[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.]