    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                          THE CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE
                    SAFETY: SAFETY CONCERNS AND FUTURE PLANS

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

                                   (111-141)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
        ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               September 30, 2010

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    58-490                    WASHINGTON : 2010
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                     JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman

    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia,   JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    Vice Chair                           DON YOUNG, Alaska
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon             THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    Columbia                             VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    JERROLD NADLER, New York             FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    CORRINE BROWN, Florida               JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    BOB FILNER, California               GARY G. MILLER, California
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             Carolina
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
    LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania             SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York          Virginia
    MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine            JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            CONNIE MACK, Florida
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania          JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
    HEATH SHULER, North Carolina         MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York          VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona           BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
    CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania  ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               PETE OLSON, Texas
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               TOM GRAVES, Georgia
    LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    PHIL HARE, Illinois
    JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
    MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
    BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
    MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
    THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
    DINA TITUS, Nevada
    HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
    JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    HANK JOHNSON, Georgia

                                      (ii)

    ?

     Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
                                   Management

               ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair

    BETSY MARKEY, Colorado               MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine            TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
    HEATH SHULER, North Carolina         SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           Virginia
    MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York          MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY,               BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
    Pennsylvania, Vice Chair             ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
    DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland           VACANCY
    THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
    HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
    JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
      (Ex Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................    vi

                                   TESTIMONY

    Ayers, Hon. Stephen T., Architect of the Capitol.................     4
    Burger, Megan, Member, CVC Employees Union Organizing Committee,
      AFSCME Local 658...............................................    12
    Chrisler, Tamara E., Executive Director, Office of Compliance,
      accompanied by Peter Eveleth, General Counsel, Office of
      Compliance.....................................................     6
    Loversidge, Robert Jr., President & Chief Executive Officer,
      Schooley Caldwell Associates...................................     8
    Reed, Wallace Jr., President, American Federation of State,
      County, and Municipal Employees................................    10

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    Ayers, Hon. Stephen T............................................    33
    Burger, Megan....................................................    42
    Chrisler, Tamara E...............................................    50
    Loversidge, Robert Jr............................................    56
    Reed, Wallace Jr.................................................    65
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.004

         THE CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE: SAFETY CONCERNS AND FUTURE PLANS

                                  ----------

                          Thursday, September 30, 2010

                      House of Representatives,
          Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
                    Buildings and Emergency Management,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:09 p.m., in
    room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes
    Norton [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Ms. Norton. The hearing will come to order. I am very
    pleased to welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to their
    testimony. This Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the
    Architect of the Capitol, the Capital program, and of course,
    we can engage in oversight generally concerning the AOC. Today,
    the Subcommittee will examine the fiscal year 2009 State of the
    Congressional Workplace report produced by the Office of
    Compliance and its relationship to the AOC's infrastructure
    plan.
        The OCC was created by the Congressional Accountability Act
    of 1995, which was passed through the Congress, and its
    auxiliary agencies generally follow the same employment labor
    accessibility and safety laws that apply to the private and
    public sectors. The Congressional Accountability Act applies to
    the employees of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the
    Congressional Budget Office, the Office of the Architect of the
    Capitol, the Office of the Attending Physician, the Office of
    Congressional Accessibility Services, the United States Capitol
    Police, the General Accountability Office, and the Library of
    Congress, covering an estimated 30,000 employees. Section
    215(e) of the Congressional Accountability Act requires the OOC
    to inspect the facilities of the agencies under its
    jurisdiction for compliance with occupational safety and health
    standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act at least
    once each Congress.
        On July 13, 2010, the OOC released its fiscal year 2009
    annual report, State of the Congressional Workplace. The fiscal
    year 2009 annual report covers 96 percent of the 17 million
    square feet of space occupied by the Congress and other
    legislative branch facilities in the metropolitan Washington,
    D.C. area. The United States Capitol Complex has a long and
    storied history, and includes the House office buildings, the
    Capitol, the Senate office buildings, the Library of Congress
    the Supreme Court Building, the Botanical Gardens, the Capitol
    Power Plant, and other buildings. Construction of the Capitol
    began in 1793, and extensions, additions and renovations of the
    Capitol have continued in the late 18th century until now, when
    the Capitol Visitor Center, or CVC, the most recent addition to
    the Capitol, opened in 2008.
        Today the Capitol Complex encompasses over 450 acres and
    houses several important institutions in the American
    government.
        With several of the buildings approaching 100 years of age,
    the care, condition and safety of the buildings of the Capitol
    Complex are important concerns for this Subcommittee.
        In addition to being symbols of democracy, these buildings
    also house the working offices of America's elected officials,
    the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Library of
    Congress and other public servants. The fiscal year 2009 annual
    report documents compliance with occupational safety health
    standards for the 110th Congress, and provides projections for
    the number of hazards in the 111th Congress.
        The report indicates there are 9,200 hazards in the
    Congressional workplace, there were 9,200 in the Congressional
    workplace, during the 110th Congress, which represented a 30
    percent reduction from 109th Congress during which 13,140
    hazards were identified. The Rayburn House Office Building had
    the highest number of safety and health hazards, followed by
    the James Madison Memorial Building and the Longworth House
    Office Building.
        The OOC projects that the 111th Congress will have 6,300
    hazards representing a 50 percent drop since 2006. We will take
    a hard look at the long-term plan to maintain the safety and
    accessibility of the Capitol Complex.
        Going forward with long-term capital asset planning, we
    will examine some of the measures that the AOC and the OCC are
    taking to ensure that legislative branch employees and the
    millions of visitors to the Capitol Complex are not exposed to
    harm unnecessarily, and further, that these offices are
    conducting or identifying requisite training or establishing
    safety practices and procedures for Congressional employees and
    visitors.
        Although there has been a significant drop in hazards since
    the 108th Congress, there are still significant risks to the
    health and safety of visitors and employees in the Capitol
    Complex. It is our understanding that a recent Blue Ribbon
    Panel convened by the AOC produced a final report about some of
    the more serious hazards on the Senate side, and that will
    inform how the Architect addresses similar fire issues in the
    Capitol and in the Cannon Office Building.
        The OOC report detailed serious safety violations from open
    stairwells in the Russell Senate Office Building that could
    create a dangerous smoke tunnel, perhaps preventing people from
    escaping if the building caught fire, or sustained explosive
    attacks going all the way to the Jefferson Building which lacks
    adequate exit stairwells.
        We want to be sure that the AOC has the plans and tools to
    cope with the challenge of modernizing the Capitol Complex
    consistent with its status as a national historic landmark.
        With the recent completion of the new 580,000 square feet
    of the Capitol Visitor Center, many issues are presented such
    as assuring that the Capitol Complex is accessible for
    Americans with disabilities and that there are sufficient
    safeguards in place to prevent a fire from becoming a major
    calamity.
        We want to partner with the office of the AOC and OOC, with
    both of those offices, so that our Subcommittee can draw upon
    this Subcommittee's own long, collective expertise in
    construction management and long-term capital asset planning to
    ensure that the U.S. Capitol Complex remains an iconic
    masterpiece.
        We also are concerned about issues I detailed in a letter
    dated August 18, 2010, concerning emergency preparedness and
    response training for CVC or Capitol Visitor Center workers.
    Their working conditions, employee benefits, including the
    possible loss of benefits, as well as reports of the CVC
    forbids employee contact with Members of Congress.
        In addition, CVC employees allegedly were instructed to
    flush the contents of a bag of white powder labeled ``anthrax''
    down a toilet instead of alerting U.S. Capitol Police of its
    discovery. It is also alleged that CVC employees are subject to
    harmful working conditions, including uniforms inappropriate
    for outdoor work in summer and winter months and limitations on
    water consumption. These allegations are serious, and we expect
    to hear from both parties about how these issues are being
    resolved.
        I look forward to the testimony of officials from the
    Architect of the Capitol, the Office of Compliance, the
    American Institute of Architects and union officials to ensure
    that the U.S. Capitol Complex remains safe and accessible as a
    workplace.
        We were instructed, Mr. Ranking Member, to go ahead and
    that you would be here momentarily and, voila, you are, so I am
    pleased to ask the Ranking Member if he has any opening
    comments.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I will be
    brief and as usual, you and I on issues of this Subcommittee
    work very closely and I appreciate this wonderful working
    relationship. I want to thank as you did the distinguished
    panel for being here today. And really the only thing that I
    just want to add is obviously when we are talking about the
    Congressional workplace, the safety of the Congressional
    workplace, we have to be reminded that there are millions of
    people that go through this complex and thousands that work
    here, whether it is members of staff and others and obviously,
    and those of us Members of Congress, so it is not just us, it
    is also for the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of
    visitors.
        And I want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for putting
    together this hearing and for bringing together a very
    distinguished group of panelists. And I look forward to hearing
    from them on an issue that is obviously of great importance to
    all of us and to the millions of people who visit this complex.
    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Diaz-Balart. Now let
    us proceed to the witnesses, and I will simply introduce them
    as they are called to speak.

    STATEMENTS OF HON. STEPHEN T. AYERS, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL;
     TAMARA E. CHRISLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE,
       ACCOMPANIED BY PETER EVELETH, GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF
     COMPLIANCE; ROBERT LOVERSIDGE, JR., PRESIDENT & CEO, SCHOOLEY
      CALDWELL ASSOCIATES; WALLACE REED, JR., PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
      FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES; MEGAN
       BURGER, MEMBER, CVC EMPLOYEES UNION ORGANIZING COMMITTEE,
                            AFSCME LOCAL 658

        Ms. Norton. The first witness is the Architect of the
    Capitol, Stephen T. Ayers, was nominated by President Obama,
    confirmed by unanimous consent of the Senate in May of this
    year, and served in the Office of the Architect of the Capitol
    since 1997, was, prior to that, an architect working with the
    Voice of America both here and in Greece, licensed as an
    architect in the State of California. Welcome, Mr. Ayers. We
    will hear your testimony at this time. Would you summarize it.
        Mr. Ayers. Madam Chair and Congressman Diaz-Balart, thank
    you for inviting me here today to discuss the Architect of the
    Capitol's commitment to provide a safe and healthy environment
    for all who work here and the millions of people that visit
    each year. With Congress' support, very significant investments
    have been made to improve fire and life-safety systems in the
    Congressional office buildings. As a result, the buildings on
    Capitol Hill are safer today than ever, as evidenced by a 60
    percent reduction in identified hazards since the 109th
    Congress.
        We are very pleased with this progress, particularly
    because the amount of square footage of facilities that we
    maintain significantly increased over the same period of time.
        While the Office of Compliance is still conducting its
    inspections of the 111th Congress, as of last week, they have
    identified 1,785 findings attributable to the Architect of the
    Capitol. Of these 1,785 today, we have closed 82 percent of
    these findings and nearly 18 percent of them were closed during
    the inspections themselves. Along with these efforts, we have
    also made substantial physical improvements into the Capitol's
    infrastructure to enhance safety.
        Since 2007, the Congress has invested more than $200
    million in fire, life and occupational safety projects. These
    improvements include the extensive installation of smoke
    detection and fire sprinkler systems throughout our buildings.
    While we have made great progress improving safety at
    Congressional facilities, we realized that there is still work
    to do. Of the 1,785 Office of Compliance findings I mentioned
    earlier, the remaining 8 percent will require substantial time
    and significant resources to resolve. To address these, between
    fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2015, we plan to request more
    than $300 million in citation-related work and an additional
    $300 million in additional fire and life-safety projects to
    include deferred maintenance and capital renewal projects.
        Although every project we have identified is prioritized
    and necessary, we realize not all can be funded nor will be
    funded in these fiscally challenging times. To assist us in
    this prioritization effort, we have successfully developed and
    implemented a robust and balanced process to prioritize
    projects based on facilities' conditions and the level of
    maintenance required to ensure they remain functional and
    viable working environments for the Congress.
        This process uses several tools in the formulation of the
    project prioritization list, including facility condition
    assessments, the Capitol Complex Master Plan and its
    jurisdiction plans.
        Over the past year, this process has matured to include a
    5-year capital improvements plan which examines phasing
    opportunities, project sequencing and other factors to best
    facilitate the timing and execution of major deferred
    maintenance and capital renewal projects. Tied into this
    overall planning process is the line item construction process,
    and during this process projects are scored against six
    criteria. These include safety and regulatory compliance,
    security, mission, historic preservation, economics, and energy
    efficiency and environmental quality. The component that
    provides us and the Congress with the big picture, the 20-year
    look ahead to cue up the priorities investments and projects,
    is the Capitol Complex Master Plan, and we have been working
    with the Congress to develop this plan and its related
    jurisdiction plans.
        The Master Plan assumes incremental decision making,
    leaving choices about future renewal and development to be made
    closer to the anticipated time when these decisions must be
    made. Essentially, master planning provides the Congress with
    the wholistic vision, or a blueprint, for facility-related
    decision making.
        The master plan and the other prioritization tools we have
    developed and refined over the past few years provide Congress
    with concrete, practical assessments of our infrastructure. And
    by using these tools, Congress can choose best where to make
    investments in the Capitol campus.
        Madam Chair, the level of safety and accessibility across
    the campus has never been higher and continues to improve as we
    work to complete enhancements and repairs to the facilities and
    grounds. However, work remains to be done, and we know that
    constant vigilance is required. We know our safety
    responsibilities are twofold, to provide safe facilities for
    all occupants and visitors and to provide a safe work
    environment for our workforce.
        And to address this second responsibility specifically, we
    continue to invest in our employees by providing them with the
    right tools, equipment and training to ensure they work in a
    safe and productive environment. With a 76 percent reduction in
    our injury and illness rate over the last 10 years, this places
    us among the best in the Federal Government for worker safety.
        We will continue to work with our oversight committees to
    address issues in a planned matter that is fiscally
    responsible, efficient, effective and protective of those who
    work and visit our buildings as well as maintain and protects
    the unique architectural features of these historic and iconic
    buildings and grounds.
        We appreciate this Subcommittee's continued interest and
    support, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may
    have.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Ayers.
        The next witness is the executive director of the Office of
    Compliance, Tamara Chrisler, appointed to a 5-year term,
    January 2008, had served as a labor and employment attorney for
    the Federal Bureau of Prisons representing the interests of the
    government as well as administrative agencies in claims brought
    by employees before the Federal Court. Prior to this
    appointment, she was the OOC's general counsel.
        Ms. Chrisler.
        Ms. Chrisler. Thank you, Madam Chairman, good afternoon and
    good afternoon, Congressman Diaz-Balart. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today concerning the Office of
    Compliance in our role in concerning safety and health,
    accessibility and workplace rights in the legislative branch.
    With me at the witness table to your right is Peter Eveleth
    general counsel of our office. Mr. Eveleth has statutory
    responsibility over safety, health and accessibility issues in
    the Office of Compliance, and he has joined me to answer any
    questions you may have today.
        As you mentioned when you opened the hearing, Madam Chair,
    the Office of Compliance's most recent annual report summarizes
    the work we do with respect to workplace rights as well as
    safety and health. Most of our workplace rights efforts are
    performed quietly as the CAAmandates confidentiality while
    addressing these issues administratively. Our other areas of
    focus, however, are typically addressed more openly, like our
    work in safety and health, which includes conducting biennial
    inspections and responding to requests for inspection. Although
    our 111th Congress inspection has not been completed, as you
    mentioned, our annual report projected a 50 percent reduction
    in hazards from the 109th Congress inspection which was our
    original baseline inspection. This reduction is due in part to
    the commendable efforts of the Architect of the Capitol's
    Office and other employing offices which are constantly working
    on the abatement of hazards.
        Technical assistance provided by our agency has also played
    a significant role in improving safety and health on the Hill.
    For instance, at the request of Congress, we conducted a
    comprehensive preinspection of the CVC before it opened in
    December, 2008. Because the facility was not yet occupied,
    remedying the identified deficiencies was more efficient, and
    in some instances, less expensive than had we waited until
    after it opened.
        We work closely with the AOC staff throughout this process
    to ensure that the CVC could open on time, free from safety
    hazards, and fully accessible to visitors, Members and
    employees with disabilities.
        We are pleased to report that all occupational health and
    safety hazards identified during this 2008 preinspection have
    now been abated. Most accessibility barriers to individuals
    have been removed, and the AOC is continuing to work on
    resolving the remainder.
        Notwithstanding, we believe some of the most significant
    hazards currently in the community are the most serious and
    longstanding fire and life safety hazards in most of our
    historic and iconic buildings on Capitol Hill, including the
    House and Senate Office Buildings, the Capitol and the Library
    of Congress buildings. While much progress has been made in
    increasing the level of fire safety in some buildings,
    substantial critical work remains to be undertaken. We
    understand and appreciate that the AOC has limited budgetary
    resources, and not all hazards can be abated overnight.
        Until the hazards can be permanently remedied, the
    Architect has instituted important interim measures to provide
    additional fire safety. The AOC installed new smoke detectors
    and sprinklers within several legislative branch facilities,
    and we understand that the AOC intends to provide complete
    smoke detection capability in all legislative branch
    facilities.
        Separate and apart from the fire hazards, another high risk
    area is the Capitol Power Plant utility tunnels. As you know,
    there exists a 5-year plan to abate the hazards entirely. A
    great deal of progress has been made, thanks to the resources
    provided by Congress as well as the cooperative efforts of AOC
    staff and our OOC tunnels liaison. Assuming sufficient funding,
    that project is ontrack for complete and timely abatement in
    2012.
        In the coming Congress, the Office of Compliance is
    undertaking a new risk-based approach to our biennial
    inspections to target and devote our inspector resources to
    potentially high hazard and high accessibility barrier areas
    across campus.
        First we intend to preinspect new or significantly
    renovated buildings, such as the Cannon building, which will be
    undergoing major upgrades. As we found with the CVC, we expect
    that identifying and correcting hazards and barriers to access
    before the building is occupied will be more efficient and in
    at least some instances less expensive. Second, we will also
    target our biennial inspection at the most dangerous workplaces
    and occupations. We are targeting these activities because now
    that we have completed three comprehensive inspections of the
    legislative branch, we believe it appropriate to concentrate on
    the highest risks.
        We intend to review compliance with selected safety and
    health procedures and programs, like fall protection, hazard
    communication, and lockout tag-out programs.
        During the current Congress, we have offered and provided
    technical assistance to employing offices in reviewing their
    program. Third, we intend to concentrate our efforts on
    ensuring complete and timely abatement by employing offices of
    high risk hazards, identified in current and previous biennial
    inspections.
        Finally, our cooperative work with the AOC extends to
    accessibility barriers in the legislative branch.
        During our biennial inspection in the next Congress, we
    look forward to working with the AOC to determine where the
    most serious barriers are present so that projects can be
    undertaken in priority order.
        Cost effectiveness remains a vital issue for us in our
    regular biennial inspections during this time of severe budget
    constraints. We know that by preventing or quickly remedying
    hazards can save workers' lives and limbs, but it saves money
    too. Every workplace injury that doesn't happen means thousands
    of dollars in savings on worker's compensation, medical bills,
    lost productivity and overtime payments just to name a few.
        Indeed, between 2001 and 2007, the Library of Congress
    achieved an estimated $11 million in injury cost avoidance
    through its injury prevention efforts, hence our motto,
    ``safety pays.''
        On behalf of the Office of Compliance and its board of
    directors, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
    appear before you this afternoon to discuss these very
    important issues. I, along with Mr. Eveleth, look forward to
    answering any questions you may have.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Ms. Chrisler. You hadn't
    been the general counsel, you simply brought the general
    counsel with you in case there are questions. We don't think
    there will be questions for the general counsel. The questions
    will be for you. If necessary, we will hear questions from
    someone else.
        Ms. Chrisler. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Norton. The next witness is the President and CEO of
    Schooley Caldwell associates, Robert Loversidge, Jr. He is a
    practicing architect, an expert in the field of historic
    preservation, restoration and innovation. Mr. Loversidge has
    experience working with historic buildings in a number of
    States. I welcome him to offer his testimony at this time.
        Mr. Loversidge. Chairman Norton, Ranking Member Diaz-
    Balart, thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding
    safety, accessibility and historic preservation in our Nation's
    Capitol. I am here at the behest of the American Institute of
    Architects, which has been the leading professional membership
    association for licensed architects since 1857. At my firm, I
    have had the great fortune to work at four State capitals, the
    Supreme Court in Ohio and numerous Federal, State and local
    courthouses, all historic buildings with characteristics and
    issues similar to those at the national Capitol Complex.
        These historic buildings were completed long before modern
    life safety codes, OSHA regulations, electronic technologies
    and access for people with disabilities were part of our
    architectural vocabulary. Many were built before air
    conditioning, elevators, automobiles, computers, iPods, the
    internet, and even restrooms. Nevertheless as you mentioned
    Madam Chair in your opening remarks, these buildings are
    important, as iconic symbols of the function and permanence of
    our government, as workplaces for government employees and
    visitors, and as sources for national, State and local civic
    pride.
        When Ohio's National Historic Landmark Statehouse was
    designed in 1838, it contained all of State government in 53
    rooms. When we began our master plan in 1988, the same space
    was occupied by 317 rooms. I don't have to show you photographs
    to show you what the before conditions were like.
        Today, after completion of an award winning restoration,
    renovation and addition project, the Ohio Statehouse serves as
    a model capitol for the future. It has been sensitively
    restored. While President Lincoln would recognize the building
    he visited in 1861 as President-elect, the building is fully
    sprinklered and life safety code-compliant, it is fully
    accessible to people with disabilities, it has the most
    comprehensive closed-circuit television Internet streaming and
    communication system designed to date by Sony.
        It has state-of-the-art energy efficient heating and
    cooling systems. And it has all of the functionality of a
    modern State capitol building, hearing rooms, gathering spaces
    adequate staff workspaces, museum and visitors facilities,
    security systems and so forth.
        From an architectural point of view, the issues that you
    are studying regarding workplace safety and accessibility boil
    down to two related topics, life safety code compliance, and
    access for people with disabilities. Although the code books
    are very extensive and complex, the most difficult problems we
    encountered in monumental buildings are, one, providing
    adequate and safe means of egress, two, fire separation, and,
    three, smoke control.
        The Americans with Disabilities Act celebrated its 20th
    anniversary this year. We have always taken the position that
    all functional spaces in a public building should be made
    accessible to as many people with as many disabilities as
    possible. In our 170-year old Statehouse, I set a personal
    design goal of making all of the spaces accessible, and we made
    it once we finally figured out how to insert a wheelchair lift
    into the corner of a small public gallery in the House chamber.
    One technique we found particularly helpful is to assemble a
    committee of people with a variety of disabilities to advise us
    during the design phase and to test the final result
    afterwards.
        The bottom line here is that we do not believe that
    architectural accessibility, full functionality, and historic
    preservation are mutually exclusive.
        One key to a great project is to make 100-year design
    decisions. While all of the equipment that we place into our
    buildings may not last that long, we try to place ductwork,
    piping, conduit, runs in places where they will seem
    appropriate decades later. For example, in our State capitol,
    we have 4- to 6-foot thick solid stone interior walls and brick
    groin vaulted ceilings, no place to hide ductwork or air
    handling equipment. Our solution was to carve pathways into the
    masonry walls for ducts but to place the fans in a basement
    plinth area where they can be easily replaced when they become
    obsolete.
        All of this works better, of course, if there is a long-
    range vision or master plan for the facility. A master plan
    allows stakeholders and designers to collaborate regarding
    priorities phasing and budget issues and it gives the
    legislative body a clear path forward to accurately anticipate
    funding needs. The master plan also provides a basis for
    communication so the building occupants can stay informed and
    have realistic expectations.
        At the Minnesota capital where we are currently restoring
    the second largest marble dome in the world, the construction
    manager issues a weekly electronic update to everyone.
        In Utah, we had the great luxury of having the entire
    building to work on at once. It was a seismic reinforcement
    project, and we simply couldn't do it in an occupied building,
    so the State built two new adjacent buildings for expansion
    space and the occupants had to move there temporarily.
        While vacating the entire building rarely works because of
    lack of equivalent alternate facilities successful phasing of
    projects by area can work. We did this successfully in Ohio and
    Kansas. Critical things to consider are phasing the to respect
    life safety requirements and phasing to allow continuous
    operations of building systems like electricity, heating and
    air conditioning and fire alarms.
        Finally, I would like to address the biggest challenge to
    the success of these projects, which is, frankly, not
    architectural engineering designability, but rather creating
    the political will to succeed. The Capitol is a working
    essential government building occupied by important people who
    have issues other than facility modernization on their minds.
        I have to tell you the most successful projects to improve
    the workplace are the direct result of strong consensus-based
    political will. I don't know exactly how this consensus can be
    accomplished here in Washington, D.C., but I can tell you that
    it is important part of all successful historic preservation
    master plan and renovation projects.
        One of our most insightful clients, the late Chief Justice
    of the Supreme Court of Ohio, Thomas J. Moyer, advised us over
    and over during the design of the Ohio Judicial Center, to
    design for the institution, not for its current occupants.
        One more quick story about political will. I distinctly
    remember telling Ohio Governor, now Senator George Voinovich,
    as he was moving out of his Statehouse office ahead of our
    renovation that he would have to be reelected in order to move
    back. He won reelection at the time with 72 percent of the
    vote.
        In conclusion, I would like to thank the Committee for its
    hard work in addressing these complex issues and I look forward
    to answering any questions the Committee may have. Thank you.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you Mr. Loversidge.
        Wallace Reed, Jr., is President of the American Federation
    of State County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, local 626.
    Mr. Reed has worked at the Botanic Gardens for 21 years, and is
    the president of AFSCME 626 since 2005.
        Welcome, Mr. Reed.
        Mr. Reed. Thank you very much Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Ranking
    Member, for the opportunity to speak today. I want to
    concentrate on two sections of the Office of Compliance 2009
    annual report, the State of Health and Safety and the State of
    Workplace Rights.
        I want to applaud Mr. Ayers. Under his leadership there has
    been an improvement in the state of health and safety since I
    started working in 1989. There has been and continues to be an
    emphasis on workplace safety. The preinspection processes have
    been very successful and some AOC jurisdictions have very
    proactive safety committees. In my opinion, the average AOC
    employee is much more safety conscious than they were 5 years
    ago.
        In the Botanic Garden, for example, safety is discussed on
    a regular basis and discussed intently. However, recently there
    have been reports that have funneled to me of employees being
    discouraged from reporting workplace injuries or accidents
    because it might jeopardize a group workplace safety award.
    There have been other reports that employees are being
    threatened with discipline during safety regulations. I hope
    these reports are isolated incidents and not a new trend. The
    union does not want a potential award to be an incentive not to
    report accidents or health and safety violations.
        The 2009 Office of Compliance fiscal year 2009 report
    points out that approximately 25 percent of the hazards were
    listed as RAC 1 or RAC 2 hazards, meaning high risk hazards.
    These hazards left unabated can pose a serious danger for
    lawmakers, visitors and employees. It is worth pointing out
    that even though there has been a substantial reduction in the
    number of hazards found in the Congressional workplace, the
    high risk hazards continue to be about 25 percent each year.
    The union would like to work with AOC management to determine
    where these high risk hazards continue at such a high
    percentage rate and explore different ways to reduce these high
    risk hazards.
        I would also like to comment on three recommendations put
    forth in the December 2008 section 102(b), subsection II,
    Safety and Health Compliance Tools. Specifically, there are
    three recommendations, there is recommendation 1, to provide
    investigative subpoena authority for OSHA claims;
    recommendation 2 would require safety and health record-
    keeping; and recommendation 3, allow the Office of Compliance
    to protect employees from retaliation for reporting OSHA
    violations.
        All three of these recommendations are very important to
    the union, but I am especially interested in allowing the
    Office of Compliance to protect employees from retaliation for
    reporting OSHA violations. AOC employees want the same
    protections and rights that have been extended to the private
    sector and the executive branch. We do not want to be treated
    like second class Federal employees. Without these protections,
    the lowest graded and the lowest paid AOC employees can be left
    to shoulder the financial burden of litigating reprisal charges
    without the support of the general counsel's investigative
    process.
        As president of the local, I have personal experience where
    many cases stalled in mediation because, in my opinion, the AOC
    knows the employee bringing the charges will have the financial
    burden and expense to hire an attorney if they want to
    investigate and pursue a retaliation claim after mediation
    ends. This lack of protection has a chilling effect on the
    number of valid cases of retaliation AOC employees might be
    able to bring to light and resolve. Most of the employees do
    not have the resources to pursue their claims after mediation
    ends.
        I also would like under workplace rights to applaud two
    major employment laws passed by the Congress in fiscal year
    2009, the one broadening the Family and Medical Leave Act to
    extend rights and protection for covered military members. We
    can never do too much for the brave men and women of the Armed
    Forces who protect our freedoms. We also applaud the law
    banning genetic information discrimination that was made
    applicable to the CAA. We in the Congressional workplace want
    the same protections as private and other public sector
    employees enjoy.
        The union also urges Congress to approve the regulations
    adopted by the Office of Compliance board of directors that
    would grant Congressional employees all the statutory rights of
    the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998.
        Finally, the union would ask that Congress please review
    and reconsider all provisions of Federal law, including
    regulations relating to terms and conditions of employment
    including hiring, promotion, demotion, termination, salary,
    wages, overtime, compensation, benefits, work assignments,
    reassignments, grievance and disciplinary procedures,
    protection from discrimination in personal actions,
    occupational health and safety and family and medical and other
    leave of employees pertaining to the Congressional workplace to
    determine if the laws and regulations that, at one time, were
    determined to be inapplicable to the legislative branch can now
    be made applicable.
        In closing, I would like to thank Madam Chairwoman and the
    Ranking Member, Mr. Diaz-Balart for this opportunity. I would
    be happy to answer any questions at this time.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Reed.
        Megan Burger is a member of AFSCME Local 658, Council 26 of
    the CVC Employees Union Organizing Committee. The employees of
    the CVC have this month voted to unionize and to join the
    American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
    Local 658.
        Welcome, Ms. Burger.
        Ms. Burger. Thank you Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Ranking Member,
    and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Megan Burger, and I
    am the president of AFSCME Local 658 on Capitol Hill.
        I represent 138 people who work as tour guides and visitor
    assistants at the Capitol, who, as you say, just voted with a
    93 percent voter turnout to allow AFSCME to represent them. On
    their behalf, I thank you for providing us this opportunity to
    testify. I would also like to mention that I have a colleague
    here to help answer questions if needed.
        I am here to provide information on issues concerning
    safety in our workplace, a subject that was raised in the
    Chairwoman's letter to the Architect in mid August. I have
    provided a written statement to the Subcommittee that addresses
    a range of issues in some detail, which I will summarize today.
        Before proceeding, I would like to make clear that none of
    these issues affect the high level of safety and security that
    the Visitor Center affords to official business and tourists on
    a daily basis. The safety record of the CVC is outstanding, due
    to the expert experience and watchfulness of the guides,
    visitors' assistance and Capitol Police.
        Guides and VAs have a close working relationship with the
    police going all the way back to the first officially appointed
    guides who were actually a part of the Capitol Police's
    workforce in 1876. We are proud to be told by the USCP that
    they rely upon our experience to help them identify potential
    problems before trouble can begin. Our guides have worked
    alongside Capitol Police through harrowing events in the past
    such as the attack on their officers in 1998, the 9/11
    evacuation and the anthrax crisis of 2001.
        Year after year, each of us shepherds hundreds of guests
    every day safely through the Capitol adapting to hazards and
    disrupting as they arise. When we say ``visitor safety,'' we
    know what we are talking about.
        In June of 2010, there was an incident in the CVC
    Exhibition Hall that I am sure the Members are aware of. One of
    our VAs discovered a clear plastic bag containing white powder
    and labeled anthrax. Following the established procedure for
    discovery of suspicious items, the VA radioed a member of
    Visitor Services Management asking for a manager to come
    immediately to his location and suggesting the manager should
    bring the USCP as well. The manager elected to don gloves and
    dispose of the bag in a restroom toilet.
        As parts of these facts appeared in newspapers, some
    readers asserted to reporters that the incident revealed a lack
    of training on the part of VAs and guides. This frankly stings
    a little bit, since the VA did his job perfectly, and no guide
    was involved in the incident at all.
        Far more important than our injured pride is the fact that
    the incident was indeed a symptom of a deeper problem. There
    have been others, managers not responding to emergency radio
    calls, managers directing fire doors to be propped open,
    managers not giving attending physician's teams enough
    information to find injured persons in the CVC, and groups of
    seniors left to feel their way off theater stairs in the dark.
        On many occasions over the past 22 months, VAs and guides
    have recognized these and similar hazards, responded to them,
    and maintained visitor safety. Unfortunately, all the reported
    conditions to their managers, the conditions went uncorrected.
    We now believe this was due to a problem with the focus of our
    new management team.
        As background, let me explain that starting in 1970, a
    board consisting of both Sergeant at Arms and the Architect of
    the Capitol directed the Capitol Guide Service. Internal
    management was very simple and focused entirely on being good
    hosts and leaving the right impressions with visitors. A senior
    guide at a central radio operations post ran the whole
    organization, and it was very straightforward and successful.
        In November, 2008, to facilitate CVC operation, the guide
    service and the board were dissolved. The previous head of the
    guides had retired and a 3-tier visitor services office in the
    CVC composed of 12 people replaced him. In the CVC direction
    over the radio was conducted ad hoc by many or all of the 12
    managers. Soon thereafter, we began to notice many managers
    being called off the radio net to attend meetings or training
    or to take care of administrative and logical tasks.
        At times there would be no manager response on the radio at
    all, even to urgent calls. We also noticed manager follow-up on
    safety and other concerns became increasingly sporadic and was
    finally replaced with a barrier of denial.
        The managers team focus seemed to shift away from the
    members need for good hosts to care for their visitors toward
    something else. I am happy to report that since mid August, we
    have noticed some positive signs following Mr. Ayers'
    appointment, and the organizational adjustments within the CVC.
    With considerable help from AFSCME, we have succeeded in
    establishing our new local, and we are pleased to see our
    managers addressing one change after another as days tick down
    to the locals official certification. We now believe our
    managers are fully engaged and making progress in these areas.
        We hope these steps signal a return to focusing on being
    good hosts and preserving safety for the Members' guests.
        There remains a catalogue of concerns listed in my written
    statement, which I hope may be considered an unfortunate legacy
    from a period that has now passed. The guides and VAs as AFSCME
    658 stand ready to team with our managers to get this done. We
    know that we already share with them a love of country and a
    passion for sharing its story with the Members' constituents
    and visitors from around the world.
        Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Ms. Burger. Let me begin
    with Ms. Chrisler.
        Ms. Chrisler, how would you characterize the AOC's
    performance, let's say, in the last 2 years during this
    Congress in evading hazards, fair, good, poor, excellent?
    Choose one of those.
        Ms. Chrisler. Well, given the list that I have been
    provided by you, I would choose excellent. The work that the
    Architect of the Capitol and our office have done
    collaboratively has been, I think, one of the largest, outside
    of the efforts of the Members' offices and other employing
    offices, the largest factor in the success of the reduction of
    the hazards----
        Ms. Norton. What has been the largest factor, please?
        Ms. Chrisler. The collaborative efforts of the Office of
    Compliance and the Architect of the Capitol's office, so the
    work that the AOC has done with our cooperative efforts has
    been the largest factor, I believe, in the reduction of the
    hazards. I would like to share with you that the----
        Ms. Norton. What kind of work is that? Do you advise the
    AOC directly after your report is issued or before your report
    is issued?
        Ms. Chrisler. Right. Let me start by saying, Madam
    Chairwoman, that the Congressional Accountability Act is very
    specific in the distinction of work that is done within the
    Office of Compliance. We have a safety and health component, as
    you are well aware, and that authority is given with the
    specification to our general counsel. And that is why Mr.
    Eveleth sits at the table with me today. As the executive
    director, of course, I do oversee all of the programs under the
    Congressional Accountability Act.
        However, our general counsel is specifically authorized
    under the Congressional Accountability Act to address these
    issues and he works with the Architect of the Capitol's office
    on a day-to-day basis on these specific issues. And I would
    welcome the opportunity to allow him to share some of his vast
    knowledge in this area with you as well.
        With your approval----
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Ayers, how often are visitors injured in
    the Capitol Complex?
        Mr. Ayers. I am sorry, Madam Chair could you repeat the
    question?
        Ms. Norton. Yes, how often are visitors injured in the
    Capitol Complex?
        Mr. Ayers. I think the question is how often are visitors
    injured in the Capitol Complex. I don't know that we have,
    anyone has overarching statistics on the number of visitors
    that are injured. What I do see is a number of tort claims per
    year. So if someone falls and is injured, they may submit a
    tort claim.
        Ms. Norton. How many such claims?
        Mr. Ayers. I would say there are less than 10 a year.
        Ms. Norton. Now, don't you think that there should be--let
    me ask the entire panel whether there should be safety and
    health record-keeping in the Capitol Complex the way we have it
    in the private sector?
        Mr. Ayers. Well, from my perspective, the Architect has
    been keeping records on injuries and illnesses, near mishaps
    for over 10 years. We have an extensive, and I would call,
    OSHA-compliant record keeping program.
        Ms. Norton. You just said you didn't have any record of for
    example visitors injured in the Capitol Complex. Now you just
    say you have been keeping a record of injuries in the Capitol
    Complex.
        Mr. Ayers. I am speaking of record-keeping for employees
    under my supervision, 2,600 employees that are AOC employees we
    have----
        Ms. Norton. Oh, well, so you know about employees being
    injured, but if some of my constituents come in here, you don't
    know anything about their being injured.
        Mr. Ayers. I don't. I think the Capitol Police may keep
    such records if they call the police.
        Ms. Norton. Ms. Chrisler, who should keep such records?
        Ms. Chrisler. Madam Chairwoman, as it has been testified
    today, one of the recommendations in our annual, I am sorry,
    our Congressional Report under section 102(b) of the
    Congressional Accountability Act includes recommendations from
    our board of directors with respect to record-keeping
    provisions. That requirement is not a requirement under the
    Congressional Accountability Act for agencies to keep such
    records, records of workplace injuries.
        Our board of directors has made the recommendation,
    although there are some agencies that do keep records of these
    instances. It is not a requirement. All agencies don't, and as
    the Congressional Accountability Act is written now, none of
    the agency----
        Ms. Norton. I know that, Ms. Chrisler. You recommend that
    records be kept of all injuries whether employees, visitors, et
    cetera, is that right?
        Ms. Chrisler. The recommendation as it has been reported, I
    believe, is for employees, injuries of employees.
        Ms. Norton. So how is how is the AOC going to comply with
    the standards of workplace safety and prevent--sorry, prevent
    the tort claims if we don't even know, have no record of
    injuries of visitors, but only of our own employees?
        How many visitors--Mr. Ayers, how many visitors come to
    the, let's say the Capitol alone?
        Mr. Ayers. I would say approximately 2-1/2 million per
    year.
        Ms. Norton. So that is 2-1/2 million right there. I am not
    even talking about the Supreme Court, Library of Congress and
    the rest of those. So we could have, for all you know, dozens
    of injuries of visitors, and all you know is whether we get
    sued whether somebody has the prescience to go and find a
    lawyer.
        What kind of after-the-fact approach to preventing
    accidents is that?
        And Ms. Chrisler, you say you don't even recommend that we
    keep a record of injuries of visitors as well as employees?
        Ms. Chrisler. That is not part of the recommendation, Madam
    Chairwoman----
        Ms. Norton. Suppose somebody falls victim of one of the
    hazards you yourself discovered, but that victim is a visitor,
    and not an employee? Shouldn't that visitor's hazard or
    accident be as reportable as if that very same accident had
    involved an employee?
        Ms. Chrisler. As the Congressional Accountability Act
    applies the Occupational Safety and Health Act to the
    legislative branch, the OSHA Act itself does not speak----
        Ms. Norton. Of course, you say apply the OSHA safety--so
    you said even that doesn't apply.
        Ms. Chrisler. Right. The board of directors of the Office
    of Compliance can only make recommendations for record-keeping
    provisions for what the Congressional Accountability Act
    covers.
        Ms. Norton. I don't agree with you at all.
        I had an occasion to look very closely, and was very
    impressed with the very substantial powers you have. Now, how
    is Congress going to know that there is an issue if OOC doesn't
    tell the Congress? Your statute certainly allows you to
    recommend to Congress that it may want to look at or to
    consider at least knowing whether or not our own constituents
    get hurt in the Capitol complex.
        Ms. Chrisler. The OSHA law itself, Madam Chairwoman----
        Ms. Norton. I understand precisely what the OSHA law does.
    I am myself a lawyer just like you.
        Sorry, I conceded that we were talking that you wanted at
    least OSHA law to be applied.
        I am now speaking as a Member of Congress. There are 440 of
    us in the House and 100 of us in the Senate. I assure you that
    more people come to this House who are our constituents than
    are employees of the House or Senate.
        I am now trying to imagine what would happen if there were
    a major accident involving, let us say, a number of visitors.
    And then the press would run forward to say, well, how many
    visitors get injured? So I am asking you, and I certainly
    believe your statute allows you to make recommendations----
        Ms. Chrisler. That is absolutely right.
        Ms. Norton. --whether you would look into, since,
    apparently, you have confined yourself, I understand that, to
    OSHA, whether you would consider alerting the Congress to the
    fact that we do not know how many visitors are injured here
    every year. And these visitors, I hasten to tell you, are more
    likely to be constituents of Members of Congress than they are
    of any other visitors. Yes, visitors come internationally;
    visitors come from around the world. But you can bet your
    bottom dollar that most of the visitors who come here are
    constituents.
        Now, if you want to see some Member of Congress get angry,
    let's let a bunch of visitors from her district get hurt in the
    Capitol and let her propound a set of questions and hear what--
    don't ask me about visitors; all I know is about employees.
        I am here saying that, if anything, we were very late in
    applying the laws that apply to everybody else to the Congress;
    I am suggesting that perhaps the Congress ought to consider
    going above and beyond when you consider who we are and who the
    visitors are likely to be.
        So I would ask you only, Ms. Chrisler, if you would
    consider looking into that issue and reporting to us in 30 days
    what your consideration would be.
        Ms. Chrisler. I would be delighted to raise that with our
    board of directors.
        Ms. Norton. I very much appreciate it.
        Mr. Loversidge, I am an aficionado of historic
    preservation. After all, I represent the Nation's Capital,
    which is full of historic buildings. I live in an historic
    house on Capitol Hill. I can't do a thing to the facade, and I
    wouldn't want to.
        But the whole District is protected. So I have some
    understanding of the importance of your work. I was interested
    in the part of your testimony that talked about, as you said, a
    great project means 100-year design decisions. What in the
    world is 100-year design? Does that mean that somebody sitting
    here now, as, for example, I am with respect to a new
    headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security, while it
    is going to be a state-of-the-art building; 100 years from now,
    it might be there, because we are building it as a platinum
    building. Does that mean I ought to be thinking about that
    building 100 years hence, or what does that mean, please?
        Mr. Loversidge. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        What I mean by that is that we should be looking at the
    long view when we select materials, when we design
    modifications to buildings. When you design a new Homeland
    Security building, we should be looking at building something
    that is a public investment over a very long period of time.
        But acknowledging that, a lot the things that we put into a
    building we know aren't going to last a hundred years. We know
    the lights and some of the electronic equipment and so forth
    won't last that long. But if we make long-term decisions, when
    we cut into the building, we are cutting into the building for
    a purpose and putting that hole in a place where we think we
    are going to be able to use it for a long time. The example
    that I used was duct work, for instance. We need large volumes
    to move large volumes of air around to air condition a space.
    We know the air conditioning equipment is not going to last a
    hundred years. But if we put that someplace where we can get to
    it and easily replace it, the pathway lasts a hundred years. It
    is that sort of thing. It is really taking care and thinking
    twice. Measure once, cut twice.
        Ms. Norton. The way we ought to be thinking about energy,
    for example. What in the long term should we be doing? I don't
    know whose testimony it was that said that the building that
    was most in violation was this building, Rayburn, and that
    second--third was Longworth. What was second? Do you recall?
        Mr. Ayers. The Madison Building, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Norton. These are two of the newer buildings, Mr.
    Loversidge. We haven't been thinking very far ahead when it
    came to those buildings. You would have expected violations and
    hazards--at least, I would have, speaking as a lay person--more
    in the likes of Cannon and the older buildings, the old
    Library, or yes, Longworth. Can you give me any insights on
    that?
        Mr. Loversidge. Madam Chair, I think we are coming out of a
    period of neglect with regards to these sorts of issues, energy
    to even life safety, and to long-term decisions. I think that
    after World War II, there was so much demand to build things;
    we found ways do them quicker and cheaper, and kind of not
    worry too much about tomorrow, let's get it done for today. And
    I think that in the last decade or so, we are starting to come
    out of that. We are realizing our resources are limited. We are
    realizing that economic resources are very limited, and that we
    better spend our money well and look for the future.
        So I think we are coming out of that. And I think some of
    these buildings you just mentioned are subject to that period
    when we didn't have the civic pride and we didn't worry so much
    about tomorrow.
        Ms. Norton. Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. So it
    means, as we all suspect when we look at our older buildings,
    Library of Congress, Cannon and Longworth, that for a number of
    reasons, they are better built, were built with greater care.
    Does that make the upkeep of those buildings any easier, given
    the fact that these newer buildings are the ones that have the
    violations?
        Mr. Loversidge. I think if we invest in maintaining
    buildings, then they don't cost more to maintain. The materials
    are permanent or more permanent sometimes, but we still have to
    watch over them; we have to plan for expenditures. And
    government I think is much better at building things than it is
    at maintaining them in terms of appropriations and so forth.
        Nobody likes to spend money on cleaning the plumbing out.
    But building a new building is kind of a dramatic thing to do.
    So it is very important that we look at the long term. Many of
    these violations, once they are resolved, can be resolved
    permanently.
        Ms. Norton. Say that again.
        Mr. Loversidge. Many of the violations that we are talking
    about here, if they are building code violations and that sort
    of thing, once we have a mind to fix them, we can fix it in a
    permanent fashion, or at least in a long-range fashion.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Reed, it was disconcerting to hear about
    employees being discouraged from reporting workplace accidents
    on the one hand, and there seemed to be a whistleblower prize
    for reporting them on the other. Is that a conflict of interest
    that may--you say--I don't know what the evidence is--but you
    say workers at least have told you that they are discouraged
    from reporting these incidents because of the prizes or awards.
    Are these awards given to individuals or to the workplace
    itself?
        Mr. Reed. In some cases, it is both. In some cases, it
    appears that if there are no reportable accidents in a
    jurisdiction that a group of employees are given an award. And
    there are other instances where individual employees are given
    awards.
        Ms. Norton. I hate to come out against awards, but do you
    see some inherent conflict because people are trying their best
    to be as best they can?
        Mr. Reed. Absolutely. This morning I was talking with two
    of my stewards about this issue specifically, knowing that I
    was going to testify here. One of my stewards says, it is
    absolutely a conflict of interest. What we would like to see is
    some other program maybe instituted that would reward
    employees, yes, for safe work practices, but not at the expense
    of discouraging other employees for reporting workplace
    accidents that could impact--the point that was brought to me
    is if this accident isn't reported or this violation isn't
    reported, then someone else could also be injured because the
    violation was not reported.
        Ms. Norton. Oh, it is very dangerous.
        Mr. Reed. Exactly. Exactly. So yes, we do believe there is
    an inherent conflict of interest in using awards and safety in
    that kind of a context.
        Ms. Norton. The best kind of whistleblower is the one who
    just gets up and says what they saw. And we have had great
    problems in this Congress just protecting those whistleblowers.
    And I am sure it was with great and good will that encouraged
    employees to get together and do the best they can, and working
    together, they will make a safer workplace. But if you measure
    what is most valuable to the workplace, it is certainly having
    someone say, ``I see a problem here; let's deal with it right
    away.''
        Mr. Reed. I absolutely agree with you. We think the best
    program would be for maybe awards not to be used in this manner
    and employees applauded actually for reporting accidents. And
    the individual award maybe is more important than a zero-time-
    lost kind of an approach, or no reportable accidents in this
    kind of a period. I agree with you; the conflict of interest is
    apparent there.
        Ms. Norton. Do you know whether is this notion about
    workplace safety awards throughout the Capitol Complex?
        Mr. Reed. It happens in certain jurisdictions. In my
    particular jurisdiction, we do not have them, but I know in
    other jurisdictions----
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Ayers, which jurisdictions have these
    awards? Is it at the initiation of particular workplaces or
    does your, for example, entire workplace have or not have these
    awards?
        Mr. Ayers. Madam Chair, we believe that an effective safety
    program and injury and illness reduction program requires both
    the carrot and the stick. And we have both of those in our
    policies and procedures. And if you look at our injury and
    illness rate, over 10 years, it has dropped 76 percent.
        Ms. Norton. The what, sir?
        Mr. Ayers. That tells me we are doing the right thing.
        Ms. Norton. Your what?
        Mr. Ayers. Our injury and illness rate has dropped 76
    percent over 10 years.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Ayers, that doesn't tell me anything.
        Mr. Ayers. It is the number of employees that are hurt
    working on the job that has been reduced 76 percent in 10
    years.
        Ms. Norton. And I am pleased at that. But the notion that
    someone sees and prevents--yes, they are not injured. Few
    people are injured on the job. Congratulations. That doesn't
    mean that there are not workplace hazards on the job. I mean,
    the correlation you assume is anything but exact.
        I don't know why there are less reportable injuries. I
    don't even know why there are less--I have no idea about
    whether employees would report these workplace hazards.
        So let me put my question again. Are these workplace safety
    awards characteristic of the AOC, the Office of the Architect
    of the Capitol? Do you have them in your various divisions?
        Mr. Ayers. We certainly award employees for safe work
    practices. Absolutely. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. Individual employees or divisions?
        Mr. Ayers. Both.
        Ms. Norton. Ms. Chrisler, I would ask the OOC to look at--
    and we will give you 6 months to do this--we use time frames in
    this Committee because, otherwise, you don't get back timely
    reports. The conflict of interest we see and that some of the
    workers report through Mr. Reed perhaps does not play out given
    the fact that the employees get together.
        Given the pressure that--now, here is a union president who
    works for solidarity as his very livelihood, and yet he says
    that there is a conflict of interest, knowing full well that
    that may mean that a division among some employees may not get
    an award. I don't know what it means to get an award. But if
    the union is willing to presume what I think would be the
    presumption of most people, then I would think that the issue
    would at least be worthy of investigation.
        We are interested in only one thing: up front reporting, up
    front vigilance, so that you can prevent accidents. I have
    never heard before of this whole notion of, as a group, let's
    prevent them. First blush, I like that, because one worker can
    help another to know not to do that.
        But Mr. Reed testifies that the opposite is also the case;
    you can get pressure not to report. I don't know if that was
    supervisors or if it was other workers. I presume it could be
    either.
        Mr. Reed, do you know whether it was either?
        Mr. Reed. Very good observation. Yes, we believe it works
    from both sides, whether a comment dropped by a supervisor is
    meant to be relayed to the rest of the employees, or the
    employees themselves discouraging the injured employee from
    reporting because it could jeopardize the group award, per se.
        Ms. Norton. Well, Ms. Chrisler, this testimony has special
    credibility because he is obviously testifying as a
    representative for whom, on the one hand, having a group award
    would be of some benefit. Obviously, it would be of some
    benefit for the individual worker as well.
        But the notion of assuming that something that is apparent
    throughout the workplace does not have a conflict of interest
    would bother us. So we will give you 6 months, and staff will
    write what that period means. You will get a letter within a
    week so that you can advise us on whether or not you think that
    these workplace safety awards--I can tell you that the Congress
    only deals with whistleblowers as individuals. We have just
    had--not with--when we have everybody else before us with all
    the agencies, huge discussions about whistleblowing. Never
    heard of this thing about the whole group.
        Just had a hearing on Metro here where the National
    Transportation Safety Board testified about practices,
    apparently, not in subways and rapid rail, but in all other
    forms of transportation where they have nonpunitive reporting.
    That is the best idea I have ever heard of. Nonpunitive
    reporting practices, which is a version of whistleblowing that
    may be at its very best. Where, without punishment, unless
    there is some deliberate violation, somebody with great malice
    or intention, you come forward and report the violation, even
    if it involves yourself. And we do that in common carriers.
        As far as I am concerned, we ought to have the same kind of
    standards for the Capitol as we have for common carriers,
    because it would be a huge embarrassment to Members of Congress
    to have reports of mishaps, particularly of visitors here, not
    to mention our own staff.
        Ms. Chrisler, I am very pleased at what you report about
    the cooperation between your general counsel and Mr. Ayers. And
    such cooperation has been apparently very, very beneficial in
    producing this very impressive reduction in violations. Let me
    ask you about whether or not there is another potential
    conflict of interest here. Is the Architect of the Capitol the
    code official for the Capitol who can grant variances for
    strict codes and compliance in historic buildings and the like?
    Isn't he his own code official?
        Ms. Chrisler. The way that the Congressional Accountability
    Act is written, our board of directors acts as the entity who
    has the authority to grant variances.
        Ms. Norton. Oh, that is very good news. So he isn't his own
    code official?
        Ms. Chrisler. Not with respect to that.
        Ms. Norton. At least as to granting variances.
        Ms. Chrisler. That is correct.
        Ms. Norton. Have you at the AOC or your board of directors
    encountered any disagreement or areas of disagreement
    concerning what constitutes code compliance? Or if you do, how
    do you work them out?
        Ms. Chrisler. We have monthly meetings at the Office of
    Compliance with the Office of the Architect of the Capitol to
    discuss a number----
        Ms. Norton. You have monthly meetings?
        Ms. Chrisler. Have monthly meetings. And we have open
    discussions. When we find a violation, we notify the employing
    office of the violation. They have an opportunity to contest
    that finding. And we provide for open dialogue and
    communication. We work very collaboratively with the employing
    offices, including the Architect of the Capitol.
        Ms. Norton. You made three recommendations: provide
    investigative subpoena authority for OSHA claims; require
    safety and health--require safety and health record keeping;
    and allow the OOC to protect employees from retaliation for
    reporting OSHA violations.
        Mr. Ayers, I recognize that you are not the final judge of
    this, but would you have any disagreement with those
    recommendations yourself as a professional?
        Mr. Ayers. Well, I certainly can't speak to the law. I am
    not an attorney. But I can speak to, from my perspective, I
    gather all of the injury and illness records already, have done
    so for over 10 years. We present those----
        Ms. Norton. So since you gather the safety and health
    records, you don't have any problem with reporting them.
        Mr. Ayers. We briefed the Office of Compliance twice on all
    these issues.
        Ms. Norton. So this is just a question, Ms. Chrisler, of
    reporting them, just as we would know about the private
    workplace or----
        Ms. Chrisler. I am sorry, would you repeat the question,
    Madam Chair?
        Ms. Norton. You said require safety and health record
    keeping. That is OSHA record keeping? That is what the private
    sector does.
        Ms. Chrisler. That is right.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Ayers just testified that he does it
    anyway.
        Ms. Chrisler. The requirement under OSHA also is they
    provide the information on a regular basis. And that is
    something that----
        Ms. Norton. Do they report it?
        Ms. Chrisler. We have been given that information, as Mr.
    Ayers testified.
        Ms. Norton. I am sorry, the OSHA records, are they public?
    In other words, the safety and health records in a given
    private workplace, are they public? Can somebody find them out?
        Ms. Chrisler. I am not so sure about that.
        Ms. Norton. Mr.-- is it Eveleth?
        Mr. Eveleth. Eveleth, yes.
        Mr. Ayers. Madam Chair, I think I can answer that question.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Ayers, yes.
        Mr. Ayers. Anyone who has a lost-time injury anywhere is
    reported through the Department of Labor Workers Compensation
    Program. OSHA is part of the Department of Labor. They talk to
    each other. It is reported on OSHA's Web site. You can find
    mine. You can find the House of Representatives'. You can find
    them all on OSHA's Web site.
        Ms. Norton. So, Ms. Chrisler, he says you can find his
    reports already on OSHA's Web site.
        Mr. Ayers. Our injury and illness rates.
        Mr. Eveleth. If I may, there are different kinds of records
    that are required to be given to OSHA. That is to say, OSHA
    gets information as to the nature of the injury, the causes,
    and a lot of other information is required. And that
    information is given on a regular basis to OSHA. So OSHA is in
    a position then to see to it, where are these injuries
    occurring? What are the causes of these things?
        And that is what the Office of Compliance is recommending
    is the very same type of records would be provided to our
    office, which then enables us to focus upon those areas which
    are causing the most injuries or illnesses so that we can
    dedicate our resources to those areas. And that is why we are
    asking for that.
        We do manage to get workers comp stuff because that is
    published. But that doesn't tell you the kind of information
    that we think that we need. And that is why our board is
    recommending that particular measure.
        Ms. Norton. So you see the difference, Mr. Ayers, between
    what you do and what Mr. Eveleth recommends--or sorry, the
    board of directors recommends? Do you have any personal or
    professional--I realize it may not be your decision to be
    made--but any personal or professional objection to reporting
    the same way?
        Mr. Ayers. No, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. Just let me say, for the record, we were very
    sanctimonious here in the Congress when we said we were going
    to make sure that we use the same laws and rules and
    regulations here that you use in your lives, American citizens.
    So I would think that, at the very least, we ought to do that.
    And yet is it Mr. Reed who said--Mr. Reed, I was concerned,
    when you ask Congress to please review and reconsider all of
    the provisions of Federal laws.
        And then you name virtually every provision, some of which,
    most of which I thought already applied to the legislative
    branch and its various offices. Terms and conditions of
    employment, hiring, demotion, da-da da-da da-da. What does this
    mean, your list?
        Mr. Reed. My list is included--as union president, I am
    involved in very many different things, contract negotiations,
    changes in terms and conditions. Recently, for example, it is
    in my written testimony, we found out that Congress has allowed
    the Architect of the Capitol to not follow the same law of the
    normal schedule for Federal employees should be Monday through
    Friday at least 8 hours a day. That is an exemption in 5 U.S.C.
    for the Architect of the Capitol, to not follow that
    government-wide regulation that applies to just about every
    other Federal employee under the sun. And that is just one
    example. I am sure there are others. You know, those are some
    of the things that we have discovered that they do not. Not
    every law of the land applies to the employees of the Architect
    of the Capitol.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Ayers, that is a breathtaking example.
    Breathtaking. Many of my colleagues would not hesitate to take
    to the floor of the House if they discovered such an employer.
    Lo and behold that employer is us, I guess. Could I ask you
    whether there are employees of the Capitol working other than
    the normal 8 hours per day who are being paid straight time?
        Mr. Ayers. I can assure you, Madam Chair, that is not the
    case. If someone works more than 8 and a half hours a day, they
    are paid overtime. Absolutely.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Reed?
        Mr. Reed. What we are talking about is weekend work in
    particular. All right. Employees are being asked to cover
    weekends as part of their regular schedule at not overtime pay.
    And that is a direct----
        Ms. Norton. Would that mean time and half pay for weekends?
        Mr. Reed. Normally it would be.
        Ms. Norton. Well, what are they--for weekends, it is
    straight pay?
        Mr. Reed. Well, in some of the schedules that are being
    proposed for Architect employees, particularly employees at the
    Botanic Garden, we are being asked to work regular schedules
    that include Saturday, for example.
        Ms. Norton. Would that employee be working in other words a
    5-day work week, but his 5-day work week included Saturday and
    Sunday or something?
        Mr. Reed. His 5-day work week would--at present time, our
    5-day work weeks are normally Monday through Friday, all right,
    which mean Saturday becomes a time and a half day. Proposed
    schedules that are being proposed to us are saying, your
    regular schedule now will be Tuesday through Saturday, Saturday
    being a regular workday, which under the normal circumstance
    should be an overtime day.
        Ms. Norton. Well, staff informs me that the Fair Labor
    Standards Act indicates you can't work more than 8 hours on a
    given day. I am going to have to look into that. So you mean,
    if your 8 hours included Sunday, that is not considered--you
    know, there is every incentive to make the workday Wednesday
    through Sunday.
        Mr. Reed. Well, can I comment on that?
        Ms. Norton. Please.
        Mr. Reed. The Architect's policy basically allows the
    Architect to create almost any work schedule that fits their
    needs, which is, in my opinion, a direct violation of what the
    average government employee does. I mean, the law clearly
    states that employees normally--shall normally work a Monday
    through Friday work week, at least 8 hours per day. Again we
    are exempted in 5 U.S.C. from that particular provision. And
    the Architect's policy literally allows the Architect to create
    almost any work schedule that is needed to serve the Congress.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Ayers, would you like to respond?
        Mr. Ayers. Well, certainly, Madam Chair.
        As you know, we work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Our
    Visitor Center is open on Saturdays. Our Botanic Garden is open
    on the weekends. We must be able to schedule our employees to
    include regular weekend work. Every fire department, every
    police station, every visitor services operation, every
    restaurant, every employer does that. If we had to pay
    overtime--and we do pay overtime for anything that is over 8
    and a half hours a day--but if we had to pay overtime for every
    Saturday and every Sunday, we just couldn't sustain that kind
    of fee. So we stagger our employees' work schedules, fully
    compliant with the law----
        Ms. Norton. Is the staggering done on a voluntary basis?
        Mr. Ayers. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. We have
    employees at the power plant, for example, that have to work
    12-hour shifts. And they may have 3 days on, 4 days off, just
    like firefighters often do. But in order to work on weekends,
    we have to have Tuesday through Saturday shifts or Wednesday
    through Sunday shifts. We also work three shifts per day.
        Ms. Norton. You know what, I could not be more
    unsympathetic. Don't you think that throughout the private
    sector, that is also the case?
        Mr. Ayers. Absolutely.
        Ms. Norton. The reason I am not particularly sympathetic to
    management here is that the Congress really beat itself on the
    breast that it was, in fact, complying in the same ways that
    the private sector complies. So you are giving me the same kind
    of argument that is given--or at least that the private sector
    would love to give. So what I think I am going to ask staff to
    do, because they do inform me that there may be other Federal
    agencies that have Saturday shifts. The Federal Government was
    supposed to be under the same rules. It was only us in the
    Capitol who left ourselves outside.
        I am going to have to look at what--and I am not going to
    ask the OOC do this, I am going to ask my own staff to do
    this--look at what State and local governments do. Because what
    Mr. Ayers said about 3 days on and 4 days off is really a
    trade-off. That is not the very same thing when you talked
    about fire departments.
        I think the Congress is going--not any of you at this
    table--going to have to come to grips with whether it wants to
    hold itself out as living under the same laws as everybody else
    or not. Because I don't like these discoveries that make us
    look like hypocrites when, in fact, we have differences in
    something as critical to the average employee as pay and
    overtime and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
        Let me go--so I am going to take a look at that before I
    decide that Congress should look at whether any changes should
    be made. I understand the expense. Talk to the private sector
    about the expense.
        Or if the private sector talks to the Labor Department
    about the expense, they will get the Bronx cheer: So? This is a
    law that is been on the books since the 1930's for egregious,
    the worst kind of violations. It is one of the things we are
    the most proud of.
        We are told that Americans work themselves to death, by the
    way. We are told that we work longer hours here than in Europe,
    for example. If we are going to do it, we are going to get paid
    for it.
        Ms. Burger, what role, if any, did the OOC play in
    addressing the workplace safety and training issue that you
    complained of? Did the OOC have any role in that?
        Ms. Burger. Sure. To my understanding, they contacted
    several of our employees and interviewed them quite extensively
    on workplace issues, ranging from inappropriate uniforms in all
    climates, whether outside, shuttle drivers, guides hiking the
    Capitol Dome, things such as visitors assaulting staff, and
    various sundry other things.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Ayers, is there a new director of the
    Capitol Visitor Center?
        Mr. Ayers. We have an interim director in place, Madam
    Chair.
        Ms. Norton. When will there be a new director?
        Mr. Ayers. We expect to begin the recruitment process the
    month of October. That process will easily take 3 to 6 months
    to find someone.
        Ms. Norton. You haven't even begun it yet?
        Mr. Ayers. No, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. Why not? Last director left some time ago,
    several months ago, didn't she?
        Mr. Ayers. Yes. So we are working on making some
    adjustments to the position description and the advertising
    process to be sure we get the right person.
        Ms. Norton. That is a good thing to do, yes. What are the
    processes for resolving the complaints of the kind that our
    Capitol Visitor Center employees or guides brought? What
    processes are in a place for resolving those?
        Mr. Ayers. I think, most importantly, Madam Chair, the key
    to resolving any dispute, whether it is a workplace dispute or
    any other kind of dispute, is just good, frank, open
    communication between employee and supervisor. And there is no
    doubt in my mind that that kind of open and frank communication
    is taking place now in the Capitol Visitor Center and will
    continue to take place in the Capitol Visitor Center.
        And, I think, Ms. Burger had mentioned that she has seen
    some improvements in that arena, and that people are respectful
    of one another and taking care of problems. I think it is,
    quite frankly, as simple as that.
        Ms. Norton. Well, Ms. Burger, is it as simple as that? Does
    open communication work to resolve the kind of complaints that
    you brought to me and others?
        Ms. Burger. I think it will definitely take a culture
    shift.
        Ms. Norton. Where did this culture come from? We didn't
    hear these complaints before. You had guides for a long time.
    We didn't hear that you had the wrong clothes outdoors and
    indoors. Is that the first time that occurred was when they got
    to be the Visitor Center, or were you not outdoors before? How
    come these things popped up all of a sudden?
        Ms. Burger. Maybe improper planning. That might be one
    observation.
        Ms. Norton. Did you have the proper uniforms before?
        Ms. Burger. Oh, yes, to answer your first question, yes,
    yes, we did work outside. We had a handful of outdoor posts
    that we were required to work in rain, sleet, sun or snow.
        Ms. Norton. So all of a sudden, you couldn't wear the same
    kinds of uniforms you wore before?
        Ms. Burger. That is correct. The tour guides who were under
    the Senate, and then when we moved to the AOC, we were told to
    turn in our winter coats----
        Ms. Norton. Were they winter coats that were uniform coats?
        Ms. Burger. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. Why?
        Ms. Burger. That is a good question.
        Ms. Norton. Didn't someone ask, why, it is cold out here?
    And surely, if you asked that question, somebody will respond.
        Ms. Burger. I know that visitors assistants who now work
    outside are given a very light windbreaker. And I know that
    they are allowed to wear layers of clothing under it. But these
    windbreakers, they are not waterproof. They are also not warm
    at all.
        Ms. Norton. So now what do they wear? This complaint has
    been resolved, has it not?
        Ms. Burger. No.
        Ms. Norton. Why hasn't this complaint been resolved, Mr.
    Ayers? It is going to get cold again soon.
        Mr. Ayers. I believe that employees that work outside are
    issued winter parkas. I am not familiar with anyone that works
    outside that doesn't have a winter parka.
        Ms. Norton. Ms. Burger?
        Mr. Ayers. I do recognize, Madam Chair, if I could, that
    the uniforms that were provided, in my opinion, were not of
    good quality. So we have fixed that problem. We have engaged
    employees and asked them what are the new uniform pieces and
    garments and things that you need to be successful in your job?
    We have listened to them. We have completely revamped the
    uniform program. And we are in the process today of delivering
    those new uniforms to employees.
        Ms. Norton. You are going to have brand new warm uniforms,
    Ms. Burger. Is that your understanding?
        Ms. Burger. We do not have brand new warm uniforms. We have
    been in the CVC for 2 and half years. And of course, last
    winter going through one of the biggest winters that we have
    had in decades, if not almost a century, and I know that----
        Ms. Norton. But no, Mr. Ayers would have to concede that
    there was a problem then. But he says that he has engaged you
    for new warm uniforms coming. I take it coming.
        Mr. Ayers. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. Coming. Are you aware of that?
        Ms. Burger. We have been told that we will get--the
    visitors assistants will get outdoor gear. I believe this
    outdoor gear, is it rainproof? Is it waterproof? I am not sure
    that it is.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Ayers, is it waterproof?
        Mr. Ayers. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. Well, you just said there was good open
    communication. And I have had to set up a dialogue to make sure
    this matter was understood with Ms. Burger here.
         Perhaps there needs to be more communication with the
    Architect himself. I do wish there would be communication. That
    was shocking to hear. I wish there would be communication on
    this issue. And I wish you would report to us within 2 weeks on
    what the uniforms are and what the rules are with respect to
    uniforms in cold weather and in warm weather, and what the
    requirements are with respect to--this is 14 days--with respect
    to water. Is it your view that water can now be taken with a
    guide outdoors, for example?
        Ms. Burger. Yes. Since we have announced that we have been
    organizing in June 2010, which was also around the confirmation
    time of Mr. Ayers, we have been allowed to take water outside.
    Never before that. Water fountains are not----
        Ms. Norton. You were told specifically? Was there written a
    directive, no water with you on the outside on those 97-degree
    days or whatever we had?
        Ms. Burger. Upper management specifically told us we were
    not allowed to take water outside before June 2010. And we
    would be written up if so, if we were spotted. Now, that
    doesn't mean visitors assistants didn't sneak water outside for
    good reason. But that was the case. Additionally, water
    fountains are not accessible to all posts. We have a post, it
    is called shuttle. There are three shuttles that drive around
    the Capitol main complex. And anyway, they are outside all day
    typically. Some shifts aren't. But there are many that are.
        Visitor assistants also--let's see, they have to leave
    their post to refill their water. I know that the Capitol
    Police, you know, for example, they have coolers of water that
    they are allowed to--you know, they don't have to leave their
    post to go refill their water bottle.
        And I think it would be best for our image and also the
    image of the CVC if we also didn't have to leave our post to go
    fill our water bottle.
        Ms. Norton. You agree, Mr. Ayers?
        Mr. Ayers. I agree completely.
        Ms. Norton. That was pretty Draconian.
        Mr. Ayers. Inexplicable, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Norton. Yes, sir. One of the most disturbing of the
    allegations was the instruction to flush anthrax. Have you
    engaged, in fact, finding with respect to these allegations?
        Mr. Ayers. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. What were your findings?
        Mr. Ayers. Well, we found that no one was directed to flush
    the bag of powder. But an employee--a supervisor, quite
    frankly, took matters into his own hands and did, as you say,
    actually picked up a bag and flushed it down the toilet. And I
    think that, too, Madam Chair, is inexplicable.
        But I think it is an important wake-up call for me, I think
    most importantly, because we do so much training and so much
    training on this issue specifically, that when someone gets
    under a tense situation and they don't follow their training
    tells me that that training may not be as effective as we want.
        Ms. Norton. Well, first of all, do you think it was a
    question of training, Ms. Burger?
        Of course, this would have been management training. Didn't
    we understand this was a management employee?
        Mr. Ayers. This was a supervisor, and clearly had been
    trained not to do that. The process of what to do when you find
    a suspicious package, this employee was trained specifically on
    that; did not follow his training and obviously is being held
    accountable for that.
        Ms. Norton. Is there going to be a written report with
    respect to the allegations made by the CVC employees, some of
    them rather serious?
        Mr. Eveleth. May I answer that?
        Ms. Norton. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Eveleth. As you know, your question initially was
    initially was, is there an avenue for employees to have these
    kinds of questions be addressed. And yes, under the
    Congressional Accountability Act, through the OSHA provisions,
    the employees have come to our office on all these issues that
    have been outlined here today. We have conducted an
    investigation. We are still in that process. We have brought in
    an occupational doctor to advise us. We have interviewed
    employees. We have interviewed management. And so we will be
    issuing--when those investigations are completed, which I hope
    will not be too far in the distant future--in the near future,
    we will issue a report.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
        Yes, that was very important for you to say. So I take it,
    Ms. Burger, that your members have been in touch with the AOC,
    which is the appropriate body?
        Ms. Burger. I am sorry, what was it? Could you repeat the
    question?
        Ms. Norton. With respect to the allegations brought to my
    attention and the attention of other Members of Congress, I
    assume that your members have been in touch with the AOC--I
    mean, the OOC?
        Ms. Burger. Oh, yes, very much so.
        Ms. Norton. Now, one of the most serious allegations, and I
    would like anyone who has any information on this, was that
    employees were instructed or told that they should not be in
    touch with their Member of Congress. So, please, any of you who
    has any information or opinion on that, would you please speak
    up?
        Mr. Ayers. I am happy to start that, Madam Chair. You know,
    from my perspective, employees are always welcome to speak to
    their Member of Congress.
        But I also think it is important for employees and
    management to work together collaboratively to communicate with
    one another, to respect one another. And if an employee has an
    issue or has a suggestion or has a comment, I think the first
    line of defense is to bring that to your supervisor and bring
    that to your manager, bring it to me.
        It is interesting that while Ms. Burger is a new union
    representative, Mr. Reed and I have met quarterly for quite
    some time. Because it is important to me to stay close and stay
    in contact with what is going on with the many unions that
    represent our employees. And he and I----
        Ms. Norton. Well, I couldn't agree with you more. Although,
    of course, I have got--I couldn't agree with you more. And if
    someone, let us say from the District of Columbia, and there
    are employees who work in the AOC, came to me with a complaint,
    the first thing I would ask them is, have you in fact reported
    this to the appropriate authority?
        But that wasn't my question. I wouldn't say to that
    constituent, who do you think you are coming to your
    Congresswoman to let her know about this? First of all, it may
    be an employee who doesn't know who the employee should go to.
        So, as a Member, I am interested in whether or not the very
    admirable policy of making sure people report in their own
    workplace is seen as at odds with speaking to your own Member
    of Congress.
        Mr. Reed?
        Mr. Reed. I would like to comment on that particular
    statement. AFSCME Local 626 has basically only been in
    existence 10 years. We have a group of employees that have been
    here for longer than that. And during my 21-year career here,
    it was not uncommon for employees to go to their
    Congresspersons for help in employment matters.
        And in a lot of cases, Congresspeople have gotten involved
    in helping employees. It happens today.
        I know we tell employees to go to the union first, but a
    lot of times, they don't come to the union first. That is not
    their first avenue.
        A lot of employees will take the direct approach,
    especially the employees, Madam Chair, that work for you all.
    All right. They feel some bond. If they clean your office or if
    they work in your office, they feel some bond there.
        And in a lot of cases, we don't hear about it until after
    they have already come to you or another Member asking for
    their assistance.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Ayers, has the AOC given the impression
    that the employee should go to you first and not speak to the
    Member first?
        Mr. Ayers. Certainly not, Madam Chair. That should not be
    the case. That is not my intention. That is not my management
    style. And that is not what should be projected throughout this
    organization.
        Ms. Norton. Let me just say this for the record: It is
    impossible for employees who see their Member of Congress every
    day to forbear and not want to speak to them. People come to
    see or call their Member of Congress about every conceivable
    employer. And all we do, because we don't know the other side,
    is we make what we call an inquiry.
        Now, we would be very, very concerned if there were any
    notion of retaliation for speaking to your Member. You heard
    Mr. Reed's testimony. I think it is almost the natural thing to
    do, to think, oh, my goodness, I know this Member. It could be,
    in this case, from the region. That is I don't know how many
    Members in this region, but that could be upwards of 25
    different people, and maybe more if you include the Senate.
        No, it does no harm to what you desire to have the inquiry
    made. Members are very sophisticated. They are not going to
    make a judgment based on the report of a single employee. They
    are going to ask a question. So it would be very, very
    important to the Subcommittee that no impression be left about
    what you are supposed to do. You can go to Mr. Reed. For that
    matter, you can go to the AOC.
        Isn't that true, Ms. Chrisler?
        Couldn't they go to the AOC without coming to you, Mr.
    Reed?
        Mr. Reed. Absolutely. And that is the case. Like I said,
    there are a lot of employees that do not come to the union
    first. We do find out about it after they go to the Office of
    Compliance.
        Ms. Norton. Don't choose a remedy--if you have, for
    example, a complaint, let's say a discrimination, Mr. Reed may
    be able to settle that. But the law is real clear that an
    employment discrimination case can go straight to the arbiter
    of employment discrimination cases. You don't have to give him
    the opportunity. And Mr. Ayers would love the opportunity and
    is going to be given the opportunity, because the Member is not
    going to prejudge the case.
        No Member of this Congress would ever prejudge. They would
    simply pass on the concern.
        And I have no doubt, Mr. Ayers, that if we pass it on to
    you that it would be treated with fairness. I would ask that
    you make it clear to the employees of the AOC that an employee
    who happens to speak with his Member should be treated no
    differently because he has a First Amendment right to speak to
    his Member just like anybody else does.
        I wanted to ask you about the Blue Ribbon Panel, which you
    noted in your--I am sorry, the Blue Ribbon Panel was in Ms.
    Chrisler's testimony--was it in Ms. Chrisler's testimony--which
    issued its final report already. What are your initial thoughts
    on its recommendations? Is it public, by the way?
        Ms. Chrisler. Madam Chair, we are still reviewing the
    report.
        Ms. Norton. Are you going to make it public?
        Ms. Chrisler. The report is not ours to make public. I
    don't know if it is a public report or not.
        Ms. Norton. Whose is it? Who appointed the Blue Ribbon
    Panel?
        Ms. Chrisler. The Senate Rules Committee.
        Ms. Norton. I see. So do you have any initial thoughts on--
    since we are having a hearing and some of the most egregious
    problems were in the Senate, do you have any initial thoughts
    on that?
        Ms. Chrisler. We are actually still in the midst of
    reviewing the report from the panel.
        Ms. Norton. Ms. Burger, you mentioned the signage. I would
    tell you, when I go to the Capitol Visitor Center I need a
    guide. We just had a hearing over there today, CVC, House CVC,
    Room 210. I know it is us. But since you mentioned that the
    signage of the new CVC is problematic, maybe it is not just us.
    Could I ask you what you mean by problematic and whether you
    have any suggestions as to what might be done in that new
    mammoth building? I believe it is three times the size of the
    Capitol.
        Ms. Burger. Sure. It is a beautiful building.
        You know, we enjoy answering folks' questions and helping
    them out if they need directions, whether it is a member of
    congressional staff, a Member, a visitor.
        One area that we see some concern is that there is an area
    of the Capitol--it is right after the visitors leave the
    theaters; it is right where the escalators take visitors into
    the Capitol, guide takes them into the Capitol--there is no
    signage. When there is not a police officer there, sometimes at
    the end of the day, it is very easy for visitors to wander in
    that direction. There are also a couple other places in the
    Capitol that could use some signage simply stating, you know,
    Do Not Enter. You know, These are private corridors; Members
    only, things like that.
        Ms. Norton. Yeah, I think, Mr. Ayers, that the signage
    would--it is true if you can get to a certain place, there
    would be a big sign. I think that the CVC would benefit from
    having interim, maybe movable signs somewhere along the way,
    ``you are headed toward.'' You have got to pretty much get
    pretty close to know where you are going. And such a large
    building, it becomes very difficult. I was in the Ronald Reagan
    Building today. That is another mammoth building. You have to
    keep asking which way you are going. And there are not always
    people there. I just ask anybody who looks like he doesn't have
    a coat on. Maybe he lives here. But I did note that there were
    more signs along the way in the Ronald Reagan Building. And I
    am now speaking as a person who is giving only the impression
    of one person. But it seems to me that now that we have--what
    is it, more than a year--let me see, this wonderful center,
    which is a great favorite of mine, is what, is it 2 years old
    now?
        Mr. Ayers. About a year-and-a-half, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Norton. It would be good to do a survey of people
    coming and going from the CVC. Do we have such a survey? Do you
    have suggestions as to how we could make your visit more
    beneficial? And list a bunch of things that people could just
    cross off that might be helpful now that we have this new
    center, and it has been up for enough time to perhaps gather
    some information. And I would ask you to consider that and to
    consider making such a survey available to Members as well so
    that they may offer suggestions. Are Members' offices included
    in your work, Mr. Ayers, in terms of the rules, the
    regulations, the requirements? Members' individual offices?
        Mr. Ayers. To some degree, yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. But not to every degree? What would be the
    difference between the requirements for safety and fire
    prevention in a Member's office and let us say other offices?
        Mr. Ayers. There wouldn't be any difference.
        Ms. Norton. Well, I want to thank each and every one of you
    for what has really been enlightening testimony for me. We very
    much appreciate that many of the problems that had been
    documented in the OOC report appear to be being worked out in
    just the best way, with the kind of communication Mr. Ayers has
    so marketed here today, just the kind of communication that he
    and OOC says has brought the kind of results we were after.
        We are pleased that Ms. Burger is working closely with you,
    Mr. Ayers. I believe that when workers are represented, there
    will be a vehicle, a natural vehicle for that kind of
    communication that, Mr. Ayers, you say you desire. Because that
    is what happens when there is somebody who is represented, who
    represents the workers, who can bring the matter straight to
    the attention. The worker doesn't have to one by one wonder how
    management will receive an issue.
        So I am pleased to see that the workers have found a way
    through their own organization to relate to the issues. This
    doesn't keep them from coming to a Member of Congress or from
    approaching Mr. Ayers on their own, just as Mr. Reed says
    occurs in his own years of work as a member of the union. Thank
    you very much. The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8490.041