Mr. Latham. Will that be free?
Mr. Ayers. It is my understanding that will cost $1 per
person.
CVC OPENING PLAN
Mr. Latham. Okay. I really wish we would maybe think about
some other solutions, because I am just not sure how tenable
that is for a lot of our people coming in.
Ms. Rouse, can you explain what the planning is regarding
the actual opening of the CVC? And will the the entire CVC open
at one time or are you going to phase it in or have a soft
opening? What do you foresee?
Ms. Rouse. We are planning, and we have been having
discussions just as early as last week with our oversight
committees and leadership, on the actual opening of the Capitol
Visitor Center. There will be, to your point, a series of soft
openings, a test-and-adjust period where we will be bringing
people in to kind of get a sense of how it will operate.
For example, people in wheelchairs or people with
disabilities, we might reach out to the veterans' community and
just get a sense of how it is going to work with different
types of constituents, school groups, for example. So there
will be a series of those things.
Of course, it will be up to Congress to determine what date
we actually open, but we wish to be able to get people in and
do a little dress run; get a sense of what works and what does
not work, this will allow us to tweak our management.
Mr. Latham. To my previous point, are those buses going to
be handicap accessible from Union Station?
Mr. Ayers. Yes, sir.
CONTINUING RESOLUTION--POTENTIAL IMPACT
Mr. Latham. Do you see any impact on Capitol Police
activities--especially if we are under a CR with the phased or
soft opening?
Mr. Ayers. Well, certainly the police have some very
significant needs in early 2009. We have an inauguration coming
up that requires significant resources. In October of 2009,
they will be merging with the Library police. Starting late
this summer, they will be providing significant security detail
for the utility tunnel construction on the R tunnel in addition
to the State of the Union. So they have got significant
requirements in early 2009.
If there is a continuing resolution, I think there will be
some significant funding issues that will need to be resolved.
They are certainly committed to opening the Visitor Center, and
I think they would have to work some significant overtime to
make that happen without an initial influx of funding in fiscal
year 2009.
Mr. Latham. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Latham. Your time has
expired.
Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CVC SCREENING PROCESS
I would like to pick up on where Mr. Latham left off. And
forgive me for not knowing the exact terminology, but TSA has
approved at our airports a prescreening process for frequent
flyers where you can enroll and they do a background check and
it is determined whether or not they can then go to the front
of the line or to an expedited line when you are going through
to get on an airline.
It seems to me that if you all would be willing to work
with the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police to come up
with a more workable solution where the tour bus companies,
there would be a list of companies that have been authorized
and screened like we do some of our Nation's ports--it just
seems to me that there has got to be a more practical solution.
You know, it was not that long ago--I was a staffer for 18
years before I was elected to Congress; and when I first came
to Congress, to Capitol Hill as a staffer, there were some who
wanted to put a fence up around the Capitol. And we went
through that back-and-forth period where we resisted that,
because this building truly is a symbol of what we stand for in
a free and open society.
And while we do live in a post-9/11 era, it would just be
good if we could see some active participation from your
offices with the Sergeant at Arms and allow us, if this
committee and others were of the same mind-set, to come up with
a more workable solution.
Yes, ma'am.
ADVANCE GROUP RESERVATIONS
Ms. Rouse. Part of that we have been working on with Mr.
Ayers' office, with the Advanced Reservation System is being
able to register groups in advance. By registering them in
advance, we can communicate with them. We will be able to track
if someone has booked an extraordinary number of seats, because
that is how we start our tours by registering people into a
seat. Then we can indeed have somebody waiting for that bus as
it is pulling up. So it will expedite the process completely.
The waiting time for someone being dropped off will be very
light.
We also will have the opportunity with our little golf
carts. They are to be able to bring people up from the West
Front into the CVC if they need assistance because they are
having difficulty walking.
But we like to remind people that the Capitol experience is
one of walking, and we are trying to encourage people as we are
developing our Website and our public relations information
that it is very much that experience.
SECURITY INTERESTS
Mr. Bonner. No, and I appreciate that. But as a father--I
know my hairline might deceive it, but I have a 10-year-old son
and a 12-year-old daughter. And a part of walking is one thing,
a part of standing is another thing. And that is one of the
reasons that we have appropriated funds well over the budgeted
amount or projected amount for the last several years, was to
create a Visitor Center that would welcome Americans and
friends from around the world to see their Capitol and the U.S.
Capitol in a way that it had never been seen before, and the
restrooms and all of the other great additions to the Visitor
Center. I just worry that we do not set up another barrier to
invite them.
If Disney World can come up with a way to bring in far more
people than come to the Capitol and take security in
consideration, it seems that we would be able to find a way
that would work with the security interests in mind.
CVC PREVIEW
The other thing that I wanted to real quickly get on the
record is are there any plans for a sneak preview, if you will?
Because the Visitor Center has gotten so much negative press
over the last few years, if you were about to open a restaurant
sometimes you have people come in and see what is going on and
you get the local media to talk about it and build up an
excitement about it. And are there plans to use our national
media, and perhaps hopefully nonpaid, but are there ways to
explore getting the American mind interested in what we have
spent all of their tax dollars on that are coming up?
Ms. Rouse. Yes, sir. We have been planning--and we started
talking more aggressively with oversight and leadership last
week--for a media plan that includes the work of the AOC and
Capitol Visitor Center, a test-and-adjust period which would
include previews, various groups coming in and sort of begin to
let people get a feel for what is going on.
A sneak preview is a good way of looking at it. But we
really want to immerse them in the experience. So that is very
much a part of what we are trying to do, and I think over the
next several months we will have a solid plan that we can begin
to announce.
Mr. Bonner. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Bonner.
STAFF-LED TOURS
Ms. Rouse, I want to go back to the discussion of staff-led
tours. And if you could explain to me, I am a constituent from
the 20th District of Florida, and I want to get a tour from my
Member's office, not through the Advanced Reservation System.
How right now do you envision that happening?
Ms. Rouse. Well, what we envision is that someone could do
a couple of things. They could, as you know, use the Advanced
Reservation System, or they could call their Member's office.
Their Member's office could make a reservation for them. Then
they have the option of either sending them the electronic
response or creating and printing a document that they would
send out to that person. So that would provide the person a
hard copy or the electronic copy as a reservation confirmation.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Will we be able to link from our
Websites to the Advanced Reservation System?
Ms. Rouse. Yes, all of the offices will be able to. We are
intending to license all of the offices here in Congress and
all the district offices out across the United States. It will
be a total link. In addition, people will be linked to the
Senate and the House's Websites so there is this constant
interflow of information.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. And, again, I want to stress
that we would like to make sure that we facilitate a
constituent's ability as a priority to book their tour through
their Member. And I know I sound like a broken record on this,
but we did have over 140 House Members, and more than I think
50 Senators sign a similar letter, lamenting the possibility of
the elimination of staff-led tours and the importance of making
sure that when constituents come here that they can connect
with their Member's office. And the best way to do that is when
we can provide them with a tour, because that is often the only
thing that they are able to do when they are here in the way of
a tour.
PUNCHLIST AND CHANGE ORDER UPDATE
I want to talk about the punchlist and change orders.
Because now that we have a section of the report every week
that talks about change orders--I am following the number
rather closely and seeing the same couple of thousand being
addressed and the number not going down. So I am just wondering
how it is that we are in the last few weeks clearing out about
2,000 change orders--excuse me, not change orders, punchlist
items and the number is still at 14,000.
Mr. Ungar. Yes, ma'am. This is the situation. The 14,000 is
the total number of items on the list, open or closed.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
Mr. Ungar. In fact, as you probably saw last week, it went
up a little bit from the previous week. It was about 14,900.
That is because we are still inspecting areas and adding things
to the punchlist, because not the entire facility is complete
yet. So that number is going to be going up, in the next
several weeks. Eventually it will slow down and stop, but for
the next several weeks the total number will go up. I would not
be surprised if it was 16 or 17,000 by the time it is finished.
On the other hand, we have made significant progress in
inspecting and closing out items on the punchlist. In fact,
since we prepared Mr. Ayers' testimony----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. When do you think that we will see a
significant drop in the number?
Mr. Ungar. Well, the number of closed items is 4,000 now,
so it has come down 2,000.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It is 14,000.
Mr. Ungar. No, I am sorry, the total number of items on the
list is 14,900.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
GILBANE'S REPORTING SYSTEM
Mr. Ungar. We have closed out 4,000 of those, so it is now
about 11,000.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It is just that the number in the
report still said 14-some odd thousand.
Mr. Ungar. Right. That is because it is the total number of
items cumulative on the list.
So if you say how many items were ever on the list, it
would be 14,900. It might be 15 or 16,000 in the future. From
that, we subtract the number that have been closed; and that is
4,000. Now you are down to the net number that are open which
is about 11,000.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Mr. Ungar. We expect that you will see a significant drop
in that over the next 2 months. Again, though, you will see a
slight increase in the total number of items on the list.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Mr. Dorn?
Mr. Dorn. We have had this discussion several times about
the 14,000. I have seen several documents that talk about
14,000. We are not used to counting closed ones. I mean, once
it is closed, it seems to me it would just fall off the list.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is why I was confused.
Mr. Dorn. That is where the confusion I think is coming
from, but it is Gilbane's system.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. What I do not understand--and I am
not great at math--but if you have 14,893 items and you close
2,000 of them, then the number should then be 12,893 items.
Mr. Ungar. Right. That be would the number. 12,000 would be
the number that was open until the most recent update.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. But that is the only number
that we are interested in, is how many are open.
Mr. Ungar. Well, we can report solely the number that are
open.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I mean, if you want to make it seem
like you are not making any progress at all, then I would
suggest you continue to report it this way. The better
suggestion would be to report open and closed, and then we have
a better sense of your progress.
Mr. Ungar. Okay.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Just a suggestion.
My time has expired. Mr. Latham.
Mr. Latham. Thank you.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS TUNNEL
With the tunnel between the Library of Congress and the
CVC, is there any coordination going on with the Library of
Congress for both experiences?
Ms. Rouse. Yes. Actually, we are very enthusiastic about
our relationship with the Library of Congress because it will
allow people to again have that Hill experience. They can come
to the CVC and cross over and be able to, by going through the
tunnel or crossing the street, see what is going on at the
Library of Congress. There is also the potential for us to do
joint programming as time goes on, maybe share speakers back
and forth and films. That might be on the weekend. So there is
a tremendous amount of opportunity there.
Mr. Latham. Maybe the tour bus could stop at the back of
the Library of Congress and dump people.
Ms. Rouse. We have already started hearing how people are
going to work around issues, so, yes, that is a possibility.
Mr. Latham. Always thinking, yes.
THE CAPITOL GUIDE SERVICE
The Capitol Guide Service has been in existence since 1876,
is that right? Whatever. And their employees provide a real
excellent service to all of our offices and constituents. What
do you expect to do with the Guide Service employees? Will they
be integrated into the CVC or what is going to happen?
Ms. Rouse. The plan is for the Guide Service to be
incorporated into the CVC, and we have actually started a
collaborative relationship already. The AOC's Office of Human
Resources is helping to recruit new Visitor Assistants. There
will be 105 of them, ultimately, but there are about 50 to 60
positions already out on the street. We are working with H.R.
so the Senate side can still hire them. This is because we are
still waiting for the legislation to be finalized between the
House and the Senate for the CVC. So they are coming over.
Their numbers will grow because not only will we have Visitor
Assistants, we will have guides.
We are also putting a supervisory level engagement with
that and also drastically extending the type of training that
we will be doing and reinforcement.
So it is coming over now. It is going to be a change from
what has been done. So it is very important for us to be able
to communicate with everyone. The biggest change is we are
paying everybody more money. So there is a little adjustment
that is going on. Basically, that is the plan.
GUIDE SERVICE FUNDING
Mr. Latham. Is there any impact as far as where the money
is appropriated? I am not totally sure where the funding for
the Guide Service is now.
Ms. Rouse. The Guide Service funds are managed by the
Senate side at the moment. So that is why we are doing the H.R.
Work on the AOC side to help their process. They are short of
staff. And Mr. Ayers is a member of the Guide Board and has
been guiding us through this process.
Mr. Latham. Is that good training, to guide?
Just one last question. Is there any concern or has there
been any discussion about if you had a new restaurant down
there, 500 seats, that you are going to be attracting people
like off the street that do not really care about tours and
just the experience down there eating lunch? Is there any
impact expected there?
Ms. Rouse. I do think the Capitol Visitor Center is going
to be a destination, and we will have people coming just to
enjoy the facility. In terms of the volume of impact, I do not
think we totally know. We know the 3 million visitors that we
are anticipating include not only people taking tours but
official business and what is going to be destination traffic.
Mr. Latham. Okay. Thank you very much.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome.
Mr. Bonner.
CVC STATUES--LOCATIONS
Mr. Bonner. Madam Chair, I think I have got three or four
more quick questions.
When I was on a tour 6 weeks, 2 months ago--and it is
beautiful, I want to go on record as saying--one of the points
of prominence, they told me where one of the statues had
already been reserved, and I do not remember which one it was.
But there was something about it that no one could be above him
for religious or traditional reasons. So my question is,
Alabama is about to get the newest statue, Helen Keller, which
our people are very proud of. Have all the spots been reserved?
Or how will that decision be made in terms of where the statues
will go in the new Visitor Center? I assume some will be coming
from the Capitol.
Mr. Ayers. You are correct, sir. I think the Joint
Committee on the Library has jurisdiction over that matter. We
have drafted a proposed relocation plan for all of the statues
that we think should be moved and an approach to which of them
should be moved; and, ultimately, we need to present that to
the Joint Committee on the Library for their approval.
Mr. Bonner. And would that recommendation come to this
committee just for our eyes or for our thoughts, or is that
appropriate?
Mr. Ayers. I think, from my understanding, the Joint
Committee on the Library has oversight over that matter.
CVC GIFT SHOP PROCEEDS
Mr. Bonner. Okay. Another question is the proceeds from the
gift shop currently go where? Profits?
Mr. Ayers. The Architect of the Capitol currently does not
operate a gift shop.
Mr. Bonner. Okay. There is a gift shop in the basement of
the Capitol.
Mr. Ayers. That is run by the U.S. Capitol Historical
Society.
Mr. Bonner. Historical Society. And so all of those
proceeds stay within the U.S. Capitol Historical Society?
Mr. Ayers. That is my understanding. Is that your
understanding?
Ms. Rouse. That is my understanding.
Mr. Bonner. But there is an enhanced--there is a larger
gift shop in the new Visitor Center, is that right? Is that
still going to be the Capitol Historical Society?
Ms. Rouse. The new gift shops are going to be under the
Capitol Visitor Center and will be managed out of a revolving
account. So that is the goal.
The Capitol Historical Society and the Senate and the House
are some of the material that we are considering to be part of
that shop. Our Gift Shop Manager wants to develop our own
signature products. So that is the configuration of it. We are
awaiting the legislation that gives us the official authority
to do this, but that is the general goal at the moment.
Mr. Bonner. I guess my question is based on, again, a
follow-up to Mr. Latham in terms of the Guide Service. I assume
there will be obviously a need for hiring new guides. Would
there be any way to generate some income out of the gift shop
that would help go to offset the costs for those additional
guides, or would that be an appropriate place to look?
GIFT SHOP PROFITS
Mr. Ayers. Certainly. The Visitor Center has two gift
shops, and we would expect that those gift shops would turn a
profit. The legislation that was recently introduced in the
House creates a revolving fund. So those profits would revolve
back into the CVC so that we would pay for salaries and
expenses, of the people that run the gift shop, for example.
Those profits would not generally go back to the Treasury. It
would be deposited in a revolving fund so that we could reuse
them.
Mr. Bonner. And would that be the same for, like, the
restaurant vendors? Obviously, the restaurant vendors are there
to make a profit and also to provide a service, but will they
be paying a----
Mr. Ayers. They pay a commission.
Mr. Bonner. A commission.
Mr. Ayers. And that commission can also go into the
revolving fund.
TOUR BUS PROCEDURES--HIGH-SECURITY BUILDINGS
Mr. Bonner. And then, finally, just one last point about
the buses, since it has already been mentioned and probably
beaten to death, but I think it would be helpful to know how
the tour buses currently deposit visitors to the Smithsonian
Institute and the White House and the Pentagon, since at least
two of those buildings are also high-security buildings. But
all three, the Smithsonian complex as well as the White House
and the Pentagon, I think it would be helpful to see how they
do that vis-a-vis the connection to the Capitol.
Mr. Ayers. We would be happy to provide that for the
record.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Madam Chair.
COST ESTIMATE FOR TRANSPORTING CVC VISITORS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Bonner.
I think it is worth beating the horse some more, because I
share Mr. Latham and Mr. Bonner's concerns about the distance
that our visitors would have to travel if they are being
dropped off at off-site locations and then, to add insult to
injury, to have to pay more money to get on a different bus.
So, for the record, if you could provide us with a cost
estimate for transporting tourists and the additional police
costs from off-site drop-off points so that we can understand
what the costs of that are and how we can make sure that we
defray the need to have there be a cost for our constituents.
[The information follows:]
cost estimate to transport tourists from remote drop-off sites
Question. What is the cost estimate to transport tourists from
remote drop-off sites to the CVC (including additional costs for USCP)?
Answer. The District of Columbia Department of Transportation
(DDOT) estimates that 10 percent of the estimated three million CVC and
Library of Congress visitors would ride the DC Circulator from Union
Station to the CVC. Currently, the Circulator charges all passengers $1
per trip.
There are a number of options that could be considered to provide
transportation from drop-off sites that would eliminate the need for
riders to pay a fee. This would include federal subsidies to the D.C.
Circulator bus program, or contracting for transportation services on
Capitol Hill. These options could range from $5 million to $10 million
per year. However, additional research to validate cost estimates based
on factors such as CVC operating hours, locations of potential drop-off
locations, frequency of trips, security, routes, etc., would need to be
conducted. Once these factors were established, we would work with
Oversight Committees and Congressional Leadership to determine the best
course of action and the associated costs.
SECURITY AND THE PEOPLE'S INSTITUTION
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And then, also, I have to agree with
Mr. Bonner, I was not here during the argument over the fences,
but that argument always comes back, and I know the Capitol
Police has expressed concern about it. And we do have to--this
is not Disney World. This is the United States Capitol, and we
have to really be very focused on security. But this is the
people's institution. And I know the vast majority of Members
that I have asked and spoken to--because I have sought out
opinions--is that this needs to be as open and accessible a
place as we can make it.
So the idea of people--I mean, I have 8-year olds and they
are approaching the years in which their school will come up
here; and I see little kids and young children come up on
school trips all the time. The idea of them walking from Union
Station or from the White House or having to pay even more
money to get on a shuttle when they have already gone to
considerable expense to come to Washington in the first place
on a field trip, I think that is just over the top.
So if you could provide that information for the record for
us, that would be great.
I have just a few more questions. I can get through them
before we need to go vote, and then we can recess.
CANNON TUNNEL ACCESS
The status of Cannon tunnel and whether it will be open or
closed and whether the only access point for the CVC would be
the entrance to the CVC, where are we on that? Because I know
we continue to have debate and discussion about our
constituents standing in the elements, the heat, the cold, the
rain, and there is still a concern that if the Cannon tunnel is
closed we are either going to fry, freeze, or soak our
constituents. And none of those things are desirable, because
it is us that will have to hear from them, and it will be
understandable.
So, Ms. Rouse, can you discuss the status of the traffic
flow into the CVC?
Ms. Rouse. I have limited information on it. At the moment,
through the tunnels on the Cannon side, it is still a
discussion between the Committee on House Administration and
the Capitol Police on how they will traffic in. I will try to
get back to you on where they are on that.
CVC TRAFFIC FLOW
Ms. Rouse. On the trafficking into the CVC, one of the
advantages that we now have is that we have eight magnetometers
and what we think is going to be an ability to constantly move
people. So I do not anticipate long lines in front of the CVC
at all. We need to get people in the building, and that will be
the objective of the Capitol Police as well as the staff.
Our ability to have Visitor Assistants greeting people at
their buses allows us to move people in. So there should not
ever be cases where long lines of people have passed out in the
heat anymore. So I think that that should no longer be an
issue.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. If you can respond for the
record in detail on what the status is of Cannon tunnel and its
utilization for our constituents to enter the CVC, since there
is going to be an entrance to the CVC, which I know the Capitol
Police would like only to be for staff and Members.
[The information follows:]
use of cannon tunnel for tourists
Question. What is the status of utilizing the Cannon Tunnel for
tourist queuing and access?
Answer. We have been in contact with U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) who
have been working with the House Sergeant at Arms regarding this issue.
U.S. Capitol Police Chief Phillip D. Morse, Sr., provided the following
information.
The U.S. Capitol Police are gearing up for the opening of the CVC
and we plan to welcome the American public with courteous, efficient,
and safe security. We are grateful for the authorization of an
additional 21 sworn FTE in the FY 2008 Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 110-161. These 21 sworn FTE support the
USCP's CVC operational plan, which is based on current operational
planning assumptions.
Since 2005, the Department's planning has centered on the
assumption that all tours would originate within the CVC. As a part of
previous planning decisions, which did not support staff-led tours
through the tunnels, 10 positions were moved from the tunnel posts to
staff other posts within the CVC.
The Department's FY 2009 budget request identifies the requirement
for 10 additional sworn FTE in anticipation of a change in the CVC's
overall operational plan that we understand will support staff-led
tours through the Cannon/Russell Tunnels to the Capitol. These staffing
requirements are based on the planning scenarios contained in the
written testimony of Chief Morse, prepared for the CVC oversight
hearing of November 14, 2007.
PAVER UPDATE
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The status of the pavers. We talked
a couple times at these hearings about the damage to the pavers
out on the plaza and who is going to be responsible for paying
to fix them, and I have not asked about it for a while because
I know that was a down-the-road issue that was going to be
addressed. But we are getting down the road now, so I am going
to ask.
Mr. Ungar. Yes, ma'am, we are expecting a report this week
from the firm that we have had analyzing that situation. So we
will be in a position to discuss that next week for sure--
hopefully, next week.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Has fault been assigned?
Mr. Ungar. What we have asked the consultant to do is look
at the causes of the problem, why it exists, and then how to
fix it. So we should have its opinion on the reasons, and
responsibility, for the problem.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Latham, I am not sure how
familiar you are with this problem, but there are hundreds of
cracked--I mean, it is hundreds of cracked pavers out on the
plaza that should have been designed to withstand the weight of
a vehicle and apparently were not, so that when they used the
area as a staging area in the last inauguration when the CVC
was actually supposed to have been opened, the vehicles
actually cracked the pavers. So now we are struggling to
resolve that.
HOUSE HEARING ROOM DELAYS
The House Hearing Room, I am getting a little worried that
we have some continuing delays cropping up with completing the
House Hearing Room. What is the source of those delays and how
significant of a problem is it? Because I know that that has
been the space that we were thinking was not going to impact
the overall schedule, but I am worried that if things keep
cropping up that it would.
And, Mr. Dorn, if you can respond to both the paver
question and this one when he is done.
Mr. Ungar. Who you do want to go first?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You go first.
Mr. Ungar. On the House Hearing Room, we have had some
structural issues with the dais that caused a bit of delay and
some other problems there we had to resolve engineering-wise.
But at this point in time, we are expecting the hearing room to
be completed in May except for two items on the dais, and that
is going to be the leather and the bronze grilles.
There is a lead time to get those items. At this point, we
expect those items to be done by the end of July at the latest,
but we can keep you posted on that. They should not affect the
opening of the CVC at this point.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. We have got 5 minutes left to
vote, so I need to ask you to succinctly answer the questions.
Thank you.
Mr. Dorn. On the pavers, I am looking forward to seeing
that report. Whether it is a design issue or a construction
issue we do not know yet, and I suppose that is what the report
is going to help us determine.
On the House Hearing Room, the dates that Bernie are
talking about do not delay opening. If they are done by the end
of July, there is still another 3-month period between that
July date and planned opening, so they should be fine.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you very much.
Well, I appreciate the update. I think we both appreciate
the update. I am really pleased to see that we are still on
track and within budget. The management of the CVC seems to be
going well now.
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE PRE-INSPECTION UPDATE
Actually, one more thing. The OOC, I know they have come in
to do their pre-inspections. What is your perception on how the
pre-inspections are going?
Mr. Ayers. From my perspective, they are going fine. I met
just last week with Tamara Chrisler and Pete Eveleth and talked
through some of that. So I think they are going fine.
We got their first report. There were a variety of issues
in their first report; and Bernie has been working very, very
closely with them over the last few days since we received that
report.
Maybe you can give a quick summary.
Mr. Ungar. Yes, Madam Chair, we basically have got the
report. We are going to meet with them hopefully next week and
work out a mutually agreed upon course of action to make sure
that they do all the inspections they need to do and that the
items are corrected that we need to correct.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Great. They also felt it was
going well. I just wanted to make sure that you agreed.
CHAIR CLOSING REMARKS
What I would like you to do, because I think the
communication has been incredibly helpful in terms of keeping
the project on track and keeping us informed so that we can
really understand what is going on and conduct the best
oversight that we can, so since we are concerned about the
issues that are cropping up in the final acceptance testing and
there is a potential cost impact and schedule impact, even
though I know that you are not expecting it to be--this is not
a criticism of the project team, you know, it would be a
surprise if nothing came up. I mean, this is a mammoth project
and the testing--I am surprised, actually, that more problems
have not come up, to be honest with you. But we want to just
make sure that we are staying on track.
So, Mr. Ayers, if you could provide a quick review of your
cost to complete estimate and report back by Friday, March
28th, if there are any changes to the estimate both in terms of
the total $621 million number as well as how much contingency
you believe is left after accounting for issues that have come
up since you last revised the estimate.
If you could coordinate the estimate with GAO so everybody
is on the same page. Just so that we know we are really closely
guarding the estimate and making sure that we are really still
on track.
So, with that, Mr. Latham, do you have anything else?
Mr. Latham. No.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. The subcommittee stands in
recess until 10:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, when we will have our
hearing in H-144 on the House's budget.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 13, 2008.
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WITNESSES
DANIEL P. BEARD, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
LORRAINE C. MILLER, CLERK, OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WILSON S. LIVINGOOD, SERGEANT AT ARMS, OFFICE OF THE SERGEANT AT ARMS
JAMES J. CORNELL, INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
IRVIN NATHAN, GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
PETER G. LEFEVRE, LAW REVISION COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE LAW REVISION
COUNSEL
M. POPE BARROW, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
JOHN EISOLD, ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, OFFICE OF THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN
Opening Remarks--Chair Wasserman Schultz
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I would like to call this hearing of
the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations to order.
This morning we are going to hear from the officers of the
House: Ms. Lorraine Miller, the Clerk of the House; Bill
Livingood, the House Sergeant at Arms; and Dan Beard, the Chief
Administrative Officer of the House.
The House is asking for a $1.3 billion appropriation--a
$151 million, or 13 percent, increase over the fiscal year 2008
enacted level. That includes a variety of items: some new and
expanded benefits that I know Mr. Beard is going to detail; a
couple million dollars for the Greening of the Capitol
Initiative; $17 million for transition services following the
2008 elections when we have new Members come and have to move
Members' offices; and $5 million for the Speaker's Wounded
Warrior program, which I am really excited about.
We are looking forward to hearing from the three of you.
We have a full agenda, and I have a full day. I don't know
about you, Mr. Latham. Do you have any remarks?
Opening Remarks--Mr. Latham
Mr. Latham. Just to thank the witnesses for all of their
hard work and that of their staffs to make us able to carry out
our constitutional responsibilities here.
And we have a lot of competing requests for funding, and it
is going to be a difficult year. We welcome the entire panel
this morning.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We have received your statements,
and they will be entered into the record.
[The statements of Mr. Cornell, Mr. Nathan, Mr. LeFevre,
and Mr. Barrow follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And, Mr. Lewis, welcome to the
committee.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do you have any remarks?
Mr. Lewis. I generally don't have opening remarks, but I am
pleased to hear the panel.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you for joining us this
morning.
We will proceed under the 5-minute rule.
Ms. Miller, welcome to the committee.
Opening Statement--Ms. Miller
Ms. Miller. Good morning. Thank you.
First of all, I would like to thank the subcommittee for
its continuing assistance in support of the Office of the
Clerk. I have served as your Clerk for the past year, and I
truly believe that there is probably no higher calling. It is a
high honor to do this.
So I want to take my 5 minutes to highlight the things that
we are doing in the Office of the Clerk. And the first one I
want to raise with you is our lobbying disclosure and
electronic filing.
ELECTRONIC LOBBYING FILING
If you remember, with the Honest Leadership and Open
Government legislation, that required us to retool what we do
in order to accommodate the some-20,000 lobbyists that will
file with the Office of the Clerk and the Secretary of the
Senate. That meant that we had to purchase new servers. This
has been a collaborative effort with the Secretary of the
Senate in order to do that.
So what we did--the House serves as the main port, and the
lobbying community then need not file with the Clerk and the
Secretary of the Senate separately. They send one filing, and
we distribute it jointly. It is much easier on the filing
community, and we thought that was a project that we had to
spend a little extra, $323,000, to get the kind of server
because the legislation required that the information that we
make available is sortable, downloadable and manipulated in a
way that people could get it in various functions. So that has
been one of our main targets, trying to get that going, up and
coming.
As of our February 14, 2008 filing deadline, we had 19,300
filers that filed successfully, with a 93 percent completion
rate.
We are now in preparation for the May 2008 financial
disclosure filings that are coming up, where we will--we have
been working with the Standards Committee to make sure there
are some additional warnings in light of some companies that
are putting our filings on PDF.
florence kahn portrait
As you will remember, last year we completed the
publication of ``Women in Congress.'' We have three other
publications that are in the pipeline. Hopefully, in September,
we will release the ``Black Americans in Congress.'' We have
``Hispanic Americans in Congress''; ``Asian and Pacific
Islander Americans in Congress.''
I am so pleased to announce that we are commissioning a
portrait of former Congresswoman Florence Kahn. Ms. Kahn
represented San Francisco in the early 1920s, and she was the
first woman to serve on the Appropriations Committee, the first
woman to serve on the then-Military Affairs Committee, and was
the first Jewish woman to serve in Congress. So we are
commissioning her portrait.
CLERK LIBRARY FACILITY
As the subcommittee knows, one of the duties of the Clerk
is to maintain the legislative and reference facilities. We
wanted to let the subcommittee know that our library facility
needs attention. We are working with the Architect of the
Capitol and will come back to the subcommittee at some later
date about a plan that we feel will make sense for what we need
to do with the library.
HEARINGS AND VACANCIES IN THE 110TH CONGRESS
On our day-to-day operations, real quick, during the first
session of the 110th Congress, we had 1,186 recorded votes.
This is 28 votes shy of the total number of votes we held
during both sessions of the 109th.
Since January 2007 to December 2007, the first session of
the 110th, the House held 2,373 committee hearings. And in 2006
there were only 1,513 hearings. This is a 57 percent increase
in hearings this year. If you look at just this week, we had
100-plus hearings. On Tuesday of this week, wehad 37 hearings
in the House alone.
Ms. Lee. We know. Thank you very much. [Laughter.]
Ms. Miller. The House has had eight vacancies in the first
session of the 110th, as compared to nine vacancies during the
entire 109th. This year, we have had to fill three vacancies in
2008: Louisiana 1, Louisiana 6 and California 12. We have two
vacancies that will be filled this week, Illinois and Indiana.
CLERK'S BUDGET REQUEST
On our budget request: Our request is $24,897,000, a small
pittance for the amount of great work that the Clerk's Office
does for the Congress.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. She says modestly.
Ms. Miller. Modestly.
This includes our COLA adjustments. Our budget basically is
centered around our personnel, so our personnel budget increase
is about $1,867,000.
From that, we have some nonpersonnel expenses that are
included: $747,000 to pay for our closed captioning. We are
looking for $300,000 for our regularly scheduled computer
replacement program.
And we have already allocated approximately $900,000 for
Official Reporters. What happens, with the amount of hearings
that we are having, when our office is not able to accommodate
the capacity of all this, we contract out. And so we have
$900,000 but we went to $1 million, because, depending on the
flow of the hearings, we need to be able to accommodate.
With that, I await your questions.
[Ms. Miller's statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Ms. Miller. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Beard.
Opening Statement--Mr. Beard
Mr. Beard. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the
subcommittee. I am pleased to appear here today on behalf of
the budget request for the House as well as the Office of the
Chief Administrative Officer.
BENEFITS PACKAGE FOR HOUSE EMPLOYEES
There are five priorities I wanted to talk about that are
in our budget. The first is achieving parity in benefits
between House employees and other executive branch employees.
The House of Representatives I think has some of the most
dedicated and committed employees in Government; yet, their
benefits are simply not on par with those of many of their
contemporaries working for other Federal agencies.
Those working for the executive branch, for example, enjoy
an array of benefits that include: a $10,000 annual student
loan repayment program--ours is capped at $6,000; a tuition
reimbursement program; employer compensation for professional
accreditation and dues; transit parking; child care assistance
for low-wage workers; and paychecks every 2 weeks.
Other legislative branch entities, such as the Capitol
Police, the Architect of the Capitol and some others, enjoy
some of these benefits, but House employees do not. Therefore,
we are asking for $19 million to strengthen our benefits
package and bring House employees up to par with the employees
in the executive branch agencies.
WOUNDED WARRIOR PROGRAM
The second priority we have is employing our wounded
warriors. Many injured men and women returning from combat
tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are challenged by their re-entry
into the civilian workforce. Speaker Pelosi wants the House to
be an employer that values the courageous sacrifices these
veterans have made through their service to our country. The
Wounded Warrior program, for which we are requesting $5
million, will accomplish her goal.
I am pleased today to introduce retired Marine Corps Master
Gunnery Sergeant Patricia Orsini, who is down here. Patricia
has joined our staff and will be the individual heading up the
Wounded Warrior program. Her job is going to be placing wounded
warriors in positions throughout the House and helping them
develop the skills for long-term employment, either in the
public or private sector.
HEARING ROOM MODERNIZATION
The third item in the House budget that I think is worth
noting is our hearing room modernization program. Members and
constituents have come to expect a high level of broadcast
quality and recording quality of congressional hearings. And,
as Lorraine mentioned, the number of congressional hearings
that we have had, in the last year anyway, has been a
significant increase.
So, in addition to wanting to record and broadcast those
hearings, Members have a significant interest in archiving and
distribution capabilities associated with those visual images.
In our budget request, we are requesting $20 million to
complete the upgrade and remodel of at least the main hearing
room for all the committees in the Congress. The seven that we
have left to do are Armed Services, Budget, Education and
Labor, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Oversight, and
Science.
The funds we are requesting will also link all of the
previously upgraded committee hearing rooms back to the House
Recording Studio control room facilities, where hearings can be
converted into Web streams or broadcasts and portions of the
hearings can be clipped and archived and made available to
Members for whatever reason they want.
NEW MEMBER INITIATIVE
The fourth initiative that we have in the budget, which was
briefly mentioned by the Chair, is our New Member Initiative.
The successful onboarding of the new Members of the 111th
Congress is going to require at least $4.7 million. But, in
addition to that, we want to help new Members and their staff
hit the ground running. So we are requesting $14 million to
significantly increase our assistance to these new Members.
This would include improving the cabling, computer cabling
and server configuration in their district and D.C. Offices;
the installation of phone, financial and computer systems for
their offices; as well as the assistance through the CAO for
financial services and technical services; and supplies for
their offices, so that when they walk in the door they can get
about the most important thing to do, which is to hire staff,
to be able to begin to undertake and represent their districts.
Too often it takes Members months and months to get
adjusted, to purchase all the equipment, to look at the various
alternatives that they have available to them. And we have
found that, as we go forward in the first year, we have to have
a lot of expenditures associated with going into those offices
and helping them throughout the first part of the year to get
adjusted and to get all the requirements in place. So we would
just as soon be able to go in early, get it done, the Member
can walk in the door. And they can make changes as they go
forward, but at least they would be able to start out that way.
GREEN THE CAPITOL
The final initiative is the Green the Capitol initiative.
We are asking for continued support for that effort, with a
total of $2 million.
We have made real progress in the first 6 months. The goal
of the initiative is to make the House carbon-neutral at the
end of the 110th Congress. And, with the support of this
subcommittee, we are purchasing renewable power, converting to
natural gas at the power plant for our needs, and we have
purchased carbon-offset credits and phased in an array of
energy-saving improvements.
We will continue to go forward with a number of different
initiatives in fiscal year 2009, including a review of our food
service operations and systems, our transportation activities,
procurement, as well as many of our business practices. The aim
in each case is to save energy, save taxpayer money, and to
improve the overall health and quality of the workplace for our
workforce.
That concludes my testimony.
[Mr. Beard's statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Livingood.
Opening Statement--Mr. Livingood
Mr. Livingood. Good morning, Madam Chair, Mr. Latham and
Ms. Lee. It is a pleasure to be here this morning and to appear
before you to discuss the Office of the Sergeant at Arms budget
request for fiscal year 2009.
Since I last spoke to you, we have made significant
progress in the areas regarding emergency planning. First of
all, we have been developing proposals to provide evacuation
modeling of the Longworth, Cannon, Rayburn and Ford Buildings
and the Capitol. The goal of this model is to model all three
protective actions, such as evacuate, shelter in place, and
relocation. We are progressing and have come up with an RFP,
which we have not put out yet because there is no funding for
this, but we have been moving along on that. And I think it
will be a big help for us, with the Capitol Police.
We are continuing to work with the CAO's office to review
new and emerging alert technology for notifications. We will be
conducting further evaluation of the CAO's existing Roam Secure
Alert notification system.
Additionally, we have joined efforts with the Architect of
the Capitol, Fire Marshal, and the Capitol Police and reached
out to every office on the House side and the Capitol regarding
evacuation procedures. The offices and committees were issued
updated evacuation route maps, which detailed their primary and
alternate evacuation routes, as well as maps of the building
assembly areas. Each office has an assembly area.
After a recent fire drill, we saw a need to modify several
evacuation routes in both the Cannon and the Longworth, and had
the Capitol Police revisit some of those offices to change
their routes so the stairways weren't as clogged as they had
been.
We have also provided updated information on evacuation for
mobility-impaired persons. We are working to possibly develop a
floor warden program to assist staff and visitors during an
evacuation of the House Office Buildings. And we continue to
improve our evacuation plans almost weekly.
To accomplish this mission and the goals of my office, the
total funding requested for fiscal year 2009 is $8,480,000.
This consists of $7,345,000 for personnel expenses and
$1,135,000 for nonpersonnel expenses, with an overall increase
from fiscal year 2008 of $1,614,000.
This increase is due in part to the request for 15 new FTEs
needed to support the Sergeant at Arms operations in the CVC,
Capitol Visitor Center, as well as the need to fund contracted
service dealing with emergency planning and preparedness.
In closing, I want to thank the committee again for the
privilege of appearing here today. And I think each of you know
how deeply I consider it an honor to serve this institution.
I want to assure you of our constant vigilance and
continued dedication for the safety and security of all
Members, staff and visitors, with continued studies being done
for improvements in all these areas.
At this time, I would be happy to answer any questions
about the budget.
[Mr. Livingood's statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much, Mr. Livingood.
And I really just have to, before I ask you a couple
questions, commend all three of you. Because, as the officers
of the House, you have been charged with a tremendous
responsibility to take care of the Members and to take care of
the administration of the legislative process, which is an
awesome responsibility. And the three of you are doing an
absolutely fantastic job of that. So we appreciate it.
STAFF FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES ON THE INTERNET
Ms. Miller, my first question is for you, and it is a two-
phased question. There has been some concern--I remember a few
weeks ago I read in one of the newspapers about a Web site that
put up financial disclosure forms online of, not just the
Members--which comes with the territory when you are an elected
official--but also the officers, the reporting individuals, the
senior staff who also have to do that. The concern was that
they put, I think, personal information up on their Web site,
including Social Security numbers and very personal financial
information, even the backup material.
I was really glad to read a couple weeks later that your
office--that you have been negotiating with the Web site and
brought a resolution to that. So can you talk about that?
And also, because I know there have been concerns about the
House page program since I got here, if you can talk about the
improvements that have been made in the House page program and
what we can look forward to with that.
Ms. Miller. Great. Two of my favorite subjects.
LegiStorm. We have discovered part of what anybody can do
is go to our Legislative Resource Center and fill out a form,
and they have access to Member filings. When you file your
financial disclosures, it is a public record, and so we give
it.
But we discovered--and Lenny Shambon is our new legal
counsel in the Office of the Clerk, and he just joined us about
2 weeks ago, walked right into this. What Lenny initially did,
when we discovered these filings were up on PDF, we immediately
went to try to figure out what Members were affected. So we
literally, over the weekend, just went through every filing we
had in 2007, Member and the senior staffs. And we discovered
about 21 Members were affected by it.
And we discovered that some of the staff had been calling
LegiStorm independently. They saw this, and they were very
concerned.
Lenny was able to negotiate with LegiStorm to say, ``Look,
this is some personal information that you have of Members and
senior staff. It needs to come down.''
So we went to the meticulousness of finding the exact page
of a Member's financial disclosure. And I will use Mr.
Sensenbrenner. Mr. Sensenbrenner redacted a lot of the
information in his financial disclosure, but at the bottom of
the page, in very small lettering, was the account number and
the name of the trust, with his name on it.
So Lenny negotiated, and we came in over the weekend, went
through all the financial disclosures, got them typed up. He
faxed that over----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. How many were there?
Ms. Miller. There were about 21 Members.
Lenny, what was it?
Mr. Shambon. There were 26. Out of the 440 Members and
delegates, 26 had attachments that could have been exposed; 12
had exposed numbers.
Ms. Miller. And we went through all of the disclosures to
find this information out, faxed it over to them on Friday
night. By Sunday night, Monday morning, they had been taken out
from the Web site.
Moving forward--I mean, that was a fire drill in order to
protect our privacy. Moving forward, there is still a lot of
concern among some of the staff that names of their children,
their personal addresses are still there. And we are working
with LegiStorm to get that done.
Moving forward, what we are trying to do as we prepare for
the May filings, to put something on the filing report, or as
you fill out the paperwork, that the individual filer knows
that you have to be very careful about your personal
information and redact it.
The other part of this is that we are trying to come up
with--in working with the Ethics Committee, we discovered also
people's signature was on there. And so we discovered a
little--well, it is not a trick, but a little facet in the
printing where there is a certain block that we can put a
little machinations over, and as you sign the form, once it is
copied it goes dark, so that signature is not exposed.
So we are trying to use things like that to help. But what
we are really having to do is to do a much better public
relations job to inform Members and the senior staff that file,
``Be careful of the public information.'' This was innocently
done, I think, on Members' part who just didn't know. And we
had some Members that had thousand-page attachments that were
exposed; they had security matters.
PAGE PROGRAM
Now, to my favorite topic, the page program. The Republican
Leader has given us two new Members to the Page Board, two
excellent Members who have an educational background, Ms. Foxx
and Mr. Bishop.
After our little controversy, the Speaker and the
Republican Leader had asked for the IG to do a study, kind of
investigate what actually happened. And out of that came two
major recommendations: That we tighten up on the regs for our
residence hall staff, and that we actually hire a deputy clerk
who would have sole responsibility of reviewing and oversight
of the page program--the totality of the page program. The page
program is divided into three segments: The work, the school,
and the residence hall.
So we are in the process--we have about 37 candidates,
applicants for the deputy page slot. We have decided--and we
have been pretty thrifty in trying to figure out how we pay for
this. So we are rearranging priorities within our budget so we
will pay for the remainder of the year of this deputy clerk
slot, this new addition.
And we are continuing our--since last summer, we have been,
I guess since June, maybe April, with the cooperation of the
Sergeant at Arms, doing a robust security evaluation of the
residence hall. So we have gone through, we have created a
whole new system where the residence hall staff can actually
see the ingress/egress of the students leaving the dorm. It is
phenomenal, the work we have been doing. But it has been over a
lot of months.
And that is basically where we are. We have got, I think,
an excellent program. You have to see the kids. Once they come
in, they are a little starry-eyed. But once they leave, you see
that they really get this. They really do. And it is a great
program. And we are going to work on improving it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Great. Thank you very much.
Mr. Latham.
Mr. Latham. I just hope the pages aren't totally skewed for
their lives after they have been around here.
You said you had 26 Members that had their information,
personal information, disclosed. How many staff people?
Ms. Miller. There were, let's see--do any of you know
offhand?
Mr. Shambon. The Members who had errors were 12--
nonredacted Members. And all 12 of them had gotten on the
LegiStorm site. For the staff, out of the 3,219 filings, 68 had
errors, and 30 of those 68 had numbers on the site.
MEMBERS' REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCE
Mr. Latham. Mr. Beard, in January, there was a
reprogramming request for $14.4 million, as far as the MRAs,
because of the shortfall in 2008.
Can you assure us that there is not going to be any other
shortfall for the MRAs for the remaining portion of this year?
Mr. Beard. Well, I think, for the remainder of this year,
no, I think we are in good shape.
But, you know, the MRA is probably the most complicated
account we have, because we have to guesstimate about 18 months
in advance what rate the Members are going to spend at, include
that in the request, and then it goes to this committee. But
then the Committee on House Administration actually sets the
level with the authorization.
So, as we have gone through this series of continuing
resolutions, the difference between the authorization and
appropriations has been narrowing, and that was one of the
reasons that there is a request this year for an increase from
a lot of the Members.
We are going to do our best to avoid it; let me just put it
that way.
Mr. Latham. Are there any other accounts, different select
committees or anything like that, that are going to have a
shortfall?
Mr. Beard. No. The committee accounts are in good shape.
And the Select Committee on the August 2nd Vote as well as the
Select Committee on Global Warming are in good shape.
Mr. Latham. Your request of $590.6 million, do you know
what percentage of the authorization that is--how that compares
historically to the percentage of the authorization?
Mr. Beard. This is for the MRA?
Mr. Latham. Right.
Mr. Beard. It is 92 or 93 percent, somewhere around there.
That is what we shoot for. It is usually 92 or 93 percent of
the authorization.
Mr. Latham. My understanding is that it is about 91
percent. Historically, it has been 92 or 93, which would
potentially lead us to another shortfall next year. But
hopefully that doesn't happen.
CAO PRIORITIES
You listed the priorities here. Is this list with new
initiatives, the order of your budget priorities? I mean, we
are going to be under real pressure, obviously, as far as our
budget. How would you prioritize?
Mr. Beard. Well, if asked to go back and prioritize, I
guess I had better go back and rearrange the list. And I think
there are a number of people----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You will be asked to prioritize.
Mr. Beard. Okay, well, that is fine. I am happy to do it.
No, they weren't presented in any particular order of
importance.
I think that some are new, but some are, like the committee
program, an attempt to continue and finish an activity that was
started several years ago. And we wanted to put renewed
emphasis on it.
Mr. Latham. If you could, actually, prioritize.
Mr. Beard. Sure.
[The information follows:]
questions from the hearing from mr. tom latham
In response to a request for prioritization of new initiatives,
please see the following chart:
NEW INITIATIVES PRIORITY RANK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority New Initiatives Account FY09 Budget Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................. Speaker's Wounded A&E.......................... $5,000,000
Warrior Program:
Operations.
2.............................. Benefits Enhancements: A&E.......................... 4,000,000
Student Loan Program
Increase to $10,000
annual & $60,000
career cap.
3.............................. Benefits Enhancements: A&E.......................... 7,500,000
Tuition Reimbursement.
4.............................. Benefits Enhancements: A&E.......................... 5,040,000
Centralized Transit
Benefits.
5.............................. Benefits Enhancements: A&E.......................... 1,650,000
Parking Benefits.
6.............................. Benefits Enhancements: A&E.......................... 500,000
Child Care Subsidy
Program.
7.............................. Greening Operations & SOE.......................... 2,000,000
Initiatives.
8.............................. New Member Office A&E.......................... 13,884,000
Initiative.
9.............................. Hearing Room Standing Committees.......... 19,087,000
Renovations: Implement
Capabilities ($14.8M)
& Initial 12 Months of
Operations ($4.2M).
10............................. Benefits Enhancements: A&E.......................... 200,000
LifeCare Resource and
Referral Services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
house metering project
Mr. Latham. In the greening of the Capitol, you include
$100,000 to verify the proper operation and data from the new
Architect of the Capitol metering system.
Do you need to monitor what they are monitoring? I don't
understand why they can't do it.
Mr. Beard. Well, as you know, they submitted a metering
request. It has been under advisement here with the committee,
and I think the committee has finally approved the
reprogramming by reducing the number.
We have been involved with them in a number of different
metering activities, particularly in some of our computer
facilities. And we meter those as well, and we want to make
sure that we are consistent with what the Architect of the
Capitol has in place.
The overall issue here is, in the 1992 energy bill, the
2005 and the 2007 energy bills, we were directed to put meters
in place to evaluate energy consumption and use in Federal
buildings. And we have Federal buildings, and we need to verify
and coordinate with the AOC as they undertake those activities,
particularly in our facilities, our computer facilities help
and other locations that we have.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Ms. Lee.
Remarks by Ms. Lee
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
And let me associate myself with the Chair's comments with
regard to our gratitude for all of the work that you all do
every day. You know, so often we take for granted, staff and
Members, the type of work behind the scene that is involved
just to make this place run efficiently, smoothly and without
as many complications that an institution such as the Capitol
could afford. So thank you all very much.
And also to Ms. Miller, this is Women's History Month, and
I just want to congratulate you and salute you for being such a
role model for women throughout the country.
Ms. Miller. Thank you.
STAFF COLA
Ms. Lee. Let me ask you about the COLA for staff. How does
that work between leg branch and House Administration, and how
do we know what to really expect? Lots of staff have wanted to
know that. Because I have no clue. And you know what happened
this year: We thought it would be one thing, staff thought--and
then it came out something else, and we had to go back and,
sort of, hassle a little bit.
And then let me ask Mr. Beard a couple questions, and you
can answer them all together.
I fully support the enhanced benefit package for staff,
because all of us know that our staff could make a lot more
money and receive a heck of a lot more benefits doing other
things. And it is so important to retain staff. All of us know,
staff, they want to stay but oftentimes they can't stay,
strictly because of the economics of it. So, whatever it takes,
I hope that we can move forward with this piece of the budget
proposal.
With regard to the alternative pay dates, I just wanted to
get from you the status of what we had asked for last year in
the omnibus bill, in terms of coming back, looking at what the
kinks were in the existing payroll system, and what the
proposal could or should be from you.
And then how the minority women-owned business program
works within your agency. You know, given the fact that we
finally, last year, thanks to the Chair and all of us, got in
language asking for the inclusion of minority- and women-owned
businesses in procurement and vendors and in all of the
operations of the Capitol.
Mr. Beard. The COLA, really, we tee off the President's
number. Whatever the President's number is is what we tee off
at. But it is complicated here by the fact that we have a
Speaker's pay order that sets a cap, and then everything, sort
of, cascades down from there. We have to work also with the
Committee on House Administration, too, as to the exact number.
So it is, like most things around here, a very active--there
are a lot of people stirring the soup pot, so to speak.
ENHANCED STAFF BENEFITS PACKAGE
With respect to benefits, I think it is important for us to
recognize, historically, we have almost been like a minor
league here. We hire people, they come in, they learn the
skills, they make the contacts, build the relationships, and
then they spin out and go downtown, to then only come back up
here and lobby us again, or whatever it is that they do. But
they learn a skill, and they make a valuable career out of it.
Every employee we lose is, you know--you have to look, in
personnel and management consulting work, they generally
consider that the cost of a lost employee is about a year, 1
year's salary to 1\1/2\ years' salary. And that is what it
costs to recruit, train, get the new employee back up to speed
so that the institution can move forward.
And I think that it hurts the institution overall every
time we lose these people. So that is why we have put so much
emphasis on this. We want to keep and retain employees to the
maximum extent we can.
We started just with the issue of parity with the executive
branch. We are not asking for anything that some other Federal
agency doesn't have. And we went through and canvassed all the
Federal agencies to see what benefits they had and how that
compared to ours, and the priority of what it is we would like
to give our employees.
MINORITY- AND WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS POLICY
And minority- and women-owned businesses--as a result of
your work last year, we set a policy internally. We monitor
that on a regular basis. And we have improved our performance,
but it is nowhere near what it should be. And we are on target
to deliver the report that was requested on time.
Ms. Lee. Good. What is the deadline again? Was it March?
Mr. Beard. The initial one has already been presented.
Ms. Lee. Okay.
Mr. Beard. But the other one, I think, is in March or
April.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis.
Remarks by Mr. Lewis
Mr. Lewis. I do have a couple of questions.
I wanted to mention, that, for at least a dozen years Vic
Fazio and I worked together on this subcommittee, he being the
Chairman and I had the privilege of being the ranking member.
One instance that occurred is very much reflective of some of
our current difficulties in the House. The legislative branch
subcommitee does represent all the Members' interests here, as
well as their staffs'. Vic and I were upstairs discussing the
committee business as we were going to the markup, and a call
came in from the then-Speaker Jim Wright. The issue of the
moment, Members' pay raises, was swirling around the House. And
Jim called Vic to let him know that he decided, under pressure,
to take a poll of the Members and make it public. Well, when
Vic hung up, we agreed with each other that that might be very
close to the end of Wright's speakership. [Laughter.]
So these things go on within this branch, from time to
time.
CAO REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCE
Mr. Beard, I note that you have requested a
representational allowance, an item that hasn't been in the
budget for a while, or I think maybe since CAO has operated.
The amount is not a lot of money, but it is $10,000, which is
the equivalent of the Majority and the Minority Leaders'
funding for this kind of activity. $5,000 is more than the
Majority and the Minority Whips.
So, explain to the committee why the request for a
representation allowance. What will you do with it?
Mr. Beard. We thought the other accounts were $10,000, and
that is why mine was. The other officers have representational
allowances of, I think it is, $3,000 each. And my request was
to establish a representational account.
There are occasions when there are----
Mr. Lewis. The question, though, is why.
Mr. Beard. As we have guests and visitors who come here,
particularly foreign guests and visitors, meeting with the
representatives from the Mexican Senate, the German Bundestag
and a number of other organizations, there is usually an
exchange of gifts, and we present them something from our
supply store and so forth. But those can't be charged back to
the account, so I pay for them out of my pocket.
And the other officers have small amounts of money, $3,000
I think it is, for that.
Mr. Lewis. Okay.
APPROPRIATONS COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM SPACE IN THE CVC
Madam Chairman, yesterday, Ms. Lee and I spent time
together over in the Rayburn Building. The Secretary of State
was with us, which, to most of us, was important. There was
craziness going on in the House. There were votes going on. And
it crystallized in my mind that there is an item that you and,
I think, really, the majority members should consider, and you
can do something about it.
I don't want to speak for him, but I believe the Chairman
of the full committee really hasn't been in favor of a thing
called the CVC. Nonetheless, we are going forward with it; it
is here. It sure seems to me that the committee is crazy not to
insist that the Appropriations Committee have space for hearing
rooms in that CVC that are adequate.
I mean, to have the Secretary of State and Barbara and I
running back and forth was nuts. And the time is now; it is not
going to be later.
So I would urge the committee, with your staff and
otherwise, first do some homework and then go from there. I
think we could really serve the Appropriations Committee very
well if we could.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. An intense lobbying campaign has
commenced.
Mr. Lewis. That is very good. If there is anything I can do
to help, or get out of the way, please let me know.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. I can't believe I am going to be asking this
other question, but my staff wanted me to because we have had
all kinds of calls regarding it.
COFFEE BRAND SERVED BY RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES
Mr. Beard, I understand that we have, one way or another,
made a decision about the kind of coffee we deliver in the
House. Now, I deliver coffee that I buy for my staff in my
office, so there is no issue in my office. But lots of Members
apparently don't like the change in the coffee. And,
apparently, this was done without a bidding process. And I am
hearing that, at one time, we had very fancy coffee and now we
have very common coffee.
So, would you explain that to the committee, as well?
Mr. Beard. Yes, I would be happy to.
When we moved to the new food service vendor in December, a
request was made to us to consider putting in what is called
``free trade'' coffee.
And we then had a number of different vendors, we had nine
different vendors who offered coffee to a blind taste test of
about 50 staff people who came.
Mr. Lewis. I am sorry I am asking this question.
Mr. Beard. Yeah. [Laughter.]
And the one that was selected was Pura Vida coffee. But we
also continue to serve Starbucks coffee in The Creamery.
Ms. Lee. May I ask, was Peet's Coffee in that taste test?
Mr. Beard. I honestly don't know which ones were, but I can
find out.
Ms. Lee. I would like to know. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
questions from the hearing from ms. barbara lee
Question. Was Peet's coffee included in the coffee taste testing
that was conducted?
Response. Peet's coffee was not included in the taste testing.
There is only one advertised Fair Trade blend in the entire line of
Peet's coffee. While this one blend could have been included, it was
not due to a lack of availability of decaffeinated Fair Trade blend.
Although not a requirement, the availability of both regular and
decaffeinated for each coffee blend was heavily weighted as a factor
for inclusion in the taste testing.
Mr. Lewis. I am afraid to ask the rest of my questions,
ma'am.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I think we should quit while
we are behind. [Laughter.]
Thank you.
Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Madam Chair.
NEW MEMBER INITIATIVE
Mr. Beard, the CAO is proposing a new Member initiative at
a cost of $13.9 million--slightly more than the $10,000 that
the ranking member referenced to in his question. And, as I
understand, you want to hire 10 full-time employees.
Could you tell us a little more in detail, other than what
is already in your statement, about the new Member initiative?
What has not worked in the past?
Many of us are recent Members to be elected, and we went
through new Member orientation, and I don't think you want to
deprive any future Members who come along. But since budgets
are tight, our office has got a 2.7 percent COLA, could you
help us understand why we need this money at this particular
time?
Mr. Beard. Sure. The FTEs that we are requesting are to
provide financial counselors to the offices. Rather than have
each of these offices hire a part-time, shared employee, as
some Members do, we would offer the services of the CAO to
individual offices if they want to use CAO employees to do
their financial and budget work. And we would also offer to the
new Members the opportunity to have CAO employees in the
technical services area do their computer work. Many Members
use part-time employees to do that.
In many respects, this is in response to the current
prosecution which arose over a shared employee in the financial
services area, where the employee was accused of and, I think,
has entered into a plea agreement on theft. And the question
is, how do we ensure that the funds made available to the
individual Members are being spent as carefully as we possibly
can?
So I am working right now with the Committee on House
Administration and the Inspector General to come forward with a
proposal to make sure that, in the financial services area
particularly, there is absolutely no opportunity for
reoccurrence of the theft that we had.
And the other thing that we found with shared employees is
some shared employees did not make enough money as House
employees to qualify to submit ethics forms. Some have not, in
the past. I think we have gotten that one straightened out.
Some wanted to operate as businesses, but they are not allowed
to because they are supposed to be employees of the House.
And so what we are doing is we are really, I think,
perpetuating kind of a fiction. We are saying this person is an
employee; but they are actually a business, and we are paying
their retirement and health care as if they were an employee,
but in fact they may have eight or 10 offices that they work
for. And, in many cases, those offices don't know what other
offices that individual works for.
So I don't think it is the best arrangement. And the
easiest way to get out is to start with the next class of
Members and say, ``We will offer those services to you.'' We
have to do it anyway, because the bills are sent to us and we
double-check everything. And we are the ones that actually cut
the check. So the proposal was to offer our services in the
financial and the computer services area to the new Members, if
they want to take advantage of it.
If they want to hire a shared employee, that is their
business, or have somebody on staff do it, they can do it as
well.
Mr. Bonner. But it is only available to the new Members?
Mr. Beard. I would be happy to make it available to other
Members, but we don't have the funds to be able to do that. And
the thought was, if we started with this class, we could slowly
work our way forward as the natural turnover in the House takes
place.
ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM
Mr. Bonner. Madam Clerk, this year we have had some mishaps
with the electronic voting system. And I was wondering if you
could tell me what your office has been doing to ensure that,
when we cast a vote, that we can have confidence that it is
accurately recorded.
And how old is the current system? And are there any plans
to purchase a new system?
Ms. Miller. Well, we started electronic voting in 1974. So
it has had about four upgrades in the last few years, the last
being in 2004.
Honestly, Mr. Bonner, I think our system is sound. It is a
functionality--we have had more than 2,000 votes, and there has
been one where the computer--maybe a glitch or so.
This is a constant daily vigilance. There is a small group
of staff, senior staff, both sides of the aisle and the
parliamentarian, that receive an e-mail from us every day. We
test it before we go into session. If we are in session subject
to the call of the Chair, we test it again to make sure that,
once a vote is called, that the displays go up on the machine.
We are doing everything we possibly can.
To the question of what are we--we are doing an internal
investigation and constantly trying to evaluate the system. We
are in the process of looking at hiring a contractor to come
and--it is like typing, sometimes: You can type something you
think it is okay; someone else looks at it and they see a
mistake. So we are bringing in, hopefully, a contractor to
relook at it.
We really do feel that we have a sound system. Are we in
the process of looking at others? Yes. So, when the House
decides that we really do need to look at another system, we
will have some proposals available. But we don't have something
right now saying we can go to X system.
But we are looking at them, not only--I was in Israel in
January, and I was sitting there in the gallery, and they have
this new electronic system with the little flat screens at
every Member's table. A glitch happened. And I said, ``I feel
your pain.'' [Laughter.]
It was minor, but it was that kind of thing that, for a
minute or two, they couldn't complete their voting process. So
it happens.
But we are doing everything--besides the page program, I
probably spend more time over at our legislative computer shop
trying to make sure everything is done.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.
WOUNDED WARRIOR PROGRAM
Mr. Beard, you spoke briefly about the Wounded Warrior
program and introduced the Master Gunnery Sergeant who is going
to be heading that up.
Can you talk briefly about the details of the Wounded
Warrior program and how it is going to work? Will Member
offices be a part of it?
I know it is a $5 million request. About how many
participants will you be able to handle during this fiscal
year?
Mr. Beard. It is really two parts. The first part is that
the Speaker has directed the three of us to undertake efforts
to hire wounded warriors in the offices and organizations that
report to us. She has also requested that Bill, through the
Police Board, urge the Police Board to hire wounded veterans
with the Capitol Police. So that is one part.
The second part is we want to set up a fellowship program,
and our goal is to hire up to 50 fellows by the end of fiscal
year 2009. These would be evenly divided between the two
parties. And our goal is to hire wounded warriors who achieve a
30 percent disability, as a minimum qualification. We are
working with the Veterans Administration and all of the
services to reach out to them to find the employees.
These fellowships would be 2 years. They would be centrally
funded, so they won't count against the 18 staff-person
requirement in your MRA. And they can be either in the
Washington office or in the district office; it is up to the
individual Member.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It sounds like an amazing program.
Mr. Beard. Well, certainly the services have been very
excited. We got into this--Bill and I met with the
congressional liaison from the Marine Corps, and that is
actually how we got started in this. General Regner talked
about the need to find employment for wounded veterans of
Afghanistan and Iraq.
And this was an opportunity, just like the AAAS fellows or
the Sea Grant program--a number of others have it--this is an
opportunity to bring people in, give them 2 years to build
relationships, get to know the landscape, and work into full
employment with either a Member, in their district office or
here in Washington, or with a committee.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.
RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES
On the House restaurants, we have gone through a transition
to the new vendor. And I wanted your assessment of how things
are going. How satisfied are you and patrons of the new food
service provider? Do you have a feedback-collection process?
And what is the feedback from the employees of the food
service?
Mr. Beard. I almost hesitate to answer this question.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It is one of those I already know
part of the answer to.
Mr. Beard. Well, I think, first of all, Restaurant
Associates has been a wonderful company to work with. They are
very responsive. They have been very aggressive. They did an
excellent job of making the transition. They came in Friday
night, Guest Services left and Restaurant Associates came in,
and we worked all weekend, around the clock, and we opened up
the Longworth cafeteria and were ready for business on Monday.
So I was very satisfied with the transition.
We have the usual bumps in the road that come from that
kind of effort. I have been very pleased with their efforts to
try to drive us to have a green cafeteria, to be able to
compost our waste and reduce our costs that way as well.
I think in the Members' Dining Room they have done a much
better job than in the past, and they are constantly working at
the training. We have had some problems of late, regarding
supplies. And, as far as I am concerned, that is Food Service
101, and my conversations with Restaurant Associates over the
last couple of weeks has been that they need to correct those
problems and correct them quickly.
As far as the workforce goes, I have had a couple of
complaints from workers who don't think they are getting enough
hours. But, for the most part, I haven't had any general
outbursts from the employees.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do you have a feedback-collection
process for patrons and for employees?
Mr. Beard. We do, yes. I am not sure about patrons. I know
that, if you are talking about guests coming in----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. In other words, staff or----
Mr. Beard. From staff.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. From staff or patrons. We are
patrons.
Mr. Beard. It is the Web site, the Restaurant Associates
Web site for the House cafeterias. If you go to that, we get
responses from that all the time.
Ms. Lee. Would the gentlewoman yield for just a second?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sure.
Ms. Lee. With regard to the price of the meals, the costs
the new menus, are you finding they are very similar or more?
Mr. Beard. In most areas, they are similar. In some areas,
they are higher. They have offered a high-end alternative,
which, frankly, hasn't been greeted warmly here. And, as a
result, they have stopped offering it over in the Rayburn
cafeteria, for example.
In some areas, it is a little bit higher. But the Committee
on House Administration controls the pricing, and they approved
a small price increase, because we haven't had any increase in
a while.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Just the only other part of my question I wanted to
specifically ask you is related to the food service employees
and the feedback. Because if you have only heard a couple of
complaints, I just would want to make sure that the employees--
sometimes there can be an intimidating work environment. And I
am not suggesting there is one here. But it can be difficult
for an employee to complain if they are fearing for the loss of
their job. So do you have some way of anonymously receiving
feedback from employees of the restaurant?
Mr. Beard. I do receive them. They send them to me. And I
have my staff, my legal counsel investigate each one of the
complaints that have come forward.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Mr. Beard. I would point out, however, that, you know, when
Restaurant Associates came in, particularly in the Members'
Dining Room, there was--the plea to us was we really need to
improve the service. And to improve the service you have to
deal with the people who serve. You have got to improve
training. And so one of the things that they have been spending
a lot of time on is service and training for people in the
Members' Dining Room.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I want to be respectful
of the Members.
Ms. Miller. May I add to that?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sure.
Ms. Miller. One of things that Restaurant Associates has
done is we are trying to feed our pages a much healthier meal.
So they are giving us muffins and et cetera for free. They are
not charging for us in the dorm. But, more importantly, they
have the contract for the Smithsonian. Our kids on the weekend
were going to Union Station to the food court. Greasy. And so
we have made an arrangement with them so we have--come on.
Mr. Latham. I like grease.
Ms. Miller. I do, too. Look at me.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Me, too.
Ms. Miller. But we are trying to give them a healthier meal
at the Smithsonian. So they have been very good at working with
us to make sure the kids get a much more balanced meal.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Mr. Latham.
Mr. Latham. Thank you.
MEMBERS' REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCE DISCUSSION CONTINUED
I just wanted to return back to the MRA question from
earlier. From my understanding, your request is about 91
percent. To get to the historic level that we need, to 92
percent, would be five million more; to 93 percent would be 11
million more. I just do not want to get into the situation we
had this year with our staff being very concerned and then
start looking for jobs real quick because they are not going to
get their COLAs or their increases.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Would the gentleman yield for one
second?
Mr. Latham. Yeah.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I do not want there to be a
misimpression of how that problem occurred. Because we did--and
you were not a member of the subcommittee last year, but we did
appropriate in the bill that passed out last June a 4.7 percent
increase. We only I think had a $2 million reduction, is that
right? About a $2 million dollar reduction between June and the
omnibus.
So there was some miscommunication and misunderstanding I
think on the part of House Administration as to whether it was
us or them that adequately provided for the resources for a
COLA. So we need some more coordination between House
Administration and this subcommittee so that we can make sure
that we do not have that problem occur again.
Mr. Latham. However it occurred, it was a big issue in my
office, and I am sure was the case for everybody else. I just
wanted to--is that right?
Mr. Beard. Well, to me this is the easiest issue in the
book. I look to House Administration and this committee and
say, what do you want me to put in? You know, we go through and
do the analysis for you, but it is really left to the
committees to work out the actual numbers.
I am sure, going forward--we have added money in, as a
result of the reprogramming that took place, $14 million. So we
are going to have to sit down with both this subcommittee and
the Committee on House Administration to go through the MRA to
make sure that, effective January 1st next year, we have enough
money in the MRA to make it all the way through.
Whether that is 91 or 93 percent, it really does not
matter. Because once House Administration sets the
authorization ceiling next year, that is the rate at which
Members spend; and it is off to the races at that point. And
the rest of it is catching up.
Mr. Latham. But my concern is your request does not reflect
what is going to be needed. I mean, are those numbers correct?
Mr. Beard. I am going to have to ask Dan Doody, my Deputy
for Operations.
Mr. Doody. We worked with CHA to come up with the number
that was submitted, $590.6. And, again, after we did the
initial submission was the reprogramming that was done on the
$14 million. So we need to have continuing dialogue with the
committee to get that straightened out.
I think Dan is saying it correct. We work with you both to
figure out what the right number is based on the desire of the
committees. Last year, there was actually a difference between
the 3.5 and 4.5 percent. That occurred because the President's
number ended up changing after we had all submitted our
requests. So that contributed to the problem that occurred last
year.
Mr. Latham. Okay. But we should go from what history has
told us, and it is 92 or 93 percent, which is going to be $5 or
$11 million more than what this request is. You agree with
that?
Mr. Beard. I am not sure--is that correct, LaTaunya?
Ms. Howard. Yes, that is correct. It's true based on the
2009 MRA authorization request known as of today. To the extent
the authorization request changes, the appropriation gap will
change.
Mr. Beard. That is correct.
OPERATIONS UNDER A 2009 CONTINUING RESOLUTION
Mr. Latham. Okay. The chairwoman is going to be tired of
this question, but I just want to ask each of you about, you
know, the potential for a CR. It is not because of the House
side. I think we will do our work over here, but the Senate has
certainly said they are not going to probably do any more than
one or two bills over there. What happens to you with a CR?
Mr. Livingood, you have been ignored all morning.
Mr. Livingood. I have in my budget a request for 15 new
FTEs. Of the 15, 12 relate to the CVC. Four are to staff
visitor desks. There are two visitor desks, and two people at
each, to take visitors that come in and people that come into
the rooms down below for meetings. They process all of these
individuals through.
And then I have an additional eight people connected with
Gallery access, and they are called my chamber security people.
And these eight people, some of them will man check stands
downstairs for people that are going up to the Gallery, check
in all their cell phones and all these items that they are not
allowed to carry into the Gallery.
Right now, they are currently checking them on the third
floor. We wanted to get it back downstairs where we initially
start so we do not end up with two different lines. Plus it is
before you get into the Capitol. Without that, I will be having
to do it upstairs, and I will not--it is not the most efficient
manner. And, in my opinion, it affects security to a degree. It
will not be quite as good as it would be downstairs.
Mr. Latham. Okay. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Livingood. And then I have one person who we have asked
for to help man the Capitol Police Command Center on behalf of
the House Sergeant at Arms to make sure that I am getting all
the traffic messages that are happening, everything that is
occurring instantly.
Mr. Latham. Okay.
Mr. Livingood. And, right now, I have one of my employees
up there, my co-workers, but I cannot keep--that is an IT
person, which I need back in my IT shop. I only have two
people, and I just hope that there is some flexibility
considered if we go into the CR.
Mr. Latham. CR. Sure.
Mr. Beard. From our perspective, we have operated under CRs
for the last 3 years, so we can do it a fourth year.
The most important item we have in here----
Mr. Latham. That is a bad answer.
Mr. Beard. Well, you know, you cannot do anything about it;
and neither can I.
But the most important item I have is for the $4.7 million
to bring in new members. We just have to have that money. But I
do not think that is a problem. I am working it through with
the committee staff in the way that we have handled CRs in the
past. So we could handle it.
Ms. Miller. Mr. Latham, it would be tight, but we
prioritize. For instance, our $300,000 that we used for our
upgrade of our computers, we could delay that. My only concern
is if the House is actively doing its business, its hearings
and all that stenographic work, that will impact our overtime
and our--what we do for--overtime in our stenographic work.
Otherwise, we will reprioritize and rob Peter to pay Paul and
get it done.
Mr. Latham. Just one comment on the coffee. There is really
good soybean-based coffee coming from Iowa.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. All politics is local.
Mr. Beard. I can assure you, Congressman, that I have got
440 people who advise me on that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 439. I do not like coffee.
The gentleman's time has expired.
I do want to note, to follow up on Mr. Latham's question
and noting we have no other members here, that the Legislative
Branch Subcommittee is always afforded flexibility when we are
in a CR. And I know you ask the question every time and I say
this every time, we are always afforded flexibility because of
the primarily administrative functions that have to occur. And
I would expect this year to be no different.
I share the same concerns you have about a CR, and I know
that we would go to bat for an allocation in a CR that would
make sure----
Mr. Latham. I just want to make sure everybody is thinking
about it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah. The essential functions must
continue, and we have to be able to operate the legislative
branch.
Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Bonner. Yes, ma'am.
STAFF ONLY RESTAURANT HOURS
I have two quick questions for the Sergeant at Arms and one
for the CAO, for our Chief Administrative Officer. Is there any
way that we could look into what the Senate I believe does to
allow at least one of the restaurant facilities to be closed--
we used to do this--for a certain time period for our staff?
Because even though they go--there is a special line, many of
them do not have time, especially when we have got--excuse me,
I just ran--they do not have the time of leisure that some of
our constituents, who are the taxpayers who provide this
opportunity to us, have when they come up here. And I think if
we could see what the Senate does and see if we could do that
in at least one restaurant facility on the House side it would
be beneficial to the staff.
Mr. Beard. The answer is yes. I have made a proposal--I
made a proposal last year to the Committee on House
Administration, which they did not act upon, which was to
essentially have a rolling blackout, if you will, for visitors.
In other words, from 11:30 to 12:30, 12:30 to 1:30, 1:30 to
2:30, we would move it from the Cannon, Longworth and Rayburn
Building so that staff would know if they are in the Longworth
Building that from 12:30 to 1:30 it is not open to visitors.
Visitors would then be directed to other locations.
I happen to be an advocate for it, especially as we go into
this spring period when, you know, the place is sometimes like
a zoo down in the Longworth cafeteria, and in Rayburn as well.
It takes a little bit more on the security side to have an
officer there to help direct traffic flow.
But the answer to your question is, yes, we can do it, but
the feeling has been that, you know, if my constituents--if I
can go in and my constituents cannot, that looks bad.
Mr. Bonner. But we are going to be opening a brand new
large restaurant facility in the CVC----
Mr. Beard. We will.
Mr. Bonner [continuing]. Which I think many visitors will
probably welcome the chance to dine there.
All I would say is, if we could look into it.
CAPITOL VISITORS CENTER
And then to our distinguished Sergeant at Arms, who we all
have great respect for, as is true for the three of you,
yesterday, this subcommittee held a hearing with the CVC folks
and the Architect of the Capitol; and I think our Chair and our
entire panel actually was concerned about he said/she said. We
were asking specifically about what could be done to bring
visitors to the Capitol, as close to the Capitol complex when
the CVC opens and minimizing the disruption to them, at the
same time respecting the security element. Sothat is question
one.
What, from your perspective, can be done to keep them from
having to go to Union Station and then be brought over on a
shuttle bus where they would have to pay to do so? That just
seems to be an unwelcoming message to our Capitol.
EXPEDITED ACCESS FOR STAFF AT SECURITY ENTRANCES
And, secondly, and he and I--the Sergeant at Arms and I
have talked about this previously, but since I am on this
subcommittee now I am going to ask it officially----
Mr. Beard. You might get a better answer.
Mr. Bonner. I am a staffer at heart. I was on staff for 18
years. And I find it incomprehensible that when it is raining,
when it is snowing, when it is hot, that our staff has to stand
sometimes 100 yards long to get in the building when they have
gotten an I.D. Is the I.D. not worth anything that could allow
them to not have to stand in such long lines as they did when I
first started here?
Mr. Livingood. The answer to that is I recognized that over
4, 5 months ago, sometime after you talked to me about it; and
we issued instructions to the Capitol Police on the House side
to allow staff to the front of the line, bypass the visitors,
et cetera, et cetera. The only people that would come in front
of them would be a Member, if a Member is trying to get in. And
if they are not doing that--some of the doors are doing it,
because I have observed it personally. But we will reissue,
make sure that they are. Because I agree with you 100 percent.
Mr. Bonner. But when I first started we did not even have
to go through the metal detectors. The background check had
been done, and if you were allowed to get a badge you did not
have to stand in a line to go through to prove you are not a
security threat.
Mr. Livingood. Right.
Mr. Bonner. What about the issue with regard to the CVC and
what we can do to----
CAPITOL VISITORS CENTER DISCUSSION CONTINUED
Mr. Livingood. Yes, the Capitol Police Board, in
conjunction with the Capitol Police, are looking at that. We
just talked about it yesterday separate from your CVC hearing.
Because we do not go to the CVC. And our object is to get you
as close--not you, visitors as close to this building as we
possibly can.
We had come up with the idea of the commuter bus for one,
because that does not have an undercarriage that we--there are
some things I will not mention here--but just makes it easier
for us to search it. And we are still exploring are there any
other ways?
We have kept the West Front open, which is a big thing; and
we are constantly looking at that, too, to see what we can do
to make it as easy and as accessible as possible.
Because if you do not get these people here, all this
effort we put into the CVC will not be as fortuitous as we want
it to be. We want everybody to come.
Mr. Bonner. Okay. So the restaurants, you will look at
something for the staff. You are going to continue your efforts
on shorter lines with the staff. If there is a poll of who is
the most popular Member for the staff, I hope that you will
remember the name Jo Bonner.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Bonner, I am a former staffer,
not congressional but legislative, and you can take the girl
and have her no longer be staff, but you can not take the staff
out of the girl, and I agree with you.
And on the Senate side, from what I understand, they have
staff-only entrances. I always feel bad I am breezing by staff
members, I mean, tourists, too, but breezing by staff members
because, obviously, we can go to the front. It is sort of
crazy.
I do think in this environment we have to have our staff go
through the metal detectors, but it is sort of crazy for them
to have to stand in line, and especially in this season when
Washington is teeming with tourists. They have got to do their
work for us. We have to get them through the process.
Mr. Livingood, last year, Ms. McCollum and Mr. Honda
asked--and I actually do not remember whether it was this
hearing or in the Police----
Mr. Livingood. Capitol Police Board.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yeah, in the Capitol Police hearing.
Mr. Livingood. Yes, ma'am.
EVACUATION PROCESS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But I wanted to bring it up with you
anyway today, since you are here and can report somewhat on
your progress about the evacuation process, which you talked on
in the beginning. But, specifically, they are concerned because
they both are in Longworth, and the process and the difficulty
with the number of floors and if you are caught on the seventh
floor. And I know you have made some changes, and if you could
detail those changes and improvements.
Mr. Livingood. Yes. The first thing we have done, I
mentioned just briefly here, we partnered with the AOC's Fire
Marshal and the Capitol Police, my office did, and we went back
to every single office in the three buildings and the Capitol
and looked at what routes they were using. They had been
assigned routes, what doors to go out or stairwells. And again
from the fire drills we noticed that there was an extremely
long line and a long period to exit from the southeast area of
the Longworth and southeast area of the Cannon.
So those particular areas on the fourth and third floors
and second floor, the Capitol Police, with the Fire Marshal and
our office, we made a decision how many people should go out
that southeast exit and change other people to other exits,
some towards this end, which would be the north end of the
building, so that we are not all congested. And I stood down
there at a couple fire drills watching.
After we had done this, we had another fire drill, and I
went back there, and I noticed it was probably about 45
percent, somewhere in that vicinity, better. But still not as
good as I would personally like to see.
So we went back to those two buildings with the Capitol
Police on those fourth, third, second and first floors and
changed some--one or two on every floor, not the whole thing,
but just one or two on every floor and gave them other exits.
So that is where we stand on that today.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Good.
Mr. Livingood. We continue to observe that and are flexible
in changing routes because that is our big concern. We thought
of switching the Member assembly areas, some of them over to
the Capitol. That was a suggestion. And we looked at that long
and hard and with some other experts, and the problem is the
staffer sort of is programmed to get away from the Capitol, not
come back over here, and we found that very few would want to
come back in the event of certain evacuations to this area. So
we kept the assembly areas where they are, but we intend to
tweak those as best we can.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Good. I appreciate your
responsiveness. I will make sure that Ms. McCollum and Mr.
Honda are aware of it.
Mr. Livingood. Then I had two other areas that they asked--
--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No, go right ahead, absolutely.
Mr. Livingood. If I could.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Please.
MODELING OF HOUSE BUILDINGS
Mr. Livingood. Because they did ask me. And one was to look
at what electronic systems or computer systems you can use to
assist you in evacuations under various conditions, simulation.
And we have been doing that for the last year.
And we basically completed our study, and we feel that a
three-dimensional modeling computer agent-based simulation
computer modeling system would help all our buildings and the
Capitol. It would provide better evacuation planning for us and
drills, with the ever-changing environment here on the Hill.
Like when I found that it was backed up at a certain
stairwell, we can put that into our computer and see where
people--other stairwells, where they ought to go. This
simulation tool would use a variety--not just fire, but it
would use a variety of scenarios and options such as
explosions, chemical release, attacks or other incidents; and
it would help us with our stairway evacuations, our shelter in
place, and our assembly areas.
And I think it is really, after a long study--because we
have been looking at it a couple years. Mr. Honda started us
looking, and thank him, because that got our attention and got
us thinking about it, and we brought in a bunch of people just
to help us look at things.
It would really help identify the flow of occupants. It
would determine potential medical hazards such as smoke. We can
put into the thing ``smoke''. And it is a great training aid
for all of us.
The problem is we are not funded. For the House to fund all
our buildings and the Capitol would be about approximately
$500,000. We have not done any. We have written up a proposal,
a bid for proposal, but that is it. We have not sent it out or
anything because we do not have the money.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Livingood. The other thing was the notification that
they asked for.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sorry. I keep cutting you off.
HOUSE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
Mr. Livingood. This was the House emergency notification
system. So we had looked at five or six vendors from outside
that have a system where they have all your data for your
staff, Members if we wanted that--we just did not want them to
have our Member data. And they put it into a system, and then
we have one unit up at the Capitol Police headquarters and type
in and it goes out to, within a couple minutes, 10,000 people
in text, goes out to your BlackBerry, whatever you choose:
BlackBerry, telephone, e-mail, whatever.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is important.
Mr. Livingood. Then we found out we already have a system
here, thanks to Mr. Beard and his staff. We co-partnered with
them. They are the technical people.
And, right now, the House has two tiers for alerts. The
first tier is one you all know: the fire alarms, strobes, the
annunciators and the public building address systems. The
second tier is a roam secure alert network and the Member voice
paging system that we can combine if we took roam secure, which
is as good as if not better than the other ones we looked at.
We could keep all that data here so your data is secure, not
with some other vendor, and send it out--we figured in one
minute we could send out 10,000 text messages. That is awesome.
That way, all staff can get any messages that we wanted to be
sent out: evacuation, where to go, what to do.
What this would entail is having someone in each office be
responsible for getting to us or getting to whomever we decide
will be the person that keeps all this information and gives it
to the CAO so they put it in their system. One person in each
office that would go to all the staff andMembers and find out
what--through which system do you want to be notified? Telephone,
BlackBerry, et cetera.
This also can have a telephone capability for some. It can
have----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Cell phone, you mean?
Mr. Livingood. Yes, ma'am. And we figured the cost--we do
not have an idea, but taking what we have is a lot less
expensive to consolidate all our tier, first and second tier,
into one machine that we can type on.
Right now, you have got to go to two or three, and that is
a delay. You only have X number of officers up there. So one
guy does the first one and goes to the second one and goes to
the third. If we had this system, we could combine first and
second tiers into one machine; and that would cost--we do not
have a--approximately $400,000 to $500,000. Then we wanted--we
can do a desk pop-up on your computer. It pops up; and it says,
alert, emergency, or whatever your message is. But everything
has a price.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. True.
Mr. Livingood. And that is $450,000.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But these are not things in your
budget request.
Mr. Livingood. No, these are not in our budget request.
And a cable TV scroll, which is your cable TV. The Senate
is working on that; and it comes across and says, alert,
whatever the message is.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.
Mr. Livingood. But we favor those very strongly.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much for your very
thorough answer.
Security and how we get people out of the building is
incredibly important.
Mr. Livingood. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And consistency. If people do not
know where to go----
Mr. Livingood. Exactly.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. Then the system is
worthless.
Mr. Latham.
Mr. Latham. You have not changed a bit in 14 years, Bill.
CARBON OFFSETS
Mr. Beard, there was a Washington Post article earlier this
year, generating a lot of concern that I have heard at home
about the carbon trading issue. The CRS, in a report, had made
two observations: one, that there are no commonly accepted
standards for the market--and last year we spent what? $89,000?
Mr. Beard. Yes.
Mr. Latham. And, two, that consumers should adopt a buyer
beware mentality.
You know, back to negotiations on Kyoto, people like Enron
were the biggest proponents of carbon trading and this type of
speculative market, actually. And there was a Dartmouth
professor of environmental science who has said there is really
no long-term benefit to it.
I just wonder, with the kind of red flags that are out
there, you want to increase the amount available for us to
spend. Why would we want to put taxpayer dollars into a scheme
like that when we are not sure about the variables? There is no
way to verify that it does any good. We are on a tight budget.
And the GAO I think was going to have a report on this, and
they have not reported yet. But could you just explain?
Mr. Beard. Sure. I think the easiest way to think of carbon
offset credits is it really is a license to pollute. Companies
have undertaken activities where they have reduced the emission
of carbon into the atmosphere; and, as a result, they go to a
marketplace and they sell, if you will--if somebody does want
to undertake an activity and build a plant and pollute, for
example, put carbon into the atmosphere, they can purchase
offset credits.
What we did is purchase offset credits and then retire
them. So, in essence, what we did is we made sure that a
certain amount of carbon was not released into the atmosphere.
We did this for--primarily because not only is it I think the
right thing to do, but we want to try to achieve carbon
neutrality with the operations of the House.
By purchasing renewable power for all our electric needs,
we reduced our carbon footprint a certain amount. By buying
natural gas for the Capitol power plant, we reduced it more.
But, frankly, we were at a point where we could not in this
year do any more to reduce our carbon footprint.
And the logical thing for large companies, state
governments and other institutions is to go to the Chicago
Climate Exchange. This committee had report language where they
requested us to do that. The authorizing committee approved our
approach. We went ahead and did it, purchased those credits;
and they are with us for this year, anyway.
Are we going to do it again? I do not know. Given the kind
of controversy that it created, I am going to do everything I
can to try to avoid doing it again. But I cannot say that we
will not. I just do not know what our carbon footprint is going
to look like next year.
You know, there is no shortage of people looking over my
shoulder on this particular issue: the Inspector General, GAO,
the authorizing committees, the appropriations committees and
individual Members who have views on the subject, both pro and
con. So it is like a lot of things around here. I think it did
generate some controversy. But to be perfectly frank with you,
it is a new market. It may have problems associated with it,
but it is the best marketwe have got. And if we are going to
reach carbon neutrality in our operations, it is the one thing that we
have to be able to do.
Mr. Latham. Just one part of----
Mr. Beard. Sure.
Mr. Latham [continuing]. What that purchase was last year,
supposedly, it was to give some farmers some money in North
Dakota. And I do not know if you are aware, but these farmers
were doing basic tillage practices, been common for 20 years.
Maybe you are not also aware of the fact that any kind of
conservation, if they are enrolled in the government program,
they are paid through the Farm Bill to do exactly what they are
already doing. So they are, in essence, getting a check under
the Farm Bill for doing this and then also getting paid on top
of it for doing nothing else.
So as far as any kind of net benefit--some people called it
indulgences, basically, that you are paying for the sin. I just
have real concern. I do not know, are you aware that they
probably got paid twice from the government on this to do
exactly----
Mr. Beard. No, I am not aware----
Mr. Latham [continuing]. What were common practices?
Mr. Beard. It is a no-till activity.
Mr. Latham. I am a farmer. That is common practice for the
last 20 years. They are not doing anything extraordinary at
all. They are being paid already by the government for the same
thing.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman has gone beyond his
time.
Mr. Latham. In more ways than one.
Mr. Beard. Okay.
Mr. Latham. I have real concerns with it, especially when
people like Enron were pushing it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Latham.
Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Bonner. Madam Chair, I think I have just got one more
suggestion since I have got this opportunity and then--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are brimming with suggestions
today, Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you.
HISTORICAL SIGNAGE IN MEMBERS' OFFICES
Well, the suggestion is this. I tried this with your
predecessor, Mr. Beard, so I am going to try it now with you.
This place is so full of history; and it seems to me, as our
friends over on the Senate do--not that the House ever really
wants to be led by the Senate, but it seems to me it would be
very easy for us to mark the offices in the office buildings of
the former Members who went on to become Presidents.
Five of the last nine Presidents have been former Members
of Congress; and I think when you have people in these office
buildings who may not come over to the Capitol or to the CVC,
it would be a chance for them to see a part of history, even if
they can not experience it personally.
Just a suggestion.
Mr. Beard. Can I respond to that?
Mr. Bonner. Absolutely.
Mr. Beard. The Architect of the Capitol does have a group
which oversees, you know, the history of each room; and by
consulting with them I think you can get a general idea. The
problem is that from--prior to 1908, there was no office
building. Everybody was in the Capitol. So in the Cannon
Building, when they opened that up in 1908, from 1908 to 1933
everybody had just one office. Now they have three. So you will
have multiple people in there, and it is somewhat difficult.
When they opened Longworth, everybody had two suites, not
one; and so it is kind of difficult for them.
But the Architect of the Capitol does have a group that has
a history of each of the offices. And I know that former
Congressman Pritchard of Seattle tried to undertake this
activity once he left the House as sort of a duty, and I do not
know how far he got with it. I think it is certainly
informative to the Members, as you are in your office, that you
could say, you know, a former President or whatever was here at
one time. So I think it is useful to do.
HALLWAY POLICY
Mr. Bonner. Okay. And then the question--and this has been
a debate. I guess this process started when the Republicans
were in the majority, and it has continued now that the
Democrats are in the majority. But earlier this week I saw a
gentleman walk into one of these poster boards that is out in
the hallways. And I am not pretending to speak for the
committee here, but just for my own personal opinion. There is
a security issue here. There is certainly a health issue here.
And not weighing in, since both sides--both parties have
organizations that have poster boards talking about the debt
and the tax increases and things like that, I would just ask
you as CAO and also as Sergeant at Arms, are there health
concerns and--I mean, not mentioning the clutter aspect of it,
but are there health or security concerns that Members should
consider when we think about whether we are going to put some
poster board in front of our doors?
Mr. Beard. I think absolutely, without a doubt. Just 2
weeks ago, for example, a large delegation of blind people were
here on campus; and to watch them try to work their way down
the third floor of the Longworth Building would have been a
pretty gruesome sight.
The Speaker is getting ready to issue a hall policy. And it
has been complicated. The original policy was put together by
the previous Speaker, and there have been stops and starts to
this. But I think we have now reached the point where we have
to implement this from a safety standpoint. And especially if
something--if we have a fire and there is a real emergency,
those things will fall down, people will trip over them and,
you know, it is usually--it is never the fire that gets you, it
is the smoke or being trampled that is really the difficulty.
So I jumped in.
Mr. Livingood. And from the security standpoint, strictly
an evacuation, to stop and think when you have got a mass of
people in the buildings, like today, when there is so many
visitors, you are going to be hitting those things, walking
down the hall tripping on them. They should not be there.
Mr. Bonner. I look forward to the Speaker's policy. As
someone who was concerned when they moved the Coke machines out
of the basement of Cannon because of possible obstruction, it
just seems to me that was in a very narrowly defined area that
only a few people knew where to go get a soft drink. These are
in every hallway in the complex. And, again, if it is treated
where both sides are treated equally on that, I do not know who
can really complain about it.
Ms. Miller. Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Bonner. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Miller. Can I add to that?
Having processed rooms for two previous Speakers, thatis
one of the largest problems we had. My job was to make sure that there
were no obstructions like that in the hallway. But you know what the
biggest problem was? The Members.
Mr. Bonner. The Members.
Ms. Miller. The Members just insisted on doing it. And the
more I would walk up and say, Congressman, you have an
obstruction in the hall, they would say, I am a Member, you are
a staffer. So----
Mr. Bonner. Madam Clerk, are you suggesting there is
arrogance among Members?
Ms. Miller. I would never suggest that. Just making an
observation.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Bonner.
GREENING OF THE CAPITOL DISCUSSION CONTINUED
I do want to point out that on the Greening of the Capitol
Initiative the amendment that requested the carbon offsets was
sponsored by Congressman Kirk. This was a bipartisan
initiative, actually, an initiative by Congressman Kirk
himself. So it just needs to be clearly understood where that
initiative came from.
And my understanding--I know, Mr. Beard, you indicated that
you were going to try to avoid carbon offsets. From the
information I have, it does not appear that you are likely to
need them this year from your proposal that is before us now.
But the whole idea of the Greening of the Capitol
Initiative, let's remind everyone, is so that we can set an
example and begin to address the issue of global warming and
climate change. And if not us, then who? And so to that end,
with that goal in mind, how close are we to the goal of a
carbon-neutral House?
Mr. Beard. We will achieve it by the date of the end of the
110th Congress.
The difficulty I have run into is this committee added some
money for purchase of renewable electric power through the
Architect of the Capitol. They decided to run an RFP for that.
That RFP has been challenged, and so that is held up at the
present time. The natural gas purchases are going forward. So
once we get over the protest to the bid of the Architect, we
will achieve our goal. I fully expect that we will do it early.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is wonderful. How much energy
do you estimate we will have saved by the end of this Congress
due to the Greening Initiative?
Mr. Beard. I would hesitate to guess at this point, but I
can provide you something for the record.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That would be great. Because I
imagine it would be quite a bit.
[The information follows:]
questions from the hearing from ms. wasserman schultz, chair
Question. How much energy do you estimate will have been saved by
the end of this Congress due to the Greening Initiative?
Response. We intend to have our consultants do an energy
consumption audit once all major initiatives have been in place for six
months, so as to accurately reflect the reduction in energy.
At the current time, we have six of the energy savings activities
either currently under way or planned for the House in calendar year
2008; they are: (1) Lighting retrofits; (2) Steam pressure reduction in
the distribution lines; (3) Vending machine replacement; (4) Activation
of variable speed drive function on air handler motors; (5) Improved
scheduling for operation for HVAC equipment; and, (6) Duct sealing.
The only one for which we have estimates of energy savings is the
lighting retrofits which we estimate will save 2.4 million kilowatt-
hours (kWh) per year.
HISTORICAL SIGNAGE DISCUSSION CONTINUED
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. In addition, although I know Mr.
Bonner had to depart, we did have report language in our bill
last year relating to historical signage in Members' offices so
that when our constituents would come--and also for the
Members' own edification that that process is under way. I
think we had some study language in the bill so that we could
make sure that, if Members wanted to, they could post a placard
in their office so that you would know what the history was in
the office that you were housed in.
I have completed the questions that I have.
CARBON OFFSETS DISCUSSION CONTINUED
Mr. Latham. As far as the carbon offset thing, the Kirk
stuff was report language. It was not bill language but
encouraging you to look at potential purchases like that.
I know my folks at home would be much more comfortable if
we actually spent money on things that we know will actually
reduce the carbon footprint here, rather than a very
speculative scheme that there is a lot of question on from
environmentalists, from commodity people who look at this
market as very questionable, and as far as being able to verify
any benefits.
So that is my concern. I appreciate it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am sure that, Mr. Beard, you will
use your best judgment. But the overall goal is to eventually
reach a carbon-neutral House----
Mr. Latham. Right.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. And we need to make
sure that we have all the tools that can help us accomplish
that available to us.
CHAIR'S ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT
As we have heard today, the House of Representatives'
request includes $19 million in new or expanded benefits for
House employees. I am interested in the proposals and would
like some additional detail. As Ms. Lee said, taking care of
our employees--and I know, Mr. Beard, that that has been a
really important goal of yours. Since the first minute I met
you, you have been talking to me about expanding the benefits
for House employees.
Mr. Beard. Especially all those smiling people behind you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It is a big recruitment and
retention issue. We all suffer the worry of losing one of our
staffers to a much more lucrative position, and anything we can
do--and benefits really the only way that we have to entice
people to work for us and to keep them here. In addition to
the, you know, fabulous environment that they get to work in.
But, also, the notion of public service, because we have so
many--the vast majority of our employees are here because they
have big hearts, and they want to give back to their country.
But they also have to eat, and they have to take their kids to
the doctor.
Mr. Beard. Well, and the chairman of the full committee,
Mr. Obey, has, you know, spoken out on this issue a number of
times and has made it very clear that he did not feel it was
appropriate for us to request benefits beyond that that were
currently received by the executive branch. And I agree with
that, and that is why we have tried to narrow our request down
to make sure that we bring ourselves up--our employees up to
parity with the executive branch.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, with that in mind, if you could
submit a report--the CAO could submit a report by next
Thursday, March 20th, that discusses each of the proposed
benefit increases in terms of how widely available those
benefits are to other Federal employees, how the benefit levels
requested compare to the benefit levels offered by other
agencies, and how each of these requested benefits will
function and be managed--for example, will they be managed
centrally by you or will they be handled out of the Member's
office or a combination of those?
But I think if we can send a message out of this 2009
legislation coming from this committee it is that we care very
much about recruitment and retention of our very high-quality
employees.
So, with that, the subcommittee stands in recess until
April 9th at 1 p.m., when we will hear from the Capitol Police
about their budget.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 9, 2008.
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE
WITNESSES
PHILLIP D. MORSE, SR., CHIEF OF POLICE
DANIEL NICHOLS, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE
GLORIA JARMON, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
CARL W. HOECKER, CPA, CFE, INSPECTOR GENERAL
Opening Remarks--Chair Wasserman Schultz
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I would like to call this hearing of
the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations to order. This afternoon we will hear from Chief
Morse, Assistant Chief Nichols, and Ms. Jarmon--what is your
official title?
Ms. Jarmon. Chief Administrative Officer.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. The new Chief
Administrative Officer of the Capitol Police on their fiscal
year 2009 request. The Department is asking for $334 million
next fiscal year, which is an 18 percent, or $52 million,
increase over last year.
The increase includes $7 million to implement the Library
of Congress Police merger, $8 million to secure the Capitol
Visitor Center, and $3 million for the Presidential
Inauguration.
We are so appreciative of the work of the Capitol Police.
And Chief Morse and Chief Nichols, I have to tell you, I have
really been impressed by your leadership of this department and
your commitment to really focusing on drilling down into the
problems that administratively the Department has faced, and
tackling them head on and acknowledging them, and being
proactive to get those addressed--as evidenced by your
excellent hire in Ms. Jarmon.
I know how much you have to take on, but an 18 percent
increase is going to be pretty difficult. Mr. Latham and I at
every agency hearing so far have talked about how we have a lot
of needs that we are facing, but not a lot of money. And so we
are going to want to hear from you, as I discussed with you
yesterday, what your ``got-to-haves'' are, the highest
priorities the Department is facing. And I am looking forward
to your testimony.
With that, Mr. Latham.
Opening Remarks--Mr. Latham
Mr. Latham. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chief, I also want to welcome you and Deputy Chief Nichols
and tell you how much we appreciate your service and the job
that you and your officers do for us here. We recognize your
work is not easy, and we appreciate the resource needs that you
have.
Also I want to welcome Gloria Jarmon and congratulate her
in her new job as Chief Administrative Officer with the Capitol
Police. At the outset one of my main concerns with the
operations is the importance of a sound, reliable
communications system, which I know you don't have right now.
And as your written statement put it, you are on the cutting
edge of operational failure. I know there have been some recent
instances in which communication glitches have manifested
themselves.
We cannot have a security system where that type of
situation exists. On the other hand, you have a mandate to
produce a report on the radio modernization that, as we all
know, is overdue.
I don't want a situation where we are kicking the
modernization issue down the road while we nickel and dime such
a critical need. But I do want to know if you see a clear path
to getting the communications problem solved, because I agree
with you the radio modernization is critical; and it is
critical now.
And, Madam Chairwoman, I think it would be worthwhile for
us to possibly have a separate meeting with the Chief where we
can discuss that issue, and maybe have some of the dimensions
aired out, but not in a public forum.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I would be happy to do that.
Mr. Latham. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Lewis, do you have anything?
Mr. Lewis. I am just awaiting your lead.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much. I appreciate
it.
With that, Chief Morse, your full statement will be entered
into the record and you are welcome to summarize your remarks
in 5 minutes.
Opening Statement--Chief Morse
Chief Morse. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and members of
the subcommittee. Once again I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to come here and discuss the Capitol Police's
fiscal year 2009 budget request, as well as update you on the
progress to improve the management and control of our programs.
I am also pleased to be joined here today by Assistant
Chief Dan Nichols to my left and Ms. Jarmon, our Chief
Administrative Officer, here to my right. And Ms. Jarmon's
addition to our Department and her background and expertise
provide the Department with a well-rounded leadership team that
is necessary to complete our efforts and become a premier
organization, both administratively and operationally.
I would also like to thank the committee for its continued
support of the men and women of the Capitol Police. Your
support, as well as the support of our oversight committees, is
crucial to the successful execution of our mission.
During my time as Chief, we have begun an important process
of change, one which requires inspection, investigation,
intelligence, enforcement, threat assessment, and personal
protective capabilities that are able to meet our security
requirements. To better address this dynamic environment in our
fiscal year 2009 budget, our executive management team
personally participated in determining the resources required
to execute the evolving mission of the Capitol Police.
I recognize that our requested increase is significant, but
I believe that it is an important reflection of soundjudgment
on the part of those responsible for executing the mission of the
Department. We felt it was important to present the Congress the
resource requirements that, in our best judgment, are needed to
optimally execute our mission.
We realize that our request must be put into a broader
context within which final allocation decisions will be made.
Whatever those decisions are, we remain committed to continuing
the highest possible level of security and service provided to
the Congress and the visitors to the Capitol Complex.
I would also like to report that we have been very busy
this year, and I wanted to give you some highlights of our
actions. We have conducted a broad scope of law enforcement
security operations throughout the Capitol Complex which--we
have done over 1,100 arrests for various violations this past
year. We have handled multiple major special events to include
the State of the Union, Capitol Concert Series, large-scale
demonstration and congressional events. We adopted a concept
similar to community policing, which provides direct outreach
by Capitol Police officers and officials to the committee
members and offices within the congressional community.
We also implemented new security screening guidelines
throughout the Capitol Complex. We planned, coordinated and
evaluated a number of exercises within the Capitol related to
air evacuations, lockdowns, active shooter--which simulates a
person with a weapon within the Capitol structure. We finalized
our continuity of operations plan and we implemented a process
to review an enhancement of the plan to meet evolving threats
and requirements. And we conducted multiple training exercises
across the Capitol campus to improve readiness for our sworn
personnel in the field.
In the administrative arena, we brought on board a new
Chief Administrative Officer, and I am looking forward to her
implementing significant improvements in our administrative and
internal controls process. In last year's report the committee
expressed some concerns related to the Department's efforts to
address the GAO and recommendations, and today I am happy to
report that since October 2007, we have closed 25 percent of
the GAO and Inspector General recommendations and findings and
we are actively working to address the rest of them.
We developed a full set of financial statements for fiscal
year 2007 and are actively working on our statement for 2008.
We completed our full inventory of capital assets and assigned
values to these assets.
We redesigned our budget planning and execution process,
formalizing the Department's Investment Review Board. And at
the direction of the committees of jurisdiction, we completed
the operational and administrative requirements related to the
Library of Congress Police merger, and that resulted in the
passage of legislation.
We revised the uniform and equipment policy of the Capitol
Police that will result in uniformity in appearance and overall
cost savings.
While we recognize that we have made progress over the last
year, we also realize we have a long way to go to meet the
challenges that lie ahead. And in closing I would like to say
that I am looking forward to continuing my efforts as Chief of
the Capitol Police to make it a best-practices organization.
The progress we have made in the last year demonstrates the
commitment and hard work of our employees in the Department.
And I want to recognize the fact that in many ways we are
addressing and correcting processes and programs and the
culture that have been present for a long time.
So, at this time, I would like to thank you once again for
the opportunity to be here before you; and myself and my
colleagues are open to any questions you may have.
[Chief Morse's prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Chief Morse. And
again, we just can't thank you enough for what a wonderful job
the Department does in protecting not just the Members of
Congress, but our visitors and tourists and guests that come to
the complex every year.
I want to open by talking about your financial management
system and congratulate you--my understanding, correct me if I
am wrong, is that this is the first time in the Capitol
Police's history that you actually have conducted a full
inventory and that you have a complete set of financial
statements; is that right?
Chief Morse. That is correct.
RADIO SYSTEM
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. One of the concerns that we had on
the radio system, when Mr. Wamp was still the ranking member,
was that until you actually had the ability to know what you
had and had the ability to conduct a full inventory, moving
forward aggressively with the radio system was--we decided to
slow that down because we needed to make sure we were being
fiscally responsible, that you had to first know what you have
before you purchase more.
We did appropriate $10 million. We had had 15, but we
pulled the other 5 million back because you weren't ready to
expend that.
Where are you in terms of developing the radio system? And
how much of the 10 million that you have already been
appropriated has been obligated or spent?
Chief Morse. Where we are right now, we have completed the
concept and design of the system itself and the costing of the
system, and we are prepared to present that. We have an April
16th date with the Capitol Police Board to present that.
I do want to say, as Mr. Latham mentioned, we are behind
schedule on that; and I will take responsibility for that. This
is obviously a significant investment for the Police Department
and Congress, and it has to be absolutely right. And my goal
was to have this sooner, but as we looked at this system, we
found that it was more complicated.
We have a 25-year-old system, which we also found is
supported by 25-year-old infrastructure and wiring and such.
Facilities are a large part of this and were a part of the
design and costing, so my expectation for December was not met.
But I think it is important to note that because of its
significant value to our operation and investment that it is--I
wanted to make sure that everything was covered from A to Z,
that all questions and possibilities are covered in this report
so that we don't have to keep going back and continuing studies
and such.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You have not requested additional
funds for the radio system this fiscal year, correct?
Chief Morse. I have not.
Your second question was, had we expended any of the 10
million; and we have not. In order to do so, we had to bring
forth a proposal, a design, and a costing. And we also had to
show that we were fiscally responsible, that we are changing
the way that we manage our operations, and show the Congress
that we can manage a project of this magnitude.
GETTING FINANCIAL OPERATIONS ON TRACK
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. If you recall, we went
over the financial management issues in great detail last year
at this same hearing, and you were at the point where you
literally had only been the Chief for--both of you had only
been in office for a few months; but at that point, the GAO had
described the Office of Financial Management as being in
constant crisis mode, which is one of the main reasons I know
you brought Ms. Jarmon on.
Can you give us an idea of the steps that you have taken to
get the Department's financial operations back on track? I
think restoration of the congressional community's confidence
is really important in that regard.
Chief Morse. Well, we had obviously a lot of professional
recommendations that had not been carried out, so it was
important for us to start with that. Part of our closure of GAO
and IG recommendations were a closure of recommendations in the
Office of Financial Management; and we were able to close eight
of those.
To restore order within that particular organization took
the need to have the right policies and procedures and the
right people in place, so we started at the top. And Ms. Jarmon
not only gives us the knowledge, skills, and abilities in the
areas of office administration that meet the criteria for her
job, but she is also a CPA, which gives her abilities in
financial management to be very significant.
Also, during the last year, we have been able to go back
and look at the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the people
in positions that work within that office to ensure that they
are at the level that they should be to handle the
responsibility. So with that effort, and also getting
statements completed, getting inventory and assets management
completed, made the job much easier. It brings some degree of
order to what it is that we are doing. That information we did
not have in the past and we do now. So it makes the process
much smoother.
We also had to build a system--I mentioned earlier that we
built a system for being able to build a budget, a validated
and justified budget. And we looked at, bringing our internal
controls, our investment review board, our executive management
team, all of those people coming together and working together
with the information and providing you with a substantive and
justified budget.
So all of those things combined make for a much stronger
Office of Financial Management and certainly gives a good
representation of the Department and, hopefully, more
confidence in us.
Ms. Jarmon. Can I add a little?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sure.
Ms. Jarmon. I just wanted to mention, like Chief Morse
said, we did prepare the full set of financial statements for
the first time, and our auditors had a disclaimer in those
statements which is not unusual for an agency for the first
time ever preparing financial statements. It was our goal to
move in the direction of a clean opinion. It is a work in
progress.
TIMELINE FOR A CLEAN AUDIT
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My time has expired, but do you know
what is your time line for a clean audit?
Ms. Jarmon. By 2010. We plan to show improvement each year,
less material weaknesses, and to move forward to a clean
opinion by 2010.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Mr. Latham.
IMPACT OF A CONTINUING RESOLUTION
Mr. Latham. Thank you. As the chairman knows, I ask this
every hearing----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I warned them.
Mr. Latham. We visited, too.
There is the real possibility, certainly with the
statements made over in the Senate, that we will be in a
continuing resolution potentially up to February or March of
next year. I would like to know what impact you see that having
on your operations, and also, if you have put any thought into
planning for that contingency.
Chief Morse. Yes, Gloria and her staff have been preparing
an impact statement in the event that we are under a CR. But I
think as we look at what we have proposed for 2009, if you look
at the things which--in our terminology, some of the
uncontrollables, some of the things that we are facilitating--
would be impacted. For instance, CVC operations, the
Inauguration, and those things that are a part of our increase.
And then you have your general expenses and salary, of
course, that are affected by that within the organization. So
hiring would be affected. We would only be able to fill
attrition; we wouldn't be able to advance the Police
Department, we would just maintain the Police Department. So I
think the biggest impacts are some of the increases that you
see here in the 18 percent that we would consider the
uncontrollable increases to us.
Mr. Latham. Like the Inauguration and those?
Chief Morse. Inauguration, the CVC opening, those types of
things.
INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES
Mr. Latham. Okay.
Both in your written testimony and your budget
justifications there is reference to the recent manpower study
as identifying an increased need for intelligence capabilities.
And you say that represents the first step in a long-term
process. Can you give us a reasonably accurate description of
what the needs are?
I believe you are requesting 16 full-time equivalents in
2009, and this is just one step. Can you give us an idea about
what you expect in step 2, step 3, step 4 so that we can have
an idea?
Chief Morse. Sure. With the intelligence capability
currently, we run sort of a 5-day-a-week, 8-hour-type
operation, special events directly related. We need the
capability of running an intelligence collection analysis,
dissemination of that information on a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week
basis. We do obviously have connectivity with our partners in
the Intelligence Community, but this helps us also increase
that connectivity with them to have liaison officers with them.
The one key point in our business case regarding
intelligence gathering analysis and dissemination is that we
are relying on other agencies to provide information, so we are
receiving and then disseminating that information. But without
the capability to collect information here, to be able to
analyze that information, connect the dots with the national
intelligence, we lack that capability with a legislative branch
perspective. So that is where we would like to go.
This business case sets the foundation for sort of piloting
this before we are to move on or begin staffing that at any
higher levels. This will give us a baseline of what we need for
the future.
OVERTIME MANAGEMENT
Mr. Latham. You have made the management of overtime a
focus, providing efficiencies to the Department. Can you tell
us about what you have done to streamline the use of overtime?
I think you are requesting 30.5 million for overtime in fiscal
year 2009, which is a major increase over 22.5 last year. Can
you explain that a little more in detail?
Chief Morse. Sure, with respect to savings, one of the
things that was passed to the Assistant Chief was to find ways
to be more efficient in our operations. That includes the
deployment of officers' time and attendance, waste, fraud and
abuse, internal controls related to that, any technology that
we could use to enhance our security systems and not have to
use officers for those types of things. We put all of those
things together to have a package that would give us more
economy of force, which resulted in a savings of overtime.
To give you one example, one of our analyses that we did
was taking a look at hours of operation in session, out of
session, with regards to the opening of doors. We were able to
adjust those hours in consultation with our stakeholders, which
provided a savings during out of session periods.
We were able to do an analysis of where we were spending
the most overtime and we were able to devise a system that
allowed us to deploy our officers differently. We call it
``load leveling'' where we were able to redeploy officers and
divisions that allowed us to significantly reduce overtime--in
other words, putting the officers where the mission was taking
place. And then, of course, the direction is mission directed
only. And with those things we were able to save a great deal
of money. The schedule of Congress was less than we expected.
Demonstrations are always an unexpected, and for a while we
were dealing with those every day; to a certain degree those
have stopped on a daily basis.
Mr. Latham. In your request you have a 42 percent increase
for next year's schedule. Why is that?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Your time is well expired, but if
you want to answer the question, that is fine.
Chief Morse. The increase has to do with opening of the
CVC, as an example. We have training that we need to do for
that in advance of the opening. We have the Library of Congress
merger, which we have to have backfill overtime. We have
Inauguration training, rehearsal, et cetera, that we have to
use overtime for. And the other types of overtime are
associated with routine post assignments and mission site, and
the difference is--either filling those positions with FTE or
paying overtime is the difference.
Mr. Latham. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome, Mr. Latham.
Mr. LaHood.
CLOSED DOOR MEETING
Mr. LaHood. Are we planning to have a session with these
folks just to talk about issues that we don't want to talk
about publicly?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. A closed session? There wasn't one
in the plans, but we can certainly have one if you would like
to have a closed session.
Mr. LaHood. I would, because I think there are some things
that we maybe should----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sure, we can set that up. That is
fine.
NEW HEADQUARTERS
Mr. LaHood. You know, I read in one of the Capitol Hill
newspapers about the idea of a new police headquarters. Can you
talk about that?
Chief Morse. Yes, I believe that particular article came
from a Transportation and Infrastructure hearing that I
attended, and I was asked by the chairwoman if--actually, I was
given advice that with the property around the existing Capitol
campus going away pretty quickly that if we were in need of a
Capitol Police headquarters, we should begin looking for that
very quickly.
We obviously have reached our capacity as far as facilities
are related; and we work constantly with the AOC, the Architect
of the Capitol, to relay our needs with respect to that. We
haven't been asking for significant increases of personnel, and
so obviously we trimmed it back from within to get police
officers on the street deployment-wise to work most
efficiently. But, you know, a Capitol Police headquarters or
facilities are a need; they will become a need as the agency
grows because we have reached our capacity. So that is
something that is on the radar screen.
But--I haven't put any proposals together yet or made any
recommendations, but it is certainly something that has to be
looked at.
Mr. LaHood. Nothing in the works as far as the Architect's
Office is concerned, like drawing up plans?
Chief Morse. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. LaHood. And you have not asked them to do that?
Chief Morse. I have not.
Mr. LaHood. Is that how it would start?
Chief Morse. That is how it would start. I believe there
have been a number of plans in the past, facility plans, et
cetera. We did direct that our Office of Facilities and
Logistics collect all of those documents and proposals of the
past and put them together so that we would have some sort of
idea of what has been recommended in the past.
But I have nothing current, actively going on. But in order
to start that, that would be the start of that process.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome.
Mr. Bonner.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER FTES
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am the rookie. I
guess you have rookies on the police force; I am the rookie on
the committee. So let me ask a couple of quick questions since
I was not here last year.
You discussed the radio system then. I think you have
addressed the questions already on that. But one that
consistently comes up whenever we have visitors is about the
CVC. Does your current force have adequate resources in terms
of manpower to be able to deal with the new visitors center?
Chief Morse. The Congress had been very generous in
assisting us with the FTE to provide for the opening of the CVC
in fiscal year 2006; 45 additional FTEs were hired for that
purpose. There is also--with closure of certain screening
facilities, exterior screening facilities of the Capitol now
that will be taken up by the CVC itself, there is an input of
officers into that.
We have also requested in our fiscal year 2009 budget some
support FTE for the CVC; and in the event that certain
assumptions are not met regarding post-opening, that would not
be in the original plans. And also the new Visitors' Experience
for the Library of Congress.
So those are what those FTE increases are for.
But we are, from an emergency planning standpoint,
emergency preparedness standpoint and special operating
procedures, ready to open. And with the exception of these FTEs
that we are asking for, we are prepared to open in November of
2008.
STAFF ENTRY
Mr. Bonner. Let me shift gears quickly.
Last month, I had the opportunity to ask the Sergeant at
Arms what congressional staffers need to do to be successfully
admitted to bypass a long line of visitors in spring and summer
tourist season. Lots of people here, and we welcome them; this
is their building, after all. But we also have members of our
staff that are trying to get in the building to do the people's
work along with us. And I was led to believe by the Sergeant at
Arms that staff with House ID could bypass a lot of this front
of the line at the metal detectors. But my own staff was not
able to do that todaywhen they tried.
Is there a universal policy that the thousands of staffers
could have that would allow them to know what they could do to
get into the building to do the work?
And secondly, I will ask you the same question I asked the
Sergeant at Arms. Is it not feasible--I was a staffer for 18
years along with Mr. LaHood. It seems to me we have got
thousands of staffers who come into the building every day
through the parking garage without going through the metal
detectors and you have other staffers who, for whatever
reason--they live on the Hill or whatever reason--have to stand
in a long line sometimes in inclement weather to get in.
Is there not some way to have a staff entrance so that the
staff do not have to stand in long lines to get into the
offices where they work?
Chief Morse. Well, with respect to the Sergeant at Arms'
comment about a universal policy for staff, I believe that was
something that was piloted for a while, but not as an everyday
thing. It was piloted for some time.
With respect to the CVC, there were many discussions within
the working groups of having an expedited line open for staff
entering the CVC, because they would be there to greet, on
behalf of the Members and such, the constituents.
As far as having a separate line, we do have staff doors
specifically. But with such large crowds that we have, we
facilitate that by trying to measure if there is a long line if
we can move constituents to other doors so that the business of
Congress can carry on and the constituents can see their
Members.
Were there any other options or plans that you were aware
of?
Assistant Chief Nichols. We have actually done a number of
studies looking that that issue. As you say, the work of
Congress has to proceed regardless of the visitor load, and we
are trying to balance both issues.
One of the recommendations that was in a recent staffing
study that we conducted was actually designating staff-only
doors. That helps us with staff, and that is something we need
to formalize and then move forward to the committees through
the board members, if they think that is a viable option to
pursue.
Mr. Bonner. Do I have time for one more quick question?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Kind of.
CANNON TUNNEL VISITORS DESK
Mr. Bonner. Is there any consideration to putting a
visitor's desk in the Cannon tunnel? Because currently visitors
who are in the office building trying to get to the Capitol to
process expeditiously have to go to the Rayburn desk. Is that
just a matter of funding?
Chief Morse. The visitors' greeting position there is--I
believe is through the Sergeant at Arms' offices.
Mr. Bonner. I will ask him that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Bonner, we are going to have
Chief Morse at the CVC hearing next week and we can ask him for
detailed, CVC-related questions next week.
Chief Morse. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome, I know you are
excited.
Mr. Lewis.
CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS OF DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. Lewis. Chief, as you may or may not know, I have had a
long history of working with the inspectors general. When I
chaired the subcommittee on VA-HUD, the inspector general there
received a special allocation of funding because of problems
related to people's money being appropriated for Section 8
kinds of housing and the money never getting to the local
level. She did a fabulous job in helping us develop the housing
fraud initiative.
I had another line of questioning, but an item has come up
regarding the inspector general that concerns me a lot and I
hope you will be patient with me. It won't be too long.
The Capitol Police Inspector General, Carl Hoecker, has
conducted Criminal Interstate Identification Index checks on
all Capitol Police employees, sworn and civilian, roughly 2,000
individuals. This was done using the Washington Area Law
Enforcement System, WALES, owned by the D.C. Metropolitan
Police Department. These criminal background investigations
were conducted beginning in December of 2007 and completed in
February of 2008. Names and dates of birth of employees were
entered into the system.
So a series of concerns here: There is no policy directive
existing in the Department on conducting these investigations.
Two, these investigations were conducted without the
knowledge of the individuals. To date, employees have not been
notified of this activity, and if I was one of your sworn
officers, I would be really teed at not knowing.
This raises serious violations of privacy and fourth
amendment rights. It also violates the Federal Service Labor
Management Relations Act with regard to bargaining unit
employees, because it represents, quote, ``a change in working
conditions,'' and it was done without any negotiations with
these respective unions.
The implications of the search being conducted by the
inspector general implies or most likely will be perceived as a
secret activity which may exacerbate the legal, political,
public relations and organizational morale aspects as a result
of these criminal background checks.
Chief, I would like to have you tell us and the committee,
and especially the chair, has this been done? And respond to
these lines of question, if you would.
Chief Morse. Yes, sir, thank you.
Yes, that has been done. With respect to Triple I checks on
employees, we go back to 1997 and a directive from the Police
Department. I believe it was the appropriations omnibus bill,
1997, 105th Congress, related to the Lautenberg Act, related to
domestic violence among police officers.
This Police Department in 1997, directed all employees to
report if they had been arrested for domestic violence. And as
I recall, as a young officer I had to submit my report of
whether I had been arrested or not.
Also within the organization there is a rules and conduct
general order that states specifically the conduct of a police
officer and what is expected of them both on duty and off duty.
We also swear to an oath of office to protect the Constitution
of the United States and also to enforce laws and to be
compliant with those laws.
So each officer receives that training, as well, at our
Training Services Bureau.
With respect to Triple I checks, a special operating
procedure, signed June 1, 2005, in the Office of Professional
Responsibility previous to my administration, clearly states
that Triple I checks would be conducted on a yearly basis. Also
what I found was that within the organization, obviously Triple
I checks are conducted for background investigation of new
employees or recruits or new hires on our civilian staff.
I also know that within the organization there is a policy
on Triple I checks for employees within the United States
Capitol Police to have background investigations which includes
a Triple I check for a security clearance--Secret, Top Secret
and SCI.
What I noticed was, we had several different policies and
special operating procedures within the organization. I also
know that the officers and employees are held at a higher level
of integrity and character as law enforcement officers and
enforcers of the law, so we needed to formalize that process
within the organization. So in September of 2007 we directed
the Office of Human Resources to begin formalizing the overall
process so that we could protect the integrity and character of
the Police Department and hold to our oath and directives and
be compliant with those directives in our organization. So as a
part of our repeatable business practices, those were the steps
to take to go forward.
The inspector general, Mr. Hoecker, knew that we were
moving forward with that project and with his oversight of
compliance with directives, he took on the task of running the
Triple I checks for the employees of the Police Department so
that we would have confidentiality and no bias.
Mr. Lewis. At your direction?
Chief Morse. In concert with the formalized process of the
Police Department, to provide a baseline of clearing any
questions to be presented in two phases to the Office of Human
Resources so that they could complete their initiative and put
a formalized process in place. And this would be mirrored--as
do all other Federal law enforcement agencies, including the
Metropolitan Police Department and U.S. Park Police, who do a
5-year review of all of their employees.
So we were just instituting an initiative that has been a
past practice in the organization, that there were several
different special operating directives, special operating
procedures that existed; and we were just bringing it together
to complete that initiative. And that is where we are today.
Mr. Lewis. Madam Chairman, I am worried about all kinds of
questions here that relate to individual rights as well as
legal rights, et cetera.
I don't happen to be a lawyer, thank God, but did you get
legal counsel regarding the procedures that you are using here?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Lewis, your time has expired by
a couple of minutes.
Mr. Lewis. These are pretty important questions.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And other Members have questions as
well. And we will come back to you.
Mr. Lewis. This will probably be my last attendance at this
subcommittee.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Also, when we have a closed session,
we can address this.
Mr. Lewis. I hope the chairman will take this very
seriously and follow through with it. There are civil rights
questions here.
POLICY ON CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My understanding is that the
officers and employees of the Capitol Police were aware of the
background checks. I have a document that I would be happy to
ask unanimous consent to enter into the record that was signed
by the Chief and approved specifically that says: Interim
reviews, conduct Interstate Identification Index checks every 2
years on all USCP employees to ensure that employees remain in
good standing. That was dated September 5th of 2007, and it was
signed by the Chief on September 21st of 2007.
So unless I am wrong, Chief, did the employees of the
Capitol Police, were they aware of the Triple I checks that
were going to be instituted every 2 years?
Chief Morse. That particular--let me see what it is.
This is in reference to the proposal that was made to me in
September of 2007 which I sent back to the Office of Human
Resources with an approval to proceed with this policy or with
this initiative.
At this point--and prior to it getting to me, the trail was
Office of Human Resources, Chief Administrative Officer, Office
of Employment Counsel, and then to me were the notes that were
on the document.
What I have since found out is that the point at which I
approved this and sent it back to the Office of Human Resources
was at the time that the Inspector General began the Triple I
checks, which are--which had been something, like I said, that
had been an SOP and directive of the Department prior to, so--
--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do employees----
Chief Morse. There is an expectation, certainly.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I don't mean to be----
Chief Morse. I had a Triple I check accomplished on me when
I became Chief of Police.
EMPLOYEE AWARENESS OF CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If it is standard operating
procedure, are all the employees of the Capitol Police aware
that Triple I checks will be done every 2 years or on a fairly
consistent basis?
Chief Morse. Capitol Police officers are aware that they
are held to the highest standard of conduct.
Mr. Lewis. That wasn't the question.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I assure you that I will hold him to
answer the question.
Chief Morse. That they are held to the standards of
conduct, that they are held to the oath of office.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Did they know that the background
checks would be used?
Chief Morse. Specifically the tool that we use? No, we
don't necessarily tell anyone.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But is there an expectation that
they know that these checks will be done periodically?
Chief Morse. Absolutely. We give orders so that people will
be compliant. There is no other way to ensure compliance with
the directive.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This wouldn't have come as a
surprise to them?
Chief Morse. I cannot see it as coming as a surprise to
anybody in law enforcement.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. There has been a concern raised by
the ranking member of the full committee. And I will develop a
question, based on the follow-up, in the homework that we
assign.
Mr. Lewis. I hope I may attend that closed session and I
hope also in that closed session, if I am not able to be here,
that you will pursue whether they sought legal counsel about
the methods that are used here. I can see a revolution going on
among our police officers.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am very comfortable that the
Capitol Police and the employees of the Capitol Police are
aware, based on what the Chief said. But I intend to pursue it
before we have a closed session, most definitely.
Thank you very much for bringing the issue to our
attention.
Mr. Lewis. I have additional questions for the record, if I
might.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sure. Absolutely. Any questions that
Members have can be answered for the record.
EXPANDED RESPONSIBILITIES
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We will move into round 2.
On the increases that you have asked for, how much is
related to the expanded responsibilities that you've been asked
to take on and how much is related to other program increases?
And of the other program increases, the ones that are not
related to the expanded responsibilities, can you highlight
what your priorities are in the likely event that we are not
able to fund them all?
Chief Morse. Okay. With respect to oversight increases or
general?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Part of your increase is related to
your increased responsibility at the CVC, the Inauguration and
all of that, and then there are other Department priorities.
Chief Morse. I actually have a breakdown. I will just read
from the breakdown itself.
About 3.4 percent for a COLA and annualization of fiscal
year 2008, because obviously a time lag within the 2007 time
period will be moved over to 2008. So the COLA annualization
will be a 3.4 increase.
Some of the uncontrollable increases: the 6.1 percent for
CVC operations, the Library of Congress merger, the new
Visitor's Experience and AOC tunnel project.
And then 1.1 percent, 2009 Presidential Inauguration, and
0.9 percent, Office of Inspector General request.
We have USCP increases specifically totaling just 6.4
percent: 1.8 percent, force development; 0.2 percent, Chief's
priorities; 0.6 percent are requested positions from 2008; and
1.6 percent other new hire costs and other pay costs; and about
2.3 percent, general expense costs related to the 6.1 percent
uncontrollables that I listed above.
DEPARTMENT PRIORITIES
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. In terms of the priorities that you
have, separate from the added responsibilities, what are the
highest--what are the things that if we are going to cut, what
is it that you have got to have among those priorities that are
not related to your added responsibilities?
Chief Morse. With regard to some of the uncontrollables, we
have to obviously look at some of the CVC operations, the
Inauguration----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No, no, I know--but you have part of
your increase that is uncontrollable and some of your increase
that is your other priorities.
Of the other-priorities piece of it, which I know is about
a third, what are the most important components of that?
Because when we are prioritizing, I want to do it based on your
priorities, not based on ones that we pick out of the air.
Chief Morse. Obviously, we will start with the continuation
of the operations, and then we look at some of the force
development priorities that we have to enhance our abilities to
secure the campus.
So I think our budget is broken down in a way with
validation and justification where we are easily going to be
able to talk about that and prioritize things the way we want.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do you want to respond for the
record in terms of the detail?
Chief Morse. I have--we have a sheet here.
Assistant Chief Nichols. We brought this----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. This is not ``Stump the Chief.''
Chief Morse. I am just trying to get the right information,
if I was going to answer you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sure.
Chief Morse. We are looking at--we would probably look at
some of our analysis of our human capital posture, our
environmental assessment internal controls and environmental
assessment that we do. Looking at our environmental,
operational, administrative assessment conclusions. We would
look at those as low priority to cut.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Chief Morse. And those have a long list of things
associated with them: analysis of performance measures and
operations, current forecasting for the Department of human
capital posturing, status of----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. You are speaking Greek to me.
If you can work with our staff on drilling down into those
priorities when the time comes. And my time has expired. I will
come back to myself.
FOLLOW-UP ON BACKGROUND CHECK POLICY
Mr. Latham. Thank you. I want to pursue a little bit more
about what Mr. Lewis was talking about.
The paper you submitted for the record, was that a
directive notification or was that just a concept paper?
Chief Morse. This is a concept paper.
Mr. Latham. It is not a policy?
Chief Morse. No, it is not. It is a concept paper that was
submitted to me, and I approved and sent back to the Office of
Human Resource management to begin this process of formalizing
what is already in policy and procedure within the Police
Department.
Mr. Latham. Okay. But that is not official policy?
Chief Morse. No.
Assistant Chief Nichols. But I think, to clarify, all of
our employees have a duty to report to us any time that they
are arrested. So that is policy; and therefore, this would be a
check and balance to make sure that employees who work for a
law enforcement agency are held to a higher standard.
Mr. Latham. I don't have a problem. Is the Inspector
General here?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes.
INSPECTOR GENERAL AUTHORITY TO DO CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS
Mr. Latham. On what basis, I just think it is unusual to
have a broad--do a background check of everybody in the
Department all at once. On what basis and what authority did
you do that? And if you could, provide any legal opinions for
the record as to your authority to do this.I am extremely
concerned about what some people would think was a fishing
expedition, for no real cause--I can see it on an individual
basis certainly, but to just go out and do a background check
on everybody in the Department, whether they are sworn or not
certainly raises some real questions when no one was notified
about it.
Mr. Hoecker. First, let me introduce myself. I am Carl
Hoecker, Inspector General for the Capitol Police.
This came about--the Chief is one of our stakeholders;
about midsummer of every year, we solicit input: What should
the IG be doing to help the Department? And, in part, what was
important to the Chief in our discussions, that I recall, was
that he had noticed a few employees that not been held
accountable to this specific rule A.2 of Directive PFR 1.2, and
that is: The policy of the Department is to ensure that all
employees, both sworn and civilian, maintain an exemplary
standard of personal integrity and highest professional
standard of conduct both in their private lives and in their
official capacity.
Rule A.2 is conformance to the law: Employees will obey all
laws of the United States, District of Columbia, every State
and local and military jurisdiction in which they may be
present. Employees arrested or indicted for a violation of any
law, other than minor custodial or noncustodial traffic
offenses or summoned to appear in response to a criminal
complaint, will immediately notify one of their supervisors
who, in turn, will notify the Chief of Police throughout chain
of command.
What the Chief noticed was that there were a few employees
who were requesting security clearances, and their names seemed
familiar to him or the people in his office; and they did some
research and found that there may have been an internal affairs
case on this person that would have brought the question if
this person could have a security clearance and even face
discipline in the Department because they did something wrong.
So this job was a compliance job, looking at management
controls, what departmental controls, management controls they
have to follow this up. And I relate that to, if you have a
policy, you need to have management follow-up on this.
And there was an SOP--I believe it is a few years back, I
forget the date, but that they would do an annual Triple I
check, a criminal history check, on all employees, and that
would be done by the Office of Internal Affairs. That was not
being done.
And so there were processes and things that were scattered
throughout the Department, and they had no way to bring it
together. So obviously the inspector general was concerned
about the integrity of the Department, and anything that I
could do to help promote better integrity, that is exactly why
I did this, sir.
Mr. Latham. Okay. Were you asked to do this?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Latham. By whom?
Mr. Hoecker. Chief of Police.
Mr. Latham. You were requested by him to do this?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Latham. I am confused as to why, if you had specific
cases of concern about individuals, why you had to do an
everybody-in-the-Department sweep to ferret out individuals
whom you have identified as having a problem.
Mr. Hoecker. Well, sir, this really should have been done
all along, according to that internal affairs policy. But it
wasn't being done; it obviously fell through the cracks.
Maybe they did not have the FTE resources to do that, so it
just wasn't being done.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LaHood.
LACK OF NOTIFICATION ON CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS
Mr. LaHood. Let me tell you how I characterize this.
I have the highest regard for law enforcement people, but
this is an outrageous abuse of power to check into people's
backgrounds that are not law enforcement people, unbeknownst to
them. Without telling them, I think is unlawful and perhaps
illegal.
Now, why would you look into somebody's background without
telling them? Why would you do that? These people are not
carrying a weapon. They are not law enforcement people. They
might be a clerk working at a desk or answering a telephone.
What gives you the right to do that?
Mr. Hoecker. Well, sir, I said before there was a policy
all along in the Department----
Mr. LaHood. What gives the IG the right? If it is standard
operating procedure, what gives you the right to do it?
Mr. Hoecker. The IG is concerned with the integrity of the
Department, with programs and operations, with the economy,
efficiency. That is our charter, sir, and this sits within that
ambit.
Mr. LaHood. Absolutely not. There is absolutely nothing
that gives you the right to look into a non-law enforcement
person's background. Nothing does that.
Now, Chief, I am going to ask you a direct question. Were
people's backgrounds looked into and checked on unbeknownst to
them?
Chief Morse. Yes.
Mr. LaHood. Why? If they were not carrying a gun, if they
are not law enforcement people, if they are a clerk working in
a office, what gives you the right to do that? What gives you
the right to ask the IG to do that? What authority do you have
to do that?
Chief Morse. To protect the integrity of the Police
Department.
LEGITIMACY OF CONDUCTING NO-NOTICE BACKGROUND CHECKS
Mr. LaHood. Look, I am a simple-minded person. I am a
trained school teacher. I taught school before I came to
Congress. I expected every one of the kids in my class to
behave. If one of the kids did not behave, then I would do
something about it. And what you are saying to me is that
because you thought maybe one or two people had not been
following the rules, that you were going to have a blanket
policy, unbeknownst to them, to look into everybody's
background.
I think if it is not illegal, it should be; and I frankly
don't think you have the right to do it. I know you want to
protect the integrity, and if somebody violates the rules of
the Department, particularly a non-law enforcement person, you
have every right.
If somebody gets a DUI, if somebody is arrested for
domestic violence, if somebody does not obey the laws, that is
one thing. But unbeknownst to law-abiding citizens who come
here to the Capitol, thinking they are doing the right thing,
obeying all the laws, to look into their backgrounds and do
background check and have a police agency do a background
check, I think is wrong. I don't think you havethe right to do
it.
Assistant Chief Nichols. I just want to make sure we have
this in context.
I have been a police officer for 25 years. I chose to work
for a law enforcement agency. There are things that go along
with wearing this badge and working for a law enforcement
agency that has to be maintained because we are held to a
higher standard.
Mr. LaHood. I couldn't agree with you more.
Assistant Chief Nichols. The other thing, though, we don't
know what we don't know, Mr. LaHood. If somebody does not
report to us in accordance with our established policy that
they have been arrested, there is no check and balance for us
to know that information and take appropriate action.
Mr. LaHood. Then why don't you tell the people that you are
doing it?
Assistant Chief Nichols. I believe, sir, that it is in the
regs and people know that when they come on to this agency they
are submitting themselves to a background investigation.
Mr. LaHood. Let me say this: When the employees of the
Capitol Hill Police who are in no law enforcement positions
find out that their backgrounds have been looked into, some of
them are going to be outraged because they were not told and
they had no idea it was going on.
To do it under the guise of protecting the integrity of the
Department--look it, we would all agree that that is a very
important goal, but you ought to tell the people that you are
doing it.
Assistant Chief Nichols. Well, I think--and that is fair. I
think if the goal is agreed upon that everyone is agreeing that
this is a justified goal for this police department, as it is
for every other law enforcement agency, that is what we were
trying to achieve. If we could have done that better, then it
is a lesson learned and we can move on.
But the fact of the matter is that the standard has to be
adhered to. The policy has been in place for years. The fact
that it was not acted upon before we came along is beyond our
control.
Mr. LaHood. I see no policy that gives the IG--to give the
Chief to tell the IG, ``You look into everybody's background.''
I haven't seen that policy.
Show me the policy that says that unbeknownst to the
employee. Where it is at?
Assistant Chief Nichols. It is a standard operating
procedure that was done in internal affairs.
Mr. LaHood. Hiring an outside group to do it, getting the
IG to do it? There is no policy.
Show it to me.
Assistant Chief Nichols. We will work on that, sir. I think
the point made was, there were policies in disparate places
within the agency, and we were trying to find a unified way to
achieve the goal.
Mr. LaHood. This is not the way to treat employees of the
Capitol Hill Police, in my opinion.
EMPLOYEE EXPECTATIONS OF BACKGROUND CHECKS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The gentleman's time has expired.
Let me follow up on this, and I am going to give you some
homework at the end of this that will ask you to provide us
with more detailed information.
But my understanding--and it would be hard to be more
concerned about people's civil liberties and civil rights than
me. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee, and I began my
career here in Congress standing up for civil rights and civil
liberties. So I am certainly extremely sensitive, too.
But from what I am hearing--and I will ask you to give us
more information later--is that you had an inconsistent policy.
Is it correct that you had an inconsistent policy, that there
were various ways that background checks, periodic background
checks, were conducted on employees and that because there is a
requirement of the employees, whether they are sworn officers
or civilians, to report to you when there has been an arrest or
indictment for a violation of any law other than minor
noncustodial traffic offenses or if they had been summoned to
appear in response to a criminal complaint, that they have to
immediately notify one of their supervisors?
Was there an inconsistent policy that you were trying to
make uniform, and is it your belief, or testimony, that there
is an expectation in the Police Department, when you are hired,
whether you are civilian or sworn, that you will be subjected
to periodic background checks--I don't mean to put words in
your mouth--and that even though you may not have directly
notified the employees of this background check, that there is
an expectation when they are employed that they will be subject
to them? Is that right, or is that overstating it?
Chief Morse. That is correct.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I want to make sure because,
Mr. LaHood, I would absolutely share your outrage if there was
not an expectation. And I will ask the police leadership to
follow up with us on exactly what the procedures were and are.
I can understand that, working for a police department,
there would be an expectation that you have to be beyond
reproach, and that if there is a concern that employees are not
reporting violations of law or indictments or arrests, that a
check to make sure that you have got a consistent application
of the policy may be in order. So we will ask you to follow up.
CVC AND CANNON TUNNEL
I want to shift to the CVC and the Cannon tunnel, and we
will ask you a little bit more about that next week. There was
an $8 million increase in your fiscal 2009 request to provide
security for the Capitol Visitors Center, which also includes
funding, my understanding is, to potentially keep the Cannon
tunnel open for staff-led tours if Congress decides to go that
route.
Can you break down the $8 million request? How much of that
is estimated to keep the Cannon tunnel open for staff-led tours
in the event that Congress makes that decision?
Chief Morse. Okay. With respect to the additional FTEs, we
have a total of 31--that is $2.5 million; and the general
expenses associated with that are $544,000. The CVC plans,
including staff-led tours using the tunnel, is about
$4,920,000.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. $4 million for the tunnel staffing?
Chief Morse. That is for the overtime. $4.9 million
overtime.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is because you would be using
existing officers and you would move them over to the tunnel as
opposed to new hires?
Chief Morse. That is correct. There is a preparation for
opening. Once we receive the permit for occupancy, the officers
who will be working the CVC will need to come in and train for
emergency preparedness evacuation and receiving the visitors
into the CVC.
OVERTIME USE
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And the other question I have
relates to overtime.
How much does the Department rely on overtime? And are you
making plans, instead of focusing so much on overtime, to try
to hire new officers? Would that be more efficient? Is it a
more cost-efficient way of dealing with your staffing needs to
engage in new hires as opposed to overtime?
Chief Morse. One thing we needed to do was a staffing
study; and we completed the staffing study, which included
looking at all of our processes to ensure that we were doing
everything in the most efficient and effective manner. That
also gave us really the number of officers needed to do the
mission that we currently cover, as well as any future state of
improvement or security enhancement that we needed to do.
And so we have those figures, but first we had to--and as
we promised last year, first we would look within to make sure
that we had the economy and efficiency of our officers with
deployment strategies, responsibilities directly related to the
mission.
We have the CVC opening which--construction security,
security screeners will be put back into the field, and we will
realize officers from that. So we really had to cut the fat
from within before we were asking for more employees.
But the eventuality will be looking at the difference
between--if you ask for more FTEs, that drives a lot of other
factors: facilities, uniforms and equipment, general expenses
and such. We will have to find the means between the overtime
amount and minus out what facilities and all the other expenses
would be to find the most cost-efficient measure.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My time has expired.
Mr. Latham.
INSPECTOR GENERAL FIREARM
Mr. Latham. Thank you. Just to go back to the subject we
were on before, I would ask you and also the inspector general,
Chief, to provide us, for the record and to us personally, any
statutory justification, or legal opinion that you have to
justify what, I would agree with Mr. LaHood, looks like a
fishing expedition.
I might ask the inspector on a different subject--at one
point in the past you sought authority to carry a weapon and be
deputized for law enforcement. Seems like we have had this
before here. Is that accurate? And if so, who approved your
seeking this authority?
Mr. Hoecker. That is accurate, sir. And I am working with
the Capitol Police Board on that. And under their direction, I
sought U.S. Marshals special deputation and received it.
Mr. Latham. It is my understanding that the Police Board
withdrew its approval to carry the weapon. Why did they
withdraw that?
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir, I got a phone call from the
chairman, and he said there had been some questions on, I guess
it was liability for the weapon and whether the U.S. Marshals
Service was appropriate for the IG here. And I said, Okay.
So I turned my weapons back in, and at this point they are
still in the custody of the Department.
Mr. Latham. I think it does raise, as in a previous
hearing, separation of powers issues, as to who you actually
answer to, the executive branch or the legislative branch.
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir.
NEW RECRUITS
Mr. Latham. Chief, your justification, your request--you
are seeking 264 new recruits for 2009, and this is the largest
increase since 9/11 or the anthrax issue. How did you get to
that number? And is there any way to know whether the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center can actually accommodate you
with that many new recruits?
Chief Morse. Yes, sir, I could.
Mr. Latham. They are backed up, the way it is right now.
Chief Morse. Of the 264, this is inclusive of 23 attrition
carryover from last year that we were unable to assume due to
the CR. So we missed a class, which could be a size of 48 if we
don't get the additional class at the end of this fiscal year
that we are asking for.
Fiscal year 2009 is just 162 for normal attrition or
retirement, people leaving the Department--you know, turnover.
Library of Congress merger is a backfill of 24, and that does
not include those who will remain at the Library of Congress as
officers until the transition date; 31 are for CVC operations
and 11 for the new Visitors Experience, the remaining number of
13 is in regards to our force development, which we testified
to, the intelligence capability.
TRAINING AVAILABILITY
Mr. Latham. How about training? Is it available for that
many?
Chief Morse. At this point, we have a request in for the
end of this fiscal year, for the additional 24 end of the year
class, but we have not received any response back.
Mr. Latham. Your request of 264 additional?
Chief Morse. We are going to ask for it. And I believe we
are awaiting approval for the six classes. So we don't know
yet.
Mr. Latham. Are your officers currently getting the 80
hours of training that they are supposed to get per year,
especially in certain areas?
Chief Morse. Eighty hours of training is really an overall
average. There are some officers who receive more training than
80 hours, so 80 hours is an overall average.
But what we have done within the Training Services Bureau
is prioritize. We have priority 1, priority 2 training, which
is mandatory training and certifications that we do on your own
basis, which--including not only firearms qualification, but it
can include things like fire extinguisher training, in-service
training regarding legal issues, et cetera.
I don't have the exact figures of what each individual has
earned, but our overall average is 80. That is a mark that was
set previously and probably needs a little more work on, since
we do obviously know that other officers and specialty units
receive a lot more training than the average line officer does.
Mr. Latham. I assume I am done?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes.
Mr. LaHood.
CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK PROCEDURE
Mr. LaHood. Mr. IG, can you walk us through the procedure
that is done to do a background check on people? Who is
involved and how it takes place?
Mr. Hoecker. I can, sir.
Mr. LaHood. Could you speak up?
Mr. Hoecker. I can do that, too, sir. The way it was done
in this instance and the way that the Capitol Police, the way I
understand it is----
Mr. LaHood. Is it done similarly for every employee?
Mr. Hoecker. Well, I was going to describe the actual
access to the electronic check first, sir.
Mr. LaHood. Similar for every employee? There is no
distinction for someone who is law enforcement and someone who
is answering the telephone?
Mr. Hoecker. No, there was not.
We were--there is a person dedicated by the Metropolitan
Police Department at the Department--at Capitol Police. They
train users for WALES. And it is a 1- or 2--a 2-day training
course, and it deals with actually conducting different checks,
wants and warrants checks, criminal history checks.
And once that training is done, then that person is
assigned a user name and a password. And then they use the
computer that is dedicated for that purpose to actually do the
checks. And what they do is, they plug in the name and date of
birth and then the results come back.
Mr. LaHood. But what do they look at?
Mr. Hoecker. I'm sorry, sir?
INFORMATION EXAMINED IN CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS
Mr. LaHood. What kinds of things do they examine? What do
they look at?
Mr. Hoecker. Well, it is a check; name and date of birth
would get sent forward through WALES to the criminal history,
and it would either come back negative or come back with some
kind of a record, so to speak. And sometimes those records are
not that person; sometimes it is a person within, say, 10 years
of date of birth that may or may not be that person; but that
is just the way the system generates results.
And then those results are checked to make sure and to see
if that is the exact date of birth and that record is
retrieved. Let's say it was an arrest for drunk and disorderly;
that record is retrieved, and then it is verified, that that
person is employed or is not.
Mr. LaHood. Do we look into anything else?
Mr. Hoecker. No, sir.
Mr. LaHood. Criminal background?
Mr. Hoecker. It is a Triple I check. Interstate
Identification Index.
Mr. LaHood. If someone was stopped for a traffic ticket,
would that show up?
Mr. Hoecker. It may or may not. I don't know.
Chief Morse. It does not. It is if you have been arrested
and you submitted fingerprints to the law enforcement agency
that has arrested you. And it dates back to, I believe, about--
--
Mr. LaHood. If someone were arrested for a DUI, that would
appear?
Chief Morse. If they submitted it to the NCIC and were
fingerprinted, yes.
Mr. LaHood. So the criteria are then--fingerprints is how
it would show up?
Chief Morse. That is one verification of the person who
committed the offense. That is one verification to be able to
do that, yes.
UNION NOTIFICATION OF BACKGROUND CHECKS
Mr. LaHood. Did you have any obligation to notify the
union, that these employees were members of, that this
information was being collected on them?
Mr. Hoecker. I did not collect any information, sir. This
is information that is in the repositories of law enforcement
and WALES. I did not collect anything.
Mr. LaHood. Was the union that represents employees of the
Capitol Hill Police notified that their backgrounds were being
looked into?
Mr. Hoecker. Not in this context, no, sir.
But when someone comes on the job, whether they are sworn
or civilian, they fill out what is called a ``blue book''; and
that blue book is a certification for their initial background
investigation, and it tells them that their employment is
contingent upon successful results of a background
investigation.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
Mr. Hoecker. Yes, sir.
Assistant Chief Nichols. Also, employees who are a
collective bargaining unit and who are not are under the same
obligation to report to us. So it is a known factor to report
to us.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I don't have any
additional questions, so I will wrap up if you don't have
anything else.
Mr. Latham. I have got a couple I can put in the record.
closing remarks
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I don't want to rush you; if
you wanted to ask them publicly, that is fine.
Okay. We had a lot that we went through in this hearing,
and I don't want it to be overshadowed that you are really to
be congratulated for putting forward and completing the first
set of complete financial statements in the Department's
history. That was many, many years in the making--not ``in the
making'' but many, many years coming, as well as a complete
inventory.
And this leadership of the Capitol Police is really to be
commended for beginning to right the administrative ship of the
Capitol Police, because it really has been badly needed for a
long time.
ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENTS FROM THE CHAIR
There has been quite a bit of strong language that has been
thrown out there on the background check subject today. I would
like to get a reality check on what really occurred so that we
can make sure that there is a comfort level not just with the
Members but with the Capitol Police community. So by next
Wednesday, April 16th, if you would submit a report with a
detailed explanation on why the Triple I checks were done, what
authority allowed you to do those checks, whether they are done
within the Department procedures, whether Capitol Police
employees were aware of the checks or whether there was an
expectation with their employment that they would be
periodically subjected to checks, whether performing these
checks represents a change in policy, and whether this is a
standard operating procedure for this Department and for other
police departments around the country.
And if you could also please explain whether you sought
legal counsel regarding the legality of performing these Triple
I checks.
Additionally, this hearing has made clear that the Capitol
Police are taking on a number of expanded responsibilities in
fiscal year 2009, and that is one of the major reasons for the
18 percent increase being requested.
At the same time, an increase of that size is just not
realistic--we were able to do 10 percent last year--given the
constraints that we are going to be operating under. This
subcommittee really needs a clear sense of what your highest
priorities are and what you will be and not be able to do with
an increase of less than 18 percent.
With that in mind, if you would submit a report by next
Wednesday, April 16th, as well, that would explain what you
would and would not be able to do if you are held to either a 5
percent increase or 10 percent increase, basically what your
highest priorities for funding would be at these lower funding
levels.
With that, I appreciate the Members' time and attention and
the Capitol Police's efforts.
The subcommittee stands in recess until tomorrow at 1
o'clock when we will hear from the GAO.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 10, 2008.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO)
WITNESSES
GENE L. DODARO, ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL
SALLYANNE HARPER, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
GEORGE STRADER, CONTROLLER
Opening Remarks--Chair Wasserman Schultz
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I would like to call this hearing of
the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations to order. Today we are going to hear from the
acting Comptroller General, Gene Dodaro, about the agency's
budget request. I want to thank you and your staff for the
quality support GAO provides the Congress. And that includes
direct support provided by GAO staff like David Marroni.
I don't need a script for this. I didn't realize what this
was. Obviously, this was just handed to me. I can do this all
on my own.
David Marroni is the finest example of a public servant
that we have in this institution. He has worked tirelessly,
provided us with expertise, advice; has just done an incredible
job representing your agency and helping us get the job done
here in the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. And we owe him and
you a debt of gratitude for lending him to us for the last
year. So I just want to thank you very, very much.
Mr. Dodaro. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We have a tight budget situation, as
no one knows better than you. I want to congratulate you on
your new role at the GAO. I know you are accompanied by your
Chief Administrative Officer, Sallyanne Harper, and your
Controller, George Strader.
You have asked for $538 million in direct appropriations, a
$38 million or 7.7 percent increase, which includes a request
for an additional 151 staff. That is just under a 5 percent
increase in the agency's size. I do appreciate that this is one
of only two Legislative Branch agencies that actually asked for
a single digit increase. But it is going to be a difficult
budget year, as you know, and Mr. Latham and I can probably
read each others' scripts at these budget hearings now. We can
swap roles one day just for fun.
But I will say to you what I said to each of the agency
heads. We would like to get from you what your highest
priorities are. We are going to try to do our best to fund what
your needs are. And clearly I know, because of the enhanced
oversight that Congress has engaged in, you are really working
to the brink and you need the additional assistance and
additional staff, I know that. And you had flat staffing for
the last number of years, and I absolutely recognize that.
So, with that, Mr. Latham.
Opening Remarks--Mr. Latham
Mr. Latham. I want to also welcome you and to commend you
doing more with less all the time or with the same. I commend
your service to the Congress and to the country. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Dodaro, your full statement will
be entered into the record, and you can proceed with a 5-minute
summary. Welcome.
Opening Statement--Gene Dodaro
Mr. Dodaro. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the
Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to
talk about GAO's budget request. First, I would like to thank
you, Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee, for your past
support to GAO. We appreciate the confidence that you have
shown in us and believe that we have provided an excellent
return on the investment that you have made in us. Last year,
our work for the Congress led to financial benefits of over $45
billion and over a thousand improvements in government
operations. Importantly, our work is targeted to support the
Congress in its oversight and legislative priorities. And as
the demands and challenges facing the Congress increase, so
does the premium on GAO work to provide help to the Congress.
Demand is high and increasing.
DEMAND FOR GAO WORK IS INCREASING
Requests for GAO assistance in fiscal year 2007 were up 14
percent over 2006 and so far this year, through the first half
of 2008, were up an additional 20 percent from a comparable
period last year. GAO witnesses are appearing at congressional
hearings at a record pace. And potential mandates which are
included in bills submitted in the Congress, which are a
harbinger of the type of demand that is going to come down the
road, are up over 75 percent in this Congress compared to the
same point in time in the prior Congress.
STAFF LEVELS
Unfortunately, we are not well positioned right now to meet
this increased demand. Our current staffing level for this
fiscal year is at 3,100 full-time equivalent positions. This is
the lowest level we have ever had at GAO. Our staff are working
hard. But we don't believe, as indicated by your opening
remarks and I appreciate your recognizing that people are
working hard, and that we are going to be able to sustain that
level of effort and provide more services with the same level
of staff. We asked for some help. We believe, unless we get the
help, we are just going to have a growing list of additional
requests that are targeted to terrific areas for oversight and
help meet the Congress's needs; it is just going to continue to
grow. We are asking, as you indicate, Madam Chair, for a 5
percent increase in staff of about 150 people.
We think at this staffing level we can help better meet the
demands of the Congress as it conducts its activities and
executes its constitutional responsibilities. It also will be a
terrific boost in the morale and the productivity of the
existing dedicated and talented GAO work force.
UNION RELATIONSHIP
Going forward, I also want to assure this Committee that I
am committed to work in a constructive, effective way with our
new union to establish a labor-management environment that
benefits all GAO employees. Since the union has been in place
since September, we have worked toward a prompt pay agreement
for 2008 pay decisions. We are working right now on an interim
agreement with the union and also look forward to shaping a
collective bargaining agreement over a longer period of time.
Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee, I fully
appreciate the fiscal constraints that you are facing, and I
know that you have difficult decisions that lie ahead. But
please know that we appreciate your thoughtful consideration of
our budget request and also know that, regardless of the
outcome, that myself and all the people at GAO are going to
work hard to give the Congress the best results with whatever
resources you deem appropriate to provide us.
So I thank you for your time and attention and look forward
to answering any questions you may have.
[Mr. Dodaro's prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
BENEFITS OF INCREASED STAFFING LEVEL
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much, Mr. Dodaro. It
is really good to have you come before us.
And we--really I mean Congress--can't thank GAO enough for
its incredible expertise that it provides as an independent
agency that has always really been an incredibly good example
of the neutrality that we need to make sure that we can make
decisions. I want to ask you about the additional 151 FTEs that
you are asking for. I know you cited growing demands for your
products. How much of a difference will this make? What is the
difference between what you can and can't do or will and won't
be able to do if you do or don't get them?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, first of all, we think we can produce
more products and services with the additional resources. But
also we can provide more timely assistance. What is happening
now is, on average before, it took us about 2 and a half months
to be able to staff most congressional requests that were
coming in, which is understandable given the fact that people
are always engaged in producing products for the Congress. That
has grown to about 4 months now. And in some areas,
particularly in health care and homeland security, as you well
know, the number of issues facing the Congress are growing, as
well as the natural resource and environment area, given energy
concerns. So, in some cases, it takes us 6 to 8 months to
initiate a new request in those areas. So what we do is we work
with each of the committees and try to prioritize within each
committee what is its highest priority. But it has just taken
us longer.
TIMELINESS OF STARTING NEW WORK
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. For example, you have a performance
measure for timeliness that shows that 94 percent of
congressional staff who responded to feedback surveys in fiscal
year 2007 said the agency's products were timely.
Mr. Dodaro. That measure is based upon which engagements we
accept, Madam Chair. In other words, once we agree to do the
work, we agree to deliver it within a certain period of time.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. So it doesn't count the things
that you couldn't do or couldn't get to?
Mr. Dodaro. No.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. I understand.
Mr. Dodaro. I would hate to see what that figure would be
right now, if it included the reports we could not get to.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If they were asked about their
frustration level of what you said no to?
Mr. Dodaro. Correct.
PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND NEED FOR NEW STAFF
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Your performance results over the
last 5 years when your staff level has declined have actually
improved, which is a good thing.
Mr. Dodaro. Right.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, if that is the case, then it
seems like you are doing just fine. Why do you need 151
additional staff?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, two reasons. One is that we are not
providing all the services that the Congress wants. And
oftentimes our services don't always directly lead to financial
benefits but better informed decisions on the part of the
Congress and better legislative actions that they take or
increased oversight. And so, number one, we are not doing that.
Number two is our people are working at an incredible pace.
You appropriately gave Dave Marroni credit for the hard
work that he does here. Well, we have 3,100 people that are
working just as hard at the GAO. We expect Dave to work as hard
when he comes back, too. But we are stretched. And what I am
concerned about is that the quality of the work that we do
produce for the Congress is going to be impaired if we try to
produce more with the same level of resources. And that is not
in the Congress's interest nor GAO's interest.
USE OF CONTRACTORS VS. STAFF
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Have you compared contracting out
for more work versus the hiring of permanent employees?
Mr. Dodaro. We have done a lot of contracting with our
internal operations. And if you would like, I will let Ms.
Harper talk to you about that. We do have standing contracts
with the National Academy of Sciences to get some additional
expertise if we need some. We do contract out some financial
audits that we do. But in most of our areas, it is hard to
contract out to maintain the independence and to meet the
standards that we have.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Really? Do you think your
contractors don't have the same level of independence that your
employees do?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, the defense contracting community, for
one, has been consolidated, so there is a lot of increased
contracting activities going on in Federal agencies, which is
one of the areas we have on our high-risk list. So the
contracting community is more and more a part of the executive
branch operations. And we find, as we evaluate other
activities, that a lot of the contractors, in our opinion,
don't necessarily have the level of independence that the
Congress would expect GAO to have going forward. So we do
contract in selective areas. We have purchased a lot of
databases, and we do contract out to try to become more
efficient. But we are very careful because our reputation is
our greatest asset, and if we are not viewed as a nonpartisan
independent, we lose our value to the Congress.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
My time has expired. Mr. Latham.
GAO MANDATED WORKLOAD
Mr. Latham. Thank you.
In your opening, you talked about some of the mandates
coming from Congress and how that has increased your work load.
Would you go into that and explain a little bit more as to
exactly what you are talking about? What type of mandates?
Mr. Dodaro. Right. These would be, for example, in the
activity to deal with open government legislation last year.
There is a provision for lobbyists to now file forms with
Congress and register. We are now required to audit those
filings every year to make sure that lobbyists are filing in
compliance with the laws of the Congress and also to look to
see what the Justice Department is doing and looking at the
referrals there. So that is a totally new requirement for GAO
going forward.
A lot of the other mandates ask us to look at big
investments that the Department of Defense is going to be
making. For example, we now have annual requirements to look at
the Missile Defense Agency and that development, the Joint
Strike Fighter project, that is in place. So there are a lot of
requirements that are being put in there.
There are huge investments that are being made all across
the government. And I think we have established a very good
reputation for looking at whether or not the technologies have
matured enough early in the process to warrant moving
production and making investments on the part of the Congress.
So we are being asked to intervene earlier and earlier in the
process, which is important.
So a lot of the mandates also include investments in the
IRS and the Customs Service and a number of other agencies
where we look at the plans that they have in place and give the
Congress a thumbs up or down before it lets the money go
forward on the investment. And so a lot of the mandates are in
those areas as well.
IMPACT OF PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION ON GAO WORKLOAD
Mr. Latham. You know, we are going to have a new executive
branch, new President, this next year. Is that going to have an
impact on you as far as the transition from the current
administration to whatever new administration comes in? What
does that do to you?
Mr. Dodaro. Actually, the Presidential Transition Act,
Congressman, specifies GAO as a source that transition teams
should go to to learn more about the challenges that they will
face in taking on their new responsibilities. This is a very
important role. We are organizing ourselves to help provide
that level of advice. We have a regular process with each new
Congress to update our high-risk list and to help the Congress
in setting its oversight legislative agenda. But we are also
going to organize our materials and issue work by agency and
establish points of contact and provide a resource to the
transition team going forward.
Mr. Latham. What do they rely on you for?
Mr. Dodaro. What they would--oh, please finish. I am sorry.
I didn't mean to interrupt.
Mr. Latham. I am just curious exactly how they use you.
Mr. Dodaro. Well, what has happened in the past--I have
been through a number of these transitions--a new Cabinet
official will come on board, and all of a sudden, we will
congratulate them for being on our high-risk list. And they
will want to know how to get off the high-risk list as fast as
possible and what they need to do, because the Congress uses
that list to conduct oversight and to make funding decisions.
And also, past administrations, both the Clinton Administration
and the Bush Administration, have used our high-risk list as
the basis for their management improvement agenda. So people
who will be coming into the Executive Office of the President
will want to know, across government, what are the biggest
management challenges? And then each Cabinet agency head will
want to know where the biggest risks are and what some of our
recommendations are that they need to focus on to improve their
operations. So it is a big task.
And to the extent that people want our advice, we give it
to them, maintaining our independence. It is also a good
opportunity for us to work with them to explain how GAO
interacts with the executive agencies to carry out our audit
functions so that they can cooperate with us more easily in
making their people available for interviews and getting us
records faster, which is another area that can increase our
productivity.
Mr. Latham. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. LaHood.
COMPTROLLER GENERAL APPOINTMENT PROCESS
Mr. LaHood. How is the position of Comptroller General
filled?
Mr. Dodaro. Congressman, there is a process in law. There
is a 10-member commission created when there is a vacancy in
the Comptroller General position. And those 10 members are 5 on
the House, 5 on the Senate. It is the Speaker of the House, the
Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chair and ranking
members of our Oversight Committee, which is the House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee. On the Senate side,
it is the Senate pro tem, the Majority and Minority Leaders of
the Senate, and the Chair and ranking member of our oversight
committee in the Senate, Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs. That commission meets and forms the
search committee. They screen, interview applicants and send a
list of three or more names over to the President. Then the
President picks off that list. The President can ask for more
names if he or she determines that it is necessary. And then
the person nominated by the President is then confirmed by the
Senate.
Mr. LaHood. For a term of?
Mr. Dodaro. Fifteen years.
TIME FRAME FOR ACCEPTING NEW REQUESTS
Mr. LaHood. Thank you.
When someone makes a request of your office, it appears
that what now takes, about from the time you accept the
responsibility, that it would be about a 4-month wait.
Mr. Dodaro. On average.
Mr. LaHood. And if you don't get these additional staff
people, how long will the wait be after you accept an
assignment to study something or look into it or investigate
it?
Mr. Dodaro. It will vary by area, Congressman, but on
average, it is 4 months. A lot depends on whether the volume
continues to increase. Obviously, the more requests that come
in, the longer it is going to take us to get to some, so the
average time is going to get longer. But it is going to go
nowhere but a longer time frame. I can't predict right now how
many more months. But what I am concerned about is there are a
number of areas, and I pointed some out in our testimony that--
for example, behavioral techniques for airline screening
passengers; we are to look at FDA's post-market drug safety
program--things that we can't get to right away that are really
important public safety concerns. I feel a responsibility that
we are not getting there as fast as we can. I can't predict
exactly how long the list is going to be, but I think it will
be at untenable levels for a number of congressional
committees.
HIRING STRATEGIES
Mr. LaHood. If you were allocated some or all of the money
that you are requesting, what kind of people would you be
looking for to hire, what types of backgrounds and how would
you go about finding those people?
Mr. Dodaro. I am going to let Ms. Harper talk about her
recruiting program, but we have no difficulty finding very
talented staff in all disciplines. We have difficulties filling
all our positions in the economist area and the attorney area,
for example. On these 151 positions, we would look for
different disciplines. We need more people in the information
technology area, for example. We talked about technology
assessments. We need software engineers, people in construction
management. We have hired people with engineering degrees that
have provided terrific support to this Committee on the Capitol
Visitor Center, but there are a lot of other big construction
projects. But most of the people we hire have public policy,
public administration backgrounds.
Sallyanne.
Ms. Harper. We have a very aggressive recruiting program.
About a third of the people that we recruit come through our
internship program. And we are generally targeting people who
have a masters degree or above. They may have a public policy
background. For our health care area, we tend to skew toward a
health care analysis background. Most of the people that we
bring in at entry level in our analyst series have not only a
master's and above but also some number of years of experience.
We tend to be oversubscribed for the number of vacancies
that we have because we have a very aggressive on-campus
recruiting program. Our senior executives at GAO manage the
campus recruiting for individual campuses. And we bring new
hires with us when we go out to recruit. We get our
announcements out early enough. And we try and respond much
more quickly than a typical Federal agency would in order to be
competitive with the private sector firms that are competing
for the same types of people that we are.
Mr. Dodaro. We try to maintain a balance of having
specialists in all these disciplines. We have an actuary. We
have got economists. But we also like to have more generalist
people that we can move if the priorities of the Congress
change. For example, after Hurricane Katrina hit and we were
asked to go look at what was going on with that situation, we
were ableto pull people across GAO that were able to focus on
that area, and they would get into it right away.
So most of the people we hire would have this generalist
type of background with the credentials Sallyanne is talking
about. But we would also target, based on our work force plan,
hiring a number of specialists as well.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you very much.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Ruppersberger.
FINANCIAL BENEFITS
Mr. Ruppersberger. First thing, in your testimony you
indicated that, in fiscal year 2007, the GAO's work resulted in
$45.9 billion in financial benefits generating, if this is
true, an impressive return of $94 for every dollar invested in
GAO. Now, can you provide some examples of how you did that?
This is something that really sticks out in my mind to see that
a request is followed.
Mr. Dodaro. Well, sir, a couple of examples. One, every
year we do the financial audit of the Internal Revenue Service-
-not only money they use for operating costs but the $2.5
trillion that they bring in in Federal revenue. We noticed that
delinquent taxes were growing, and they didn't really have a
way to figure out how to pursue the cases that would yield the
best benefits. So, based on our recommendations, they developed
a model, and now they can more aggressively pursue collecting
delinquent taxes. That was about $4 billion as a result of our
recommendation.
IMPACT OF CURRENT STAFFING LEVEL
Mr. Ruppersberger. Following up on Mr. Lahood's questions,
GAO's full time equivalent of 3100 FTEs is the lowest ever?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Mr. Ruppersberger. What impact is that going to have--give
me specifics--on your ability to respond to that congressional
demand?
Mr. Dodaro. The average time for us to get to congressional
requests on areas for oversight is going to increase. On
average, it takes 2 and a half to 4 months. There are several
hundred of these congressional requests in our queue. That is
going to grow if we don't get additional resources.
RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
Mr. Ruppersberger. As far as getting very competent
qualified people on your staff, are you having a hard time
recruiting people that are working for GAO? Are they going to
other jobs? Are you losing people for more money? Where do you
stand?
Mr. Dodaro. Actually, we don't have very much difficulty
attracting top talent. People enjoy the mission of GAO. They
are committed to making improvements in the government. So we
are able to hire. It is not a matter of being able to find top
people.
In terms of attrition, we lose about 10 percent a year,
which is relatively low for professional services firms. About
half of those, 4 to 5 percent, are normal retirements. And the
demographics of our work force are pretty reflective of society
in general. And then another few percent are leaving now.
Our people, because they are competitive, do receive offers
and receive a lot of money. About a third of the people who
leave go to other Federal agencies for better paying jobs. Some
agencies have different pay authorities than GAO. That is one
of the things we are trying to seek--to get some additional pay
authorities in that area. But others are attracted to the
private sector.
IMPACT OF A NEW CONGRESS ON GAO'S WORKLOAD
Mr. Ruppersberger. Are you requested to get or do you have
more demands at the end of an election right after new Members
come in? A new President will be coming into office. Does that
put more stress or strain on your work force?
Mr. Dodaro. As a new Congress gets organized and agendas
shift or people shift in chairmanships, that does create the
need to rethink and finish the work that we have in process as
well, so we are trying to start new work. So it does create the
need to do planning, and it may adjust----
Mr. Ruppersberger. 3,100 is the lowest FTEs that you have
had?
Mr. Dodaro. Right. Ever.
MANAGING DEMAND WITH CURRENT RESOURCES
Mr. Ruppersberger. Ever. How are you going to manage that
if you don't get any more money?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, we are going to have to take a look at
how we prioritize the requests that we do receive from the
Congress. Right now we have three priorities. The first is
statutory requirements or requirements placed in conference or
committee reports. Second is the request from Chair or
rankings. And third are requests from Members. We haven't been
able to start a request for a Member for years. We have
essentially dropped that third priority. And now we are
triaging requests from committee chairs and ranking members
against the mandates. And so we are going to have to relook.
And it may have to be that we have to just go with things that
are in the statute first.
Mr. Ruppersberger. In order to get anything done, I need to
go through the Chairman.
Mr. Dodaro. It might require an act of Congress.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Bonner.
REASONS DEMAND IS INCREASING
Mr. Bonner. Heaven help us if it requires an act of
Congress.
What is the reason for the increase? What is driving this
increase, the demand of the services?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, there are really two things, I believe,
Congressman. Number one is I think we have done a really good
job of preparing strategic plans, working with all the
congressional committees. We do work for every standing
committee in the House and Senate and 80 percent of the
subcommittees. So we work with them to develop what issues we
think should be looked at. They tell us what they are
interested in. So we have really worked in a collaborative way
with the committees to focus on issues that are of national
importance and really important to oversight and effective
services for the American public. And as we do that and we have
been delivering quality results and it has led to changes and
improvements in government, people then want more demands and
services on GAO.
Second is that the issues confronting the Congress are
becoming much more difficult. They are becoming more global in
nature. We now have issues with our financial markets. We have
done a lot of work in that area. We are preparing our work to
help the Congress evaluate potential proposals for relooking at
the regulatory structure for financial agencies and
institutions. And if things come up, like this last time there
was a contested election in Florida, and we were asked by the
task force to look at the voting machines, or something or
other unexpected comes up like another disaster, then we are
able to help the Congress and respond better. But we are
limited now if something like that occurs going forward. So it
is both. I think we are delivering good value. People know good
value when they see it. And secondly, they have more challenges
in front of themthat they would like help with.
OPTIMAL STAFFING LEVEL
Mr. Bonner. You said the low mark you are at today is 3,100
employees. What has your high mark been in the history of GAO?
Mr. Dodaro. In the history of GAO, in the modern GAO
history, post-World War II, it has probably been around 5,400
people, I would say, give or take a few hundred, Congressman.
Back in the days when GAO was doing voucher examinations--and I
want to be clear I was not there in that period. I have been
there a long time, but--there was somewhere in the neighborhood
of 10,000-plus clerks looking at vouchers. But in a post-World
War II environment, our high mark was around 5,400.
Mr. Bonner. And what would the optimal number be in making
your request for additional funds? Obviously you have got a
magic number in your mind that would help relieve some of the
pressure that you are under.
Mr. Dodaro. Right.
Sallyanne.
Ms. Harper. I think, Congressman, what we have asked for is
the optimal number for fiscal year 2009, because what that 151
represents is about 300-plus leaving, 300-plus coming in, and
we are targeting 500 people to hire total. And so we can't
absorb any more in a 1-year period. We can't really do it the
right way. And for a 1-year period, that would be the best we
could do if we could get that.
PAY COMPETITIVENESS
Mr. Bonner. Now, you all have indicated you don't have any
trouble recruiting qualified people. How competitive is your
pay compared to other agencies at the Federal Government and
also the private sector?
Mr. Dodaro. We think at the entry level and midlevel we are
very competitive, and we have done pay studies on that. We also
have some terrific benefits at GAO. For example, one of our
people stopped me today and thanked us for our child care
facility. And we have doubled the capacity of that. We call it
Tiny Findings. And nowadays with our work force, you have to be
careful you are not run over by a stroller coming into the GAO
building, but it is nice. We pay for student loan repayments,
and that helps attract as well. And we have retention and
recruitment bonus authority.
Now, as you go up the line to the more senior people, the
technical people, we are really not fully competitive with the
private sector. That is just the way it is. We have asked, and
there are proposals working their way through Congress, to
allow us to raise the GS-15 cap, or in GAO, it is Band III
level, higher than the statutory cap right now by about $8,000.
We think that will help us a lot as well. So, by and large, we
are not fully competitive, but we also have the advantage of
the GAO mission which really keeps people working for us.
EMPLOYEE LONGEVITY
Mr. Bonner. I guess, finally, do you have an average tenure
for your team of 3,100? How long, once someone goes to work for
the GAO, how long do they traditionally stay?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, it is changing a little bit with the
generations. It is hard to tell. I think the people that
started with GAO and finished their career, kind of like
myself, are becoming increasingly rare, but people are staying.
We find that if they stay for the first 3 years at GAO, they
stay for at least 6 to 10. And then we also find many people
come back. We have about 11 people a year over the last 10
years for whom the grass wasn't always greener and have come
back.
Mr. Bonner. Well, I agree with the Chairwoman, you do have
a strong reputation. We say that you have the Good Housekeeping
Seal of Approval.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No question about it.
Mr. Dodaro. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Bonner.
IMPROVED UNION RELATIONSHIP
The evolution of the relationship with the union that was
born last year has been a little bit of a bumpy road. And I
would like to hear from you on how it is going. We are going to
have a public witness hearing in which we will hear from the
union representatives and hear their perspective as well. But
my sense is that it has begun to improve. If you can also talk
about the denied cost-of-living adjustments and where the
agency is now versus where you were before on the payment of
those back COLAs to your employees.
Mr. Dodaro. First, on the relationship with the union, we
think things have improved. The bumpy issues you mentioned we
believe are behind us. And we expect you will hear the same
from the union when they talk to you. I am committed to open
constructive relationships with them. We just announced
yesterday that we are going to undertake a comprehensive review
of our performance appraisal system, for example. We sent a
draft memo to the union in advance to figure out how they want
to cooperate with us and work with us in developing it. So I
think we are in very good shape. We have hired a very talented
person to head up our work force relations. He has a lot of
experience working with the unions in the past. So I think
things are on a good trend line, and I am committed to making
sure that they stay that way.
Now, with regard to the COLA increase for people who were
denied that in 2006 and 2007, as I indicated in my written
statement and also in my appearance before Chairman Danny Davis
of the Work Force Subcommittee, we would like to and do support
that and hopefully get that issue behind us as well. And I
think the real issue now is to get the legal authorities to be
able to do that and the funding authority to be able to execute
that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. As far as the funding, how do you
expect to be able to fund those COLAs?
Mr. Dodaro. We are still working that through. There are a
number of options. We are working with our oversight committees
to try to do that and looking internally, and we hope to have
that worked out.
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The technology assessments, we had
authorization for you to use up to $2.5 million in fiscal year
2008 omnibus to conduct technology assessments for the
Congress. Can you give us an idea of the state of your progress
on that? I know you had said that you initially would be able
to do one in this fiscal year and three or four in the next
fiscal year.
Mr. Dodaro. Right. Well, we are going to step up our
outreach activities. We have a meeting already scheduled with
Congressman Holt's staff for next week and other members of the
House that are interested in this. I also bumped into
Congressman Holt yesterday and told him I would like to meet
with him to get his input and ideas. We have developed a list
of potential areas where technology assessments can be
conducted--for example, in data mining activities or disaster
preparedness modeling and some other areas. So we hope to work
with the interestedparties to begin one this year.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
DIVERSITY STUDY
Because Congresswoman Lee is not here, I want to ask a
question that I know she would very much like the answer to.
There was a diversity and performance review study that you
have been undertaking to make sure your performance rating
system is fair to all your employees. I know it is due in June,
but do you have any preliminary results from that? And the
affirmative action plan language that we included specifically
last year, where are you in developing that plan?
Mr. Dodaro. First, the affirmative action plan, which is
due in June, we started to prepare that and will submit it on
time. Overall, our work force at GAO is very diverse and
exceeds the relevant civilian labor force numbers for almost
all categories. We do have some areas where we need to make
some improvements, and we will be outlining that in the plan on
how we plan to do that. Now, with regard to the study----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You don't have any preview?
Mr. Dodaro. A preview of ?
Ms. Harper. The Ivy study.
Mr. Dodaro. That is the second one I was going to get to.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No, I mean of what you might include
in your affirmative action plan.
Mr. Dodaro. Well, I know there is at least one category for
Hispanics that we need to focus on. I don't have anything else
right now.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you don't, you don't.
Mr. Dodaro. But my point is, in most cases, people have
affirmative action plans because their current work force
doesn't meet the relevant civilian labor force targets. In our
case, we do in the vast majority of cases. That is why I am
struggling, because we are really not sure in terms of hiring.
And so we will talk in our report about what we are planning to
continue to do to have a good work force, but we don't really
have very many gaps that we need to fill. Our big issue right
now is on your second point, and that has to do with a study
that we commissioned because of concerns that we had about the
performance appraisals for African American analysts at GAO
compared to Whites. And we were concerned about it. We
contracted with the Ivy Planning Group to come in. They are a
professional objective group. And we wanted to get an outside
perspective on this issue. They are due to issue us their final
report later this month. We are looking forward to receiving
their insights and recommendations. I am committed to
forthrightly address their recommendations, and we will move
forward on that issue.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Great. Thank you.
My time has expired just in time for you Mr. Latham.
COST OF ACHIEVING FINANCIAL BENEFITS
Mr. Latham. You had, and I commend you for it, talked about
the $45.9 billion in financial benefits to the government. Do
you do any kind of evaluation of what the improvements cost?
You mentioned the IRS collection of $4 billion. Do you follow
what it costs the IRS in this case to implement your
suggestions? Are you offsetting that, or do we know what the
net is?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. Actually, what we claim in the report is
the net benefit. In other words, we take out whatever the cost
would be. And typically the estimates that we report,
Congressman, are third-party estimates, either in this case by
the agency or by CBO, or in some cases, if Congress takes
action, we use their figures. So we try not to, except in rare
circumstances, do the calculations ourselves. But they are all
in net benefits.
USE OF CONTRACTORS
Mr. Latham. Good. Do you have any concerns, as you contract
out some of the functions that GAO is supposed to be the
auditor for, that you lose any control? I mean, the purpose of
GAO is to be the auditor for Congress. In my mind, if you
contract out, I just wonder whether we are losing some of the
purpose?
Mr. Dodaro. We are very selective in contracting out our
audit work. Most of our contracting out is for our internal
operations--like, for example, our information network and our
communications network. But when we do contract out, we have
very senior and experienced people to oversee the contract. We
have the technical expertise to know that we set the
requirements properly and the quality of work is there, so I am
not concerned. We have tried to learn lessons of what we have
seen in the executive branch agencies and what we write reports
on. And two big problems are not having the right type of
senior people yourself, technical people, to oversee the
contract and to make sure your requirements are stated properly
and you know you are getting what you pay for. I am fairly
comfortable we are okay, but we are judicious in what we do.
COST OF FINANCIAL AUDITS
Mr. Latham. That kind of went to my next question talking
about auditing the executive branch. And if you could tell us a
little bit about the cost of that in your budget and in
particular having to do with auditing the IRS and your public
debt.
Mr. Dodaro. With regard to the financial audits that we do,
we have the audit responsibility to audit the consolidated
financial statements of the Federal Government. And we also
rely on work that is done by the Inspectors General across the
government to audit the individual departments and agencies.
But we have the ability to step into the shoes of any of the
Inspectors General and take over the audit. And we have done
that in the case of IRS and public debt. And the reason that we
have done it there is that they cover all the revenue
collection activities of the Federal Government, the $2.5
trillion-plus figure. And the Bureau of the Public Debt is the
largest liability on the financial statements. I believe those
audit costs are about $6 million to $8 million a year. Now, we
have sought authority to have IRS and the Bureau of the Public
Debt reimburse us for those audits, as happens on our audits of
FDIC and the Securities and Exchange Commission. And so, in
those cases, they reimburse us for the cost; IRS and Public
Debt do not.
Mr. Latham. They are not stepping right up and want to pay
you back?
Mr. Dodaro. No, and actually they have gotten a free ride
for about 10 years now, and so we are trying to change that.
That would make a big difference obviously in providing
additional support. That would more than offset the increases
that we are asking for at this point in time if that gets
enacted and we actually receive the funds.
INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE
Mr. Latham. Just kind of going back to the work
forcediscussion we were having. Some of the problem with the CRS a few
years ago, they have kind of overcome that, but there was kind a bubble
of retirements coming on all at one time. Is that a concern for you at
GAO? Do you have a similar problem?
Mr. Dodaro. We have been working very hard at dealing with
that issue for the last 7 years or maybe even longer. I am
going to let Sallyanne explain how we do it. But we have
aggressive succession planning activities underway. I think we
have dealt with it. We have had a lot of retirements. About 50
percent of the people we have at GAO right now have been there
5 years or less, but our performance as indicated by the
comments here, hasn't really changed much.
Mr. Latham. Institutional knowledge?
Mr. Dodaro. And we are rebuilding it. We are concerned
about it; don't misunderstand, we are concerned about it. There
will be some additional retirements coming up. But Sallyanne
has been on point for really making sure our work force is in
the right place in this area, so I am going to let her talk.
Ms. Harper. We will lose about 335 people this year, with
about 4 or 5 percent of our total staff being strictly to
retirement. And that is a lot of knowledge moving out the door.
But we have done very aggressive work force planning. And we
also do knowledge-transfer work if we have someone who has a
particular expertise and they are ready to retire but we still
have a need to begin to train this 50 percent that are still
new, we can bring them back on a limited basis and offset a
retirement annuity that they would otherwise be penalized for,
so that they can complete the knowledge transfer to the new
staff coming in. And that has been very helpful for us in terms
of avoiding that walking-out-of-the-door phenomenon.
Mr. Latham. Did you over time, need legislative approval?
Ms. Harper. We did. We got legislative approval for that in
our first human capital bill of 2001. OPM, on the executive
branch side, does have that approval as well. That is that
authority for the executive branch and will also grant that on
a limited basis to executive branch agencies for the same
reason. Holding onto that knowledge transfer and being able to
groom people to succeed have been critical.
Mr. Latham. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome.
Mr. Bonner.
FOSTERING OBJECTIVITY
Mr. Bonner. On Monday of this week I had an opportunity to
speak to 17 future journalists at Springfield College in
Mobile, Alabama. And as a former journalist myself, I tried to
impress upon them the importance of being objective in their
reporting. How do you all--do you have a secret? Obviously, the
journalism profession doesn't know it, but how do you impress
upon your employees to be unbiased in the work that they are
asked to do?
Mr. Dodaro. That is an excellent question. First of all, it
has been built--the culture has been built over a number of
years. But it is rooted in two fundamental principles: One is
adherence to our professional standards. We issue auditing
standards that anyone auditing the Federal Government's
expenditures have to follow. All our policies are built on
those standards, which include independence and competence and
review and reporting standards. And so the first day you step
into the GAO, you hear about those standards. And we also have
a set of core values of accountability, integrity and
reliability. And integrity is really a key one here because our
work is professional, objective, fact-based, nonpartisan,
nonideological, fair and balanced. We had those values in place
throughout the whole time I have been in GAO.
But one thing I really give credit to Comptroller General
Walker for was articulating them. We put them down. We
communicated them effectively, and it has really helped. And
then we have a review process and checks and balances within
the organization, a quality assurance process. And we then
decide what level of management review will occur. And now we
review reports before they go out for comment to ensure the
integrity of the process. So that is something that I have been
working on very diligently for the past decade almost, is how
to ensure we have good risk management processes in place; that
I know what the thousand products we are going to put out a
year are going to say; and that every product you pick up from
the GAO has that quality instilled in it, and it is reliable
and objective. And it is a big challenge because we are
decentralized. A lot of people sign the reports. But quality is
a real value, and it is a real strong ethic within GAO. And it
has taken a lot of time to develop, but it is really essential
to our reputation and people understand that.
Mr. Bonner. So you really do have a culture when they walk
in the door?
Mr. Dodaro. That is exactly right. And we follow our own
internal control standards, and you have got to have the right
tone at the top. And that tone at the top has to go through
every part of the organization to make sure that everybody
understands this is really important, and when decisions are
made, they are made based on facts and evidence.
IRAQ ENGAGEMENTS
Mr. Bonner. We all benefit from your work, but could you
give us an idea--you all have been asked to do a lot of work on
the Iraqi war, and that is controversial in this building and
in this country. What is a bird's eye view of when you have to
go to the hearings and you are doing all the work, give us an
idea what the bird's eye view is in terms of what it is like to
prepare a report and do some work that you do, if you don't
mind?
Mr. Dodaro. Sure. In that particular case----
Mr. Bonner. That is an example because it is recent.
Mr. Dodaro. Well, that one has some unique dimensions to
it. First of all, a lot of information we look at there is
classified. And then, what is decided to be unclassified is up
to the executive agencies. GAO does not have classification
authority. And we are bound by law to adhere to the
classifications that the executive agencies put on material.
So, in that case, we did have, in terms of preparing for
hearings that are in public forums, the difficulty of deciding
or getting timely reviews by the Department of Defense as to
what could be shared publicly and what couldn't. So that was
issue number one in that situation.
Another interesting situation is that, obviously, with the
war going on, you are trying to report on a real-time activity,
so events are changing all the time. The security situation one
day is not the same as it is the nextday. And so that is a
particular challenge. We want to make sure we have the most up-to-date
information possible. Obviously you have a challenge there of being
able to be on site. We did establish a presence, ongoing presence
there, but we have had to bring some of our people back recently. And
we are going to go back in there as soon as we get reinforced housing,
and we are working on that. The new embassy is supposed to open next
month, and we are hoping to get housing in that embassy. Fortunately,
all these elements I am explaining don't happen on most of the
engagements that we have. But, in that case, it was important to deal
with those. We dealt with them the best we could. We think we came up
with a good report. We are in the process now of updating our work and
expect a report by June.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I just have one other
question because the Members have done a good job asking some
of the things that I wanted to cover, so we are working well as
a team here. I understand GAO has focused on environmental
stewardship and energy efficiency, which is something obviously
that our leadership has been trying to promote and to use the
legislative branch as a model for that. What steps has GAO
taken to make your operations more environmentally friendly and
energy efficient?
Mr. Dodaro. I am going to ask Sallyanne to do that.
Sallyanne did come to us from the Environmental Protection
Agency a few years ago.
Ms. Harper. GAO has been doing energy audits at the GAO
building for over 15 years. We first started in 1991. And we
were able to get a lot of large investments made in redoing our
entire HVAC systems and all of those over time. We had a step
back after 9/11 because of new security enhancements we had to
make to our handling systems within the GAO building. That took
us a step back on our energy efficiency. We did have an
assessment done, however, recently that we think holds promise.
And we are within 10 percent of GSA's goals for all of its
Federal buildings. We are within 10 percent of hitting their
goal in terms of our energy consumption for the GAO. We think,
with some of the ones we are looking at now, we can get even
closer than that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do you have any funding in your
request for 2009?
Ms. Harper. We have continued funding in our facilities
management line for that, yes, we do. These are initiatives in
response to a study that we had done basically 2 years ago.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
GOVERNMENT CREDIT CARDS
Mr. Latham. Just one quick question. There was an article,
a story yesterday about some of the abuse with credit cards in
the government in different agencies. What role do you play in
that? Is that something that you look at, or is that the IG's
responsibility in each department?
Mr. Dodaro. Yesterday's report was a GAO report. And what
we did there was take a statistical sample across the Federal
Government. We had been doing work in this area before. Now, a
lot of Inspectors General also do work in individual
departments and agencies, and we try to coordinate with them so
we don't duplicate work. But in this case, we were asked by a
Senate committee to do a governmentwide look. And so we did the
statistical sample and obviously found a lot of problems, and
that is an area that needs tightening up.
Mr. Latham. Did you make recommendations with the agencies?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. And we will follow up. We did work on
transit benefits. We have done work on travel where people are
using premium class travel. And in this particular case, with
the purchase cards. We found OMB has been fairly responsive in
trying to get the changes in place with the agencies, but
really it is the agencies' responsibility. And so we have made
a lot of recommendations to them. And they just need to tighten
up. In a lot of cases, there is a need for flexibility, but
there have to be proper controls. And this goes to the risk
management approaches that need to be in place. But that was
our work.
It was unfortunate that a couple of--you talked about
journalism--in a couple of reports, I think it was the AP
story, had ``GAO: Pointing Out Fraud, Waste and Abuse.'' So a
lot of people who called GAO thought we were the ones
committing the problems. We assured them that was not true, and
it was the other agencies. But thank you for that question.
Mr. Latham. You bet. And thank you for the great job you do
and having such credibility with all of us. I appreciate that.
Thank you.
CONGRESSIONAL APPRECIATION
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Latham.
And I do, before we close the hearing, want to reiterate on
behalf of the committee and really the entire House of
Representatives, please take our message back to your employees
and your staff that we just can't thank them enough for the
hard work and dedication that they put in every day and the
good work products that they turn out that we are all able to
rely on. In a very partisan environment, it is good to have
information available to us that we know isn't left or right
and that we can all count on for accuracy and neutrality. So we
appreciate it very, very much.
Mr. Dodaro. Thank you. And I will tell them that.
ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT FROM THE CHAIR
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thanks. As I have with each agency,
I am going to assign you a little homework. As we noted in last
year's House report, budget justification books are one of the
key tools we use to review and make decisions on agency
requests. They need to be geared towards our needs, not those
of the agencies. And they must be accurate, concise and provide
a level of information we need to quickly understand what is
being requested. With that in mind, by next Thursday, April
17th, I would like GAO to submit a summary table that clearly
breaks down its requested increase into distinct items or
projects so we can see both total amounts being requested for
each item as well as the individual parts that make up those
totals. For example, there should be a column for your
requested staff increase that shows both the total amount
needed to implement the increase as well as the components of
the increase, like salary, training and travel. In addition, I
would like at least a paragraph for each item on the table that
explains why that item is being requested, where it falls in
priority compared to other items and what its impact would be
if funded or not funded. If partial funding will let you
implement the item to some degree, you should note that as
well. We are just trying to get as much information as we can
so we can really----
Mr. Dodaro. I understand. That is a good way to goabout it.
I understand.
Closing Remarks
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.
With that, the subcommittee will stand in recess until
April 15th. I am not sure we will all be in a very good mood
that day, but it is April 15th nonetheless at 1:30 p.m. We will
hold our monthly oversight hearing on the CVC. Thank you.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Ayers, S. T..................................................1, 67, 421
Barrow, M. P..................................................... 461
Beard, D. P...................................................... 461
Billington, J. H................................................. 109
Chrisler, Tamara................................................. 325
Cornell, J. J.................................................... 461
Dodaro, G. L..................................................... 655
Dorn, Terrell....................................................1, 421
Eisold, John..................................................... 461
Elzy, Nadine..................................................... 257
Gallagher, James................................................. 109
Harper, Sallyanne................................................ 655
Hoecker, C. W.................................................... 579
Jarmon, Gloria................................................... 579
Jenkins, J. C.................................................... 109
Lefevre, P. G.................................................... 461
Livingood, W. S.................................................. 461
Marcum, Deanna................................................... 109
Medina, Rubens................................................... 109
Miller, L. C..................................................... 461
Morse, P. D., Sr................................................. 579
Mulhollan, D. P.................................................. 109
Nathan, Irvin.................................................... 461
Nichols, Daniel.................................................. 579
O'Keefe, Ambassador John......................................... 325
Orszag, Peter.................................................... 325
Page, Jeffrey.................................................... 109
Peters, Marybeth................................................. 109
Rouse, T. S......................................................1, 421
Strader, George.................................................. 655
Tapella, R. C.................................................... 257
Ungar, Bernard...................................................1, 421
I N D E X
---------- --
--------
Capitol Visitor Center (CVC)
Page
60 Day Policy Letter............................................. 30
Advance Reservation System....................................... 26
Anticipated Shortcomings......................................... 29
Budget Shortfall................................................. 28
Chair Closing Remarks............................................ 63
Chair's Additional Assignments............................... 63
Chair Opening Remarks............................................ 01
Change Order--Punch List......................................... 49
Change Order Monitoring.......................................... 58
Change Orders.................................................... 50
Contractor Performance........................................... 50
CR Impact On CVC Operations...................................... 51
CR Impact On The CVC............................................. 50
CVC--Meeting Its Needs........................................... 52
CVC Contingency Plans............................................ 51
CVC Cost Estimates............................................... 42
CVC Governance................................................... 41
CVC Governance Structure......................................... 43
CVC Hiring and Staffing Diversity................................ 54
CVC Operations--Appropriations Committee Involvement............. 57
CVC Oversight.................................................... 42
CVC Training Program............................................. 59
Design Program Concepts.......................................... 43
Electrical Vault Concerns........................................ 57
Fire Alarm Acceptance Testing.................................... 52
Fire Alarm Acceptance Testing Process............................ 57
Governance and Legislation....................................... 55
Homework Question for the Record from Congressman Wasserman
Schultz........................................................ 65
Member Of Congress Representation................................ 27
Minority and Women-Owned Business Involvement.................... 32-40
Minority Recruiting.............................................. 44-48
Minority-Owned and Small Business Initiatives.................... 30
Office Of Compliance Report...................................... 54
Opening Ceremony Plans........................................... 41
Opening Remarks--Congressman Latham.............................. 02
Opening Statement--Stephen Ayers................................. 02
Accomplishments Over The Past Year........................... 03
Fire Alarm Acceptance Testing................................ 03
Minor Construction Activities................................ 03
Punch List Items............................................. 04
CVC Operations............................................... 04
Opening Statement--Terrell Dorn.................................. 16
Punch List Items............................................. 16
Near-Critical Path Focus..................................... 16
Fire Alarm Testing........................................... 17
Open Change Orders........................................... 17
CVC Construction Cost........................................ 17
Opening Statement--Terrie Rouse.................................. 09
CVC Administration........................................... 09
Advance Reservation System................................... 09
CVC Website.................................................. 09
Communication Plan........................................... 10
Capitol Tour Action Plan..................................... 10
Programs and Events.......................................... 10
CVC To-Do List............................................... 10
Prepared Statement--Stephen Ayers................................ 05-08
Prepared Statement--Terrell Dorn................................. 19-25
Prepared Statement--Terrie Rouse................................. 12-15
Punch List Closed Items.......................................... 49
Punch List Items................................................. 59
Recruitment Efforts.............................................. 55
Staff Tours...................................................... 56
Staffing Changes................................................. 26
Staff-Led Tour Progress Report................................... 26
Training and Staffing............................................ 29
Training Initiatives............................................. 54
Training Program Outline......................................... 60-62
Visitor-Member Connections....................................... 28
Architect of the Capitol (AOC)
Appropriation Budget Initiatives................................. 91
Best Alternative For Swing Space................................. 84-86
Cannon Renovation................................................ 87
Capitol Power Plant Operations................................... 96
Chair Closing Remarks............................................ 101
Chair Opening Remarks............................................ 67
Contingency Plan For Critical Needs.............................. 89
CR Plans For The CVC............................................. 94
CVC Governance Legislation....................................... 88
CVC Reprogramming--Funding Sources............................... 94
Deferred Construction Projects................................... 92
Energy Reduction Projects........................................ 99
Ethanol 85 Fuel Pump............................................. 97
FDA Building Project............................................. 83
Greening Of The Capitol Initiative............................... 95
Homework Questions for the Record From Congressman Wasserman
Schultz.......................................................102-104
House Metering And Energy Reduction.............................. 93
House Metering Project........................................... 87
Jacksonville Bandstand........................................... 89
Life-Safety Security Projects.................................... 100
Long Term Appropriation Concerns................................. 91
Long Term Costs.................................................. 87
Meeting Energy Reduction Requirements............................ 99
Minor Construction Reprogramming Concerns........................ 92
Office Of Compliance Citations................................... 98
Ongoing Initiatives--Capitol Power Plant......................... 95
Opening Remarks--Congressman Latham.............................. 68
Opening Statement--Stephen Ayers................................. 68
AOC Achievements............................................. 69
Unfunded Requirements........................................ 68
Power Plant Outsourcing.......................................... 100
Prepared Statement--Stephen Ayers................................ 71-82
Priority Projects Not In Request................................. 91
Project Backlog.................................................. 90
Project Budget Request........................................... 98
Project Prioritization Process................................... 89
Questions for the Record From The Honorable Tom Udall...........105-108
Energy Usage Reduction....................................... 105
Longworth Building Egress Improvements....................... 107
Use Of Proceeds For Environmental Efforts.................... 106
Reinvestment In Facilities....................................... 90
Utility Tunnels Remediation Update............................... 97
Library of Congress
Additional Assignments of the Chair:
Office of Workforce Diversity................................ 173
Overseas Field Offices....................................... 175
Accessibility of Music Collections to the Blind and Deaf.......158, 159
Aging Library Workforce.......................................... 157
Capital Security Cost-Sharing..................................152, 179
Cataloging of Print Materials.................................... 161
Center for Visiting Scholars..................................... 141
Childcare Center................................................. 139
Closing Remarks--the Chair....................................... 172
Congressional Research Service:
Adequate Funding Level....................................... 246
Retirements and Succession Planning.......................... 156
Section Research Managers.................................... 247
Continuing Resolution and Unfunded Critical Needs..............153, 155
Contracting with Minority and Women-Owned Businesses...........139, 238
Difficult Funding Choices........................................ 133
Digital Talking Book Program:
Amendment.................................................... 153
Funding...............................................133, 136, 160
Program Cost, 4- and 5-Year Implementation................... 160
Program Status............................................... 251
Rollout, 6-Year versus 4-Year..............................133, 136
Digitizing Sound Recordings...................................... 158
Providing Digitized Sound Recordings to Blind and Deaf....... 159
Food Service Provider and Cafeteria Staff........................ 169
Fundraising Coordination......................................... 161
Inspector General Law Enforcement Functions....................163, 181
GAO Opinion on OIG Authority to Carry Firearms............... 166
Legislative Branch Allocation Decisions.......................... 137
Library Mission and Resources.................................... 112
National Audio Visual Conservation Center:
Impact of No Additional Funding for Culpeper Staff........... 162
Staffing Request............................................. 162
National Digital Information Infrastructure Preservation Program
(NDIIPP):
Accomplishments.............................................. 135
5-Year Plan.................................................. 141
Funding Requirements......................................... 134
Partnerships and Matching Funds.............................. 134
Office of Workplace Diversity..................................171, 173
Opening Remarks:
Chair Wasserman Schultz...................................... 109
Mr. Latham................................................... 110
Opening Statement of the Librarian............................... 111
Packard Campus, Culpeper, Virginia............................... 162
Preserving Library Collections................................... 152
Preserving Music in Digital Library.............................. 157
Questions for the Record from the Chair:
State Department Capital Security Cost-Sharing Program....... 179
Questions for the Record from Mr. Honda:
Asian American and Pacific Islander Collection............... 255
Legislative Information Access............................... 253
Questions for the Record from Mr. Latham:
Inspector General Firearms Issues............................ 181
Questions for the Record from Mr. Udall:
American Folklife Center..................................... 249
Construction Projects........................................ 250
Digital Talking Books........................................ 251
Questions for the Record from Ms. Lee:
Adequate Funding Level for CRS............................... 246
Contracting Policy for Women and Minority-Owned Businesses... 237
Racial and Ethnic Makeup of Library Staff.................... 238
Section Research Managers in CRS............................. 247
St. Cecelia's Renovation......................................... 140
Separation of Powers, Legislative and Executive Branch........... 164
Staffing Request--Audio Visual Conservation Center............... 162
Statements:
Director, Congressional Research Service..................... 121
Register of Copyrights....................................... 127
Librarian of Congress........................................ 114
Thanks to the Librarian from Mr. LaHood.......................... 136
Welcome Witnesses................................................ 110
Government Printing Office....................................... 257
Additional Assignments from the Chair........................ 283
Status of Discrimination Cases........................... 285
Environmental Improvements............................... 290
EEO Issues................................................... 281
Environmental Sustainability................................. 282
Facilities Repairs........................................... 278
Impact of a Continuing Resolution............................ 279
Opening Remarks by the Chair................................. 257
Opening Remarks by Mr. Latham................................ 258
Opening Statement from the Public Printer.................... 258
Passport Availability........................................ 276
Passport Facility Security................................... 273
Passport Production Levels................................... 274
Plans for a New Facility..................................... 279
Potential for Passport Fraud................................. 277
Printing Ink................................................. 279
Printing Paper............................................... 280
Public Printer, Prepared Statement........................... 261
Questions for the Record from Ms. Lee........................ 303
Questions for the Record from Mr. Udall...................... 319
Questions for the Record from the Chair...................... 294
Shortfall in Congressional Printing.......................... 277
Technology Investment........................................ 275
The Future of GPO............................................ 272
Welcome Mr. Bonner........................................... 272
Workforce Replacement........................................ 274
Office of Compliance, CBO, and Open World Leadership Center
Accuracy of CBO Estimates........................................ 372
Additional Assignments from the Chair............................ 382
For the Congressional Budget Office.......................... 386
For the Office of Compliance................................. 384
For the Open World Leadership Center......................... 389
Advantages of Open World being in the Legislative Branch......... 359
AOC Citations.................................................... 371
CBO Health Care Analysis Capabilities............................ 379
CBO History of Shifting Resources................................ 380
CBO Information Technology....................................... 380
Contracting Policy for Women and Minority-Owned Businesses....... 374
CVC Inspections.................................................. 381
Expanding Open World to Iraq and Afghanistan..................... 360
Further Discussion of Open World Expansion....................... 361
Impacts of a Continuing Resolution............................... 358
Office of Compliance Reduce and Prevent Initiatives.............. 370
Open World Potential Alternative Funding Sources................. 357
Open World Report on its Future.................................. 357
Opening Remarks--Chair Wasserman Schultz......................... 325
Opening Remarks--Mr. LaHood...................................... 326
Motion to Recess............................................. 326
Opening Remarks--Mr. Latham...................................... 326
Opening Statement--John O'Keefe (Open World)..................... 343
Prepared Statement--John O'Keefe............................. 345
Opening Statement--Peter Orszag (CBO)............................ 334
Prepared Statement--Peter Orszag............................. 335
Opening Statement--Tamara Christer (OOC)......................... 328
Prepared Statement--Roberta Holzwarth........................ 332
Prepared Statement--Tamara Chrisler.......................... 329
Questions for the Record from Mr. Latham......................... 394
For the Congressional Budget Office.......................... 406
Aging Workforce.......................................... 408
Director's Representational Requirement.................. 410
Health Care Staff........................................ 406
For the Office of Compliance................................. 394
Accomplishments in FY 2007............................... 399
Capitol Power Plant Utility Tunnels...................... 403
Capitol Visitor Center................................... 401
Contract for a Braille Specialist........................ 397
Emergency Egress Procedures.............................. 398
Prevent and Reduce....................................... 395
Pilot Self-Certification/Spot Safety and Health
Inspection of District Offices......................... 396
Settlements Made......................................... 394
For the Open World Leadership Center......................... 411
Benefits................................................. 415
Cost-Share Partners...................................... 416
Grant Monitoring Policies................................ 418
Legislative Branch....................................... 413
Omnibus.................................................. 411
Relations................................................ 412
Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum....................... 419
For the Open World Leadership Center......................... 419
Expansion to Mexico...................................... 419
Scoring the Farm Bill............................................ 373
Self-Certification of District Offices........................... 381
Size of Agencies and Requested Increases......................... 361
Support for Open World Program................................... 360
Utility Tunnel Abatement Efforts................................. 370
Capitol Visitor Center (CVC)
Advance Group Reservation........................................ 445
Advanced Reservation System Process.............................. 442
Cannon Tunnel Access............................................. 455
Capitol Hill Access.............................................. 443
Chair Closing Remarks............................................ 457
Chair Opening Remarks............................................ 421
Continuing Resolution--Potential Impact.......................... 444
Cost Estimate For Transporting CVC Visitors...................... 454
Cost Estimate To Transport Tourists From Remote Drop-Off Sites... 454
CVC Gift Shop Proceeds........................................... 449
CVC Opening Plan................................................. 443
CVC Preview...................................................... 445
CVC Screening Process............................................ 444
CVC Status--Locations............................................ 449
CVC Tour Operations--Transportation.............................. 442
CVC Traffic Flow................................................. 455
Gift Shop Profits................................................ 450
Gilbane's Reporting System....................................... 447
Guide Service Funding............................................ 449
Homework Questions for the Record By Congressman Wasserman
Schultz........................................................ 459
Capitol Historical Society................................... 460
Final Acceptance Testing and Their Potential Impact--Cost To
Complete Estimates......................................... 459
House Hearing Room Delays........................................ 456
Library of Congress Tunnel....................................... 448
Office Of Compliance Pre-Inspection Update....................... 457
Opening Remarks--Congressman Latham.............................. 421
Opening Statement--Stephen Ayers................................. 422
Construction Transition...................................... 423
Construction Update.......................................... 422
Fire Alarm and Life-Safety Testing........................... 422
Opening Statement--Terrell Dorn.................................. 433
Construction Update.......................................... 433
Opening Statement--Terrie Rouse.................................. 427
Advanced Reservation System.................................. 427
CVC Website.................................................. 428
Staffing and Recruitment..................................... 427
Paver Update..................................................... 456
Prepared Statement--Stephen Ayers...............................424-426
Prepared Statement--Terrell Dorn................................434-440
Prepared Statement--Terrie Rouse................................429-432
Punchlist and Change Order Update................................ 446
Security and The People's Institution............................ 454
Security Interests............................................... 445
Smoke Control System............................................. 441
Staff-Led Tours.................................................. 446
Testing Issues................................................... 441
The Capitol Guide Service........................................ 448
Tour Bus Procedures--High Security Buildings..................... 450
Transportation To and From The CVC..............................452-453
Use Of Cannon Tunnel For Tourists................................ 455
U.S. House of Representatives
Appropriations Committee Hearing Room Space in the CVC........... 522
Benefits Package for House Employees............................. 494
CAO Priorities................................................... 519
CAO Representational Allowance................................... 522
Capitol Visitors Center.......................................... 532
Capitol Visitors Center Discussion Continued..................... 532
Carbon Offsets................................................... 536
Carbon Offsets Discussion Continued.............................. 541
Chair's Additional Assignment.................................... 541
Clerk Library Facility........................................... 486
Clerk's Budget Request........................................... 486
Coffee Brand Served by Restaurant Associates..................... 523
Electronic Lobbying Filing....................................... 485
Electronic Voting System......................................... 525
Enhanced Staff Benefits Package.................................. 521
Evacuation Process............................................... 533
Expedited Access for Staff at Security Entrances................. 532
Florence Kahn Portrait........................................... 485
Follow up to Initial Questions for the Record from Mr. Latham.... 567
Green the Capitol................................................ 495
Greening of the Capitol Discussion Continued..................... 540
Hallway Policy................................................... 538
Hearing Room Modernization....................................... 494
Hearings and Vacancies in the 110th Congress..................... 486
Historical Signage Discussion Continued.......................... 541
Historical Signage in Members' Offices........................... 538
House Metering Project........................................... 519
House Notification System........................................ 535
Members' Representational Allowance.............................. 518
Members' Representational Allowance Discussion Continued......... 528
Minority- and Women-Owned Business Policy........................ 521
Modeling of House Buildings...................................... 534
New Member Initiative............................................ 495
New Member Initiative............................................ 524
Opening Remarks--Madam Chair..................................... 461
Opening Remarks--Mr. Latham...................................... 461
Opening Statement--Mr. Beard..................................... 494
Opening Statement--Mr. Livingood................................. 508
Opening Statement--Ms. Miller.................................... 485
Operations Under a 2009 Continuing Resolution.................... 529
Page Program..................................................... 517
Prepared Statement--CAO.......................................... 497
Prepared Statement--Clerk........................................ 488
Prepared Statement--General Counsel.............................. 467
Prepared Statement--Inspector General............................ 463
Prepared Statement--Law Revision Counsel......................... 470
Prepared Statement--Legislative Counsel.......................... 474
Prepared Statement--Sergeant at Arms............................. 510
Questions from the Hearing from Mr. Tom Latham................... 519
Questions from the Hearing from Ms. Barbara Lee.................. 523
Questions from the Hearing from Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Chair..... 540
Questions for the Record from Mr. Latham......................... 551
Questions for the Record from Mr. Lewis.......................... 574
Remarks by Mr. Lewis............................................. 522
Remarks by Ms. Lee............................................... 520
Restaurant Associates............................................ 526
Staff COLA....................................................... 520
Staff Financial Disclosures on the Internet...................... 516
Staff Only Restaurant Hours...................................... 531
Wounded Warrior Program.......................................... 494
Wounded Warrior Program.......................................... 526
United States Capitol Police
Additional Assignments from the Chair............................ 624
Cannon Tunnel Visitors Desk...................................... 610
Capitol Visitor Center FTEs...................................... 609
Closed Door Meeting.............................................. 608
Closing Remarks.................................................. 624
Criminal Background Check Procedure.............................. 622
Criminal Background Checks of Department Employees............... 610
CVC and Cannon Tunnel............................................ 620
Department Priorities............................................ 615
Employee Awareness of Criminal Background Checks................. 613
Employee Expectations of Background Checks....................... 619
Expanded Responsibilities........................................ 614
Financial Management............................................. 604
Follow-up on Background Check Policy............................. 615
Getting Financial Operations on Track............................ 605
Impact of Continuing Resolution.................................. 606
Information Examined in Criminal Background Checks............... 623
Inspector General Authority to do Criminal Background Checks..... 616
Inspector General Firearm........................................ 621
Intelligence Capabilities........................................ 606
Lack of Notification of Criminal Background Checks............... 617
Legitimacy of Conducting No-Notice Background Checks............. 618
New Headquarters................................................. 608
New Recruits..................................................... 621
Opening Remarks of Chair Wasserman Schultz....................... 579
Opening Remarks of Mr. Latham.................................... 579
Opening Statement of Chief Morse................................. 580
Overtime Management.............................................. 607
Overtime Use..................................................... 620
Policy on Criminal Background Checks............................. 613
Questions for the Record......................................... 626
Radio System..................................................... 604
Staff Entry...................................................... 609
Timeline for a Clean Audit....................................... 606
Training Availability............................................ 622
Union Notification of Criminal Background Checks................. 624
Government Accountability Office
Additional Assignment from the Chair............................. 690
Benefits of Increased Staffing Level............................. 673
Closing Remarks.................................................. 689
Comptroller General Appointment Process.......................... 676
Congressional Appreciation....................................... 688
Cost of Achieving Financial Benefits............................. 683
Cost of Financial Audits......................................... 684
Diversity Study.................................................. 682
Employee Longevity............................................... 681
Energy Efficiency................................................ 687
Financial Benefits............................................... 678
Fostering Objectivity............................................ 685
GAO Mandated Workload............................................ 674
Government Credit Cards.......................................... 687
Hiring Strategies................................................ 677
Impact of a New Congress on GAO's Workload....................... 679
Impact of Current Staffing Level................................. 678
Impact of Presidential Transition on GAO Workload................ 675
Improved Union Relationship...................................... 681
Institutional Knowledge.......................................... 684
Iraq Engagements................................................. 686
Managing Demand with Current Resources........................... 679
Opening Remarks--Chair Wasserman Schultz......................... 655
Opening Remarks--Mr. Latham...................................... 656
Opening Statement--Gene Dodaro................................... 656
Demand for GAO Work is Increasing............................ 656
Staff Levels................................................. 656
Union Relationship........................................... 657
Optimal Staffing Level........................................... 680
Pay Competitiveness.............................................. 680
Performance Results and Need for New Staff....................... 673
Prepared Statement--Gene Dodaro.................................. 658
Questions for the Record--Mr. Latham............................. 700
Comptroller General Annuity.................................. 705
E-Security Lab............................................... 703
Financial Benefits........................................... 706
Presence in Iraq............................................. 700
Workforce Planning........................................... 701
Questions for the Record--Mr. Udall.............................. 712
DOD Procurement.............................................. 715
High Risk Series............................................. 713
Timeliness................................................... 712
Questions for the Record--Ms. Lee................................ 707
Recruiting Practices......................................... 707
Reasons Demand is Increasing..................................... 679
Recruitment and Retention........................................ 678
Technology Assessments........................................... 682
Time Frame for Accepting New Requests............................ 676
Timeliness of Starting New Work.................................. 673
Use of Contractors............................................... 683
Use of Contractors vs. Staff..................................... 674