    [Senate Hearing 108-431]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 108-431

                                BUSINESS MEETING

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                   JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 3, 2004

                                   __________

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

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

                                   __________

    93-050              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                WASHINGTON : 2003
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

          MEMBERSHIP OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                     Senator TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman

            Representative VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Vice Chairman

     SENATE                               HOUSE

    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio
    TRENT LOTT, Mississippi              JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
    CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut     JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
    CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York         JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
                                         California

     SENATE CONTACT                       HOUSE CONTACT

    Jennifer Mies, Staff Director        Bill McBride, Deputy Staff
      224-1034                           Director
                                           225-3831

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Opening Statement of Senator Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator From
      Alaska.........................................................     1
    Statement of Vernon Ehlers, U.S. Representative From Michigan....     1
    Statement of Hon. James H. Billington, Ph.D., Librarian of
      Congress, Library of Congress..................................     1
    General Donald L. Scott, USA (Ret.), Deputy Librarian of
      Congress, Library of Congress..................................     1
    Prepared Statement of James H. Billington........................     4
    Highlights of 2003...............................................     6
    Acquisitions.....................................................     6
    Police Merger....................................................     6
    Film Preservation................................................     7
    Statement of Senator Thad Cochran, U.S. Senator From Mississippi.     8
    Statement of Robert W. Ney, U.S. Representative From Ohio........     9
    Statement of John B. Larson, U.S. Representative From Connecticut    10
    Statement of Daniel P. Mulhollan, Director, Congressional
      Research Service, Library of Congress..........................    13
    Prepared Statement of Daniel P. Mulhollan........................    14
    Statement of Hon. Alan Hantman, Architect of the Capitol.........    22
    Leone Reeder, Acting Chair, National Fund for the U.S. Botanic
      Garden.........................................................    22
    Stephen Ward, Executive Director, National Fund for the U.S.
      Botanic Garden.................................................    22
    Prepared Statement of Honorable Alan M. Hantman, FAIA............    23

                                BUSINESS MEETING

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004

                                           U.S. Senate,
                    Joint Committee on the Library of Congress,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met at 4:07 p.m., in room S-128, the Capitol,
    Hon. Ted Stevens (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Stevens and Cochran; and Representatives
    Ehlers (vice chairman), Ney, and Larson.
        Also present: Jennifer Mies (staff director).

       opening statement of senator ted stevens, u.s. senator from alaska

        Chairman Stevens. Well, I think we have representation on
    both sides; we can start the meeting, if you will. I do thank
    you for coming. One of our members had to depart because of a
    call from the chairman of appropriations on the other side, but
    we have not had a meeting for some time. We have a series of
    things to go over and I thought it would be best if we could
    cover several subjects at one time and that is why I have asked
    Dr. Billington and the Architect and the Director of the
    Congressional Research Service to be here, all here, today.
        But let me first ask you, Mr. Vice Chairman, if you have
    any comments to make before we start this process?

         statement of vernon ehlers, u.s. representative from michigan

        Mr. Ehlers. No, nothing about the past. I will have some
    about what is on the agenda.
        Chairman Stevens. Okay, that is very good.
        Mr. Ehlers. I am concerned about a few things.
        Chairman Stevens. I understand that.
        I particularly hope Senator Lott can get here. But let me
    first call upon you, Dr. Billington, as the Librarian to give
    us sort of a summary of whatever you would like to discuss with
    us here today. I do believe we will have a majority before we
    are through.
    STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES H. BILLINGTON, Ph.D., LIBRARIAN
                OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
    ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL DONALD L. SCOTT, USA (Ret.), DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF
                CONGRESS, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

        Dr. Billington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We recognize the austere budget restrictions that we face
    for this next fiscal year and we are seeking ways to continue
    performing our statutory obligations and our core mission for
    Congress and the Nation in this new information age.
        The Library, which the Congress created and has sustained
    for 204 years, has become more important than ever before. It
    is in many ways the Nation's strategic information reserve in a
    time when our security, economic competitiveness, and creative
    dynamism are increasingly dependent on information. This is the
    world's largest collection of retrievable human knowledge, in
    almost all languages and formats. It contains the mint record
    of American private sector creativity and it is a world leader
    in both our constantly gathering in and freely sending out high
    quality material on the Internet.
        We are well on our way to the electronic conversion of our
    internal processes and to providing digital archiving and
    services required by the Congress. These range from re-
    engineering the Copyright Office to providing new user-friendly
    digital materials for the blind and physically handicapped, who
    currently get more than $23 million in free reading materials a
    year.
        We are in effect superimposing a new electronic library on
    top of continuing to add 10,000 new items every day to the 128
    million artifactual items in the Library of Congress. We are
    doing all this with 7.7 percent less full-time equivalent staff
    than we had in 1992 before the Internet age was set upon us. We
    are doing it with a magnificent but aging work force, 48.1
    percent of whom will be eligible for either regular or early
    retirement by September of this year.
        To continue performing our statutory obligations and core
    mission for Congress and the Nation, we will be making major
    changes and requesting some new funding, as determined by our
    rigorous planning process and guiding strategic plan, presided
    over by General Scott, my distinguished deputy.
        Now, more than ever we must increase the acquisition and
    preservation and storage of print material even as we begin
    implementing our Congressionally mandated plan for archiving
    the Internet. Print material is increasing by an estimated 15
    percent along with the exponential increase in digital
    material, and this increase is particularly strong in troubled
    regions of the developing world, where both the Nation's needs
    and the Library's resources are particularly great. Only in our
    massive collections could America find Osama bin Laden's rare
    autobiography, or rare German archaeological data which
    verified that the desert spaces in southern Iraq would hold
    heavy tanks and heavily laden all-purpose carriers, or could we
    find a complete set of Afghan legal codes that could be
    digitized in 24 hours and replicated in 200 copies to replace
    those destroyed by the Taliban, anxious to prevent the rule of
    law, traditional Afghan law, from being even available for the
    new post-Taliban Afghanistan.
        That is just one illustration, and I could give you many
    more: the way in which a major breakthrough on adult remission
    of leukemia was facilitated by a rare German volume of which we
    had the only copy in the world.
        Now, we must adequately preserve and store these immense
    collections because it is never clear where we are going to
    find clues in the future to some wisdom that was overlooked in
    the past. But it is all retrievable. By far the largest private
    donation for storing our material ever received, that has ever
    been received by the Library, is a $120 million donation from
    the Packard Humanities Institute, which is largely building as
    well as paying for a national facility for housing the
    audiovisual heritage of 20th century America, in which so much
    of the world's history and of our Nation's creativity is
    preserved, but in presently fragile and perishable forms, which
    will receive state of the art treatment as soon as this comes
    on stream, the first part next year and the second part the
    following year.
        This stage of the art facility at Culpeper requires some
    modest requested increases in our own current budget to equip
    it and prepare for the move and to sustain for the future the
    good relationship with our extraordinarily generous donor.
        We are also requesting in the Architect of the Capitol's
    budget continuation of the Fort Meade storage project in
    accordance with the plan previously discussed with the
    committee for specially formatted collections, as well as a
    copyright deposit facility to bring the vast but presently
    scattered creative record of America into one location. We need
    this to fulfill our legal preservation obligations to
    depositors and to assure continuation of the voluntary deposit
    system that annually provides $32 million worth of material
    free for the Library's collection.
        The single greatest challenge facing the Library in the
    digital age, however, is developing a work force that can think
    and work in new ways without losing the immense inherent
    traditional knowledge and memory embedded in our staff. We will
    soon need the committee's support for a flexible package of
    human capital tools in line with practices already in use in
    the Federal Government.
        The Congress must be able to provide Congress and the
    Nation with a whole new type of objective knowledge navigator
    who can seamlessly integrate and alleviate both the old analog
    and the new digital materials into one set of services for the
    Congress and for the Nation. We must be able to attract,
    maintain, motivate, and reward a top-quality high performing
    new generation of what we will be calling in the future
    knowledge navigators, rather than merely librarians.
        With regard to a couple of other issues, Mr. Chairman: the
    police merger. The Library is fully engaged in increasing
    security, integrating police operations, and improving budget
    economy here on Capitol Hill. We are deeply troubled, however,
    by the proposed plan the U.S. Capitol Police have issued for
    implementing the merger of the Library of Congress Police Force
    into the U.S. Capitol Police Force. The proposed plan which the
    U.S. Capitol Police have submitted for Congressional approval
    does not protect the Librarian's statutory and historic
    responsibility for protecting the collections as well as the
    people and buildings of the Library.
        The merger is happening de facto and is eroding the
    Library's authority to exercise this core task since we can no
    longer hire our own police. I look forward to working with the
    committee on this problem.
        The Congress also submitted, Mr. Chairman, during the First
    Session of the 108th Congress a request for reauthorization of
    the national film preservation program. There are now 375
    culturally, historically, and artistically significant motion
    pictures in the National Film Registry which was created by
    Congress in 1988. This vital program has played the leading
    role in identifying endangered films of all sorts, by the way--
    there is a tremendous variety of the film record--setting
    national preservation standards, working with other public and
    nonprofit archives to save American films from irreversible
    deterioration.
        Mr. Chairman, the Library of Congress has been the greatest
    single patron of the library in the history of the world, and
    on behalf of the Library past, present and future and all its
    staff I thank this committee for its continued support for and
    interest in the Library. Individual members of this committee
    have provided an unusual level of continuity and guidance and
    support for this institution. We are all in your debt. We look
    forward to working with you as we move the Library fully into
    the new century.
        I will be happy to answer any questions and respond in any
    way I can.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of James H. Billington

        Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice-Chairman, members of the Joint Committee.
        We live in a world where our health, security, and economic future
    increasingly depend on information--and in a world undergoing the
    greatest revolution in the storage and communication of knowledge since
    the invention of the printing press. I would like to submit, Mr.
    Chairman, that the Library which Congress has created and sustained so
    magnificently has become one of America's greatest assets in both of
    these critical areas. The Library of Congress is a key part of the
    nation's strategic information reserve and a world leader both in the
    gathering in of digitized information and in the dissemination of free,
    high-quality electronic material for our country.
        Out of its collection of 128 million items, with 10,000 added every
    day, this Library provides our nation with many unique items--an
    obscure 19th century German book for a breakthrough in leukemia
    research that no one else in the world had saved, a rare early 20th
    century German record of archaeological digs in Mesopotamia which
    assured us prior to Desert Storm that the southern Iraqi desert would
    hold modern heavy tanks. We found an autobiography of Osama bin Laden
    in our unmatched Arabic collections. Our Law Library digitized and
    delivered in 24 hours the compilation of Afghan civil, commercial, and
    criminal law codes that helped the courts of Afghanistan reestablish
    the rule of law after the Taliban had destroyed the existing codes.
        No one can be sure where America's next global security threat--or
    economic opportunity--will lie, but the Library of Congress will have
    the best odds in the world for finding background information about it.
    We have a crucial need to increase our modest acquisition budget that
    has been declining in purchasing power for more than a decade. We must
    make sure that our global coverage continues in a world where published
    materials, particularly in troubled spots in the developing world, are
    increasing at an estimated 15 percent a year.
        We must properly store and preserve our immense and expanding
    collections. The Library is asking for funding for two major Fort Meade
    construction projects in the Architect of the Capitol's budget: modules
    3 and 4 in the already much-delayed series previously approved by the
    Congress. These two will house specially formatted materials such as
    maps and manuscripts. We also need a copyright deposit facility that
    will at last bring the vast but presently scattered creative record of
    America into one location. This is needed to fulfill our legal
    preservation obligations to our depositors and to assure the
    continuation of the $32 million our depositors save the taxpayers
    annually by voluntarily sending us their new works for registration and
    mandatory deposit.
        By comparison with other national cultural institutions, we have
    had a very low construction budget for the last 20 years. By far our
    biggest new construction project is being primarily privately funded by
    the largest donation every received by the Library: $120 million from
    the Packard Humanities Institute (PHI). Construction is already well
    underway for this National Audiovisual Conservation Center in Culpeper,
    Virginia, which will bring together the world's largest audiovisual
    collections and provide state of the art preservation for these
    presently scattered materials--movies, television, radio, and sound
    recordings--that document so much of the history of the 20th century.
        Some added appropriated funding is needed this year to acquire
    basic equipment and preservation infrastructure for the facility and to
    get staff and collections in place for the move to Culpeper, which will
    begin in fiscal year 2005.
        The Congress's Library is a world leader--both in providing and
    sending high quality digital material everywhere free of charge--and in
    crafting and implementing a distributed national policy for preserving
    and managing ``at risk'' digital content. Much of the 7.6 percent
    increase in the Library's budget request for fiscal year 2005 is needed
    for electronic conversion; business re- engineering in the copyright
    office; preserving CRS' research capacity, and to begin converting to
    user-friendly digital equipment materials for the Library's National
    Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped.
        Tomorrow, the Library will make available, as he instructed, the
    papers of Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun--one of our largest
    collections of judicial papers. We have made elaborate preparations to
    accommodate the anticipated wide public, press, and scholarly interest,
    through expanded hours in the Manuscript Reading Rooms and with on-site
    access to significant digitized portions of the collections and web-
    site access to collection highlights.
        We have specially prepared for Members of Congress and their staff,
    who wish to view the more extensive digital files, a dedicated computer
    in the LaFollette Reading Room. Materials will include a 362-page
    collection guide, a 500-page transcript of an oral history taken by
    Justice Blackmun's law clerk, Harold Koh, and case files from many of
    the seminal opinions authored by Justice Blackmun.
        Electronically, the Library of Congress is responding to the new
    ``Google'' world of search engines by fundamentally changing the way in
    which we identify, gather, and process information to yield knowledge
    for Congress and the nation. We will always have books, maps, and other
    printed artifacts, but we must also capture and preserve the
    dramatically increasing volume of human knowledge that is created in
    cyberspace, and will never see life as a printed book or document.
        Our mission is unchanged: to make our resources available and
    useful to the Congress and the American people and to sustain and
    preserve a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future
    generations. But the way we fulfill that mission is undergoing a sea
    change. To ensure that digital information is captured and preserved,
    libraries cannot wait until that information is acquired in the
    traditional way, after it is published. It has to be collected at the
    point of creation.
        Thanks to the Congress's appropriation of funds in fiscal year 2001
    and approval of a plan in December 2002, the Library has been working
    with creators and publishers to create digital preservation
    repositories and with creators and legislators to ensure that copyright
    laws balance protection and access. The Library will, in the years
    ahead, have to retrain print-oriented staff and bring in new talents to
    select, preserve, and deliver digital information.
        But the Library of the 21st Century--like America itself--must add
    without subtracting. We must continue to serve as the in-gatherer of
    analog collections while dramatically expanding its on-line information
    services in new and more timely ways.
        The Library of Congress must be a leader in seamlessly integrating
    old knowledge with new information in its services for Congress and the
    nation. In an age flooded with unfiltered information, the Library of
    Congress has the opportunity and obligation to provide Congress and the
    nation with objective knowledge navigators.
        The Congressional Research Service has a long and unique tradition
    of combining scholarly expertise with objectivity and authority. The
    large endowment generously provided by John W. Kluge supplemented by
    other private donations has brought a fresh infusion of world class
    scholarship into our midst.
        The single greatest challenge facing the Library in the digital age
    is developing a workforce that can think and work in new ways without
    losing the immense inherited knowledge and memory of our great staff. I
    will soon be requesting legislation that will give the Library a broad
    based flexible package of human capital tools, in line with practices
    already in use within the federal government. We need to ensure that
    the Library of Congress will be able to attract, retain, motivate, and
    reward a top quality and high performing new generation of knowledge
    specialists to serve the Congress and the American people in those
    areas where the Library has unique obligations.

                               HIGHLIGHTS OF 2003

        During 2003, Mr. Chairman, the John W. Kluge Center officially
    opened at the Library of Congress, bringing some of the world's leading
    scholars on a rotating basis to use the Library's collections and
    interact with public policy makers; the Center for the Book celebrated
    twenty-five years of championing reading promotion programs and
    literacy partnership. Founded by my distinguished predecessor, Daniel
    J. Boorstein, whose death last Friday we all mourn, this center within
    the Library of Congress now has affiliated centers in all fifty states
    and the District of Columbia.
        During this past year, the Library continued to implement its
    multi-year security enhancement plan; including an upgraded intrusion
    detection and security monitoring systems, and upgraded firewalls to
    safeguard the Library's valuable computer resources and overseas
    offices. Working with other information technology professionals in the
    Legislative Branch, the Library constructed an alternate computer
    facility in a remote location to mirror its priority systems in case of
    a disaster on Capitol Hill.
        Also in 2003, the Library submitted and the Congress approved the
    plan entitled, ``Preserving Our Digital Heritage: Plan for the National
    Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program.'' The
    Library began the program's next phase with a call for project
    applications to develop and test models for archiving these materials
    that do not exist in analog form. Awards will be made in April 2004.
        The Library has so far digitized and made available free on our
    website 8.5 million American historical items, adding in 2003 more than
    344,000 new digital items, and five new Library exhibitions. The
    Library's Global Gateway program of bi-national, bilingual internet
    files based on our unparalleled international resources, was formally
    launched with Brazil two weeks ago; and the Congressionally-created
    flagship ``Meeting of Frontiers'' program with Russia will have nearly
    half a million images on-line by the end of 2004. The Library's
    interactive web-site for families, www.americaslibrary.gov, continues
    to grow in popularity thanks to the Advertising Council's first-ever
    national promotion campaign for a library project.

                                  ACQUISITIONS

        Significant special acquisitions were made possible by private
    funding during 2003--such the oldest known intact Indian book (a
    birchbark scroll on Buddhist psychology from as early as 200 B.C); and
    a complete set of Curtis's Botanical Magazine, a landmark work of
    natural history literature and illustration. The acquisition of two
    very important new collections made possible by the major private
    donations of Madison Council members will be announced shortly.
        The Library completed in 2003 the purchase of the only known copy
    of the first document of any kind to use the name ``America,'' the
    first map of the new world made in 1507 by Martin Waldseemuller.
    Funding for this historic purchase came from a special Congressional
    appropriation as well as private contributions from the Discovery
    Channel, Gerry and Marguerite Lenfest, and others.
        In 2003, the Library's Veterans History Project received more than
    60,000 items documenting the experience of the nation's veterans and
    their families; and an extremely rare relief model of Utah Beach that
    was used in the preparations for the amphibious D-Day landing at
    Normandy.
        The Library celebrated the 75th anniversary of its large Chinese
    collections and added 9,012 monograph volumes and 15,444 issues of
    Chinese serials, and 192 Chinese microfilm reels in targeted subject
    areas. The Library acquired microfilm and digital copies of 4,000 pages
    of virtually unknown, largely Islamic, manuscripts from Timbuktu, Mali,
    exhibited at the Library in the summer of 2003.
        Significant new manuscript acquisitions included the papers of
    former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski; the original
    kinescope collection from the ``Ed Sullivan Show'', the seminal
    American television variety program (1948-1971); and a unique
    collection of audiotape interviews with Alice Roosevelt Longworth, the
    outspoken daughter of President Theodore Roosevelt.

                                 POLICE MERGER

        The Library has been fully engaged in and is committed to
    increasing security, integrating police operations, and improving
    budget economy here on Capitol Hill. We are deeply troubled, however,
    by the proposed plan that the U.S. Capitol Police have issued for
    implementing the merger of the Library of Congress Police force into
    the U.S. Capitol Police force.
        When ricin was recently found at 3:00 in the afternoon in a Senate
    office, Capitol Police and House and Senate Officers met to discuss
    closing the Capitol campus until the threat could be assessed. Library
    officials learned of this incident at 10:00 p.m. only on the television
    news, and Library police were not officially informed until 11:00 p.m.
        Even more serious is the way in which the Capitol Police propose to
    proceed--by stripping the Librarian of Congress of the authority to
    exercise his most basic, statutory responsibility to protect the
    collections as well as the people and buildings of the Library. The
    Library's police force is focused not only on the physical safety of
    our staff, visitors, and building, but on the integrity and security of
    our priceless collections and is the primary arm for the Librarian of
    Congress in discharging this responsibility. The Library must be able
    to request and to present its case directly for the resources and
    policies needed to protect the Library's assets. The Capitol Police
    officers that serve on Library property with special responsibility for
    the collections must be under the technical direction of--and
    accountable to--the Librarian of Congress.
        Under the 2004 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, the Library
    of Congress no longer has authority to hire new officers to replace
    those that leave our force through retirement or other separation.
    These positions now have to be filled with Capitol Police officers on
    detail to the Library, and we will soon be getting our first such
    group. If no action is taken on the proposed police merger plan, a
    merger will occur by attrition over a period of years, during which the
    authority for the safety of staff and collections will be increasingly
    difficult to implement with a workforce serving only on detail. I look
    forward to working with the Congress to design a merger implementation
    plan that will not undermine the authority of the Librarian.

                               FILM PRESERVATION

        The Library submitted during the first session of the 108th
    Congress a request for re-authorization of the National Film
    Preservation Program. There are now 375 culturally, historically and
    artistically significant motion pictures that I have picked for the
    National Film Registry, which was created by Congress in the original
    Film Preservation authorization in 1988. Annually adding films to the
    Registry enhances public appreciation for the richness and variety of
    America's film heritage and highlights the importance of film
    preservation.
        The forthcoming opening of the National Audio-Visual Conservation
    Center in Culpeper provides a single location and new focus for all the
    Library's vast motion picture, television, and recorded sound
    collections--the largest in the world. Re-authorization of the National
    Film Preservation Program is an essential support element for this
    national program. The Library of Congress has played the leading role
    in identifying endangered films, setting national preservation
    standards, and working with other public and non-profit archives to
    save American films from irreversible deterioration. In passing the
    original 1988 act and subsequent re-authorizations in 1992 and 1996,
    Congress recognized the central federal role of the Library of
    Congress, in developing a coordinated strategy to address the
    challenges of film preservation--particularly for those films in the
    public domain or not owned by major studios.
        The National Film Preservation Re-authorization Act of 2003 [S.
    1923 and H.R. 3569] will also continue the vitally important role of
    the private sector, through the National Film Preservation Foundation,
    a new non-profit charitable affiliate created in 1996. The Foundation
    has raised $6.34 million in private funds and in-kind contributions--a
    magnificent response to the $750,000 in federal funds received to date.
    The Foundation has supported 98 institutions in 34 states and D.C., and
    has preserved and made available more than 630 significant films that
    would otherwise have been unlikely to survive. I hope the Congress will
    support the Library's request for a 10-year re-authorization of the
    National Film Preservation Program.
        On behalf of the Library and all of its staff, I thank this
    committee for its continued support for and interest in the Library.
    The individual members of this committee have provided an unusual level
    of continuity and guidance for this institution. We are all in your
    debt, and look forward to working with you as we move the Library fully
    into the new century.
        I will be happy to answer any questions.

        Chairman Stevens. Thank you, sir, very much.
        You and I have reviewed some of that material and the
    Appropriations Committee has reviewed it. Let me see if the
    vice chairman has any comments or questions.
        Mr. Ehlers. No, I just want to thank you for the report,
    and we appreciate everything that the Library does.
        Chairman Stevens. Do you have any questions, Senator
    Cochran?

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

        Senator Cochran. One comes to mind. When materials and
    donations are made available to the Library, it seems that we
    almost always accept them. Is there any criteria that you have
    that guides you in saying no, we cannot accept this or we do
    not have room for this, or we would suggest you try to find a
    university library somewhere that might accept it?
        Dr. Billington. Yes. First of all, we do not accept
    everything. We make judgments: Is this important for the
    national collection or is it not? We often suggest that people
    give it to a local library if it deals with local history or if
    it has some logical connection. Almost all Congressional
    collections, we suggest that they work with somebody from the
    district or their State if possible and so forth.
        In addition, we cannot accept anything that is not formally
    approved by the Library's Trust Fund Statutory Board
    established in the 1920's. So the Library's acceptance of
    collections is contingent on its acceptance by the Trust Fund
    Board as well.
        But yes, we--first of all, in terms of things we look for--
    in terms of things that come in to us, I would say we accept
    only a fraction of those that some have suggested. But we have
    a universal collection, so we collect very broadly. We try to
    collect qualitatively. We try to sustain the core mission of
    the universal collection, which is not to say we collect
    everything, but that we try to collect everything that is
    important for the Congress and more broadly for the Nation's
    memory and the Nation's policies, all of which are subject to
    the Congress.
        So it is a limiting factor, yes, definitely. We do not
    accept everything. We will be about to announce in the next
    couple of months two major and, I think one could almost say
    spectacular collections, which will come to the Library in the
    near future. Very often these take a long time to develop. But
    we concentrate on those things that we think are of fundamental
    importance to Congress and the Nation.
        But we are a very creative Nation and since the copyright
    deposit also represents the core of our Americana collection
    many--for instance in music, there have been many great
    composers that have offered us their entire collections and we
    have been inclined to accept them because we already have the
    base of the copyright deposit. So we have the complete
    collections of people like Bob Hope, for instance, or the
    Gershwin brothers or Leonard Bernstein and Irving Berlin, John
    Philip Sousa.
        The addition of these collections, that for instance dates
    back to the 1890's when Congress decided that Sousa, the great
    Sousa collection, which he really created the march and the
    President's own band, ought to be in the national collection.
        Some of the most important collections given to the Library
    are the papers of the Presidents. We have most of the papers of
    the first 23 Presidents of the United States and they came
    largely from the State Department, where they had been housed,
    and it was thought to be more proper to transfer them. So there
    is a lot of transfer of material that is not the formal
    official record of the U.S. Government, which of course goes to
    the National Archives and Records Administration, but papers,
    particularly important manuscript papers.
        There is a kind of informal agreement, for instance, with
    the Presidential libraries, which are part of the Archives,
    that if someone served primarily, whose papers, personal
    papers, are of importance and interest to historians, but
    served primarily in one administration, the first consideration
    would be to go to the Presidential library, although everyone's
    free to do anything they want with their papers.
        So we are inclined to accept and certainly to look for
    mainly papers who served in a variety of administrations over a
    long period of time. So there is a kind of a, I think, an
    understanding between other great repositories and libraries
    and other government institutions that everyone pretty well
    adheres to, which limits what we take in, but still leaves us
    with a very broad and comprehensive collection.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Chairman Stevens. Any further comment?
        Senator Cochran. No, I have no other questions.
        Chairman Stevens. Mr. Ney.

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

        Mr. Ney. Just a statement, Mr. Chairman. Just a statement
    that we will work with you on the concerns you have about the
    merger which is happening, as you said, through attrition with
    the Capitol Police and some of the issues you might have about
    conducting law enforcement, and also looking at the different
    types of protection for the collections. I do not want to take
    the time right now, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Billington. Thank you. General Scott has really been
    handling that for us. I am sure we will be glad to talk to him
    about it. Our main concern is that the collections--and this
    was a concern, has been a historic concern of this committee,
    too--that the security of the collections poses a very special
    set of problems and obligations that are absolutely essential
    if we are going to be preservers of most of the Nation's
    creative memory in the private sector.
        No other country has preserved, let alone the legislative
    body, has sought to preserve, as insistently as this did. When
    the copyright deposit was in the judicial and the executive
    branch, as it was for a while, we did not preserve that record.
    Once it came under the legislative branch of the government in
    1870, 1971, the record is virtually--has been very well
    maintained and sustained.
        So we are very concerned, and there was concern when we
    discussed security problems and tightened and closed the stacks
    definitively and made a number of other security provisions
    that we have been steadily implementing. Security was a central
    concern of this committee. So we feel that it will be helpful
    to be able to discuss it with you and for the committee to
    understand how we continue to exercise what is one of the most
    fundamental responsibilities in the Library--that is, to make
    sure that the security of the collections, along with the
    obvious needs, as well, on questions of security of buildings
    or people, are also maintained.
        So we think we can cooperate with this program, but we
    would like to have that opportunity.
        Chairman Stevens. I think we would all like to work with
    you on that police issue. It is going to take some action by
    both of the subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee, I
    think, to work out. But we will pursue that with you. We would
    like to have your help, Mr. Ney.
        Mr. Larson, do you have anything?

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

        Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just briefly, again thank you for the fine work you do on
    behalf of the Library and the Nation, and I concur with what
    the chairman said at the outset, you get fine marks with
    respect to your predecessor Daniel Boorstein in his tenure here
    as Librarian of Congress.
        You mentioned in your remarks 41 percent turnover. How is
    that going to impact us in terms of institutional memory? Do we
    have a plan? That is a huge number.
        Dr. Billington. Well, that is of course the number that
    are----
        Mr. Larson. Potential.
        Dr. Billington [continuing]. Potential, and it is not all
    have reached retirement age, but they have reached eligibility.
    Many of them will have reached retirement age. We have been
    working on a succession plan for a number of years, but this is
    really our priority concern and I expect that by the next
    budget beyond the one that is currently under consideration we
    will have some rather massive plans to deal with this question,
    because it is not simply a question of replacing existing
    positions. It is a question of redefining many of these
    positions, because we have to be able to--the mission of the
    Library does not change, which is basically fundamental for
    Congress first of all and for the Nation as well.
        Because of its size and potential, this place has to
    acquire, preserve, make accessible, promote the use of by more
    people in more ways the knowledge, information, and creativity
    of the world, knowledge and information particularly of the
    world and the creativity particularly of our own country, the
    memory of which is likely to erode without that vast copyright
    deposit.
        So how do we do that? Well, we have to train people and we
    have to also, because of the tremendous inundation of the
    Internet, we have to have a whole new type of filtration. The
    filtration which occurs with editing and publishing in the
    print world does not occur on the Internet. You just have an
    immense amount of material. It is growing exponentially even as
    more people enter the print era that are simultaneously
    entering the Internet era.
        So this is going to be a massive task of redefining.
    Moreover, we have to make much more efficient use--I think the
    Congressional Research Service, which you will hear later, has
    a great tradition established, very unique in the scholarly
    world, of the object of filtration and synthesizing of
    knowledge for the purposes of the Congress and in response to
    their concern.
        But that can be enriched and the whole services of the
    Library can be enriched by better use of our foreign
    collections. We are increasingly involved in places in the
    world in which few institutions have the materials that we do
    and that we need to keep on acquiring in places nobody would
    have thought of having a collection on, Kosovo, Chechnya,
    Burundi, and Afghanistan 20 years ago. But these are all
    tremendously important, and that is why we need to increase our
    essentially flat acquisitions budget.
        But we also need to get that material used and in service
    for the Congress so that we can have it be accessed, not only
    to what the English language intercommunication on the Internet
    provides; we need to filter that. We need people who can filter
    that and we need people who can use it more effectively. We
    have the largest Arabic collection in the world, the Library of
    Congress, but we need people who can use it, mediate it, and
    get it into the stream of what you need.
        The private endowment that John Kluge, the chairman of our
    Madison Council, has given us has enabled us to bring important
    people who could think broadly about this and stimulate us. We
    just had recently the former president of Brazil Cardoza, and
    we have the former president of the Czech Republic Vaclev Havel
    arriving shortly. These are major figures. We had the recent
    visit and spent time with the Congressional Research Service of
    an endowment that the Friends of Henry Kissinger created for an
    annual lecture by George Schultz.
        So we have a stream of people of great experience and
    knowledge coming in, on private funds, but providing increased
    knowledge. We have had one of the great Islamic scholars in the
    world, Mohammed Arkun, make a number of visits to the Library.
        So we have to--because there is no filtration of the
    Internet and because there is just so much material and because
    the concerns, the security concerns, the economic opportunities
    as well as the competitiveness problems of our economy, they
    are all growing internationally. We have just devised a whole
    new system for getting material from China. We have the largest
    Chinese collection outside of the Chinese-speaking world, but
    we have a whole new system for getting stuff from the Chinese
    provinces, which is going to be very important because in that
    country too, different forces are at work. We need to
    understand it better.
        So all of this is I think of capital importance if we are
    going to serve Congress--and it requires us to have people who
    have both substantive knowledge of languages, fields, and
    cultures and, at the same time, technical fluidity and ease in
    dealing with the Internet and also good judgment so they can
    help filter this flow of information, because otherwise we are
    just overloaded with information, with unsorted data, with
    unverified facts, the amount of unverifiable information.
        So this is really our major task for the next few years. It
    is not reflected quite as much in our current budget because we
    have a set of needs, particularly the storage needs, that are
    largely in the Architect's budget that are not new and, since
    we have no capital budget, they have to come in for annual
    appropriations.
        The storage, for instance, at Fort Meade is already much
    delayed, but that was part of a project that we have developed
    and discussed with the committee before as part of a general
    strategic plan over many years. Our requests for capital, major
    capital construction, have been relatively modest, I think,
    compared to many cultural institutions, but they do occur,
    without a capital budget, on an annual appropriation basis.
        The biggest one, this audiovisual conservation center, as I
    have indicated, is largely being funded privately. So we do
    have these requests and needs, but the biggest one is going to
    be the human capital. That has been our greatest asset of this
    Library, even greater than the collections, is the people who
    preserve them, chose them, and made them accessible. They have
    done a great job over the years.
        We are going to try to set it up so that they will mentor,
    the outgoing people will help mentor the incoming people. That
    is already happening at the Congressional Research Service and
    other parts of the Library, but we are going to increase that
    immensely.
        We do not think, by the way, that everybody who can retire
    will retire. People like to stay on, and it is on the whole, of
    great value because they get the feel for the collections. We
    have problems of quantity. We get 22,000 artifactual items
    every day. Narrowing that to the 10,000 we keep is also a
    tremendous skill set of people who no one appreciates outside
    of the Congress. I as an old pack rat go down in the discard
    pile periodically just to see if there is anything anybody
    might conceivably want, and I have never found anything. And as
    my wife can tell you, I never throw anything out at home.
        So this is a huge problem, getting the right staff. But we
    have had a great staff, we have a great staff. But we are going
    to have to not only get an equally good one, but we are going
    to have to get staff who have skill sets that we have not had
    to have as urgently in the past.
        Chairman Stevens. We had a request from former Senator
    Slade Gorton that the Library acquire the Harper's Weekly John
    Adler collection. I do not know how many members are familiar
    with that. We have so far not pursued that. Would you tell us
    just for the record what your opinion is about that? There is a
    request pending now before the Appropriations Committee for
    $7.5 million to be used to acquire that, with some additional
    moneys from non-Federal sources. Are you interested in that
    project?
        Dr. Billington. Well, I have met several times with Mr.
    Adler and his advisers. The digitized version of Harper's
    Weekly and some other things he has would be certainly accepted
    by the Library if offered as a gift. We have not asked for
    appropriations or are seeking private contributions to purchase
    the collection. It is not a priority for our acquisitions
    budget, particularly in the current tight budget environment.
        But it is a very valuable collection and it could be--
    certainly we would be glad to have it. It would add to--we have
    8.5 million items of American history and culture already on
    line. This would be a very valuable addition and we would be
    very happy to accept it as a gift. It might be--it would be the
    kind of thing that, if we could get it, we would be very happy
    to have it, I think, if it could be acquired, particularly in
    the context of some kind of educational program which would
    support a very great need, that is to train or to have some
    program for expanding the training of teachers in the
    educational use of the Internet.
        But we already have a great deal online and, much as we
    would love to have it, I cannot say that for the Library's
    budget as such that it is an immediate high priority.
        Chairman Stevens. Any member have any further questions of
    the Librarian?
        [No response.]
        Chairman Stevens. Could we ask you, Director Mulhollan, if
    you would come up and join the Librarian and let us chat for a
    minute about your situation with the Congressional Research
    Service. We are not really going into appropriations, but you
    are really a very essential arm of the Congress. All the
    Library is, but we use your Research Service probably as
    Members more than we do the rest of the Library. So we thought
    it would be nice to have us hear from you what your situation
    is.
    STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. MULHOLLAN, DIRECTOR,
                CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, LIBRARY OF
                CONGRESS
        Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you. I appreciate that, and I
    appreciate the support that this committee has given over the
    years. Just to know, last week--we are statutorily obligated to
    report on an annual basis to the Joint Committee on the Library
    and we provided that to you for our fiscal year 2003 last week.
        I will summarize. I think that for CRS, our perspective,
    the Congress plays a critical role in a representative
    democracy during war. This is a particularly difficult time
    because this war on terrorism does not have boundaries and
    there is no end in sight. I maintain that the capacities to
    help the Congress to sustain its role have a critical claim on
    scarce resources.
        Then the logic follows is that CRS helps the Congress in
    that capacity. In that annual report we talk about how our
    folks were there during the Congressional joint resolution on
    the war declaration. We were there with regard to issues with
    regard to war powers, declaration of war, preemptive use of war
    in international law. When military action started, CRS
    assisted Congress in a whole range of questions on Iraq and the
    Middle East, U.S. efforts to change the Iraqi regime, the U.N.
    Food for Aid program, and continuing with the whole major
    effort of the largest since the DOD, the creation of the
    Homeland Security, the impact on federalism, the impact now on
    civil service and personnel structures, and across the board on
    each of the programs, and still evolving on homeland security.
        I think we are trying to do our best to help the Congress
    on these many and many more complex issues. My concern is is
    that the one that we are all aware of, and that is kind of
    silently sitting here, that we are facing a very difficult
    fiscal circumstance. What I have mentioned in my statement is
    that if we do not get our mandatories--the cost of living, we
    are 87 percent salaries; if we do not get that, that means $4.3
    million. That is 37 positions I do not have, which are--and
    together with that we are looking for a one-time ramp-up of
    $2.7 million because basically we have greater expertise and
    greater need coming into the service in the last 10 years.
    Aside from special hiring programs our average grade was GS-7,
    step 9. Now it is 13.1. We have got a better, smarter force,
    but it is a more expensive one.
        If we do not get, those two lump sums, $7 million added
    onto our budget, we are going to lose over 60 positions. That
    is almost 160 hours on each of the issues that you are talking
    about. We cover 160 policy issues, providing over 900 reports,
    literally thousands of confidential memoranda, daily briefings,
    both oral and telephone consultations, on each of those issues
    that you have to do to maintain your responsibilities, and I
    hope we are there for you, and I am looking for the Congress'
    help to sustain that capacity, because these are very difficult
    times.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Daniel P. Mulhollan

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to appear
    before you today to discuss the work of the Congressional Research
    Service (CRS) in fiscal year 2003 and its priorities for the future. I
    want to thank this Committee for the confidence it has shown in CRS in
    the past and the support that has enabled CRS to serve the Congress
    during these difficult times of demanding policy deliberations, which
    have been made especially challenging because of our heightened need to
    provide for security at home and abroad, and because of greatly
    increased fiscal constraints.
        As CRS completes its ninth decade of service to the Congress, we
    continue to uphold our sole mission: We work exclusively and directly
    for the Congress, providing research and analysis that is
    authoritative, timely, objective, nonpartisan, confidential, and fully
    responsive to the policy-making needs of the Congress.
        The Congress continually and routinely calls on CRS research
    assistance as it examines policy problems, formulates responses, and
    deliberates on them across the broad range of complex and challenging
    issues on the legislative agenda. Our paramount concern, especially
    given the critical constitutional role of the Congress during a time of
    war, is preserving independent, accessible, and responsive analytic
    capacity in the legislative branch.
        Mr. Chairman, my statement today highlights CRS accomplishments in
    supporting the Congress over the past year. My statement also outlines
    the fiscal challenges CRS will face in the upcoming year and reports on
    the steps we have been taking to contain costs. I am concerned about
    the Service's ability to continue providing the level of support
    Congress has come to rely upon. For the coming year, we seek to
    maintain our research support for the Congress including priorities
    targeted to meet major policy-making needs as Congress faces continuing
    and unfolding policy concerns, as well as significant, unanticipated
    crises.

    Fiscal Year 2003 Highlights in CRS Legislative Support
        Throughout fiscal year 2003 Congress called on CRS as it confronted
    numerous, challenging public policy problems in its demanding schedule
    of legislative and oversight activities. I have submitted to you our
    2003 annual report outlining the breadth and depth of support on key
    public policy issues. Today I will touch upon some issues emanating
    from the war with Iraq and efforts to enhance homeland security last
    year. CRS has and continues to play a significant role in keeping the
    Congress abreast of policy questions, options and their implications
    during rapidly changing situations of vital importance to the Nation.
        The War with Iraq.--U.S. involvement in Iraq--the diplomatic
    activities and military preparations leading up to the war, the war
    itself, and the war's aftermath--dominated the congressional foreign
    affairs and defense agenda during the year. CRS specialists responded
    to diplomatic, military, and postwar issues; provided briefings on the
    congressional joint resolution authorizing the President to use force
    against Iraq; and fielded queries on war powers, declarations of war,
    and the preemptive use of force under international law.
        As military action began, CRS assisted with issues such as Iraq's
    relations in the Middle East, U.S. efforts to change the Iraqi regime,
    and the United Nations oil-for-food program. Analysts examined the
    postwar needs of Iraq for humanitarian and reconstruction assistance,
    the role of the international community and the United Nations, Iraq's
    economy and foreign debt, and the likelihood that any U.S. loans to
    future Iraqi governments would be repaid.
        Homeland Security and the Potential for Terrorism.--To assist the
    Congress as it addressed homeland security and terrorism, CRS continued
    its Service-wide, coordinated response that draws upon a wide range of
    expertise. Following passage of the Homeland Security Act, CRS experts
    developed a comprehensive organization chart that identified statutory
    requirements for congressional staff who monitor the establishment of
    the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As Congress began oversight
    activities pertaining to this new government agency, CRS provided help
    with procedural and jurisdictional questions, briefings on the
    operational and organizational aspects of DHS, and analyses on the
    protection, use, and disclosure of critical infrastructure information
    submitted to DHS. Anticipating the subsequent intense demand for
    information and analyses on new or expanded programs related to
    homeland security, CRS examined such matters as emergency management
    funding programs, federal disaster recovery programs, and federal
    assistance programs aiding state and local government in terrorism
    preparedness.
        Other related domestic policy issues related to the war and
    terrorism arose late in the 107th and continued throughout the 108th
    Congresses. CRS responded to requests regarding bioterrorism and health
    issues, such as the public health system's ability to respond to health
    threats posed by chemical and biological agents; border and
    transportation safety; the continuity of Congress in the event of a
    catastrophic attack; critical infrastructure security including
    communications systems, oil and gas pipelines, electrical power grids,
    and highway systems; immigration concerns such as restructuring the
    issuance of visas; and legal ramifications of anti-terrorist
    enforcement, including the roles and authorities of law enforcement and
    the intelligence community.

    Cost Containment Efforts
        Over the past several years, in order to sustain the level of
    research support on issues such as those outlined above, CRS has
    conducted numerous management reviews to evaluate current operations,
    maximize value, and implement cost containment measures. As stewards of
    the taxpayers' money, it is our obligation to review continuously how
    we can work most cost-effectively. Our reviews identified opportunities
    for containing operational costs of current services: for example,
    closure of the Longworth Research Center and one copy center,
    elimination of the Info Pack, and reorganization of the Service's
    information professional staff. In addition, the Service formed
    collegial research partnerships with major public policy universities
    to enhance research capacity, created a hiring strategy that does not
    routinely replace staff attrition one-for-one, but rather continually
    adjusts the work force composition to respond to the evolving needs of
    the Congress, and examined outsourcing of selected activities where
    cost efficiencies could be realized. I assure you that CRS has
    exhausted all reasonable means of realigning existing resources to
    maximize its efficiency and effectiveness in supporting the Congress.
    Yet despite these many efforts, our research priorities for the future
    remain in jeopardy without additional funding.

    Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request
        Mr. Chairman, I am requesting a total of $100.9 million for fiscal
    year 2005. This represents a 10.7 percent increase in funding over
    fiscal year 2004. This funding request is critical to the continual
    delivery of high-quality analysis to the Congress. A 2001 congressional
    directive obligates the CRS director to: ``. . . bring to the attention
    of the appropriate House and Senate committees issues which directly
    impact the Congressional Research Service and its ability to serve the
    needs of the Congress. . . .'' [H. Rept. 1033, Cong. Rec. 146, H12228,
    November 30, 2001]. I am fully aware of the fiscal realities that the
    Congress faces and the hard choices that must be made in the coming
    months, and I make a request for this funding because I believe that
    these resources are critical to preserving our ability to provide the
    Congress with the expertise and services it has come to rely upon so
    heavily.
        The remainder of my statement summarizes three critical challenges
    facing the Service this upcoming year--preserving the Service's
    research capacity, meeting congressional requirements, and funding
    uncontrollable increases for essential research materials.

    Preservation of CRS Research Capacity
        Preserving CRS's research capacity is of the highest priority. Over
    the last several years, with the help of the Congress, the Service has
    been able to abate erosion of its workforce. The Service's capacity--
    measured by the number of full-time equivalent positions (FTEs)--has
    decreased from 763 in 1994 to 729 this year. After early and prolonged
    delays due to the implementation of the Library's new merit selection,
    the Service has nearly rebuilt its capacity by hiring much needed
    analytic staff. To preserve this capacity the Service is requesting two
    actions full funding for its mandatory pay and inflationary increases
    and a one-time adjustment to sustain its current ceiling of 729 full
    time equivalent staff.
        CRS needs $4.3 million to cover its mandatory and price-level cost
    increases. Without this adjustment, the Service would have to reduce
    its full-time equivalent (FTE) capacity by 37 staff. In addition, the
    Service's budget request includes a one-time financial adjustment of
    $2.7 million to sustain the CRS current FTE level of 729. Without the
    one-time funding adjustment, CRS would have to staff down further by
    another 25 FTEs.
        Change in the CRS workforce composition is an increasingly
    significant factor affecting personnel costs. The nature of the work--
    reflecting the increasingly complex and specialized research and
    information requirements of the Congress--dictates that CRS hire
    individuals with high levels of formal education and specialized
    experience. In the period from fiscal years 1995 to 2003, the grade
    level of the average new CRS hire has increased from a GS-7, step 9, to
    a GS-13, step 1, not including special hiring programs.
        When Congress confronts unanticipated major policy events, it turns
    immediately to CRS to draw on the existing stock of knowledge of CRS
    experts and their proven ability to assess situations and options
    reliably and objectively. Congress gained significant, immediate
    support from CRS experts as the world listened to early reports of the
    Columbia Space Shuttle accident, during the electricity blackout last
    August, when Mad Cow disease was found in the United States, when ricin
    was discovered in a Senate office building, and on many other
    occasions.
        Congress routinely turns to CRS as it engages in long-term policy
    endeavors for which precedents or experience is limited. Congress is
    receiving continuing assistance from CRS experts in formulating,
    implementing and overseeing a complex complement of provisions for
    homeland security; in grappling with major revisions in government
    personnel practices; in responding to an array of novel assaults on
    corporate and financial integrity; in responding to world health
    threats from SARS, avian flu, and AIDS; in assessing unique conditions
    in Iraq relating to security, reconstruction and governance; in
    relating a mix of policy objectives across the use of the tax code and
    providing for a robust economy in a far more globalized setting than
    experienced before.
        The Service's productivity and performance in fiscal year 2003 are
    best illustrated by four measures of its workload during the year: (1)
    support for 160 major policy problems at all stages of the legislative
    agenda; (2) maintenance of 900 key products in major policy areas,
    representing a 30-percent increase over the 700 products maintained at
    the close of last fiscal year; (3) immediate 24/7 online access to key
    products and services through the Current Legislative Issues (CLI)
    system on the CRS Web site, with a 10-percent increase in congressional
    use of our electronic services over use last year; and (4) custom work
    for the Congress--thousands of confidential memoranda, in-person
    briefings, and telephone consultations. In fiscal year 2003, CRS
    delivered 875,197 research responses, a number that includes analysis
    and information requests, product requests, in-person requests and
    services at Research Centers, electronic services, and seminars.
        Without the full funding of our mandatory costs and the one-time
    adjustment to our salary base, CRS would loose a total of 62 full-time
    equivalent staff--a 9 percent reduction to its workforce. The results
    would be devastating. What could be said with certainty is that,
    overall, CRS would not be able to provide the Congress with 102,300
    productive work hours per year. For example, for the 160 active policy
    areas for which CRS maintain ongoing research coverage, 682 productive
    work hours--more than 21 weeks per year per major issue--would be
    unavailable to the Congress. While the Service would do its best to
    carry out its mission to serve the Congress as it carries out its
    legislative function, this outcome would, by the very scope of its
    effect, force the Service to reduce seriously or eliminate customized,
    timely, and integrative analyses of some critical policy issues. It
    would be difficult to predict what issues would be the most impacted
    but seasoned, expert staff working on high demand issue areas would
    likely leave and we would not be able to replace them.

    Meeting Congressional Requirements
        Another challenge facing the Service is to support CRS business
    continuity and improved technological infrastructure activities as
    required by the Congress. I am seeking $622,000 for continuing
    operations of the alternative computer facility (ACF) that houses back-
    up and emergency computer and other technology capacity for the
    Congress, the Library and CRS. With this facility CRS will be able to
    meet needs of the Congress in emergency situations while maintaining a
    secure and reliable technology environment.
        The Service is also requesting $549,000 to develop the XML
    international standard authorized by the Congress as the data standard
    for the creation and accessibility of all congressional documents
    through the Legislative Information System (LIS). CRS will work with
    the Library's Information Technology Services to implement this much-
    needed capability. Without funds to replace the existing search system,
    the LIS will need extensive, costly, and proprietary modifications to
    be able to receive and index the legislative documents you need.

    Meeting Uncontrollable Inflationary Increases for Essential Research
            Materials
        And the last challenge facing the Service is funding research
    materials. Providing accurate, timely, authoritative, and comprehensive
    research analysis and services to the Congress has become increasingly
    difficult due to the high annual increases in the costs of research
    materials. Thus our budget includes a one-time financial adjustment of
    $1.0 million to meet cumulative increases over recent years in
    subscription and publication prices. Restrictive industry policies
    limit our alternatives for obtaining needed materials, especially
    electronic resources, in a more cost-effective manner. Information
    resources sought with the additional funding include those that provide
    information on port security, prescription drug pricing, and the nature
    and status of corporate financial reporting.
        In closing, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to inform
    the Committee about the state of CRS. During a time of war, Congress,
    the First Branch of Government, must ensure that it maintains its
    independent capacity to analyze the complex challenges that the Nation
    confronts in combating terrorism and sustaining homeland security.
        I trust that you agree that CRS contributes significantly to this
    independent capacity of the Congress. I also trust that you believe we
    are fulfilling our mission in a way that warrants your continued
    support. I am, of course, always available to answer any questions that
    the Committee might have.

        Chairman Stevens. When I first came here, it is my memory
    that in order to have access to the Congressional Research
    Service I had to go through a committee to make a request.
    Today you respond directly to the request of any Member, is
    that not right?
        Mr. Mulhollan. That has always actually been the case. We
    always, since actually the 1946 legislation, the first
    Legislative Organization Act, 1946, then the Legislative
    Reference Service was founded, both to Members and committees,
    and that is our statutory charter. So an individual Member as
    well as committees.
        Now, what happened, what you are referring to is that major
    studies at the time were requested when you would have a letter
    from a committee. Our usual standard has been as far as
    prioritization, is that the chair and/or ranking member or the
    member of the committee of jurisdiction. It has always been
    roughly trying to meet the priorities that Congress gives to
    us, but for always we have tried to do our best to meet,
    through negotiation on a continuing basis, meet the concerns
    and the questions that each of Member of Congress has brought
    up.
        Chairman Stevens. But are you not putting out a great many
    more individual reports for Members than you used to?
        Mr. Mulhollan. Yes, we are. In part, I think it reflects
    the challenges that the Congress has. I mean, there are a whole
    range of new issues alone that you helped us with on
    technology, and the impact of information technology and
    telecommunications are issues that are expanding exponentially
    as far as the legislative agenda is concerned.
        You can look on one aspect of terrorism, bioterrorism, and
    a whole range of issues. We had a report on ricin, a short
    report written by a biologist and a physicist together 1\1/2\
    years before the ricin attack here, updated immediately and
    Members and staff could get first-hand information about its
    range and what have you, as an example.
        Chairman Stevens. I am worried about the problem of
    responding in a very activist Congress to each Member. I really
    think that Members--I am guilty of this probably myself--we
    would rather have a memorandum from you to say, the CRS says
    this, than have a memorandum from our own staff, and some of
    them, very frankly, may have more experience in the area than
    your people do.
        But I do think that you are getting to the point where you
    are being used a little, and I wonder how we might slow that
    down. I do think there ought to be some priority given to basic
    issues that the Congress as a whole faces, rather than some of
    the issues that any Member on either side would utilize. Once
    your people get involved in those, they are tied up and they
    really cannot respond to the committees.
        Mr. Mulhollan. Well, I would submit to you I think that the
    issues that the service gets involved with are driven by the
    committee agendas at the subcommittee and committee level, and
    that what we try to do and do very well is manage the workload
    to focus on aspects of questions. So that if you are concerned
    with a particular issue with regard to marine fisheries and Mr.
    Larson also has another aspect coming from the eastern
    seaboard, we try to look at that and manage the issues in such
    a way that the report is out there to help both of you with
    regard to the general issue and then specifically, through
    conversation or specific memoranda, get to the particular
    issues that you have.
        We deal with and manage a significant legislative demand by
    finding correspondence on various issues to be able to manage
    that workload in a very cost effective way. I would submit
    oftentimes a CRS memoranda from staff can and does become
    actually the memoranda from the staff that we contribute to,
    because we are in a work process so that the staff, and I urge
    staff, to take some sections from a service report that is
    helpful and add it to the memoranda.
        If you are the style you want a one-pager, they take two
    paragraphs from the service report and they add the particular
    issue of focus, let us say it is particularly dealing with
    Juneau on one aspect and they know that, and the issue, and you
    have got a one-pager for the Member. A lot of service reports
    are tailored to the Member, drawing upon that, and that should
    be. We are a shared resource.
        Chairman Stevens. I do not want to belabor it, but I do
    think the real problem is--we had an attack on your entity once
    and I helped defend it on the basis of shared staff. But you
    cannot share the number of people you have with 535 people all
    at once. The prioritization problem is there and a constant
    one, and I hope you are reviewing that in terms of responding
    to people who have a task to perform as opposed to people who
    are just seeking information.
        Mr. Mulhollan. We are legislatively focused. We continually
    say, okay, what is the legislative purpose behind that. And our
    statute requires us to: Are you looking at drafting a measure,
    drafting an amendment? We continue to focus on the lawmaking
    function. That is our job.
        Chairman Stevens. Good.
        Mr. Ehlers?
        Mr. Ehlers. Yes. First a comment. It may comfort you to
    know at one time I issued a request on the history of contested
    elections in the House because I was chairing one. The
    Congressional Research Service decided that was not a
    legislative matter and it took me a long time to get a report.
    So not everyone gets prioritized. They do prioritize, I can
    assure you of that.
        A question, Mr. Mulhollan. In 1995 the Congress
    discontinued the Office of Technology Assessment and passed
    some duties on to the Congressional Research Service. I have
    noticed in the years since then that we more and more are
    asking the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research
    Council, to do studies for us, which we pay for. They are not
    particularly cheap.
        Have your requests increased since we made that decision in
    1995? Are people automatically going to the National Academy?
    Furthermore, how many scientists do you have on staff to handle
    requests if they come to you?
        Mr. Mulhollan. Well, with regard to the first question, I
    would submit to you that the kinds of questions that OTA
    handled were quite different from the Congressional Research
    Service. OTA did technology assessments. There were roughly, I
    believe, about 25 a year. They were very in-depth. They brought
    to the table the private sector, the executive, the Academy,
    together to look at a complex issue.
        Our job is policy analysis. In statute we are to, as much
    as possible, anticipate the consequences of alternative
    provisions in proposing and the drafting of law.
        Mr. Ehlers. Did your workload go up after that?
        Mr. Mulhollan. Yes. But the number of science questions,
    science-related questions, has gone up. I do not have any--I
    cannot give you any definitive figures. What we have done, and
    the Congress has helped us, actually in 2001 Congress gave us
    five additional senior GS-15 positions on impact of technology
    on Congress itself. Most recently, in 2003 we got seven
    positions, also five positions on terrorism, which included an
    epidemiologist and a bioethicist.
        We also have, for the aging we have a demographer, we have
    a gerontologist, a geneticist. We have increased also through
    our succession initiative, because we are in the same situation
    Dr. Billington was mentioning about our succession planning, to
    maintain our science capacity with physics, biology, and the
    solid sciences, coming in to expand that. Our scientific
    capacity has increased, not to the degree that I would like to
    see or I think you would like to see or the Congress needs, but
    we have increased that. I could give you more solid figures.
        Mr. Ehlers. I do not want to take more time now, but if you
    could send me a note on that I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Mulhollan. You have got it.
        Chairman Stevens. Mr. Ney?
        Mr. Ney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I thought the Internet, when I first heard of it, would
    cure all the--this did not come from you--but cure all your
    problems, because the staff could just research everything
    right there. It obviously has not decreased your workload,
    having the Internet available.
        Mr. Mulhollan. Well, it actually has helped in managing the
    service. CRS' web site provides on a 24 by 7 basis to Members
    and staff of the committees service analysis on a constant
    basis. So that when, for instance, when the Space Shuttle
    Columbia came down, our nationally known expert Marsha Smith
    was over the weekend and had up on Monday morning----
        Mr. Ney. No, no, I am sorry. I mean, our staff should be
    able--at one point in time I was told here years ago that the
    Internet would allow our staff to go ahead and conduct research
    without calling CRS. In reality, there are issues with the
    accuracy of information and actually locating that for which
    you are looking. That is what I meant.
        Mr. Mulhollan. Well, in that instance, you are quite right.
    This was several years ago: One of the major search engines,
    when you put ``holocaust'' the first 23 of the 25 said it did
    not exist. There are significant problems as far--and that is
    why I think Dr. Billington has talked about why librarians are
    expert as far as navigation on the concern.
        But what has happened is, as I indicated--and we closed the
    Longworth Research Center as a cost-benefit--is that the
    information-seeking behavior of Members and staff has changed
    and certain specific questions can be obtained, factual
    questions, but they need to be checked, but the kinds of
    questions we are getting are actually more complex. It is hard
    to document, but that is in fact the universal response that I
    get from my colleagues.
        Mr. Ney. I will not take much more time. We had LSC in
    Ohio--I do not know if you are familiar with that--when I was a
    State senator. It was this great research engine and resource
    for the legislature. What you do is clearly important. If we do
    not have you, if you cannot do it, it is going to not allow us
    to respond to constituents, because things have changed.
        The opening up of people knowing about hearings and
    information creates a great ability to get information out to
    the public or to the world, but it also creates work, too,
    because there are more people who know what is going on and ask
    us questions.
        I will just close by saying, too, something that our great
    ranking member Congressman Larson worked on, that we did and we
    got a lot of heat for it, but it ties to your potential
    bankruptcy. We made a decision, and there was a pilot previous
    to us that looked at CRS and making every single CRS product
    available online.
        We decided if a Member wants to do that, that is fine, but
    if the Member does not want to do it that is fine, too, because
    there are a lot of things we will go research and, frankly, it
    is sensitive information in the sense that when you put it out
    there, what constituent asked you to research it. So there is a
    confidentiality issue.
        I know some people are not happy about it, but it was
    proven correct what we did, because I got a phone call last
    week. There were some lobbyists who were horrifically upset
    with Congressman Larson and me because they could not get
    freebies any more off of CRS through Members offices. So I
    think what we did was correct. I did not want to comment, but I
    just thought I would say that. That would have cost I think
    millions and millions of dollars, for you to have to put every
    single thing on line.
        Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you.
        Chairman Stevens. My apologies. We have a tradition of
    going from one side of the Congress to the other and I did not
    look to my right. I should have looked. Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        I was pleased to notice in your statement, Mr. Mulhollan,
    that you refer to the report that we included in 2001 setting
    forth our commitment to support the Congressional Research
    Service and its budget request to meet the staffing needs so
    that you can respond to the Congress. I still think that when
    we have it in the title of this institution, the ``Library of
    Congress,'' that is what it means. It is the Library of
    Congress, for Congress, to support Congress.
        It also is, as Dr. Billington has often so eloquently
    pointed out, a national treasure as well, and it goes way
    beyond that. But still, this is a core function, and I am
    hopeful that your budget request can be approved and supported
    by the committee.
        Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Chairman Stevens. Mr. Larson.
        Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just a comment. I appreciate your eloquent defense of the
    need to make sure we continue to provide Members of Congress
    with the most up to date and knowledgeable research available
    to us. It is a core function of the institution and you perform
    your jobs admirably. I want to thank you for that.
        Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you.
        Chairman Stevens. I am going to close with just a comment
    to you two. I would like to have you consider some kind of a
    Congressional hour once a week, that we will know if we come
    over there we will see another facet of the Library and have
    that facet explained to us, and leave it open to Members or one
    staff from each. Theoretically you could have 500 people. You
    are not going to have that. And let us know what the subject is
    going to be.
        I find at times there are things over there that I did not
    even dream were there. As long as I have wandered around
    there--and I have been wandering around there since 1950, as
    you know--it is still a complex thing for us. I would like to
    have a show and tell hour for Congress and the staff once a
    week. You pick the time, like 9:00 to 10:00 in the morning on a
    Tuesday or something, and we will see that you get some people
    over there to try and learn more about what you are doing, so
    we can be more articulate in terms of defending your budgets
    and the authorizations we have to give you.
        Just consider it. Now, it is not a mandate. That is just a
    thought. Okay?
        Dr. Billington. It would be helpful if you indicate to us
    what the best time would be for Members.
        Chairman Stevens. For the Senate it would be Tuesday
    morning. There are not enough here on Monday morning, I have
    got to tell you.
        I do not know about you. We do not usually meet before
    10:00 on Tuesday morning. So if we had a 9:00 to 10:00 show and
    tell on Tuesday morning, we could stop by there on the way to
    work, if we were interested. And you would send us a bulletin
    on what it is going to be next week, okay.
        Dr. Billington. Okay.
        Chairman Stevens. Just think about it, if this will be
    helpful.
        Would you not like that?
        Senator Cochran. Yes.
        Chairman Stevens. Do you have any problem with that, Mr.
    Chairman?
        Mr. Ehlers. No, that would be fine.
        Chairman Stevens. Thank you. That is just a suggestion.
        Now, any further questions of the Library of Congress,
    gentlemen?
        [No response.]
        Chairman Stevens. Well, we do thank you both. It really is
    a grand asset for our country and it has become even more so
    important, more important in the world. I just wish we had
    another one of those years when we had enough money that we
    could give you another little bit of a boost like we did once.
    I do not see it this year, but we will do our best to get you
    the money you need.
        Dr. Billington. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Mulhollan. Thank you.
        Chairman Stevens. And General Scott, thank you very much
    for being with us.
        General Scott. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Stevens. We appreciate it.
        The Architect of the Capitol, please.
    STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN HANTMAN, ARCHITECT OF THE
                CAPITOL
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            LEONE REEDER, ACTING CHAIR, NATIONAL FUND FOR THE U.S. BOTANIC
                GARDEN
            STEPHEN WARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FUND FOR THE U.S.
                BOTANIC GARDEN

        Mr. Hantman. Chairman Stevens, Vice Chairman Ehlers,
    members of the Joint Committee: I would like to submit my
    formal statement for the record----
        Chairman Stevens. First, who is with you, please?
        Mr. Hantman. That is the next line, sir.
        And make some brief opening remarks. I thank you for
    inviting me here to update you on the National Garden project
    and to bring before you our recommended method of recognizing
    supporters of the National Garden.
        I am joined at the table by Ms. Leone Reeder, who is Acting
    Chair of the National Fund for the U.S. Botanic Garden and
    representative on the Fund's board of the Garden Clubs of
    America from all 50 States; and Mr. Stephen Ward, Executive
    Director of the National Fund for the U.S. Botanic Garden. I
    have asked these folks to join me here because, as you are
    aware, this project has been a joint venture among the Joint
    Committee on the Library, the Office of the Architect of the
    Capitol, and the National Fund for the U.S. Botanic Garden. It
    also has a long history that goes back to 1989 when the project
    was first conceived. It has been a major work in progress until
    today.
        Mr. Chairman, we are now at the end of that very long road
    and we are ready to move forward to make the vision for this
    National Garden, conceived by your predecessors and mine, a
    reality. In working with the National Fund over the past
    several years, I have watched them try to meet the challenge of
    their mission to raise the necessary funds to begin this
    project, and also to wrestle with the issue of what they wanted
    to propose as appropriate donor recognition for their
    fundraising efforts.
        I have also witnessed, Mr. Chairman, how the fund overcame
    the sudden tragic death of its executive director last year and
    seen how it became re-energized under the direction of Ms.
    Reeder and Mr. Ward.
        I have also met with members of the JCL staff and discussed
    their concerns with the issue of the nature of donor
    recognition on Capitol Hill. We believe our proposal reaches an
    acceptable and appropriate compromise, one that effectively
    blends together the fund's prior commitments and the desires of
    my office and the Congress to provide for a respectful,
    dignified National Garden of which we can all be proud.
        When we held the symbolic groundbreaking ceremony for this
    project, Mr. Chairman, in October 2001, we had a well-defined
    vision. Today we come before you with a final plan and the
    National Fund's financing in hand, ready to be transferred for
    the construction of a beautiful garden. This National Garden
    will not only be a wonderful oasis on what is now a vacant,
    invaluable piece of Capitol Hill real estate, it will be a
    natural complement to the U.S. Botanic Garden, an outdoor
    living museum of plants.
        In that regard, we are here today to request your approval
    of the donor recognition plan so that we may move forward
    expeditiously, sign a contract with a contractor selected
    through a competitive bidding process, and begin construction
    on this beautiful garden. The fund is here today, Mr. Chairman,
    check in hand.
        At this time Ms. Reeder, Mr. Ward, and I would be happy to
    answer any questions that you might have.
        [The statement follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Honorable Alan M. Hantman, FAIA

        Chairman Stevens, Vice-Chairman Ehlers, and Members of the Joint
    Committee; thank you for inviting me here today to bring before you our
    prepared method of recognizing supporters of the National Garden. I am
    joined at the table by Ms. Leone Reeder, acting Chair of the National
    Fund for the U.S. Botanic Garden (USBG); and Mr. Stephen Ward,
    Executive Director of the National Fund for the U.S. Botanic Garden.
        As you are aware, donor recognition in the National Garden was
    approved by the Joint Committee on the Library by then-Chairman
    Claiborne Pell in 1991. The JCL reaffirmed its position in 1993 under
    then-Chairman Charlie Rose, with the condition that the Joint Committee
    on the Library would approve specific design plans proposed to
    recognize donors. The National Fund for the Botanic Garden then began
    to solicit donations for the National Garden with the understanding
    that those donors would be recognized in an appropriate and respectful
    way.
        We are here before you today to request your approval of our donor
    recognition plan so we may move forward with our efforts to begin
    construction of this beautiful garden.
        Mr. Chairman, this project was competitively bid and the selected
    proposal will expire on March 11, 2004. The contractor has already
    extended its bid twice and will not do so a third time. With your
    approval of the donor recognition plan we are proposing, the money
    raised by the fund will be transferred to my office and procurement for
    construction will be completed.
        As you can see in Attachment A provided with my testimony,
    currently the National Fund has raised $9.3 million for the National
    Garden construction. By securing this level of funding, we will be able
    to build the Base Bid plus Option One. The base bid includes the Rose
    Garden, Butterfly Garden, Lawn Terrace, Hornbeam Court, and a
    simplified and reduced grading and landscape plan with infrastructure
    planning for future options. Option One includes the Garden pathway
    which frames the area for future options and provides attractive
    groupings of trees and shrub plantings.
        The construction of the Base Bid and Option One will create a
    beautiful garden that will be enhanced by the staff of the Botanic
    Garden's creative landscape ability. Because it sits at the base of
    Capitol Hill, we would expect nothing less.
        The National Fund believes that once construction begins, they will
    be able to raise additional funds that would allow for the inclusion of
    other options in the contract. Option Two is the Regional Garden.
    Option Three is the First Ladies Water Garden; and Option Four, the
    Environmental Learning Center--would be the only structure built on the
    site--if funding becomes available.
        We have been moving forward with our preparatory efforts to
    construct the Garden. In August of 2002, a solicitation was issued to
    25 qualified and interested bidders. We solicited competition through
    the use of competitive negotiation procedure of Source Selection. Two
    proposals were received in December 2002, both exceeding available
    funds. Over the next several months, we worked with the Fund and our
    architect and engineering firms to produce a viable action plan. The
    project was simplified over the next few months, and in November 2003,
    we produced a workable proposal. The project is now phased into a Base
    Bid with four options, allowing the fund to raise additional money for
    future options within the time frame it takes to construct the project.
        Based on conversations we have had with Members' offices, we also
    have worked with the National Fund to dramatically scale back its
    original proposal for donor recognition.
        The issue before the JCL today is how do we recognize donors in a
    respectful way, while at the same time, not detracting from the
    garden's beauty and stature?
        We believe we have found an appropriate and acceptable way to do
    so. If you refer to Attachment B, you will see a rendering of a
    freestanding bronze plaque. The plaque measures four feet by six feet
    and will include the names of the Garden's founding donors. The next
    attachment shows a sample listing of the donors. This list is subject
    to revision if additional donations are received during construction of
    the project, however, size of the plaque will not change. Finally, the
    plaque will be located in a discreet location in the Hornbeam Court, as
    seen on the map--Attachment C.
        The second form of recognition that the National Fund solicited was
    in the form of sidewalk pavers that would be located in the Butterfly
    Garden--Attachment D. To date approximately 500 pavers at $1,000 each
    have been sold. The Fund initiated this fundraising effort to include
    many National Garden Clubs of America and individual citizens. In
    addition, many current and former Members of Congress are supporting
    the project through the purchase of these pavers to commemorate the
    Bicentennial of Congress.
        At the heart of this effort are the 235,000 individuals--from
    nearly every state--who have purchased the pavers. Individuals from
    organizations such as the Federated Garden Clubs of Connecticut and
    Michigan, to the Garden Clubs of Georgia and Mississippi, to the Alaska
    State Federation of Garden Clubs; have raised money through flower
    sales and local fundraisers. They have worked very hard for this
    National Garden and it would be a shame for them to go unrecognized.
        We hope the Committee will approve the recognition design plan
    before you today so the project may move forward. We believe the Garden
    will greatly add to visitors' experiences to Capitol Hill by connecting
    people to nature and provide Members of Congress and their staffs with
    a beautiful and peaceful sanctuary which will complement our wonderful
    Botanic Garden Conservatory.
        I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
                                    ------

                    Purchased Pavers for the National Garden

        The National Fund for the USBG sold close to 500 pavers at
    $1,000 a piece. Purchasers were given a certificate, see
    attached, for their paver. Also attached is a list of paver
    purchasers which include current and former Members of
    Congress, 271 individuals and 223 garden clubs from across the
    United States representing 235,000 members.

                                     ______

                                  The Architect of the Capitol,
                                    Washington, DC, September 25, 1991.
    The Honorable Claiborne Pell,
    Chairman, Joint Committee on the Library, United States Congress,
            Washington, DC 20510.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: As indicated in my recent letter to you, the
    continued success of the fund-raising effort for the construction of
    the National Garden by the National Fund for the United States Botanic
    Garden (``the Fund'') requires the Fund to be able to offer major
    donors appropriate recognition of their contributions. It is also
    important that the Fund be able to offer such recognition when major
    gifts are being solicited.
        The Executive Committee of the Fund, comprised of the
    representatives who met with me on July 30, have accordingly proposed a
    program of major donor recognition that, in my judgment, requires the
    advance approval of the Joint Committee on the Library. In general,
    recognition would involve the placement of the name of the donor within
    the garden, in a tasteful and dignified manner that would not detract
    from the beauty of the garden display. An instructive example may be
    found in the recognition given to major donors to the Capitol Columns
    site within the National Arboretum. As you may know, this project was
    undertaken by the Friends of the National Arboretum, a nonprofit
    organization operating under an agreement with the Secretary of
    Agriculture. Major donors to this project are recognized by dignified
    inscriptions incised into the marble floor adjacent the columns, which
    as you know are the original columns from the East Front of the
    Capitol. Another major donor is recognized by an inscription on the
    small fountain in the center of the site.
        The Fund proposes that donors of $1 million or more could have
    their names associated with a specific component of the garden, such as
    the teaching pavilion, the fountain, the rose garden or the like. The
    actual design of such recognition would await the design of the
    National Garden itself so that it would be properly integrated into the
    overall plan. (Inasmuch as the total cost of the National Garden is
    estimated to be somewhat more than $4 million the number of names to be
    so recognized would be quite limited.) Donors of amounts of $1,000 and
    above would be recognized in some tasteful aggregated way with
    appropriate distinctions according to the levels of giving. It would be
    our plan to work with the Fund to have this form of recognition
    embodied in some work of art integrated into the design of the garden
    itself. This might perhaps be a wall or some work of sculpture. The
    actual design of the collective recognition treatment will also be
    worked out during the preparation of construction documents for the
    National Garden, which process will begin soon with funds already
    raised by the Fund. Contributions of less than $1,000 would be
    recognized in a suitably designed and bound book located within the
    teaching pavilion.
        In addition, the Fund proposes that donors of $200,000 or more be
    given the opportunity, if they so desire, to host a function in the
    National Garden after its completion. On the presumption that the
    relevant rules for use of the Conservatory would apply, this would
    involve only the advance waiver of the condition of the Joint Committee
    for the use of the facility that requires the host to be a non-profit
    entity with IRS tax exempt status. All conditions that otherwise
    pertain to such Congressionally related events, such as sponsorship by
    a Representative or Senator, would continue to apply.
        I believe these proposals constitute ordinary and necessary
    policies for any professionally organized undertaking to raise private
    funds for a significant project of this nature, and I recommend your
    approval. Every major donor may not require recognition but its
    availability is important to the creditability of the Fund's campaign.
    As stated in my earlier letter to you on this subject, the existing
    National Garden legislation requiring the raising of private funds, in
    my view, reasonably contemplates the use of standard practices
    typically employed in fund-raising campaigns.
        It would be the role of this office to assure that these policies
    are followed in a way that does not detract from the dignity of the
    Congress or the U.S. Botanic Garden or from the high aesthetic
    standards that will apply to the design of the National Garden.
        The approval of this approach by the Joint Committee at this time
    will enable the Fund to pursue its fund-raising activities more
    effectively.
        A similar letter has been sent to the Honorable Charles Rose, Vice
    Chairman, Joint Committee on the Library.
        I would be pleased to provide any further information you might
    desire in this regard.
                Cordially,
                                         George M. White, FAIA,
                                              Architect of the Capitol.
        Approved: Claiborne Pell, Chairman.
        Date: October 21, 1991.
                                     ______

                                  The Architect of the Capitol,
                                        Washington, DC, April 16, 1993.
    The Honorable Charlie Rose,
    Chairman, Joint Committee on the Library, United States Congress,
            Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear Charlie: I am pleased to report that planning for the National
    Garden is proceeding well, in cooperation with the National Fund for
    the U.S. Botanic Garden (``the Fund'').
        As you will recall, the Fund sponsored a national competition for
    design approaches to three components of the National Garden, the rose
    garden, water garden and environmental learning center. We are in the
    process of melding the approaches taken by the three winners of that
    competition with the overall master plan approved by your committee in
    1989.
        The Fund has been successful in raising approximately $2 million
    thus far for the National Garden, and it is financing the design work
    now being undertaken by transferring funds to this office as
    contemplated by the applicable authorizing and appropriations
    legislation.
        The success achieved thus far in raising funds is based in
    significant measure on the ability of the Fund to recognize major
    donors in some appropriate way. In 1991 I received approval from the
    Honorable Claiborne Pell, then Chairman of the Joint Committee, for a
    proposal from the Fund as described in the enclosed letter.
        It has come to my attention that my request to you of September 25,
    1991 as then Vice Chairman of the Committee has been misplaced, and
    this letter is intended to renew the request so that the Fund can
    continue with its program with confidence that it has the Joint
    Committee's approval.
        In general, recognition would involve the placement of the name of
    the donor within the garden, in a tasteful and dignified manner that
    would not detract from the beauty of the garden display. An instructive
    example may be found in the recognition given to major donors to the
    Capitol Columns site within the National Arboretum. As you may know,
    this project was undertaken by the Friends of the National Arboretum, a
    nonprofit organization operating under an agreement with the Secretary
    of Agriculture. Major donors to this project are recognized by
    dignified inscriptions incised into the marble floor adjacent the
    columns, which as you know are the original columns from the East Front
    of the Capitol. Another major donor is recognized by an inscription on
    the small fountain in the center of the site.
        The Fund proposes that donors of $1 million or more could have
    their names associated with a specific component of the garden, such as
    the environmental learning center, the water garden, the rose garden or
    the like. The actual design of such recognition would await the design
    of the National Garden itself so that it would be properly integrated
    into the overall plan. (Inasmuch as the total cost of the National
    Garden is estimated to be somewhat more than $5 million the number of
    names to be so recognized would be quite limited.) Donors of amounts of
    $1,000 and above would be recognized in some tasteful aggregated way
    with appropriate distinctions according to the levels of giving. It
    would be our plan to work with the Fund to have this form of
    recognition embodied in some work of art integrated into the design of
    the garden itself. This might perhaps be a wall or some work of
    sculpture. The actual design of the collective recognition treatment
    will also be worked out during the preparation of construction
    documents for the National Garden, which process will begin soon with
    funds already raised by the Fund. Contributions of less than $1,000
    would be recognized in a suitably designed and bound book located
    within the environmental learning center.
        In addition, the Fund proposes that donors of $200,000 or more be
    given the opportunity, if they so desire, to host a function in the
    National Garden after its completion. This would involve only the
    advance waiver of the condition of the Joint Committee for the use of
    the facility that requires the host to be a non-profit entity with IRS
    tax exempt status. All conditions that otherwise pertain to such
    Congressionally related events, such as sponsorship by a Representative
    or Senator, would continue to apply.
        I believe these proposals constitute ordinary and necessary
    policies for any professionally organized undertaking to raise private
    funds for a significant project of this nature, and I recommend your
    approval. Every major donor may not require recognition but its
    availability is important to the creditability of the Fund's campaign.
    In my judgment, the existing National Garden legislation requiring the
    raising of private funds reasonably contemplates the use of standard
    practices typically employed in fund-raising campaigns.
        It would be the role of this office to assure that these policies
    are followed in a way that does not detract from the dignity of the
    Congress or the U.S. Botanic Garden or from the high aesthetic
    standards that will apply to the design of the National Garden.
        The approval of this approach by the Joint Committee at this time
    will enable the Fund to continue to pursue its fund-raising activities
    more effectively.
        I would be pleased to provide any further information you might
    desire in this regard.
                Cordially,
                                         George M. White, FAIA,
                                              Architect of the Capitol.
        Enclosure.

        Approved: With the condition that the Joint Committee on the
    Library be kept informed of the specific design plans proposed to
    recognize those donors contributing $1,000 and more.
        Charlie Rose, Chairman.
        Date: May 11, 1993.
                                     ______

                         Congress of the United States,
                    Joint Committee on the Library of Congress,
                                     Washington, DC, November 22, 1989.
    Honorable George M. White,
    Architect of the Capitol, SB-15, The Capitol, Washington, DC 20515.
        Dear George: After contacting the full membership of the Joint
    Committee on the Library, I am pleased to inform you that the Committee
    has approved the conceptual design for a National Garden commemorating
    the Bicentennial of Congress.
        The planned National Garden, which will occupy the adjacent tract
    west of the U.S. Botanic Garden Conservatory, will serve as a splendid
    commemoration of the Bicentennial of the Congress and a beautiful
    public garden for those visiting and living in our Nation's Capitol.
        The design having been approved, you are authorized to seek funding
    for the purpose of constructing the National Garden. Pursuant to Public
    Law 100-458, you are directed to accept gifts, including money, plants,
    volunteer time, planning, construction and installation expenses,
    assistance and implements, and garden structures, on behalf of the
    United States Botanic Garden for the National Garden project.
        As Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Library, I would like to
    be kept informed of the progress of this project.
        With every best wish, I am
                Sincerely,
                                                Frank Annunzio,
                                                              Chairman.
                                     ______

                             TITLE 2--THE CONGRESS

            CHAPTER 30--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CAPITOL COMPLEX

               SUBCHAPTER VI--BOTANIC GARDEN AND NATIONAL GARDEN

    Sec. 2146. National Garden

    (a) Establishment; gifts

        The Architect of the Capitol, subject to the direction of the Joint
    Committee on the Library, is authorized to--
              (1) construct a National Garden demonstrating the diversity
            of plants, including the rose, our national flower, to be
            located between Maryland and Independence Avenues, S.W., and
            extending from the Botanic Garden Conservatory to Third
            Streets, S.W., in the District of Columbia; and
              (2) solicit, receive, accept, and hold gifts, including
            money, plant material, and other property, on behalf of the
            Botanic Garden, and to dispose of, utilize, obligate, expend,
            disburse, and administer such gifts for the benefit of the
            Botanic Garden, including among other things, the carrying out
            of any programs, duties, or functions of the Botanic Garden,
            and for constructing, equipping, and maintaining the National
            Garden referred to in paragraph (1).

    (b) Gifts and bequests of money; investment; appropriations

        (1) Gifts or bequests of money under subsection (a)(2) of this
    section shall, when received by the Architect, be deposited with the
    Treasurer of the United States, who shall credit these deposits as
    offsetting collections to an account entitled ``Botanic Garden, Gifts
    and Donations''. The gifts or bequests described under subsection
    (a)(2) of this section shall be accepted only in the total amount
    provided in appropriations Acts.
        (2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest any portion of the
    account designated in paragraph (1) that, as determined by the
    Architect, is not required to meet current expenses. Each investment
    shall be made in an interest-bearing obligation of the United States or
    an obligation guaranteed both as to principal and interest by the
    United States that, as determined by the Architect, has a maturity date
    suitable for the purposes of the account. The Secretary of the Treasury
    shall credit interest earned on the obligations to the account.
        (3) Receipts, obligations, and expenditures of funds under this
    section shall be included in annual estimates submitted by the
    Architect for the operation and maintenance of the Botanic Garden and
    such funds shall be expended by the Architect, without regard to
    section 5 of title 41, for the purposes of this section after approval
    in appropriation Acts. All such sums shall remain available until
    expended, without fiscal year limitation.

    (c) Donations of personal services

        (1) In carrying out this section and his duties, the Architect of
    the Capitol may accept personal services, including educationally
    related work assignments for students in nonpay status, if the service
    is to be rendered without compensation.
         (2) No person shall be permitted to donate his or her personal
    services under this section unless such person has first agreed, in
    writing, to waive any and all claims against the United States arising
    out of or in connection with such services, other than a claim under
    the provisions of chapter 81 of title 5.
         (3) No person donating personal services under this section shall
    be considered an employee of the United States for any purpose other
    than for purposes of chapter 81 of title 5.
        (4) In no case shall the acceptance of personal services under this
    section result in the reduction of pay or displacement of any employee
    of the Botanic Garden.

    (d) Tax deductions

        Any gift accepted by the Architect of the Capitol under this
    section shall be considered a gift to the United States for purposes of
    income, estate, and gift tax laws of the United States.
                                     source
        (Pub. L. 100-458, title III, Sec. 307E, Oct. 1, 1988, 102 Stat.
    2183; Pub. L. 102-229, title II, Sec. 209(a), Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat.
    1716; Pub. L. 104-53, title II, Sec. 201(b), Nov. 19, 1995, 109 Stat.
    529; Pub. L. 105-275, title II, Sec. 201, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat.
    2445.)
                               references in text
        The income, estate, and gift tax laws of the United States,
    referred to in subsec. (d), are classified generally to Title 26,
    Internal Revenue Code.
                                  codification
        Section was classified to section 216c of former Title 40, prior to
    the enactment of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, by
    Pub. L. 107-217, Sec. 1, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062.
                                   amendments
        1998--Subsec. (b)(2), (3). Pub. L. 105-275 added par. (2) and
    redesignated former par. (2) as (3).
        1995--Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 104-53 substituted ``plants'' for
    ``plans''.
        1991--Pub. L. 102-229 amended section generally. Prior to
    amendment, section read as follows: ``The Architect of the Capitol,
    subject to the direction of the Joint Committee on the Library, is
    authorized to--
              ``(1) construct a National Garden demonstrating the diversity
            of plants, including the rose, our national flower, to be
            located between Maryland and Independence Avenues, S.W., and
            extending from the United States Botanic Garden Conservatory to
            Third Street, S.W., in the District of Columbia; and
              ``(2) accept gifts, including money, plants, volunteer time,
            planning, construction and installation expenses, assistance
            and implements, and garden structures, on behalf of the United
            States Botanic Garden for the purpose of constructing the
            National Garden described in paragraph (1).''
     funds available for constructing, equipping, and maintaining national
                                     garden
        Pub. L. 102-392, title II, Sec. 201, Oct. 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1716,
    as amended by Pub. L. 104-53, title II, Sec. 201(a), Nov. 19, 1995, 109
    Stat. 529; Pub. L. 106-554, Sec. 1(a)(2) (title III, Sec. 312), Dec.
    21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-120; Pub. L. 107-68, title I, Sec. 135,
    Nov. 12, 2001, 115 Stat. 583, provided that:
        ``(a) Pursuant to section 307E of the Legislative Branch
    Appropriations Act, 1989 (40 U.S.C. 216c) (now 2 U.S.C. 2146), not more
    than $16,500,000 shall be accepted and not more than $16,500,000 of the
    amounts accepted shall be available for obligation by the Architect of
    the Capitol for constructing, equipping, and maintaining the National
    Garden.
        ``(b) The Architect of the Capitol is authorized to solicit,
    receive, accept, and hold amounts under section 307E(a)(2) of the
    Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1989 (40 U.S.C. 216c(a)(2)) (now
    2 U.S.C. 2146(a)(2)) in excess of the $16,500,000 authorized under
    subsection (a), but such amounts (and any interest thereon) shall not
    be expended by the Architect without approval in appropriation Acts as
    required under section 307E(b)(3) of such Act (40 U.S.C. 216c(b)(3))
    (now 2 U.S.C. 2146(b)(3)).''
                  renovation of conservatory of botanic garden
        Section 209(b) of Pub. L. 102-229 provided that: ``Pursuant to
    section 307E of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1989 (2
    U.S.C. 2146), not more than $2,000,000 shall be accepted and not more
    than $2,000,000 of the amounts accepted shall be available for
    obligation by the Architect for preparation of working drawings,
    specifications, and cost estimates for renovation of the Conservatory
    of the Botanic Garden.''

        Chairman Stevens. Pardon us. I had showed to Senator
    Cochran the letter that you sent to me as chairman. I think you
    received one too, Mr. Ehlers. It requested approval of a
    specific form of recognition for donors to the National Garden.
        I have shown that to a couple of members and one objected
    very strenuously to it. That is one of the reasons we have
    gotten around to calling this meeting today. It is my
    understanding that the garden has gone forward now with the
    solicitation of funds for the pavers and for the wall and that
    we actually have, you actually now have received a substantial
    amount of money. Would you tell us where that stands?
        Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, a check for $9,296,000 and
    change is right here; from the fund, ready to be transferred to
    us so that we can sign a contract, hopefully before March 11 of
    this year. The money is in hand for the completion of the base
    bid and the first phase of the project as defined in the
    material that we sent to you.
        The fund also believes that in the next 12 months that they
    could raise additional funds for phases two and three of the
    project as we are under construction, and the contractor who
    has been selected through the competitive bidding process is
    ready to accept those additional dollars within the first 12
    months or so of the construction period.
        Chairman Stevens. The objection was that never before in
    history has there been an identification of a donor in that
    way. There has been recognition in the sense of having a room
    or a building named after a donor, but not of the kind of
    recognition that comes from having a physical presence on a
    wall or having names on the floor. To your knowledge, has this
    been done by the Congress in any other way?
        Mr. Hantman. I do not believe it has been done on Capitol
    Hill, Senator. The issue is, right across the street at the
    American Indian Museum--I was there on Friday. I think two-
    thirds of the cost of that building was funded by the Congress,
    the rest through private funding. They have a donor wall right
    at the main entrance for major donors and low walls on the
    upper levels for up to 40,000 donations of $150 each. It is
    right across the street from where the National Garden will be
    built.
        But in terms of Capitol Hill itself, I am not aware
    specifically of donor recognition.
        Ms. Reeder. Could I address that? We have in our files a
    letter to Senator Moynihan in 1992 from the Federal Election
    Commission, where he was getting--when this garden was started,
    the plan was that this would recognize the bicentennial of the
    Congress--so it has been going for a very long time, since
    1992--and that the pavers in particular would be a
    Congressional walk.
        So this paper says that it is all right for a
    Congressperson to give $1,000 out of their campaign funds for a
    paver.
        Chairman Stevens. What appears on the paver then?
        Ms. Reeder. Well, their name, the name of the person on the
    paver.
        So when we started it was to be a Congressional walk. I
    understand that they did not sell that many pavers to
    Congressmen, but there are 60 pavers that were bought by
    Congressmen, including Gerald Ford, the former President.
        They then opened those up to the people of the country, and
    so the National Garden Clubs, which is the largest gardening
    organization in the world, were recruited to help us sell those
    pavers. They have 8,800 garden clubs and the garden clubs in 49
    States responded, representing 235,000 of their members, and
    they did the equivalent of a bake sale, these little clubs.
    They sold----
        Chairman Stevens. May I interrupt you. We have got to go to
    a meeting.
        That is not the point. The point is this establishes a
    tradition of putting donors' names on facilities of the
    Congress and it was objected to. I think before we are through
    here we are going to have to have a motion for a vote, and we
    will circulate the item to the members who are not present and
    then have everyone vote.
        Am I correct that there was no specific authorization of
    Congress for a concept that the pavers or the wall would have
    the names of donors?
        Mr. Hantman. There was specific authorization of Congress
    to have recognition of the donors. The method for that
    recognition was not defined.
        Chairman Stevens. But nothing said it would be a physical
    presence on the walls or on the floors or on anything, other
    than the traditional plaque at the door saying that the Garden
    Clubs of America have donated this?
        Mr. Hantman. I believe there were words that did address
    specific recognition in different parts of the garden. In fact,
    it started out that a $1 million donor could get a name in a
    specific portion of the garden.
        Chairman Stevens. Congress gave approval to that?
        Mr. Hantman. That is correct, sir.
        Chairman Stevens. Who gave that approval?
        Senator Cochran. It is dated April 16, 1993, in one
    document where George White writes a letter confirming the
    understanding with Charlie Rose, who was the chairman at that
    time of the Joint Committee, and they talk about ``an
    appropriate way of recognizing donors of $1 million or more, to
    have their names associated with a specific component of the
    garden, such as the environmental learning center, the water
    garden, the rose garden, or the like.''
        Then it goes on to talk about ``Donors of amounts of $1,000
    and above would be recognized in some tasteful aggregated way,
    with appropriate distinctions according to the levels of
    giving.''
        This was approved and signed by Charlie Rose May 11, 1993,
    as chairman of the committee, and it was approved with the
    condition that the Joint Committee on the Library be kept
    informed of the specific design plans proposed to recognize
    those donors contributing $1,000 or more.
        Chairman Stevens. How was that done?
        Mr. Hantman. In terms of----
        Chairman Stevens. Was there further consultation with the
    committee on the plans for this type of recognition of donors?
        Mr. Hantman. There was a lot of discussion, Mr. Chairman,
    over time about how best to raise funds. The fund was working
    on that very strongly, and the issue of how they wanted to
    recognize donors was something that they had dealt with with
    great difficulty.
        Their projections for their fundraising, unfortunately,
    were overly optimistic. So as they tried to raise the funding--
    and in fact we raised the cap level potentially to $16.5
    million that would allow the fund to raise those dollars--that
    unfortunately was optimistic, and the unexpected death of the
    executive director last year caused a major disruption in the
    fund's activities.
        But under the direction of Ms. Reeder and Mr. Ward, the
    fund was re-energized. They reviewed what was discussed with
    donors over the years and the commitments that were made and
    then came to us with a donor recognition plan. We recognize the
    sensitivities of the Congress to the issue of the donor
    recognition on Capitol Hill and I was working with the fund,
    members of JCL staff and my staff to craft what I believe is an
    appropriate compromise that balances the fund's commitments and
    Congress' requirements.
        The proposal we bring to you today, Mr. Chairman, is much
    more modest than the fund originally proposed. When you talked
    about walls, that in fact was what was being proposed
    originally. It was a donor wall with names across it maybe 30
    feet long. What we are coming to you today for, sir, is one 4
    by 6 foot plaque, freestanding in bronze, and the pavers in the
    one section.
        Chairman Stevens. Mr. Ehlers, do you have any comment--oh,
    pardon me.
        Senator Cochran. May I ask a question?
        Chairman Stevens. Yes.
        Senator Cochran. Am I not correct too that at the Madison
    Library we had a long discussion one time about recognition of
    specific individuals with engraved names in the walls there?
    Was that not approved? Did that not go forward? I do not know
    if Dr. Billington remembers that.
        Ms. Mies. That was the 106th Congress.
        Senator Cochran. But we did approve that. Oh, we did not
    approve it?
        Ms. Mies. You did not approve that. There was discussion of
    that.
        Chairman Stevens. No, I do not think that was done.
        Mr. Hantman. There were discussions to that effect.
        Chairman Stevens. Mr. Ehlers, do you have any comment, sir?
    Are you done, Thad?
        Senator Cochran. Yes.
        Mr. Ehlers. I would verify that, because I was present for
    that discussion and my memory is it was rejected and the
    Library was instructed to find some alternative.
        Mr. Chairman, my comments first of all are more general. I
    think we have a problem that goes beyond this and I think we
    need to institute regular reporting requirements from the
    Architect of the Capitol. This is now the third time that I
    have basically been informed of a project when it has already
    gone out for bid. The plans are drawn, it has gone out for bid,
    and we are asked to approve it.
        I would like to request that we get regular reports from
    the Architect of the Capitol on every project that it is
    undergoing and be kept informed. Specifically, the letter that
    Senator Cochran just read, the bottom, it is very clear,
    ``approved with the condition that the Joint Committee on the
    Library be kept informed of the specific design plans proposed
    to recognize the donors contributing $1,000 or more.'' This is
    my sixth year on this committee. I have never seen, received
    any notification or recognition of that at all.
        I think we have to have in place some good reporting
    requirements. We could have caught the problem long ago
    because, as Senator Cochran pointed out, 6 years ago we talked
    about this issue and rejected it for the Library of Congress.
    Had this come before us before, we could have dealt with it
    according to that policy.
        Now we are in the completely embarrassing position of
    donors having been promised something by people who were not
    aware of the decision, prior decisions, and the rules we have
    established. And we have been put in a real box because people
    have contributed money on the basis that they would receive
    this recognition, and now we are saying: Oh, thanks for the
    money, but we do not want to recognize you. We should not be
    put in these boxes by not being kept informed of things.
        Also, I do not know to what extent we have detailed records
    of all this. The Architect's Office of course does, but this is
    again an internal committee concern. I do not know to what
    extent we have established procedures for keeping records
    within the committee. It jumps back and forth between the House
    and the Senate and I am not sure there is any permanent record
    kept of everything that happens within this committee and
    decisions made.
        So I just wanted to make those comments in general. I am
    also concerned, although perhaps the permission was given to go
    out and raise money, it appears that this letter implies it
    was, but--you were not formed by the Congress per se, were you?
    Congress did not ask you to perform this function?
        Ms. Reeder. George White as I understand went to Akin Gump
    when there were actually a group of Congressional wives who
    felt like we needed a National Garden that would spotlight the
    rose, which is the national flower, and it came into being
    shortly after that. So these Congressional wives got together.
    George White approached Akin Gump to form a separate not-for-
    profit committee who could raise the funds to build the garden
    and then hand them over to the Architect.
        Mr. Ward. All private sector funds.
        Mr. Hantman. A 501(c)(3) was set up and submitted to the
    committee for approval.
        Mr. Ehlers. When was that approved?
        Ms. Reeder. That was in 1992.
        Mr. Ehlers. So it was submitted to the committee?
        Ms. Reeder. Or before.
        Mr. Hantman. The agreement was submitted to the committee.
        Mr. Ehlers. So these are private funds that have then been
    turned over. Were the subject of fundraising and the control of
    the funds under the Architect's control? Was this audited at
    any point?
        Ms. Reeder. The fund has had its own legal counsel and its
    own treasurer and has had its own independent audit every year,
    and the moneys have been held in escrow at Chevy Chase Bank and
    the only moneys that have been expended have been in connection
    with either fundraising or blueprints, architectural designs.
        Mr. Ward. We have turned over $1\1/2\ million for design
    services.
        Mr. Ehlers. Understand, I am not casting any aspersions on
    you.
        Chairman Stevens. None of us are, really.
        Mr. Ehlers. But things got out of hand and now we have a
    real problem. For example, Scott's, which is famous for
    beautiful lawns and many other things, contributed $1 million
    and they were expecting good recognition. I think they deserve
    it. But we are flat up against the decisions we have made
    before not to do this sort of thing.
        Mr. Ward. Could I make----
        Chairman Stevens. Could we just go through this. We are
    late for a leadership meeting.
        Do you have any comments?
        Mr. Ney. Mr. Chairman, I will be real quick. I would like
    to submit this for the record from Congressman Kingston. It is
    a question to be answered later, if I could.
        Chairman Stevens. Yes. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Ney. And I promise I will be extremely brief.
        I do not like the position we are in. I do not think names
    should be assigned to things. I do not think the Visitors
    Center should be assigned a name. We had this issue that came
    up that somebody wanted a certain business name and I happened
    to tell them: Fine, there are a couple of unions; I would like
    to have that union wing. They said: Well, we cannot do that.
    Well, if you can have a business wing you can have a union
    wing.
        I do not like it. I do not like to do names. But, having
    said that, I think personally, and I will shut up here, but
    this was signed by the chair. Members, that were here at the
    time, told me that they knew this was going on. Even though I
    do not think we should do this, I do not like doing this, I do
    not think we should do it down the road, but I will still
    support doing what people across the country were told: Give
    your money and this is what happens.
        So we are in a mess. I did not know how I was going to--I
    said I did not know how I was going to go. I will support it. I
    just do not like it, but I think we are stuck with signatures
    from the past. That is what I think.
        Chairman Stevens. I am constrained to tell you about the
    first trial I conducted in Nome years ago as a U.S. attorney.
    It was a case involving a charge of rape and the young man who
    was accused of that was the basketball star for the town. The
    jury came in with a verdict that said: Not guilty, but he
    better not do it again.
        Mr. Larson.
        Mr. Larson. Mr. Chairman, it is very hard to follow that.
    But I want to associate myself with the remarks of our
    distinguished chairman, Mr. Ney, and say that again I agree
    entirely that this is a public place and a public facility. I
    do not feel that there is a place for corporate, labor, or
    other names, in spite of the great philanthropic entities that
    exist throughout this country and around the globe who would be
    eager to continue this splendid place that in fact indeed
    belongs to the people.
        Yet, as the chairman eloquently stated and as Mr. Ney has
    said, we are in a real bind here, and I reluctantly feel that
    there probably is not any other way out, and commend you for
    working out a compromise.
        Chairman Stevens. Do you wish to comment, sir?
        Mr. Ward. I just wanted to be sure that there is some
    clarity for what the fund is asking for. We are just asking for
    the standard donor recognition plaque, not a wall, and about
    500 of these pavers. We are not asking for anything beyond
    that.
        Mr. Ney. Mr. Chairman, just a quick one if I could. Like my
    grandma always said, quit while you are ahead. That is my
    personal opinion.
        Chairman Stevens. We have this question for the record from
    Mr. Kingston: ``I understand from Deborah Pryce that the Ohio-
    based company Scott Fertilizer donated substantially to the
    National Garden project. They were told they would be
    recognized for this contribution. While I realize these
    assurances were made under a different administration, Scott
    Fertilizer donated substantial resources to the project. I
    would like to know what can be done to recognize their
    efforts.''
        We would like to have you answer that in writing if you
    would. That is a question that has been asked for the record by
    one member.
        [The information follows:]

        The Joint Committee on the Library recently approved the
    recognition plan proposed by the AOC and the National Fund
    where the names of major donors will be engraved on a free-
    standing, 4 foot  6 foot bronze panel located in the
    Hornbeam Court, adjoining the Rose Garden. The other major
    donors have agreed that, ``The Scotts Company--The Margaret
    Hagedorn Rose Garden'' will appear on the panel as the first
    listing.
        Early this year, Ms. Leone Reeder, Acting Chair for the
    National Fund for the Botanic Garden, traveled to Ohio to meet
    with Mr. James Hagedorn, Chairman of the Board and Chief
    Executive Officer for The Scotts Company. They agreed on the
    plaque as an appropriate form of recognition for Scotts
    efforts. In addition, the National Fund will be working toward
    developing a Margaret Hagedorn rose that will be grown in the
    Rose Garden.

        Chairman Stevens. So it is my understanding that the
    Senator from Mississippi would make a motion. It would be my
    suggestion as chair that we entertain a motion to approve the
    request for the use of these funds and to proceed with this
    project and leave the subject of what the standard should be
    for the future to be determined, with the understanding that
    there will be no further fundraising efforts until we do
    establish that standard.
        Are you prepared to make a motion?
        Senator Cochran. I am prepared to make that motion. I think
    the commitments that have been made were made in good faith by
    the Architect's Office based in reliance on the April 16, 1993,
    letter. I do not know if there may be some evidence of
    communications that are not in the file here, but I think the
    thing to do is to support the Architect and to live up to the
    commitments that have already been made.
        Chairman Stevens. Mr. Ehlers, is it agreeable to you that
    we submit that to the membership by written memorandum and ask
    them to vote, and we will report the results of that vote to
    the Architect and we will ask that that be--that members
    respond to us before this time next week, so we will have you
    an answer by next week as to proceeding. Mr. Ehlers?
        Mr. Ehlers. That procedure is certainly acceptable. I just
    want to clarify. You did not specifically mention the
    recognition issue in your motion, did you?
        Senator Cochran. Yes, I do intend to include that, the
    recognition of major donors in an appropriate way, and I think
    the way that has been suggested is appropriate and we should
    confirm that.
        Mr. Ehlers. I will support the procedure dealing with that.
    Let me also add, Mr. Chairman, as part of the discussion, there
    are other ways or additional ways to recognize these, because
    there were three major donors. Scott Fertilizer and two others
    donated $1 million each. I think it would be entirely
    appropriate for the garden to continue that recognition--for
    example, one of them, I am not sure which, donated the rose
    garden; that the directory or the guide that is handed out to
    every visitor specifically mention the company that donated the
    rose garden. That sort of recognition does not violate our rule
    against putting things, mounting them on walls.
        Chairman Stevens. It is my understanding that Senator
    Cochran's request is to approve the two procedures that have
    been requested here today, the large bronze plate and the
    pavers, and we will address the question of recognition when
    you submit to us what you intend to do for them. Is that
    acceptable? You have three major donors that deserve
    recognition.
        Mr. Hantman. Their names are all appearing on that plaque,
    sir.
        Chairman Stevens. Their names are already on the plaque?
        Mr. Hantman. They will be on the plaque, yes. That is the
    proposal, all three of their names.
        Chairman Stevens. Then that is taken care of. That will be
    explained to all the members. So that we will submit that to
    the members.
        Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, one clarification, please.
        Chairman Stevens. Yes?
        Mr. Hantman. Would that allow the fund over the next 12
    months to hopefully raise funds for option two and option three
    and just add names to that same plaque if they get major donors
    which they have on the hook right now?
        Chairman Stevens. We will--will the Senator modify his
    amendment to include the phase two concept and phase three for
    further donors to be recognized in a similar way?
        Senator Cochran. I agree with the modification that is
    suggested.
        Chairman Stevens. Has staff got that?
        Ms. Mies. Yes.
        Chairman Stevens. Anything further to come before the
    committee? Mr. Ehlers?
        Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to offer a
    motion and if you wish to study it further we can defer a
    decision until later. I would like to offer the motion that we
    ask the Architect of the Capitol to submit an annual report
    giving the status of all projects and a monthly report on those
    that are actively ongoing.
        Chairman Stevens. May I suggest that we ask the legislative
    appropriations committees to put that in law? I think that
    would be acceptable.
        Mr. Hantman. Absolutely.
        Chairman Stevens. So we know what to expect, and let those
    committees determine the timing for them, because that would be
    something--they meet annually for the legislative review of the
    Architect and I think that we should let them do it.
        Mr. Ehlers. I only request that that report come to this
    committee as well.
        Chairman Stevens. Yes, it will come. We will ask the
    legislative committee to say the report comes to this committee
    and to the legislative subcommittees once a year. It would be
    the same report, Mr. Architect.
        Anything further to come before the committee?
        [No response.]
        Chairman Stevens. I am sorry to be this abrupt.
        Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 5:21 p.m., Wednesday, March 3, the meeting
    was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]