[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 2018
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
KEVIN YODER, Kansas, Chairman
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada TIM RYAN, Ohio
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Frelinghuysen, as chairman of the
full committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Elizabeth C. Dawson, Clerk
Jennifer Panone, Professional Staff
Tim Monahan, Professional Staff
__________
PART 2
FISCAL YEAR 2018 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-276 WASHINGTON : 2017
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky \1\ NITA M. LOWEY, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
KEN CALVERT, California LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BARBARA LEE, California
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
TOM GRAVES, Georgia TIM RYAN, Ohio
KEVIN YODER, Kansas C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington DEREK KILMER, Washington
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. VALADAO, California GRACE MENG, New York
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada PETE AGUILAR, California
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia
----------
\1\ Chairman Emeritus
Nancy Fox, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Testimony
Page
House of Representatives......................................... 105
Architect of the Capitol......................................... 209
U.S. Capitol Police.............................................. 235
Library of Congress.............................................. 283
Prepared Statements
Government Publishing Office..................................... 329
Congressional Budget Office...................................... 341
Government Accountability Office................................. 345
Open World Leadership Center..................................... 369
Office of Compliance............................................. 373
(iii)
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2018
----------
TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND
ORGANIZATIONS
----------
Wednesday, May 3, 2017.
TOM LANTOS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
WITNESSES
HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
MASSACHUSETTS
HON. RANDY HULTGREN, A REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Mr. Yoder. Good morning, everyone. I call the hearing to
order. It is my honor to chair this hearing. This is our first
official hearing, so this is a big deal. And we are glad to
have the Congressman from Massachusetts with us this morning.
I would like to thank Ranking Member Ryan for his service
on the committee and the rest of the subcommittee members for
all their work to help put together the Legislative
Appropriations Subcommittee bill. We will be working on that
over the next few months, and this is the beginning of our
hearings.
This morning is an open hearing, where we have asked if
Members and other outside groups to testify on an issue under
our jurisdiction. So we are kind of kicking things off with
this broad, open hearing, and then we will move into specific
hearings on specific Legislative Branch agency budget requests
over the coming weeks.
So, although we receive testimony for the record from
Members of Congress and other outside individuals each year,
this subcommittee has not had outside witnesses since 2010, so
we felt it was important to hear from witnesses in this open
hearing on the front end of our 2018 process. We look forward
to hearing the testimony today and hope to incorporate the
witnesses' comments and concerns into our end product.
The first hearing this morning, we will hear from
Congressman James McGovern and Congressman Randy Hultgren.
Congressman McGovern is from Massachusetts; Mr. Hultgren is
from Illinois.
We will also hear from Joshua Tauberer, President of Civic
Impulse, LLC; Kevin Kosar, Vice President of the R Street
Institute; Daniel Schuman, Policy Director of Demand Progress;
and Keith Kupferschmid, Chief Executive Officer, Copyright
Alliance.
In a moment, we will begin with the joint testimony from
Congressman McGovern and Congressman Hultgren.
I would first ask that each of the individuals testifying
in front of the subcommittee limit your opening remarks to 5
minutes. Your complete statements will be entered into the
record, without objection.
I would like to yield to Ranking Member Ryan for any
opening remarks he would like to make.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first associate
myself with your remarks and let you know how excited I am for
us to kick off this committee. This is our first hearing of the
fiscal 2018 appropriations process, and I am grateful for the
privilege to be here with you, work in a bipartisan way to make
some good things happen.
While this subcommittee may not appropriate the most money,
the agencies and offices in our jurisdiction are among the most
essential to the operation of our, small ``D,'' democracy and
our, small ``D,'' democratic system. That is why these
decisions we make, as we write the 2018 legislative branch
bill, matter to all of us.
Today, we are going to hear testimony about the proper role
of the Congressional Research Service, an in-house think tank
whose nonpartisan experts help ensure we are making informed
decisions as we write the Nation's laws. And I know we all
utilize CRS a lot.
And we will hear about the activities of a congressional
commission on human rights that serves as a resource for
Members of Congress making foreign policy decisions in a world
where not everyone shares our values.
We will also be joined by a representative of the creative
community, whose intellectual property is a critical part of
what drives our economy. He will have the opportunity to weigh
in on the operation of the Copyright Office from the
perspectives of artists, software developers, authors, and
other creators.
And as we are all witnessing with the fiscal year 2017
omnibus appropriations bill on the House floor today, making
decisions about how to spend taxpayer money, on how to give the
people who elected us the most bang for their buck isn't always
easy. The more information we have to work with, the better our
product will be. And so I thank all of our witnesses for
joining us and sharing your thoughts on how money should and
shouldn't be spent in the legislative branch of government.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. I appreciate your opening
comments.
We are now going to call upon the Honorable James P.
McGovern from Massachusetts for his 5 minutes of comments.
Sir, you are recognized.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you very much, Chairman Yoder, Ranking
Member Ryan. I am here today in my capacity as the Democratic
co-chair of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.
My colleague here, Randy Hultgren, the Republican co-chair,
I think hopes to be here. He is in a markup. He may show up,
but, if not, he told me that I speak for him.
Mr. Yoder. Okay. On all matters.
Mr. McGovern. So let me begin by thanking you for giving us
this opportunity to testify, and we deeply appreciate the
courtesy.
We are here to request that language be added to the fiscal
year 2018 legislative branch appropriations bill to provide
$230,000 for salaries and expenses for professional staff for
the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, an official, bipartisan
body of the House of the Representatives.
We know that this request is unusual, but our situation is
unusual. Although the Commission was established with the
unanimous support of the House in 2008 and has been renewed by
every Congress since then, no funds have been specifically
designated or appropriated for the Commission's operation.
And here is the background. The Commission has its origins
in the bipartisan Congressional Human Rights Caucus, founded in
1983 by John Porter, a Republican from Illinois, and Tom
Lantos, a Democrat from California, the only Holocaust survivor
to serve in the United States Congress.
It was after the death of Tom Lantos that the initiative
was taken to institutionalize the unique bipartisan entity in
the House of Representatives focused on human rights and to
name it in his honor.
The Commission has a broad global mandate to educate and
advise Members and staff and to promote international human
rights in a nonpartisan manner.
In carrying out its mandate, the Commission is authorized
to use the resources of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. We
would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation
to the Foreign Affairs Committee for funding administrative
expenses for the Commission, including office space, supplies,
computers, and the cost of video recording and transcription of
hearings. These resources are valuable and very important to
the Commission's success.
But what is missing is funding for professional staff. The
establishment resolution provided that professional staff
members, nominated by the co-chairs, would be appointed by the
chairman of Foreign Affairs. To ensure that Commission staff
would not burden the committee nor interfere with the
committee's own staffing needs, the resolution specified that
full-time staff appointed for the Commission would not be
counted in determining the total number of professional staff
members the committee may hire under House rules.
But, as I mentioned before, no funds were specifically
designated or appropriated for the Commission at the time of
its creation, and no funding for staff assigned full-time to
the Commission was allocated in the 113th or 114th Congresses.
So this is why we are asking for $230,000 to be designated
for professional staffing expenses for the Commission in the
fiscal year 2018 legislative branch appropriations bill.
Now, we see a couple of ways in which our request could be
accomplished. One would be to support the Commission through
the reserve fund that is included in the appropriations bill,
with the expectation that funding for the Commission would be
regularized in the following year. Another option would be to
insert a new provision in the legislative branch appropriations
bill similar to what is done with the John C. Stennis Center
for Public Service Training and Development.
One question that you might have is, why not pursue this
request through the Committee on House Administration and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs? This is a reasonable question
that we would answer in two ways. First, we believe that
funding for the Commission should not come at the expense of
the standing committees. The Commission deserves funding, but
we are not seeking to harm other committees in the process.
Second, Mr. Royce, as chairman of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, has previously expressed his view that the
Commission should be funded independently by the committee.
Mr. Chairman, since the 1970s, the Congress has lent
support for fundamental human rights and fundamental human
freedoms as a core part of our U.S. foreign policy. As we look
around the world today, the need for a strong congressional
voice in human rights is greater than ever.
During the last Congress, the Commission held 22 hearings
and over 40 briefings on topics ranging from religious freedom
to the protection of civilians in Syria. In the absence of
dedicated funding for professional staff, the Commission did
this work and served its bipartisan membership through a
rotating patchwork of temporary fellows and volunteers.
The modest request we are making today would allow each co-
chair to hire dedicated full-time professional personnel to
reinforce the Commission's expertise and further amplify
Congress' important voice on human rights and foreign policy.
So, anyway, I thank you for your attention to our
bipartisan request and would be willing to answer any questions
or hear any comments.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Yoder. Jim, thanks for your testimony this morning. We
appreciate your comments. And I think it is a very intriguing
proposal you have brought before us.
Twenty-two hearings, that is a lot, you guys have been
pretty active on the committee. Can you tell the committee some
of what those hearings have generated, what some of the goals
are, what you hope to achieve through the Commission?
Mr. McGovern. Part of what we hope to achieve is a greater
awareness and understanding of the importance of human rights
in our foreign policy. And we are not a legislative committee,
we don't report on legislation, but the Commission has been
responsible for inspiring legislative initiatives, such as the
Magnitsky Act and the Global Magnitsky Act. Basically, it was
formulated to put sanctions on human rights violators in
Russia, and it has now been expanded worldwide.
But it is also to give a forum to human rights defenders
from around the world, who, quite frankly, with the added
attention, oftentimes it means that their lives are spared,
that they can actually operate as human rights defenders in
countries and not have to worry as much about being jailed or
imprisoned.
We have done hearings on religious freedom, and on the
situation in Syria. We have done hearings on challenges to
indigenous communities around the world, Sudan, China, Russia,
you name it. Unfortunately, there is not a shortage of human
rights crises in the world.
But I would like to also add for the record a letter signed
by a number of human rights organizations and advocates,
ranging from Freedom House to Amnesty International to Jewish
World Watch, who have all supported our request and think that
it would be helpful to have permanent professional staff that
is dedicated to this, that can develop the institutional memory
that can serve not just those of us in this Congress but
Congresses in the future.
Mr. Yoder. Without objection, we will add that to the
record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Yoder. Assuming we can find the resources to support
the committee's work in addition to the resources that Foreign
Affairs Committee has utilized vis-a-vis new dollars that we
would be expending, what are the technical changes that need to
occur to allow this to happen? Is there authorizing legislation
that needs to pass? House rules that need to change?
Is it already authorized?
Mr. McGovern. It is already part of the rules package we
pass every year. Our hope would be that, the funding would be
appropriated and the Foreign Affairs Committee could then
administer the funds.
Mr. Yoder. So you think this committee could solely do the
work that needs to be done to allow this to occur.
Mr. McGovern. Yes.
Mr. Yoder. And you are under the Foreign Affairs umbrella
right now. I suppose they are supportive of this.
Mr. McGovern. Right. I think they would not want the
funding for these positions to come out of their current
allocation. They have a full plate.
Mr. Yoder. Right.
Mr. McGovern. We have established this commission, it has
been bipartisan, it has worked. We had 113--how many Members in
the last Congress?--103 Members of the House were members of
the Commission last Congress. We continue to solicit new
membership in this Congress.
And I should tell you too that I serve on the Rules
Committee; I am on the Agriculture Committee too. What amazes
me about the hearings by the Commission is that they are always
well attended, not only by members, but, we fill the room. So
there is great interest by staff and by advocates who care
about human rights. And I think it has been a net positive to
the work that we do here.
Mr. Yoder. Okay. Great.
Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. I don't have any questions.
Mr. Yoder. Mr. Moolenaar.
Mr. Moolenaar. No.
Mr. Yoder. Okay.
Thank you. Anything to add?
Mr. McGovern. I submitted this letter for the record. If
there are any other questions, just get ahold of us.
Mr. Yoder. Jim, we appreciate your testimony today.
Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
Mr. Yoder. And my staff will look forward to working with
you on this proposal.
Mr. McGovern. Thanks very much.
Mr. Yoder. Thanks. We appreciate you being here.
---------- --
--------
PUBLIC ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION
WITNESSES
JOSHUA TAUBERER, PH.D., PRESIDENT, CIVIC IMPULSE, LLC
DANIEL SCHUMAN, POLICY DIRECTOR, DEMAND PROGRESS
KEVIN KOSAR, VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY, R STREET INSTITUTE
Mr. Yoder. Okay, committee, we are now going to turn our
attention to a second subject this morning. And I think we have
three folks that would all like to testify regarding the same
subject, so our intention is to bring all three folks up. So
that would be Mr. Tauberer, Kosar, and Schuman.
Again, gentlemen, welcome to the committee. We appreciate
your appearance this morning. I know it is a very important
subject regarding transparency in government that you would
like to testify to the committee about this morning, and so
each of you will be recognized for 5 minutes. You certainly
don't need to use all of that time, but ideally you would all
testify, and then we could ask questions of any of you or all
of you.
So I will start with Mr. Tauberer.
Welcome to the committee, and please begin.
Mr. Tauberer. Thank you for having me here today. My name
is Joshua Tauberer. I am the founder and president of Civic
Impulse, LLC, which is the company behind the website
govtrack.us.
Each year, around 10 million individuals use our free tools
to research and track legislation in the United States
Congress. Our users include journalists, legislative affairs
professionals, and small businesses, Federal and State
agencies, legislative staff here on the Hill, advocates,
teachers, students, and, of course, members of the general
public. And my testimony today on supporting public access to
legislative information is really on their behalf.
I would like to begin by commending the subcommittee for
its support of important programs in the last several years
that have allowed us to bring more accurate and timely
information to our users. And I will mention some of those
programs, and the rest will be in my written testimony.
The House of Representatives Bulk Data Task Force was
formed 5 years ago as a joint effort of the Government
Publishing Office, the Library of Congress, and the Clerk of
the House to create a database of all legislation before
Congress that could be shared in bulk with internal and
external stakeholders. You can think of it like a spreadsheet
of bills before Congress with hundreds of columns about dates
of floor votes and so on. And that spreadsheet, remarkably,
didn't exist beforehand.
The task force's goal was ambitious, and last year the task
force delivered. The new data has allowed us to disseminate the
most accurate information yet about the status of pending
legislation before Congress using official data published
through modern means.
The launch of congress.gov by the Library of Congress
several years ago and its continual improvement since its
launch, using what is called agile methodology, is an example
for the whole legislative branch in how to get the most out of
a modern information technology investment. Congress.gov has
greatly improved search results compared to the old thomas.gov.
And it won't be long now before congress.gov surpasses the
functionality of my own organization's website, and I look
forward to that day.
Lastly, the House Administration Committee's Legislative
Data and Transparency Conference, which takes place each summer
here in the Capitol Building, is a unique opportunity for
outside stakeholders like GovTrack, my organization, and inside
stakeholders like the Clerk to learn about each other, which
makes all of our efforts to keep the public informed most
effective.
I also want to take a moment to commend the staff at the
House offices and legislative branch agencies that I named who
have done remarkable work in producing accurate, durable, and
timely information within the constraints that an institution
like the House of Representatives requires.
The subcommittee's support for these programs which provide
public access to legislative information ensures that accurate
information reaches the American public. And my users love that
information. They want to know what is going on by reading the
bills, checking the votes, maybe watching some hearings like
this one.
But let me be clear: It is not about playing gotcha. Our
users are professionals who have a job to do, including your
staff who use our website. Our users are also regular
Americans, who feel they also have a job to do, which is to
vote in elections, to stay informed, and to learn what it takes
to sit on your side of the table as a future, maybe, Member of
Congress.
My job is to take the information from Congress, the
official record, from you and bring that to the widest audience
I can and teach them how Congress really works so their
relationship with you is a meaningful one.
So, to continue the subcommittee's support, I will make the
following recommendations for the upcoming fiscal year.
One, create a public advisory committee on legislative
transparency for stakeholders both on the outside and on the
inside to engage systematically on this issue, including but
not limited to access to data.
Two, make the Bulk Data Task Force permanent and fund the
participation of the offices and agencies that are members of
the task force.
Three, support congressional publication of other important
information, especially in a structured data format like XML,
including floor amendments, committee votes, the biographical
directory, a.k.a. BioGuide, the nonconfidential reports of the
Congressional Research Service, and other information that
furthers an open and transparent Congress.
Four, continue to support information to modernize the
House's information technology systems, especially with respect
to the work of committees and efforts to connect constituents
with their Representatives. Cultivate the legislative branch's
in-house technology talent, which already exists, as other
parts of the government are already doing, because information
technology now plays a role in everything we do--including how
to read this testimony.
And, five, increase House staff levels above their current
historic lows so that the House has sufficient capacity for
policy analysis, oversight, and constituent services. Direct
the Congressional Research Service to report on how staffing
levels impact the House's capacity to function, and make that
report public.
I would be glad to discuss these topics further and tell
you more about how the work of the House on public access to
legislative information translates into a stronger democracy.
Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak today.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Yoder. Thank you for your testimony this morning.
Mr. Schuman.
Mr. Schuman. Thank you so much.
Chairman Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan, Congressman, thank you
so much for having us come and speak to you today. It is, you
know, great that you are having open testimony. As you know,
this is the first time in 6 or 7 years since 2011. I was here
the last time around. I have gotten older; I now have to wear
glasses. But we are glad to be back.
And, Dr. Tauberer, is too modest. His website has 800,000
looking at it on a monthly basis, and he is responsible for
literally millions of people having access to information to
what Congress does.
Mr. Tauberer. Thank you.
Mr. Schuman. So it is really phenomenal work, and what he
has done with other folks.
So I am here on behalf of Demand Progress, but I am
actually representing 42 organizations from across the
political spectrum. And so I have sort of unusual allies. You
don't often see the American Civil Liberties Union and
Americans for Tax Reform agreeing; or CREW and Cause of Action;
my organization, Demand Progress, and Freedom Works. We have a
lot of sort of unusual allies, you know, a lot of reporters
groups, all three library associations, all in support of
public access to CRS reports.
So I used to work at CRS. Kevin is going to talk a little
bit about how 25 former CRS employees also have endorsed public
access to the reports. And unlike me, they have a combined 570
years, I think, of experience at the agency. So this has, you
know, pretty broad, bipartisan support.
And I just want to be clear what we are talking about. We
are talking about the general distribution reports that are
made available on CRS's internal website. There are 1,200 or so
new reports every year and 2,400 or so that are updated. So we
are not talking about confidential reports. We are not talking
about the 3,100 confidential memoranda. We are not talking
about the advice that they give your offices.
We are only talking about the reports that are generally
available to congressional offices and that Congress as a
routine matter makes available to the public. And Kevin will
talk about this more, but, you know, through committee reports;
Member offices, of course, release them online, as well. And
there are a number of services that make them available either
for free or at cost.
But there is a problem with the current circumstances that
we have now, which is that the most recent reports are not,
sort of, uniformly made available to the public. And you have a
number of negative consequences that come from this.
One is that, when the public looks at the report, or
journalists or lobbyists or academics, they don't necessarily
know that they have the most recent report, which means that
they don't know that they have the most recent data, so
sometimes questions that your office will get or news reports
or otherwise will rely on older information, and this is a
problem.
You also don't know whether you actually have an authentic
report, since the Congress itself published some of them, but
many of them, since there is no sort of central place for them,
you don't know if someone has tampered with it. You don't know
if there is something that is different.
And so it is important to have, sort of, access to these
things generally. And, sort of, this public mission is
something that Congress has embraced, that this committee has
embraced. Josh talked a little bit about the Bulk Data Task
Force, that you guys are making available all the bill
summaries and bill text; you are making available roll call
votes on the floor; this, of course, is being live-streamed.
There is a lot of information about the legislative process
that is made available to the public. The Law Library of
Congress publishes CRS-like reports, and, of course, you can
get GAO and CBO reports. So this is not a new thing for this
body. We are asking simply that it be a placed in the context
of CRS reports.
And I should just say, you know, maybe parenthetically,
that the House itself, as part of its 114th and 115th rules
package, has embraced the idea of expanding public access to
legislative data, access to this type of information as data;
that the Senate has had a policy since 1998 of encouraging
Members and committees to release the reports online, so this
is not exactly new.
And there was an effort in the late 1990s that was only
discontinued, I think, last year to make a service available to
Member offices where they could put the reports on their sites,
as well, that the Appropriations Committee had supported, but
since no Members actually knew that it existed, eventually I
think it was sort of discontinued.
You know, there are issues that have often raised over time
about public access to the reports. The testimony goes into all
the different questions that have been raised. I am not going
to rehash them here unless folks want to go into it. But I
should say that there is bipartisan legislation from Lance and
Quigley and Senators McCain and Leahy that address all these
concerns.
The final point that I want to make is about cost. So my
organization is one of many that republishes the reports. As of
today, we had 8,671 CRS reports on our website. It cost us
$4,000 to build the website and to make it available. And we
have made our code available online, so anybody else can do it
at basically no cost. So when we are talking about the expense
of doing this, it is not particularly hard.
And we are not just republishing them; we are redacting the
names, the email addresses, and the phone numbers from all the
staff, from all the reports. We are adding disclaimer language
around copyright. We are indicating and describing that the
reports are intended for Congress and that, as a product for
Congress, are geared towards that audience. And, we continue to
update as we receive the reports from congressional offices.
So, with that, I am happy to really talk about any of these
matters or questions that folks might have. I want to say both
to the chair and ranking member, we have had great meetings
with your offices. Your staff have been very kind to take time
to talk with us about all these things, so thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Yoder. Mr. Kosar.
Mr. Kosar. Thank you. And bless you for doing this open
hearing. I know you guys are extremely busy, so to take the
time is really great.
Thank you for permitting me to testify today. My name is
Kevin Kosar. I am the Vice President of Policy at the R Street
Institute, a free-market think tank here in Washington, D.C.
I also co-direct the Legislative Branch Capacity Working
Group, a bipartisan gathering of experts and congressional
staff who meet monthly on Capitol Hill to discuss ways to
reform Congress to meet the demands of the 21st century. Our
aim, as we like to say, is to make Congress great again.
Mr. Ryan. Are we not already great? I mean, what is the
problem?
Mr. Kosar. Well, I think so, but there is this public
opinion problem.
Mr. Ryan. I have seen those. I have seen those.
Mr. Kosar. So I am here today to encourage the committee to
make public access to CRS reports more equitable. In short,
lobbyists and others within the Beltway can get copies of CRS
reports much more easily than the average member of the public.
This is not fair, as it is the public whose tax dollars support
CRS.
So, in my limited time, I am going to make two points which
I didn't make in my written testimony. I figured I wouldn't
want to be redundant.
First, no harm can come of making the reports more
equitably available to the public.
I spent more than a decade working at CRS as an analyst
doing nonpartisan research for Congress and as an acting
research manager overseeing the work of 10 of our analysts. I
love the agency, as do the other former and retired CRS
employees who signed on to the letter. We have 570 years of
collective experience at the agency. Some of those folks
started back in the early 1970s. I only left in 2014. We are
all convinced that this is the right thing to do and that no
harm will come of it.
And the second point I would like to make is that Congress
has always made CRS reports available to the public, but it has
been in an ad hoc way, and it has become an increasingly
disorganized way.
For example, I have a copy of a 1979 CRS annual report
which lists dozens of CRS documents that were published by
Congress as public documents in the form of hearings--they were
included in the hearings--as committee prints introduced into
the congressional record. And when those are printed as those
documents, as you all know, they go out all over America, to
the Federal depository libraries and elsewhere. So Congress has
been doing this for decades. It is not as if CRS reports have
been secret.
When the internet arrived roughly 20 years ago and hit
Capitol Hill, we still had Congress releasing even more CRS
reports to the public. Committees, individual Members, various
offices within the two chambers put the reports online.
Congressional staff frequently give them out to interest
groups, constituents, lobbyists, people who ask for them, who
know to ask for them, which explains why, if you go online, you
will find thousands upon thousands of CRS reports scattered all
over the place, some on government websites, some on private
websites. They are everywhere.
So, to conclude, what I and other former CRS employees are
advocating is that Congress continue to publish the reports but
to do so more consistently. By my light, it makes sense to
have, say, GPO do it, since its job is to make authenticated
government documents accessible to the public, and GPO has
previously published CRS reports, like ``The Evolving
Congress,'' which was a very thick volume on Congress that it
published in late 2014, and over the decades it has published
CRS reports in the form of committee prints and the documents I
previously mentioned.
Nobody here is advocating that CRS's mission or fundamental
nature be changed in any way, shape, or form. Nobody is asking
CRS even to have to really lift a finger. All we are saying is
that, Congress, you have been publishing the reports; why not
publish all of them, and to do so in one central place and on a
consistent basis? And we think it would be a great service to
the public.
And, with that, thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Yoder. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony this
morning.
I think, you know, this committee remains committed to
finding ways to open up transparency and make the work of
Congress more accessible to the voters and constituents that
want to know what is happening here. And as I think Mr. Schuman
mentioned, or maybe it was Mr. Tauberer, that they want to know
the votes, the debate, they want to know what is happening,
because they want to be informed. They also want to be able to
hold their elected officials accountable.
So I think the testimony you are bringing today is
important to me. I know it is important to Mr. Ryan, as well,
and the whole committee. So we thank you for being here.
I will deal with the CRS issue maybe with my first question
for the folks. And, Josh, if you have thoughts on it, you can
jump in as well. This issue regarding CRS reports has been
kicked around for a number of years. I think the committee has
voted on it. Certainly, you mentioned, there is legislation to
do this. And I think we have heard a couple of different
objections, and maybe you could address those objections, you
know, straight on.
I think one of them has been that the widespread
dissemination of these reports might increase pressure on CRS
as groups or lobbyists try to influence the research and
analysis that comes out. So knowing the impact of this research
and knowing that a report is coming out, it could, some have
argued, lead to putting more pressure on the CRS workers
themselves, might influence their work.
And I guess as a followup to that question, would you see a
need for the CRS to establish a public inquiries office to
manage an increase in outside questions, opinions, and
influences? Or do you see this issue really as something that
is a nonissue, that wouldn't actually happen?
Mr. Kosar. Well, as we all know, the most politically
interested and active individuals are in this town, for the
most part. They are the ones who come and lobby, and they
advocate, et cetera, et cetera. So they have had access to CRS
reports for years, and I can tell you, my experience, they have
no effect on the research that CRS does.
I should also mention that it was about 5, 6 years ago that
WikiLeaks dumped something like 6,700 CRS reports. It was a big
to-do. The Washington Post ran a story. You would think that
this dump would all of a sudden have created some sort of
public pressures on CRS. I was there. Nothing happened. I was
worried. Other people who worked there were kind of like,
``Wow, what is going to happen? Are people going to start
calling us up?'' No. It didn't happen.
So I have just seen no empirical basis for this anxiety.
Especially if we redact the information so that people are not
contacting analysts directly, that would even further diminish.
But, like I said, there are tens of thousands of CRS reports
out there already with analyst contact information. My old
phone number is on reports that are floating around out there
from 5 years ago, and it has just not been a problem.
Mr. Schuman. Yeah, that is right.
I would just add, I mean, the ship has sailed. You can go
and buy reports online for 20 bucks a pop from services that
have been making them available for 15 or 20 years. So if there
were going to be people who are most interested in the contents
of the reports going to be the Members of Congress on either
side of the issue, who, of course, have great incentive to
pressure CRS if they had concerns, and it is going to be the
lobbyists. And those folks are already the ones who are in the
mix. So broader public access is not going to change those
circumstances.
And to the extent that there is a concern that people are
going to start emailing the folks at CRS, that would already
have been happening, but we can take off the email addresses
and the phone numbers. We have demonstrated that it is really
fairly easy to do that, and that would solve the problem.
The second question had to do with a public inquiries
office. So there are, sort of, two pieces here. One is that it
is not entirely accurate to say that CRS doesn't make reports
available to folks outside of CRS. If you are a journalist and
you know the report number, current CRS policy is that they
will provide the report to you. If you are in the executive
branch or in the judiciary, they often will provide it to you
if you ask for it. So, you know, they are already responding to
some sort of level of inquiries.
But that being said, there should not be a public inquiries
office. All the reports should have language on it that says
that the reports are prepared for Congress, that they are done
you could take the statutory language and sort of stick it in
there, and that would be sufficient. I don't think that if
people have questions about CRS, they should talk to their
Members, which is what they do now.
Mr. Kosar. I just wanted to add, it would make CRS's job a
lot easier dealing with the reporters who come, the interest
groups who sometimes ring up when they see a report, and
members of the public who occasionally find the agency, it
would be so much easier if all you had to do is respond, ``All
reports that CRS has published have been made available by
Congress through gpo.gov/crs,'' or something like that. It
would make their lives a lot easier.
Instead, right now, you have this kind of fish-not-fowl
sort of situation where, you know, I am sitting in my office at
CRS years ago and somebody would call up from the media and
say, ``I have a 2011 report you wrote about the Postal Service.
Is there a more recent version? I am going to write a story
about it.'' ``Uh, yes, there is a more recent version, but I
can't tell you.''
You know, people in the academic community who reach out to
CRS, experts, they can't get copies of the report, not without
an individual having to go through this baroque process of
responding, going through management and calculating the odds
of whether this could have negative consequences and if this is
in the interest of the Congress to release it.
It would make life so much easier if CRS could probably
staff down their public affairs office to one person whose job
would be to say, ``Go to gpo.gov/crs.'' That would be it.
Mr. Yoder. Okay.
Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Well, their argument is they would have to beef
up their public relations department in order to handle the
incoming calls on this issue. And you are saying, no, go to the
website.
Mr. Kosar. Uh-huh. ``It is a publicly facing website. All
reports that Congress has permitted to be available are
there.'' Hang up phone.
Mr. Ryan. What is your response with regard to the
protections that they would have through speech and debate?
Maybe their research, would that be--in your outline, would
that be protected? Would they be protected?
Mr. Schuman. So, a couple things. One is that reports that
are being released, the Senate has this longstanding policy of
encouraging Members and committees to release reports to the
public. So, you know, if there are concerns about public
availability of CRS reports and it is already a longstanding
policy to release them, making them available on a general
basis wouldn't change the circumstances.
And what we would advocate is that you would go and have
GPO publish them all. So, instead of having most of them, you
would have all of them. It is not going to change the level of
speech or debate protection, because speech or debate is really
about my advice to you. I am an attorney in the American law
division; you call me asking for legal advice, confidential
advice. I don't talk about it to anybody. Right? You can
release it if you so choose. I do not. General distribution
reports that are available to the thousands of people on
Capitol Hill, that are routinely released by Member offices to
the public, it is a different kind of issue.
And when Stan Brand, who is the former Counsel for the
House of Representatives, looked at this in 1998 when we first
started debating this issue a long time ago, he thought that
the arguments around speech or debate were not strong and that,
to the extent that there are concerns, which he didn't think
were valid, but to the extent that there were concerns, you
could simply add disclaimer language saying that, just because
we are releasing these reports, it doesn't mean that we are
waiving Speech or Debate Clause protection. You can put that
into the law.
So, to the extent that that is an issue, you can
legislatively solve it in that kind of way. That goes way
beyond what you would need to do, but if there was that
concern, that is an easy way of addressing it.
Mr. Ryan. You talked about the WikiLeaks dump. In the dump,
were the names of the Members of Congress who requested the
reports in there, or was it just the name of the analysts and
researchers?
Mr. Kosar. The only thing that appeared was the name of the
analyst who had written the report.
And I should note that the vast majority of reports that
get written by CRS are done at the analysts' instigation. When
Members request written research on a specific topic, they
typically request that it be delivered in the form of a
confidential memo--that way, they can consume it and decide
what to do with the information--or in the form of an email, or
if they want it in person, it would be delivered that way.
So there is no way--I mean, all the CRS reports that are
floating around out there, there is no indication in any of
them as to whether they were asked for by Congress or any
particular Member. There is no identifiable information
whatsoever in them.
Mr. Ryan. Go ahead.
Mr. Schuman. I was just going to say, there is a
nomenclature problem. So ``CRS reports,'' on one hand, could
refer to all of CRS's products, including the confidential
stuff, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are
only talking about the reports that are generally distributed
to all congressional offices at once.
And, as Kevin said, like, the vast majority of these
reports are done at the initiation of the employee, they are
not done in response to a request. So there is going to be no
information about who requested it, because most of the time,
nobody has requested it in the first place.
So the reports are the general distribution ones. The
memoranda are the ones that are just for, like, a particular
office. And it is the memoranda that are confidential.
CRS usually talks about them all as products, which is even
more confusing. But the easiest way to think of it is, like,
the reports are the general distribution ones and the memoranda
are the ones that are confidential advice, if that helps.
Mr. Kosar. I should add that the reports are only a very,
very small percentage of the total written products and
research load that CRS does. So, again, this is not
fundamentally changing the nature or affecting the nature of
the agency in any way, shape, or form. Certainly, nobody would
advocate making available confidential memoranda or anything
like that. It is just the reports which are already out there.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. That answers my questions. Our charge here
is to, in some ways, protect Members who are kicking around
ideas, learning. And we don't want stuff to show up on a
commercial or something that I was thinking about, not that I
was necessarily advocating, and to in any way inhibit that
process of learning and educating and trying to see both sides
of the issue. We need more than that. So I am glad you have
said what you said about----
Mr. Schuman. Yeah. And, I mean, I could speak for 42
organizations that signed on, and Kevin can talk to the 25, we
would oppose--anything that would go after the confidential
advice that helps you guys think through this process, we would
actively oppose it. We would be banging down your door, saying,
this is a bad idea. We would not in any way want that
information to be available, except in circumstances where the
Member offices themselves choose to release it, which they
sometimes do. But that should be your option. It shouldn't be
anybody else's.
Mr. Ryan. I appreciate that.
I yield back.
Mr. Yoder. I think, to Mr. Ryan's point, I think there have
just been concerns raised it would have a chilling effect, and
the Members would quit requesting research because they might
get targeted for the research they requested. So I appreciate
Tim's questions on that.
Mr. Moolenaar. I am good.
Mr. Yoder. Mr. Moolenaar is good.
Gentlemen, do you have anything else to add?
Mr. Schuman. Just thank you.
Mr. Yoder. Joshua, we didn't get a chance to ask you a
question. Let me ask you, what is your top priority? If there
is one thing we would do this Congress on the things that you
outlined, what should we focus on?
Mr. Tauberer. The next thing is floor amendments. There is
very little good data on what amendments are being considered,
what the text of those amendments are. So if you go to
congress.gov, for instance, there is not very good information
there, and it is hard for me to get that onto my website.
Mr. Yoder. Okay.
Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony today. We really
appreciate it.
Mr. Schuman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Yoder. We look forward to working with you on a number
of these issues.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks.
---------- --
--------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, COPYRIGHT OFFICE
WITNESS
KEITH KUPFERSCHMID, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COPYRIGHT ALLIANCE
Mr. Yoder. Our final witness this morning is Keith
Kupferschmid, the CEO of Copyright Alliance, who is going to
testify this morning regarding the Copyright Office, the
modernization of that.
Sir, you have 5 minutes to testify before the committee,
and then we will have some questions for you. So welcome, and
thank you.
Mr. Kupferschmid. Okay. Thank you.
Chairman Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan, Congressman Moolenaar,
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you here today
to discuss the funding and IT systems of the U.S. Copyright
Office.
I am Keith Kupferschmid. I am the CEO of the Copyright
Alliance. The Copyright Alliance is the unified voice of the
copyright community. We represent the copyright interests of
over 1.8 million individual creators as well as over 13,000
organizations across a spectrum of copyright disciplines.
The individual creators and organizations that we represent
rely on copyright law to protect their creativity, their
efforts, and their investments in the creation and distribution
of new copyrighted works for the public to enjoy.
Core copyright industries add $1.2 trillion to the U.S.
economy and employ 5.5 million American workers. The Copyright
Office plays a pivotal role in that copyright ecosystem by
registering creators' works and recording documents pertaining
to those works.
It is essential that the Copyright Office be able to
rapidly adapt to ensure that it is able to offer the tools and
resources that all the users of the office's service demand and
that Congress have a direct line of communication with the
Copyright Office so the office is answerable immediately and
directly to Members and their staff. Unfortunately, neither of
those exist today.
Many of the challenges the Copyright Office faces can be
traced back to the fact that the Copyright Office is within and
under the direction and supervision of the Library of Congress.
As a department of the Library, the office is obligated to use
the Library's IT systems. The office does not have its own IT
infrastructure. It also lacks authority over its own budget and
staffing because of its current structure.
For many years, the Copyright Office has sought to
modernize but has been unable to do so because its priorities
are subordinate to those of the Library's. If the Copyright
Office is to successfully modernize, it is essential that it be
given autonomy over its budget, over its staff, and over its IT
to carry out its mission going forward.
Greater autonomy over IT, budget, and staffing recognizes
the difference between the mission and infrastructure of the
Library and the Copyright Office while retaining the historical
connection between the Library and the office with regard to
deposit of registered works.
Greater autonomy will enable the Copyright Office to
implement a more modern, more robust copyright registration and
recordation system that will facilitate additional business
investment and entrepreneurship, leading to long-term economic
growth and cultural benefits.
In 2015, the House Committee on Appropriations directed the
Register of Copyrights to develop a detailed plan on necessary
IT upgrades, with a cost estimate, that are required for a
21st-century copyright organization. Last February, the
Copyright Office met this obligation by providing the committee
with a provisional IT plan, which provided for a lean, nimble,
results-driven, and future-focused cloud-based system that
could be implemented within 5 years at a projected cost of $165
million.
We thank the appropriators for their support of the
Copyright Office efforts to implement its own IT plan. And we
also appreciate the language in the draft explanatory language
accompanying the omnibus spending bill that states with regard
to copyright-specific IT systems and larger copyright issues,
``It is expected that the Library continue to defer to the
expertise of the Register of Copyrights.''
We also strongly support funding of the office through
increased appropriations. Appropriations are an important and
proper source for funding for modernization since the public is
the ultimate beneficiary of copyright information retained and
disseminated by the office and, by extension, of a modernized
Copyright Office.
Raising fees should be the last option. Since copyright
registration and recordation are voluntary, additional costs or
barriers will serve as a disincentive to participate in the
system. To the extent any fee increase is warranted as a means
of increasing the office's budget, that increase should be a
shared responsibility that is borne by all users of the
Copyright Office, be in conjunction with improvement in
existing services and the addition of new services, and be
invested directly into the copyright system infrastructure.
We also recommend that the Copyright Office be given the
necessary authority to build a reserve account from the user
fees it collects to help the office deal with government
shutdowns, other emergencies, and fluctuations in incoming fee
receipts.
We also support the Copyright Office having access to its
funds over multiple years through a multiyear budget cycle or a
revolving fund.
And I want to thank the subcommittee for its interest and
support in modernizing the Copyright Office, and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Yoder. Keith, thanks for your testimony this morning.
And I think we share your interest in modernizing the Copyright
Office and making it more useful for the creative artists that
are in this country that utilize its services. Probably most
Americans don't know that it is in the Library of Congress, and
I am sure that dates back to long before any of our time.
And, you know, clearly, Congress agrees in terms of the
modernization. I think there is a $10 million increase in total
budget authority in the 2017 omnibus bill that we are looking
at this week. And it increases flexibility using offsetting
receipts and prior-year funding for modernization. So, to your
point, I think we are headed in the right direction.
I guess my question for you would be, in terms of your
members and those who use the Copyright Office, why having a
separate entity would allow it to modernize quicker. You might
just kind of dive into really the crux of that issue there, you
know, having it under the Library of Congress versus having its
own entity. Why is that such a significant difference for your
members in particular?
Mr. Kupferschmid. I don't know that that is such a
significant difference.
Mr. Yoder. Okay.
Mr. Kupferschmid. We would like to see the Copyright Office
retained within the legislative branch, whether that is as an
independent agency or within the Library itself.
Mr. Yoder. Okay.
Mr. Kupferschmid. What we ultimately want to see is greater
autonomy, right? The Copyright Office needs to have autonomy
and authority over its IT systems, over its budget, and over
its staffing.
With regard to the IT system in particular, what the
Library needs in terms of an IT system is very different than
what the Copyright Office would need. The Copyright Office is
dealing with things like financial transactions, making sure
hard copies of deposits are associated with applications. It
needs more robust security, things like that that, frankly,
necessarily, aren't in the interests of the Library.
And, therefore, what we are pushing for and what the
Copyright Office needs is greater autonomy, especially with
regard to IT but also with budget and staffing.
Mr. Yoder. And could you describe for the committee how
that autonomy, in whatever form it might occur, whether it is
an autonomous entity or just more autonomous within the Library
of Congress, can you describe how that would change the
interactions between those seeking, you know, copyrights, the
artists, the folks you represent? What is the practical reality
of those autonomous changes?
Mr. Kupferschmid. I mean, so let me give an example, and
then I will talk further about your question, because I think
my example will bear this out, that modernization isn't just
helping the copyright creators and copyright owners, but it
also is in the best interests of the public, entrepreneurs, and
others, and what have you.
If you look at the Patent and Trademark Office, for
instance, they have an office just like the Copyright Office
has, where you can record transfers of ownership. So if I have
a patent and I transfer ownership in that patent to you, I can
record that at the Patent and Trademark Office. Similarly, if I
have a copyright and I want to transfer that ownership in that
copyright, I can record that at the Copyright Office as well.
Well, the Patent and Trademark Office, because it has a
very good IT system, is able to process about a half-million of
those recordations on an annual basis. And they have about 10
to 12 people, I believe it is, running that small office of
recordation. The Copyright Office, on the other hand, has about
the same amount of people--I think it is about 12 full-time
employees--but yet they are only able to process 11,000 of
those recordations. And the answer comes down to IT.
Now, what the Patent and Trademark Office is able to do
with those recordations, they are able to process them within
24 to 48 hours and have them up online for people to see, the
public to see, right? And entrepreneurs would say, hey, I want
to license this, and contact the person. The Copyright Office,
it takes them about 18 months to process and make it available.
That is a long, long lead time, okay?
So this benefits not only the individual creators, but it
would be in the best interests of, certainly, small creators
but also just the public and anyone who has an interest in
copyright and uses the copyright system, I think.
So, in terms of, why that is important, I think you ought
to also look at the Copyright Office's interface. There can be
vast improvements in the interface to make the process of
registration more simplified, more efficient, more effective.
And hopefully that will lead to perhaps more registrations.
People have shown frustration with the registration system, and
the last thing we want to do is put a roadblock or an obstacle
in front of creators who want to register a possible work with
the Copyright Office. And so I think that is what improvement
in the IT system would do.
Mr. Yoder. Okay.
Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. So just so I understand this, so you are sharing
the IT with the Library. And there are how many people in the
IT department that you----
Mr. Kupferschmid. Yeah, I don't know the answer to that. I
know that the Copyright Office is subordinate and must rely on
the IT system. I am not sure of this fact, but I do not believe
that the Copyright Office has their own IT system. I believe
they rely entirely on the Library's IT system.
Mr. Ryan. So we would have to pull out X number of IT
workers or add on a number of IT workers to help make this
happen, to give you the autonomy that you need.
Mr. Kupferschmid. Yeah, like I said, I would have to look
into that, because right now there may be some employees that
work with the Library at the Copyright Office. So I would have
to look into that and get back to you.
Mr. Ryan. So one of the issues, too, is that there is money
that is being saved, right, if you are sharing services.
Mr. Kupferschmid. Yeah.
Mr. Ryan. Is there any way to strike the balance between
the current system and giving you the autonomy you need,
knowing that we are protecting the taxpayer money, too, here--
--
Mr. Kupferschmid. Uh-huh.
Mr. Ryan [continuing]. By sharing the services?
Mr. Kupferschmid. I think there absolutely are. I mean, we
support shared services. Ultimately, though, this should fall
on the Copyright Office, and we should defer to the Copyright
Office, this expertise in assessment of where that makes sense,
where it makes sense to share services.
Let's say, for instance, in HR, that may make a lot of
sense, for it to share an IT system and share services with the
Library, but in terms of the actual, sort of, day-to-day
activities of the Copyright Office of registration and
recordation, it likely doesn't make a lot of sense.
That doesn't also mean that there shouldn't be some level
of shared services, but probably not with the Library. Maybe
there are other government agencies out there that it makes
sense to share those services with.
So we are not opposed to shared services at all. We just
think, at the end of the day, that that should be, sort of, the
Copyright Office's decision, as to whether that makes sense
and, if so, how that makes sense.
And the other thing I would be concerned about if you are
talking about shared services with the Library of Congress,
that, sort of, the Library not dictate the terms for those
shared services and not charge the Copyright Office. Because,
at the end of the day, that might be sort of a de facto
diversion of fees, right? There might be a budget set out for
the Copyright Office, but then these shared services would get
diverted. And the Copyright Office has a fiduciary duty to its
users, to those creators who pay for registrations and pay for
the services of the Copyright Office.
Mr. Ryan. How much are the registration fees?
Mr. Kupferschmid. I know the registration fees take up
about two-thirds of the Copyright Office's budget, and so I
think that is around $43 million or so. The number is here
someplace, but I think it is about $43 million or so. So about
two-thirds, maybe a little bit more, of the fees that are
generated by the Copyright Office are used for its budget.
And the hope is that, as you modernize the office, they
will be able to provide more services and be able to charge
fees for those services and be able to--while there will never
be--I don't think there will ever be a time where they can be
fully fee-funded, certainly the Copyright Office could
hopefully maybe generate more money to put back into
modernization.
Mr. Ryan. And how would that happen again? By quickly
getting things up online?
Mr. Kupferschmid. Yeah. So let me give an example. I will
go back to the example I mentioned with the PTO and the
recordation system.
The Patent and Trademark Office was able to--they had a fee
that they were charging for this recordation. They were able to
zero that out. They don't charge people to file their
recordations anymore. Well, you could still do that. If you are
at the Copyright Office and, like I said, to generate some
money, if all of a sudden you have an IT system that works and
there is an incentive for people to record those transfers,
then that makes sense.
But perhaps a better example would be if you are talking
about the ownership database. You know, the Copyright Office
has this ownership database where they collect information that
is on the registration form today. And that information is
very, very difficult to access, not only from a time
perspective, a timeline perspective, but the example, if you
were to go on to the Copyright Office website and search, for
instance, ``The Godfather,'' looking for the Mario Puzo book or
perhaps the movie, you would probably flip through about three
or four pages before you found it. You would find all these
other references. And that comes down to the IT system not
being what it should be.
So, at the end of the day, if you are able to improve the
IT system, I think what you will be able to do is perhaps
create new industries, spur the economy, create new jobs,
create more licensing opportunities. I think there is a great
opportunity here if the office is able to modernize, especially
its IT system.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yoder. Mr. Moolenaar.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. And I just wanted to follow
up a little bit more on this topic you have been discussing.
And you made the comment, fees should be the last resort. And
you talked a little bit about trademarks and patents.
Mr. Kupferschmid. Uh-huh.
Mr. Moolenaar. And what strikes me--and, you know, other
ideas come to mind, like an FDA approval of something, where
you have some new product that someone wants to protect, and it
seems that the user-fee idea would be the most reasonable for
that rather than a general appropriation. And I am just curious
as to why that is different in the case of copyright.
Mr. Kupferschmid. Yeah. I mean, that is a--thank you very
much for the question. That is a fabulous question.
It is very different because copyright owners get rights or
creators get rights in their creations the moment that work is
created and fixed in a tangible medium. That is different than
patents and different than trademarks.
In patents, for instance, you can invent something, but you
have no rights unless you go to the Patent and Trademark
Office, you apply for, and you receive a patent.
With copyrights, you do not need to register, and you still
have rights. There are certain benefits to registration, but
you still get rights in your creation if you don't register.
And that is an international obligation. So pretty much the
rest of the world abides by those same rules that don't require
registration.
Mr. Moolenaar. And where were those rights established? I
mean, where did that become that unique right for copyrights?
Mr. Kupferschmid. I mean, that is going back to the 1976
act and, more significantly, like you said, the Berne
Convention, which is an international convention--I think it is
about over 200 countries--that basically said you cannot attach
a formality to the granting of these copyright rights. And a
formality would be registering with the U.S. Copyright Office.
So what happens is, if you were to increase the fee, that
would work as an obstacle to people actually registering, and
it would really come back and bite you, right? So if you end up
increasing the fee so that the Copyright Office has more money
to work with, people don't register has often, so you actually
have less money, perhaps, to work with.
And that is especially true when you are talking about the
small creators that, for instance, the Copyright Alliance
represents, the small individual photographer, you know, the
individual software coder or songwriter, who really doesn't
have a lot of resources, and they are trying to make that, you
know, decision, do I register, do I not?
And there are certainly some benefits to registration, but
if an increase in the fees starts to become a roadblock--and it
is a little bit right now, to be honest, we have heard from our
members. If it becomes more of a roadblock to registration,
that is going to come back and haunt us all, I think.
Mr. Moolenaar. And what are the benefits of registration?
If it is already a right that is protected, why would I
register?
Mr. Kupferschmid. Well, so, number one, I mean, in order to
get into Federal court, so if you wanted to actually sue
somebody here in the United States, you would have to register
beforehand in order to get statutory damages. So you can still
get actual damages, but in order to get something called
statutory damages and attorney's fees, you would have to
register ahead of time.
There are also several other benefits, including,
obviously, having your name on a piece of paper, ``Look, I own
this copyright.'' But at the end of the day, you have creators
who are weighing those, especially smaller creators who, you
know, as a totally separate issue, have a very difficult time
getting to Federal court, because they can't afford Federal
court--that that becomes a big issue. You think of those
benefits, are those benefits worth it, and they make a cost-
benefit analysis.
So if you change that calculus by increasing the fees,
there is a very good chance that, you know, you might get a
blowback and just not get as many registrations and, therefore,
not get as much money coming into the Copyright Office.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you.
Anything else?
Keith, thanks for your testimony this morning.
Mr. Kupferschmid. Thank you.
Mr. Yoder. We look forward to discussing this with you
further.
The only thing I would ask is, do you have a specific
proposal that you would like the committee to look at related
to how you would see this all laying out?
Mr. Kupferschmid. In terms of?
Mr. Yoder. In terms of creating the autonomy.
Mr. Kupferschmid. Yeah, we can provide that. I mean, we
have information up on our website, and we have also filed
comment with the House Judiciary Committee and testified
before. So we are happy to provide that information.
Mr. Yoder. If you might meet with committee staff about how
you sort of see this functioning in the best way, and then we
can sort of look at a proposal that gives us maybe something
tangible to weigh.
Mr. Kupferschmid. Yeah. Okay.
Mr. Yoder. I am sure you have it, and you can send it over.
Appreciate it.
Mr. Kupferschmid. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Yoder. And, with that, Keith, thanks for your
testimony.
The committee stands in recess until Wednesday, May 17, at
10:00 a.m., when we will hear from the House of Representatives
concerning the fiscal year 2018 budget request.
[Testimony for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, May 17, 2017.
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WITNESSES
HON. KAREN L. HAAS, CLERK, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HON. PAUL D. IRVING, SERGEANT AT ARMS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HON. PHILIP G. KIKO, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Opening Statement of Chairman Yoder
Mr. Yoder. The hearing is now called to order. Welcome,
everybody. I appreciate your attendance at today's hearing. We
have a full house today, which shows the importance and value
that we place on the work of the Subcommittee in making smart
determinations about funding and operations of the House and
Legislative Branch.
Before we move on to today's business, I want to recognize
the absence of our colleague and committee member Congressman
Dan Newhouse from Washington. We are all saddened by the news
of his wife Carol's passing. Dan is a valued member of this
Committee, and we wish him and his family well. I would ask
that we have just a brief moment of silence for our friend and
colleague and his family for their loss.
Today, we begin our budget justification hearings for
Fiscal Year 2018. And, I would like to welcome my esteemed
colleague from Ohio, Ranking Member Ryan, along with other
members of the Subcommittee, as we start the process of
reviewing, considering, and ultimately producing a legislative
branch appropriation bill that satisfies the requirements of
our agencies while at the same time balancing the fiscal
realities of the current budget environment.
I know difficult decisions will need to be made and not
every increase will be able to be accommodated, but it is our
job to scrutinize the requests presented to us. And, I look
forward to working with each member of the Subcommittee in
doing so.
We will start this morning with considering the House of
Representatives' Fiscal Year 2018 Request. And, I am excited to
welcome the officers of the House to testify today: the
Honorable Karen Haas, Clerk of the House; the Honorable Paul
Irving, Sergeant at Arms; and the Honorable Phil Kiko, Chief
Administrative Officer. I would like to thank each of them for
their service to our country and to the Legislative Branch.
The Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request for the House agencies
is $1.223 billion, which is a 2.87-percent increase, or $34.1
million above currently enacted levels. Much of the work each
of these officers does and their offices do on a daily basis is
behind the scenes and, when done seamlessly, often goes
unnoticed.
Collectively, they are responsible for the services that
truly keep this place running, the IT network that allows us
all to communicate, the financial system that pays our bills
and meets our payroll, the voting system that helps
authenticate the legislative process, the issuance of IDs and
parking permits, just to name a few.
Without the services of these House officers, we could not
carry out our constitutional duties as Members of Congress.
Although the three of you probably like the fact that most of
your operations are behind the scenes and go unnoticed, I want
to take a moment to recognize the amazing work your
organizations do and to thank the dedicated staff in each of
your organizations. Thank you very much.
I look forward to working with each of you on the
challenges facing us in Fiscal Year 2018.
And, with that, I would like to yield to Ranking Member
Ryan for his opening statement.
Opening Statement of Ranking Member Ryan
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, thank you to our witnesses for being here today to
discuss the House budget. We often call the House of
Representatives the people's House, which says something
important about this Chamber even if the phrase itself has
become a cliche.
The men and women of our districts send us to Washington,
DC, to be their voices and not to lose touch with what is going
on at home. They expect us to use our experience and resources
to make their lives better.
When our constituents think of the Congress, they think of
me or think of the Chairman or the Members of this Committee,
but in reality, it takes 10,000 employees to make the world of
the House of Representatives run smoothly every day. From the
Capitol Police, who ensure the safety of students on school
trips, to the men and women who keep the cafeteria running, to
the congressional staff who advise Members on legislative
action of the week, the House is the home of thousands of
employees who are looking to this Committee to ensure Congress
is operating as efficiently and as effectively as possible.
Doing this takes serious financial investments into the House
and into its people.
We won't help anyone both here in DC or at home by
shortchanging this important Chamber and nickel and diming our
way and our ability to be effective. And let's be honest: I
think there has been a lot of nickel and diming of ourselves in
recent years. This has resulted in many valuable people leaving
public service and many others not even considering coming to
work here in response. And I think this is a shame, both as a
Member of Congress and as a former congressional staffer. I can
tell you that there is nothing more exciting than walking the
halls of Congress and working to help the people of this great
country and of our own individual congressional districts.
However, we also owe our constituents scrutiny of every
dollar we spend, and we need to make sure we are putting money
into the things that will most benefit the people in our
districts. And, the 2.87-percent increase that the House
offices and officers are requesting for the next year isn't
exactly a jaw-dropping figure, but we do have an obligation to
ask the tough questions and see whether these requests reflect
the right priorities.
I will just close by also thanking the staff in all of the
offices represented here today, the CAO, the Clerk, Sergeant at
Arms and the rest, who had to turn around an updated budget
request almost immediately after the current year's spending
bill was signed into law.
So I am glad we can get moving on next year's
appropriations, Mr. Chairman, after taking 7 extra months this
last year. So I thank everyone for being here, and I yield
back.
Chairman Outlines Proceedings
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
Do any other members wish to make an opening statement?
Seeing none, without any objection, the entire statements
from each of you will be made part of the record. I ask that
the Clerk, Sergeant at Arms, and Chief Administrative Officer
summarize your remarks and highlight your efforts of the past
year, and then we will open up the floor to questions.
Who would like to begin?
Karen, how about you?
Clerk of the House Provides Abbreviated Testimony
Ms. Haas. Okay. Thank you.
Chairman Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan, and members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before
you regarding the operations of the Office of the Clerk and our
Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request. Thank you for providing the
resources and guidance to allow us to continue to carry out our
duties and responsibilities for the legislative and
institutional operations of the House.
CLERK PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
I would like to provide you with a brief update on projects
that were mentioned previously as well as share our priorities
for the upcoming year. Technical development and testing
continues on the voting station upgrades to the electronic
voting system. New cabling was installed in August of 2016, and
we hope to install the new voting boxes in August of 2017. We
are on an extremely tight schedule and may need another recess
period if all testing is not completed in time.
Later this week, we will launch an alpha version of our new
Clerk website to solicit feedback from internal users. We plan
to release the website to the public next month. Between now
and the end of the year, we will continue to work toward full
deployment, which will enhance our effort to provide
legislative data in a more transparent manner.
For Fiscal Year 2018, we will continue the effort required
under the Comparative Print Rule to develop a tool that
illustrates changes a bill is making to current law and also
document-to-document comparison between different versions of
bill language. This was not a previously planned project but
one that we welcome.
With the additional resources that already have been
provided, we expect to make the December 31st deadline for
implementation of this first phase. We would like to expand the
capabilities of this tool in a second phase and have requested
additional funding to do so.
THE FY2018 CLERK BUDGET REQUEST
Much of the increase to our Fiscal Year 2018 funding
request is for the one-time purchase of equipment to allow us
to transition to the Redstone Data Center. We are following the
lead of the Chief Administrative Officer and expect to
implement this move later this year.
We have also requested additional funding for redesign of
the biographical directory. This is a searchable directory of
Members of Congress from 1774 to the present, and it is the
oldest website hosted on Congress.gov.
None of this work would be possible without the highly
professional men and women that work in the Office of the
Clerk. They strive everyday to provide innovative legislative
services and to support the House while protecting the
integrity and traditions of the institution.
We provide training opportunities for staff to maintain
current skills and to develop new skills. Because many of our
positions are highly specialized, we prioritize cross-training
our team in order to ensure that we can maintain a high level
of service to the House during unplanned events and vacancies.
Thank you for your support, and I am happy to answer any
questions.
[The Clerk of the House prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Yoder. Thank you.
Sergeant at Arms Abbreviated Testimony
We will go on with our testimony, and then we will take all
the questions at the end.
So, Mr. Irving, how about you go next?
Mr. Irving. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Good morning, Chairman
Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan, and Members of the Committee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to present the
Sergeant at Arms' budget request for Fiscal Year 2018.
Before beginning, I would like to say that it is an honor
to have the opportunity to serve the House of Representatives,
and I look forward to working with you and other Members on
this Committee.
SERGEANT AT ARMS PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
The Office of the Sergeant at Arms is involved in a number
of important new and ongoing projects, which I would like to
highlight. With regard to Capitol campus security, the Garage
Security Enhancement Project will address existing
vulnerabilities and provide the greatly improved level of
security in the House Office Buildings.
We are actively working with the Capitol Police and the
Architect of the Capitol to minimize the impact of this project
on Members, staff, and others who work in the House Office
Buildings. I appreciate the Committee's support in bringing the
House Office Buildings into the secure perimeter.
FY2018 SERGEANT AT ARMS BUDGET REQUEST
In addition to the garage security initiative, I have been
prioritizing various other security enhancements to further
augment our security posture. Carrying over from Fiscal Year
2017 to 2018, funding for the installation of an underground
alarm around the perimeter of the Capitol building, to bolster
the physical structure of the outer planters and the Olmsted
wall, and to finance a study to upgrade the lighting on the
East Capitol Plaza all will help to enhance the security
coverage of the Capitol while maintaining the openness and
park-like setting of the campus.
I am also requesting funding for a nominal increase in FTEs
for the Office of the Sergeant at Arms to assist with support
functions and to ensure greater service to Members and staff.
Additionally, my office implements a comprehensive
Emergency Management Program, planning for the continuity of
the operations at the House, and the safety of its Members,
employees, and visitors.
This year, the House is unrolling the Joint Emergency Mass
Notification System, or JEMNS, which enables mass notifications
to House, Senate, Architect of the Capitol staff, and Capitol
Police staff via multiple devices, such as phone, email, and
text. However, our existing annunciator system will continue to
serve as a backup to the new JEMNS system, and I am requesting
funding for its life-cycle replacement.
Finally, as you are aware, my office maintains a strong,
effective outreach program with Member offices regarding
district office security. Two of our most successful
initiatives have been the implementation of the Law Enforcement
Coordinator Program and Mail Hoods in district offices. We also
offer guidance on best practices, providing information on how
to obtain a thorough security review and how to coordinate
security surveys when requested.
For Fiscal Year 2018, I am proposing a physical security
package for each district offices primary office, which will
include a video intercom system and a duress alarm system. So,
the staff will be able to readily monitor individuals accessing
district office areas and have the ability to summon law
enforcement quickly in the event of an emergency.
I am also proposing a Security Awareness Program for
district office staff which will entail sending a team of
security and law enforcement experts to travel to the
congressional districts to provide hands-on training to staff
to prepare them to effectively manage crowd control, coordinate
security for events, and handle potentially threatening
situations.
In closing, I would like to thank the Committee once again
for the opportunity to appear before you. I would like to
reiterate how grateful I am for the Committee's unyielding
support as we strive to maintain the delicate balance between
implementing strong security measures while simultaneously
allowing free and open access to the Capitol complex.
I want to assure you of my deep commitment and that of the
entire office to provide the highest quality of services to the
House of Representatives while maintaining the safest and most
secure environment possible.
As always, I will keep the Committee informed of my
activities and will be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[The Sergeant at Arms' prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Yoder. Thank you for your testimony.
Chief Administrative Officer Abbreviated Testimony
Mr. Kiko.
Mr. Kiko. Thank you.
Chairman Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to present CAO's
Fiscal Year 2018 budget.
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Since taking office in August, I have met with nearly every
one of the CAO's over 600 employees, who take pride in their
work and services they provide. From cybersecurity to payroll
and benefits to logistics, and childcare, the CAO organization
provides a myriad of services to the House, most often behind
the scenes.
For instance, during the transition, our payroll and
benefits staff processed approximately 30,000 payroll actions.
During the last 6 months of last year, our logistics shop moved
roughly 50,000 pieces of House equipment and furniture. The
CAO's procurement operation processed over 6,200 actions,
totaling over $105 million, and we processed in 2016 nearly 14
million pieces of mail.
In 2016, HIR installed over 670,000 software patches and
resolved over 3.5 million IT vulnerabilities, and we also
thwarted 4.7 billion unique cybersecurity attacks in the House
with 53 percent of those being in the last 2 months of 2016.
FY2018 THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BUDGET REQUEST
The CAO priorities and subsequent budget request for Fiscal
Year 2018 are based on the examination of current operations
and challenges. Top priorities include cybersecurity, the CAO
strategic plan, customer service, as well as ongoing
initiatives like improving food services here on campus,
expanding our service offerings for District Offices, and
possibly a more coordinated approach on wellness offerings.
Our Fiscal Year 2018 Budget for the CAO is $133,635,000,
which is a 14.1-percent increase over last year. Cybersecurity
initiatives account for 78 percent of the increase; longevities
and cost of living account for 10 percent; and the remaining 12
percent is a combination of maintenance and licensing,
contractor support, et cetera.
We are all aware of the increased amount of state-sponsored
activity waged against the United States. The massive global
ransomware attack and its aftermath is a sobering reminder of
what we are up against in the level of sophistication. It is
imperative to maintain a robust cybersecurity posture.
In Fiscal Years 2016 and 2017, with the support of this
Committee, funds were reallocated to strengthen the House's
cybersecurity posture through dark web monitoring capabilities,
vulnerability testing, threat intelligence gathering, and
mobile platform security for smartphones and tablets. The
proposed increase in cybersecurity funding for Fiscal Year
2018, if approved, will continue to strengthen our cyber
posture.
Another top priority is the CAO's strategic plan, which
will undergird every aspect of CAO operations. Now finalized,
we are moving to execute our strategic goals supported by
objectives that ensure operations better align with current
needs of House customers in the most efficient, cost-effective
way.
Finally, the paramount and overarching priority for the CAO
is customer service, which will be advanced through the
implementation of the strategic plan and targeted initiatives.
We are doing a strategic plan to better provide customer
services.
Customer service initiatives include enhancement of the
Learning Center, improved technology services for Members'
offices, expanded services for District Offices, et cetera.
These projects and initiatives will collectively yield cost
savings, eliminate unnecessary processes, and hopefully provide
better service to Members.
I want to thank the Subcommittee for its support,
particularly over our cyber initiatives last year, and I
appreciate the opportunity today to present the budget. Thank
you.
[The Chief Administrative Officer prepared statement
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Yoder. Thank you for your testimony.
QUESTIONS FOR THE CLERK
And, I appreciate all three of you appearing today. We will
now start questions. And for the Committee, you can ask any of
the witnesses today questions on a variety of topics.
I will begin with Ms. Haas. One of the hearings this
Committee has already held this year was on transparency in
government, and there were conversations about whether CRS
reports should be online and a number of different topics. But
one of the issues that came up relates to the transparency of
the House of Representatives itself.
And one of the witnesses suggested that, if there were
concerns and things that could be fixed, that his top priority
would be making amendments more readily available and visible
to our constituents who may not have the text or copy or know
exactly what we are debating. Can you speak to that a little
bit in general on that specific one?
Ms. Haas. Sure.
Mr. Yoder. And then, just in general, what are your
recommendations and what are your long-term plans to create
more transparency for the House of Representatives for the
constituents we serve?
COMPARATIVE PRINT RULE PROJECT
Ms. Haas. Sure. I think a big step on the amendments
specifically is part of this Comparative Print Rule that was
passed as part of the rules package at the beginning of the
year. And so, under the Rule, by the end of this year, the
House is required to have in place a tool that will allow you
to compare bills to current law and also a document-to-document
comparison of amendments.
For this initial tool, the Legislative Counsel will be
heavily involved in that process. As I mentioned in my
testimony, phase two, which we are interested in pursuing and
have requested additional funding for, would allow, once it is
complete, House staff to be able to use the tool to do the
comparison. Also, as part of the Rule, those comparisons would
be available on the website. So people would have access to it.
THE BULK DATA TASK FORCE
As far as the larger transparency effort, it is something
we take very seriously, this Committee has taken very
seriously, and House Leadership on both sides. It has been a
priority.
So, from the Bulk Data Task Force and the origination of
that and the continued effort there, as well as our website I
mentioned, our Clerk website that we are rolling out,
transparency is the key to that. Our focus is the legislative
data and making it available in a way that can not only be
viewed easily, but also, so people on the outside can take that
data and use it in a more efficient way than they can
currently.
DOCS.HOUSE.GOV WEBSITE
Mr. Yoder. And then amendments specifically, floor
amendments, how does the public access those?
Ms. Haas. So, on the docs.house.gov website would be one
option, if they are available. And the Rules Committee would
also be posting them there. If there are things, for example,
when an appropriation bill is considered--and they can come up
at any time--that makes it more challenging.
Mr. Yoder. More difficult, okay.
QUESTIONS FOR THE SERGEANT AT ARMS
Mr. Irving, you testified regarding district office
security. I might ask you a little bit more about that. I think
the request is for $2.2 million for security enhancements for
district offices?
DISTRICT OFFICE SECURITY
Mr. Irving. Yes.
Mr. Yoder. Can you talk about what that $2.2 million could
accomplish? I know you mentioned some video recognition in your
testimony; maybe discuss that a little bit more in depth. And
what do we think the total spectrum of things are that we
should be considering beyond what maybe we could do with the
$2.2 million? What is the long term? What would that cost? What
are the security threats that we are concerned about in terms
of Member offices in the districts?
Mr. Irving. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Well, we have had quite an uptick in district office
security issues: a lot of local townhall meetings, a lot of
calls to my office requesting support. A lot of law enforcement
support, really, is the bulk of what we manage. In effect, we
have over 900 district offices.
We looked at ways to expand our presence and increase the
security posture of the individual district offices. One way is
to standardize some of the ways that they implement security.
Offices now, on a rather ad hoc basis, will ask for a security
assessment, and will be provided a security assessment, will
not always implement all of the recommendations provided.
My goal is to standardize the security posture that we
provide to each office. So we standardize the main office for
each district to get a duress alarm system so that, if a Member
was in his or her office or in the proximity of his or her
office and needed to summon law enforcement quickly, they
could, by use of this duress panic button they could have on
them or in the office, summon law enforcement very, very
quickly.
STANDARDIZED ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM
Another item that I would like to implement, if at all
possible, is a standardized access control system to each
district office reception area so that doors can be locked and
staff can actually view who is outside before they summon them
in. And that would be by a camera outside and a buzzer system
to allow them in. This would greatly enhance some of their
security as well.
So the goal is to standardize, if at all possible--we can
only, just because of cost, do one main office per Member--
standardize, kind of increase the security posture, you know,
in light of the fact that many district offices, you know, do
suffer some security issues.
And, again, we have seen an uptick over, I think, the last
couple of years with pressers and townhall meetings and other
public appearances.
Mr. Yoder. So the $2.2 million, would that provide security
upgrades for the district office for every Member?
Mr. Irving. That would provide, yes, for one office. So
each Member would get one office. And it would provide the
duress alarm system as well as the camera and buzzing system.
About a half a million of that, $500,000, would be a recurring
cost, a recurring monitoring cost. So, of that, about 1.5,
almost 1.6 would be just a one-time cost. And then there would
be a recurring cost for ongoing monitoring.
Mr. Yoder. I assume this would be voluntary. Members
wouldn't be required to participate. Do you know how many
Members we think would want to----
Mr. Irving. Mr. Chairman, that is a great question.
Absolutely voluntary. Similar to our Mailhood Program, which is
very, very successful, we had most Members request mailhoods to
screen their mail. Some Members chose not to and that was fine.
So we probably had about 80 percent participation.
Mr. Yoder. And do we know that--some Member offices may
already have some of these security upgrades.
Mr. Irving. Yes, absolutely correct.
Mr. Yoder. They fund it out of their MRA.
Mr. Irving. Correct, yes. Some have--a relatively small
percentage--but, yes, some have----
Mr. Yoder. But duress buttons and that kind of stuff, that
may exist----
Mr. Irving. Again, if that was recommended as part of their
initial security survey and the Member chose to go ahead and
pay for that and implement that, then that particular office
would indeed have it. So some do; some don't. A little bit of,
again, ad hoc, and I would like to standardize that, if at all
possible.
Mr. Yoder. Okay. Thank you.
QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I have got a couple questions for Phil. The House of
Representatives, we employ 11,000 people, very fast-paced,
high-stress environment, in case no one has noticed. A 2012
Gallup State of the American Workplace Study said that
employees with high overall well-being have 41 percent lower
health-related costs compared with employees who are
struggling.
And, in my estimation, it is to the benefit of the Federal
Government and the people we represent to give the
congressional employees resources to help them manage stress,
stay active, physically active and fit, and eat healthy, and we
can do that with an organized wellness program.
Wellness programs have proven in corporate America and in
other places that they can increase productivity, employee
retention, employee morale, while lowering healthcare costs
overall.
Do you think it is feasible for us to establish a campus-
wide health wellness program or House wellness program drawing
on the experiences of corporate America businesses and
organizations that have benefited from such programs?
HEALTH AND WELLNESS PROGRAM FOR THE HOUSE
Mr. Kiko. Yes, I think we could. Currently we have parts of
a wellness program. We have a physical fitness center. We have
an employee assistance center, and we have training. And some
of the training that we have done recently deals with stress.
We have had a very popular course on mindfulness.
So I really believe we can. I have looked into this issue
myself with regards to some research on some large companies,
and I think it would be worth our while to look into what is a
successful wellness program, what are the elements of it,
physical fitness, health education, nutrition, mental health. I
think all those things are part of a program.
Personally, and with regards to staff, anything that would
help reduce stress around here I think would be great--or how
to manage it--because it does mean less doctor visits, less
high blood pressure, I think I was reading in--let me see--
there was one company--Forbes recently said that General Motors
spends more money on healthcare costs than it does on
purchasing steel.
So that is sort of an indication of what the private sector
is doing. I think there is a lot more information out there now
and data that says that a good wellness program increases
productivity. I think it is possible with the guidance of the
committee maybe to come up with some options to see what the
people would like.
FOOD SERVICES AND THE FOOD SERVICES CONTRACT
Mr. Ryan. Thank you. I agree. I think it could be
beneficial.
We have already met, you and I and Chairman Yoder, about
food service, which is a popular topic. Being new to this
committee, you think, well, what are Members going to ask
about? And they consistently ask about the quality of the food
and the service in our cafeterias and the House restaurant. And
it is a perpetual source of frustration, I think, for a lot of
staff and Members. What measures are you taking to try to
improve the situation?
Mr. Kiko. Well, this sort of reached a crescendo a couple
of months ago where it seemed like I was receiving nothing but
negative comments about the food service, particularly in
discussing this with Members.
So what the CAO's Office did was basically tasking a whole
bunch of people in the procurement office, five people,
individually, to go around, and we created this quality
assurance surveillance team.
For the last 2 months, we have been going around to every
food service facility; and, based on what the contract is with
the company, we have been measuring performance, whether it is
food quality, whether it is old food on the shelves, how much
time did it take to ring stuff up, how long are the lines and
everything.
And I think it has had an impact on the vendor. I have had
meetings with the senior vice president of North America for
food services for Sodexo. And what I am sort of hoping is--I
will just show you one thing. We have been keeping tabs every
week on what we are doing. As you can see, this is when it
started. Everything was red, which meant there was no
compliance with the contract at all. Everything was terrible.
And this is last week's.
So, at least with regards to trying to improve the service
as required by the contract--which I think is minimal. I think,
at a minimum, you should have contract performance. This at
least gets us a baseline that things are getting better, and
they are putting more resources up here on the Hill.
The food is getting better. They have moved different
managers in, and everything that we are measuring is getting
better. And they have also had their own team now that is
coming in and going around and surveilling things.
We just did a survey. The survey results were not very good
for the vendor as well. It shows there is room for improvement.
They said they want to improve. They want to be up here on the
Hill. You know, we need a good vendor.
So I am hoping--I am going to give it 6 months to see where
we are and see where the Members are and where the staff is. Is
that too long of an answer?
Mr. Ryan. No. That is good. Well, let's stay on that and
help you along. I appreciate what you have done already. I
think that shows, just by us raising this as an issue, we can
start to make some progress, and we have a little way to go.
I will yield back, Mr. Chairman, and hopefully catch a
couple more questions in a second round.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you.
Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. No questions at this time. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
TRAINING AND RECRUITING FOR THE NEXT GENERATION
Mr. Yoder. Okay.
Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Sure, just a couple.
Thanks for what you guys are doing. We really appreciate
it, your hard work.
Ms. Haas, there are folks on the staff nearing retirement
age. Is this a pretty decent number? And if so, do we
anticipate sort of a major shift in training to get people up
to speed for the next generation of workers?
Ms. Haas. So, I would say it is probably a little bit more
than a handful, but we are very fortunate that we do have
people that come and stay for a long time and are very
experienced. But we also do a really good job of training
people and have people waiting. So, I am not concerned about
the turnover at all.
And as far as recruiting for some of our positions, we
recruit nationally, and we get the best people that are out
there for these positions. So, I am really proud of our
workforce.
Mr. Taylor. Great. Thank you.
WOUNDED WARRIOR PROGRAM
Mr. Kiko--Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Yoder. Please.
Mr. Taylor. Just a couple quick questions. Again, thanks
for what you are doing. I am looking at the veterans, like the
Wounded Warrior Program, and I have seen there is an uptick in
the budget because you want to have more Wounded Warriors in
Members offices, which I think is great. And I see that there
are nine vacancies. How can we help you guys fill those
vacancies and also move them forward with the Wounded Warrior
Program?
Mr. Kiko. I think we have a lot of potential to increase
the number of Wounded Warriors, and I think what we are trying
to do right now is go to Member offices and publicize the fact
that we do have a program here in the House for Wounded
Warriors.
And just as a result of getting the word out, we are now
increasing--sometimes there are newspaper articles. Sometimes
you can put something in the newsletter. You know, there are
all kinds of ways. But, I think that we are at sort of a higher
level now. I think we could expand it much more because it is
basically for the Members.
Mr. Taylor. Is there anything you guys have that you could
share with us that we could share with constituents?
Mr. Kiko. Yes, we have all kinds of stuff.
Mr. Taylor. Excellent. I would love to get that.
Mr. Kiko. We can do that.
HOUSE CYBERSECURITY PROGRAM
Mr. Taylor. I have one more on cyber. This is my own
curiosity. I know you guys are getting, you know, a lot of
attacks, of course, like a lot of agencies around the
government are. And you guys are working hard to prevent those.
I appreciate that.
Quick question on that: Is there any sharing going on
currently, now, interagency, of data of attacks and so there
can be perhaps an established pattern? And, again, this is just
my own curiosity for----
Mr. Kiko. Yeah, we are working with other Executive Branch
agencies, and the sharing program has gotten a lot better
within the last year, and we are upping it. And what we would
like to do is really get something that is not necessarily
based on who you know in the agency because of previous jobs.
We would like to really standardize the process on sharing
information.
Mr. Taylor. Sure.
Mr. Kiko. But it has been increased, and there is sharing
with Executive Branch agencies.
Mr. Taylor. Just one quick followup: Is there someone that
is taking the lead on that that is saying, okay, we are
collecting all the data that is being shared and we can
establish a pattern? We talked about state-sponsored cyber
attacks so we can establish a pattern on who it is and
potential attribution.
Mr. Kiko. We have the CAO's information security officer
right here. He has the lead. There are other committees, like
Committee on House Administration, that have been very
aggressive in that, as has been the Leadership. So that is what
we are working toward. But we do have periodic meetings on
sharing information and stuff like that. We just have to be a
little more aggressive in nailing it down further.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
REVIEW OF HOUSE CYBERSECURITY PROGRAM
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My first questions are for the IG. So if we could ask her
to join the table, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Yoder. If you can state your name for the record,
please.
Ms. Grafenstine. My name is Theresa Grafenstine. I am the
Inspector General of the House.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you. Welcome to the Committee.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I wanted to ask you about the
opportunities that you have had to review cybersecurity in
general and the challenges that we are facing in the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Kiko referenced in his testimony that that is his
highest priority. It is the biggest portion of his budget
request. In your review of the cybersecurity of the House of
Representatives and the vulnerabilities that we have, have you
examined Members' use of outside applications that are not part
of the House IT infrastructure?
Ms. Grafenstine. No, we have not. But that is actually
something we have been in discussions with House Administration
to put onto the audit plan. We have not traditionally looked at
outside applications, whether it is Dropbox or some of the
other--Gmail, some of the other popular applications.
USE OF IT APPLICATIONS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do we have any sense of--and I will
ask the same question of the CAO. Do we have any sense of how
many Members use an outside application that is not subject
within the infrastructure of the House IT network?
Ms. Grafenstine. I would have no way to base that estimate.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Is there a rule that is applicable
that suggests that Members shouldn't be using applications such
as Dropbox and other applications outside of the IT network?
Ms. Grafenstine. I would want to research it before I
answer that definitively. I do not know offhand.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Kiko, can you answer the same
questions?
Mr. Kiko. Is there a rule?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes. What is the policy of the House
of Representatives when it comes to Members' use of outside
applications that are not part of the House--protection of the
House IT network?
Mr. Kiko. Well, we discourage some of that just because
outside people can then have access to what is in Members'
accounts. It depends upon, I guess, what is on it. It depends
upon what would be on the Dropbox and whether people could get
inside the House network through that.
HOUSE IT SECURITY POLICIES
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So there are no specific rules
against Members using applications outside of the House IT
network and the protection of the cybersecurity--
Mr. Yoder. Sir, could you come forward and state your name
for the record?
Mr. Ramsey. My name is John Ramsey. I am the Chief
Information Security Officer.
Ma'am, we have two House IT security policies. House IT
security policy 2 directs that all House data will remain on
House devices. And then, within the last 18 months, we
published House IT security policy 17 on cloud and emerging
technologies that allows, with the appropriate risk reviews
from the security perspective, technology perspective, legal
perspective, financial perspective, that with CHA approval,
that House data can reside on some cloud services.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, if a Member is using an
application outside of the House network, they need to go
through an approval process in order to do that?
Mr. Ramsey. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. And that is since when?
Mr. Ramsey. January of 2016.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, as of January of 2016, if a
Member is using an application outside of the House
infrastructure and the protection of our cybersecurity network,
they are in violation of House policy?
Mr. Ramsey. Of the House policy 17, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But before that, they would not be
in violation of the House policy?
Mr. Ramsey. The House policy before that just indicated--
House policy 2--that the House data should be residing on House
devices.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, if an application is being used
and the information is on a House device, then that was within
the rules?
Mr. Ramsey. If the actual application is on premise on a
House device as far as the origin versus a cloud service, that
is correct.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Are Members monitored? Does the
CAO's Office examine whether Members are following these rules?
How is it enforced? And, you know, how do you make sure that--
if you are concerned, as you say you are, about protecting the
information on the House IT network, how are you actually
enforcing that and making Members aware that the policy is that
they either need to get approval to use an application outside
of the network or, prior to that, that it needed to be on a
device within the House network, not outside of it? How did you
do that?
Mr. Ramsey. Yes, ma'am. As far as in relation to the risk
associated with what that external entity might be, our
firewalls have various categories that are assessed from third-
party vendors that are looking into the security risk
associated with those outside vendors, and those that are
classified as critical or high risk to the House----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No. I am asking you, how have you
communicated with Members of Congress about the use of outside
applications and whether or not their usage of outside
applications is compliant with House policy?
Mr. Ramsey. When the policy came out, ma'am, we sent some
targeted communications out to the various IT systems
administrators that services the Members.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But it is safe to say that you have
not applied any consistent enforcement or checking to make sure
Members are compliant with the policy?
Mr. Ramsey. It would be consistent in regards to the risk
associated with the actual applications that are being used. If
those applications are considered critical or high risk or
might be known with state-sponsored actors, those
applications----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, let's say a Members' use of
Dropbox. If a Member is using Dropbox and they have not gotten
permission since January of 2016 to use Dropbox, according to
the policy and prior to January, there wasn't a policy where
you would have to get permission, but you had to only use
applications or information on a device inside the House
network, what was your enforcement policy related to Dropbox
specifically?
Mr. Ramsey. The House Administration Committee one was
enforced with policy 17, ma'am. They had actually authorized
Dropbox through October of last year. And as of October of last
year, we have done two security risk assessments of Dropbox,
and we recently have received additional approval from the
committee on it starting to enforce the blocking of Dropbox as
well as a couple other applications.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Starting to enforce the blocking of
the usage of Dropbox?
Mr. Ramsey. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So Members are not supposed to be
using Dropbox at this point?
Mr. Ramsey. According to the policy.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But before October of 2016, Dropbox
was authorized for usage?
Mr. Ramsey. It was, ma'am.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Thank you very much. I will
ask questions on the next round.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you.
PERSONAL EQUIPMENT ON THE HOUSE PLATFORM
Mr. Yoder. Ms. Wasserman Schultz raises an interesting
thought that I would like to follow up on a little bit, and
that is, as Members of Congress, we go to great lengths to
protect the data that is on desktop computers in our offices.
But we know that because many Members use personal emails,
personal devices, home computers, that there could be
additional exposure there.
Mr. Kiko, this would be a question for your offices in
terms of what sort of steps have we gone through to try to
protect the data of Members of Congress that have information
that would be on a personal device or on a home computer that
isn't going to be protected under the great wall, you know,
firewalls of the House of Representatives? And are there
vulnerabilities there, and how can we engage in that?
Mr. Kiko. I think that if you are using House mobile
devices, iPads, iPhones, everything, we are fairly certain that
things are fairly secure. But when you start communicating into
the House, you know, let's say on a private--it gets a little--
--
Mr. Yoder. Personal cell phone, personal iPad?
Mr. Kiko. Right. It gets trickier. And I do think that
because of all the stuff dealing with cybersecurity, I think,
going forward, we are going to try to look at these issues in a
really hard kind of way and basically work with this
Subcommittee and work with the House Administration Committee
and other Members to see if there is a way that we can give
some guidance, to reduce the cybersecurity threats, because we
are only as strong as our weakest link.
FY2018 CYBERSECURITY REQUEST AND POLICY CHANGES
Mr. Yoder. Well, that is right, and this clearly is a very
emerging issue in politics today and certainly sort of build a
better, you know, mouse trap situation. This is an issue we
have to stay on top of.
And I know that your budget, you have got a 25-percent
increase in funding for your IT department, $16 million to go
to cybersecurity. So funding, as we know, is a part of this
matter. And we know that, as these budgets go up, part of it is
going to be related to additional support and personnel
required to build better security measures.
Beyond the dollars, are there policy changes that you would
recommend to the House or, you know, structural changes that we
should be considering?
Mr. Kiko. Yes. You just can't spend your way out of that.
But we are looking at ways to strengthen things through--
specifically, in one aspect, through contracts with vendors. We
want to conduct cybersecurity assessments of their systems and
their contracts of the vendors. We want to assess them to see
whether they are in compliance with what our standards are.
We want them to notify the House of cybersecurity instances
that they have that could affect us. We want to provide the
House--them--we want to have the vendors provide the House with
full access. If they have an incident, we want to know about
it, and we want to be able to audit it to see. And we want them
to fully cooperate with our efforts to look at their systems to
see if there is a vulnerability there.
We also, with regards to some wireless devices that Members
have, we want the most up-to-date operating software on it so
if we do have a situation like we had over the weekend, we can
patch it real fast or we can patch things and it is not old
equipment. And we would like to have 100 percent compliance
with the cybersecurity training that we have. We have close to
that. But we are really just trying to increase awareness of
all the staff about what you should do, and it is pretty decent
training.
And one thing is, on international travel, we have been
pushing really hard to have Members and staff not use their
phones from here on international travel because they can be
compromised very easy. We may be pushing to have that as a
requirement.
And we are also trying to lessen unnecessary access to the
House network with what is called privileged access because I
think too many people have access to things other than just
emails that they really don't need to have. So we are going to
try and reduce that.
And, finally, I know we are working with some other Members
and committees on this, but we would like to have a sort of
House-wide approach to equipment purchasing and software
installation. We would like to know of the whole chain of
procurement, to make sure that it is safe. And I think if we
have that standardized a little bit more, we can get a better
bang for the buck, but we can also increase our cybersecurity
posture better if everything is somewhat standardized.
Does that make sense?
Mr. Yoder. Yeah. Thank you for the answer.
GARAGE SECURITY INITIATIVE
I am going to give you a little bit of a break and move to
Mr. Irving for a second. While we are on the topic of security,
if you might talk just a little more about the Garage Security
Initiative and the resources needed for that, timetable,
completion date, and the achievements that have been made in
that project.
Mr. Irving. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have actually made some huge strides in that endeavor.
We have just completed the first phase of the security portion,
which entails the ability to lock down all the doors in the
House garages if we need to. So, if for some reason we need to
lock those doors down, if we had an intrusion in the campus, we
have an ability to do that.
The next phase of the garage security will be
contemporaneous with the garage rehabilitation project of the
Rayburn, which is four phases during the next 4 years. And as
the garage rehabilitation is unfolding with a lot of the
Architect's work on refurbishment of the concrete, what have
you, there will also be buildout of some of the lobbies,
expanding the lobbies, adding some elevators that will increase
the people flow for screening, some of those main lobbies that
would take screening.
The goal here is to ensure that everyone that comes into
the garage gets screened just like they would coming in from
the outside. So that is coming along quite well. We are in the
first phase of the garage rehabilitation of the Rayburn. So we
have another three phases, 3 more years, to go.
Once the construction is done, then the challenge will be
the FTEs, the Capitol Police full-time equivalents, the Capitol
Police personnel to actually staff the five screening areas.
The good news--there has been some discussion early on of the
volume of people and the fact that we have now minimized the
number of screening sites in the garage. The good news is, if
we look at the initial garage security that has taken effect in
the East and West Undergrounds, we have two screening sites.
That garage is self-contained, fully secure, and it is
operating very, very well. So just those two--there was concern
that narrowing those two from three or four was going to cause
a backup, and it has not. And the volume of the ratio of people
in the Rayburn to the five entrances that we are looking at
will be the same. So we are pretty optimistic that we are
really going to have a successful program. But it is several
years away.
We are in the process now of not only going through the
second phase of the construction but also beginning to close
doors to those that eventually will be the ones that the public
or the staff will use to enter, you know, the building, to get
everyone accustomed.
When Rayburn was built, there were 80 or 90 doors. There
was a door literally every 10 feet. So now one maybe just has
to maybe walk 15 or 20 feet. So we are just in the process of
closing off some of those doors and getting everyone accustomed
to walking a little further or picking another door.
Mr. Yoder. And one of the things we talked about is that
Members may have access to doors that are secured that don't
have screening through a key card system.
Mr. Irving. Yes, absolutely. Members, as you know, do not
undergo screenings. So they will have the ability to utilize
pretty much any door they want. And we will make sure that they
have a passcard to get them so that--again, the goal here
really is to minimize the effect on business process of the
institution while also trying to implement as much security as
we can.
Mr. Yoder. When is the completion on that?
Mr. Irving. The completion would be 2022 actually, 2021,
2022. So we are a few years off. We have thought about
implementing and trying to implement an interim garage security
program earlier than that. But that is a challenge with full-
time equivalents for the Capitol Police, the buildout. So we
might be able to do something sooner. I will keep you posted on
that.
Mr. Yoder. I appreciate that.
Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CHILDCARE CENTER
I want to make sure we get our money's worth out of Phil
today. So I have a question for him. I want to talk about the
daycare center. I know that is another issue with the wait list
with regard to staff and their children. And I understand we
are looking into the possibility of expanding that. Can you
talk a little about that process, where we are with that?
Mr. Kiko. The Architect's Office has the lead on looking
into expanding the daycare center, whether it would be
expanding it within the Ford Building itself because we have
space, extra space now in O'Neill, or whether it would be
O'Neill, or whether it would be a combination of both.
And I think that the Architect's, they have the lead on it.
They are doing a study on various options that one would have
on expanding the daycare center. Personally, I would really
like to greatly expand the daycare center so we have a lot more
parents and children up here on campus. It would make it
easier.
So I think there is a great opportunity to do that, and
that is what we are looking at. We are not looking at ways to--
not to do it. We are looking at how can we expand it, what is
the right way to do it, taking into account working with
various organizations and stuff on the needs of it and that.
But I think hopefully there will be a study that will be
done in the next few months, and then we will be able to sort
of take a look and make some decisions.
Mr. Ryan. Great. What is the wait list now? Do you know off
the top of your head?
Mr. Kiko. No. I think it might be a couple hundred. It is
large.
Mr. Ryan. A couple hundred kids?
Mr. Kiko. I think so. I don't know the exact number, but I
think it is around that number, 150 to 200.
Mr. Ryan. How long do you have to be on the wait list? I
just thought of this question. I wanted to ask it.
Mr. Kiko. Sometimes people are on it for several years.
THE O'NEILL HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. Ryan. So, Paul, the expansion, O'Neill, how are we
doing with security with regard to that?
Mr. Irving. Doing well. Capitol Police has conducted a
security assessment of the building and is prepared to staff
it, June 8, when it opens. So that is going well. We are very
much appreciative of the committee to assist in funding for
that endeavor.
So they will take over the building. It will probably--we
are reviewing right now some of the business process that the
Federal Protective Service had implemented, you know, versus
now to see if the door is open. We have to change our business
process again a little bit now that it is a legislative branch
building.
But we are also working very closely with HHS, and I know
the Architect is working right now on an agreement between HHS
and the legislative branch. So a few moving parts there--how to
screen mail. And our mail screening protocol is a little bit
different than theirs, et cetera. But, all in all, it is going
well, and we expect to be--we will be operational on the 8th
and have full security with Capitol Police on that day.
Mr. Ryan. Great.
No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. I think I will take everything I have got
offline since none of it is--although, I do find it an
interesting hearing when we talk in one context about wellness
and then menus and then reduction of stress. It is quite a
juxtaposition of issues, and I am still trying to get my head
around that.
But I do want you to know that I don't know what Dropbox
is. So I think I am on the right start.
I yield back.
Mr. Yoder. Let the record reflect that.
Mr. Amodei. As it should.
Mr. Yoder. Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
HOUSE RULE ON COMPARATIVE PRINTS
Ms. Haas, where are we at in our efforts to reach
compliance with the new House Rule on Comparative Prints?
Ms. Haas. So we are doing quite well actually. We have
entered into contracts with two vendors. We meet with them
weekly. We expect to have a prototype available for testing in
October. So that is the target. But we are aggressively
pursuing it.
One of the positives is that the two vendors that we are
using have already been doing work in the House. They are very
far along in the work. So we fully expect to be able to meet
the December 31 deadline.
Mr. Taylor. Excellent.
HOUSE SECURITY FOR PARKING LOTS, GARAGES, AND KIOSKS
And, Mr. Irving, the consistent presence at garages and
parking lots, what does that entail, and currently, with
certain gates and kiosks that are closed at night, will that
remain the case? Will that change?
Mr. Irving. Yes. We carefully monitor the usage of the
various kiosks. We try to enhance our presence on the external
portion of the campus, especially when we are in session,
because of the fact that it is a very open campus. We are
continuing monitoring, again, which kiosks remain open, which
doors remain open. We work very closely with this committee and
the Committee on House Administration in furtherance of that.
I would expect everything to remain as is as we move
forward. The only difference for the garage security would be
some of the interior doors. Once you drive into the garage, you
would be funneled to one of fewer doors than what you have now
so you can get screened. But no real impact on the exterior of
the premises.
Mr. Taylor. That is all I have got, Mr. Chairman. Thanks.
Mr. Yoder. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
HOUSE POLICIES REGARDING TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Given the IT director's answers to some of my questions,
Mr. Kiko, I would like to know why, if we established a rule in
October that Members are not to use Dropbox, why throughout I
don't know how long we have only been engaging in targeted
informing?
If there is a rule and a policy, particularly relating to
our cybersecurity and protecting our network, wouldn't you
think that you would have a policy where you inform every
single Member and that we actually have a meeting with each
Member's tech person so that you can inform them exactly what
the rules are, what is allowable, what is not allowable?
I mean, it would seem to me that we are leaving gaping
holes in our cyber network, our cybersecurity network, if every
Member isn't informed and every office isn't well aware of what
is appropriate for use and approved and what isn't.
Mr. Kiko. I just want to confirm what I thought that--we do
inform every IT person, IT administrator, in every
congressional office of the change. And if that is not enough,
we can make it every Member.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am more than happy to admit that I
use Dropbox. I have used it for years and years and years. It
is not blocked. I am fully able to use it. And I bet every
other Member that uses Dropbox is fully able to use it as well.
So there is a vulnerability in our network in spite of the fact
that you say that you have taken steps to address it.
And there is not a policy that applies across the board,
and you need to make sure that you tighten up your rules and
policies so that you can really assure us that you take
seriously protecting our network.
Mr. Kiko. I will ensure that there is broader dissemination
in the future.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You were not sure that every Member
has a tech person and had to ask your director that question
just now. So it would be imperative, if we are genuinely
concerned about making sure that we can't have breaches from
the outside and that data isn't flowing in the wrong direction,
that you have a formal process, not just lob an email into a
tech person's inbox----
Mr. Kiko. Okay.
CAPITOL POLICE BOARD AND THE CHIEF OF THE CAPITOL POLICE
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. But bring people
together and make sure Members know what the policy is as well.
Okay. I have a question of Mr. Irving. So, Chief, you know
that I have asked questions of you about the appropriate layout
of the Capitol Police Board. And for the members that aren't
aware, the Chief is not a full member--the Chief of Police is
not a full member of the Capitol Police Board. He is an ex
officio member.
And that is a setup that has crippled our ability to
conduct oversight from this subcommittee. The Senate cannot
question our Sergeant, and we can't question their Sergeant.
The Chief is left to answer questions that frankly were set in
motion by the Capitol Police Board.
And so I would like to know, Sergeant, if you think that we
should be looking at restructuring the way the Board makes
decisions so that we can establish a more direct line of
accountability in our oversight role.
Mr. Irving. Okay. Thank you for that question. On
background, the Chief is an ex officio member because, from
time to time the Capitol Police Board, namely, myself, Frank
Larkin, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, and Stephen Ayers, the
Architect, will make a decision that will impact him, namely
his performance evaluation. So he is not in every meeting.
Having said that, even though he is an ex officio member,
he is in every Capitol Police Board meeting, and we treat him
as an equal member, an equal partner of the board. So he really
is very, very important.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I mean, at the end of the day, he
doesn't have a decisionmaking role. He doesn't have a vote. He
has no ability to actually affect, if there is a disagreement,
the outcome of a decision made by the Capitol Police Board. He
just has to execute it.
Mr. Irving. I will say that we listen to the Chief, and
when we vote--we rarely vote because most of what we do is on a
consensus basis--his input is invaluable. I can assure you of
that, and I want to assure the committee of that.
We do treat him as an equal partner. He has tremendous
experience. He has over 30 years of experience in this
department. And I will say that his opinion is invaluable, and
we do treat him as an equal member of the Board.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And I am confident that you have
confidence in this Chief. But there are times through the
years--and I have been involved with this for over 10 years
now--that you have not had confidence or we have not had--you
know, the Board--total confidence in the Chief.
And when there is an erosion of confidence, wouldn't you
say that there is less likely to be the ability for the Chief,
who is in charge of the entire police department and his
policies, to exercise his or her judgment over what the best
approach is?
Mr. Irving. Yes. But I will also say that the Board lets
the Chief be the Chief: namely, we allow the Chief to conduct
the daily business of the Capitol Police. We--the Board--only
get involved with major policy decisions, something the Chief
may want to do that affects the business process, as I have
alluded to, of the institution, something that affects Members
and how we do business here.
But, generally speaking, day in and day out, we let the
Chief run his department and manage it and don't interfere with
that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. How much of the Capitol Police's
budget would you say is directed by the Board, and how much is
directed by the Chief and his leadership?
Mr. Irving. I would say 95 percent is the Chief and his
leadership. The Chief presents his budget to the Capitol Police
Board for approval. And most times, I would say 9 times out of
10, we approve it as is. Sometimes we will tweak it a little
bit if we think that he needs to go and allocate more resources
in one area or another.
An example of that, by the way, a recent example was after
we had some terrorist attacks overseas in Paris, Brussels,
several years ago. The Board convened a meeting and requested
the Chief to look at implementing additional security to
increase an exterior security posture.
So many initiatives or a number of initiatives are Board
initiated, but I would say the bulk of the day--of the regular
order fiscal year budgets are the Chief's.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman, we have had
jurisdictional issues and a challenging time conducting
oversight because of the structure of the Capitol Police Board
and there being a dotted line rather than a direct line to us
in terms of being able to hold the Board accountable, which is,
at the end of the day, completely responsible for all of the
policies of the Capitol Police.
And I know we will have an opportunity to question the
Chief, except that the reality is that the Chief is hired by
the Board. So we are almost never able to really get direct
answers from him in this setting. So I just wanted to bring
that to the committee's attention.
Thank you.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Anyone else have any questions for our witnesses?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I do have one additional question.
VOTING CARD CHANGES
Mr. Yoder. Okay.
I might ask Ms. Haas a quick question about the voting card
changes in the House because I am sure our colleagues will ask
us about that and what the purpose of it is, what the changes
will be, how it will affect them. Could you just quickly run
through what we are doing there, what it is costing us, what
the improvements are, what the upgrades are, and why it is
necessary.
Ms. Haas. Sure. So we have, for several years, continued to
do upgrades to the electronic voting system. This particular
upgrade is to the voting stations themselves, which includes
all the cabling that lies under the floor. So, as I mentioned
in my testimony, the cabling was completed last August.
We currently are testing the prototype of a new station.
For the Members' use, once we deploy it, there is not going to
be a significant difference in the look or the usability. Some
things that we are adding to it, though, functionally, we are
going to have braille for visually impaired Members. We are
also going to have a display panel that we can use for
different purposes. So that will be--really, the only change of
the look of it. It will operate the same. The improvements are
behind the scenes in improved technology.
There is nothing wrong with our system. We have a wonderful
system, but the technology has aged. So we want to bring it up
to speed. And the cards that we have, the voting cards that you
all use, the technology in those cards are also older. So they
are more difficult for us to get. So that is part of what
pushed us to do this latest renovation on the system.
So the newer cards also will look the same and function the
same. From a Member's perspective, the hardest thing will be,
whenever we do deploy this, is you will have to get new voting
cards. The voting cards that you currently have will not work
in the new system.
Mr. Yoder. Do you expect that after the August break,
district work period, that we would come back?
Ms. Haas. That is what we are working toward. But, again, I
am very concerned. Right now, we are testing a prototype that
hasn't been made smaller yet, and so we have a lot more testing
to do. So, if the testing is not complete, we are going to need
another expanded recess period to install.
Mr. Yoder. All right. Thank you for that.
Mr. Moolenaar.
WOUNDED WARRIOR PROGRAM INFORMATION CAMPAIGN
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just one question. We talked a little bit or you had
mentioned your Wounded Warrior Project, I wondered if you could
talk a little bit about that. You mentioned it in your
testimony, but could you tell us what you are doing to build
support and expand that in working with different offices?
Mr. Kiko. Yes. What we are trying to do is we are trying to
get the word out that there is a Wounded Warrior Program on the
Hill. And we are trying to encourage Members to get the word
out, if they hire in the Wounded Warrior Program, to do a press
release, you know, with the Wounded Warrior when they hire him
or put out a release that you want Wounded Warriors.
We are going around to different--like the Veterans
Administration or other areas, Defense Department facilities,
pitching the Wounded Warrior Program because we want people to
apply as well. So it is just not on the Members, but it is also
on the services. So we are getting in touch with the services
to have them come to the House.
And right now, it is basically--we think we have the
capacity for a while to continue to fund the Wounded Warrior
Program at the level that it has been. Maybe, in several years,
it may have to be increased depending upon, how many people
apply. But we think there is a lot more people.
And it is equally funded--Republican and Democrat Members
equally use them. Some use them in the District Office. Some
use them here in town. And we actually have a program where it
used to be just a couple of hours, but now we have a 2- or 3-
day orientation program for Wounded Warriors when they come
into town on what to expect and those kinds of things.
But we are just trying to get the word out, and that is
what we are doing. We are very aggressive on this, and maybe we
need to be more aggressive, and maybe you need to hear from us
more. Is that fair?
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
HOUSE CHILDCARE CENTER WAITING LIST
Mr. Kiko. Oh, and I just wanted to answer one question. The
childcare center waiting list, it is more than I thought. It is
266.
Mr. Ryan. We will let it slide this time, Phil.
Mr. Yoder. Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. I am good.
Mr. Yoder. Mr. Taylor.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz to wrap us up.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
COST OF FOOD IN HOUSE CAFETERIAS
Just a few, last couple of questions because I have spent a
lot of time over the years dealing with the quality and cost of
the foods in our cafeterias. And I appreciate you going through
the efforts that you have made to improve it, but the food is
still terrible and the prices are still too high.
And I don't know what the green or the red means on the
graph that you held up, but if I had the pictures with me of
some of the barely able to be described as food that some have
sent me, you would be appalled. The experiences that I know
staff has had and that I have had, many of their staff are rude
and not customer friendly; beyond that, the food being really
of poor quality and the prices being too high.
In the survey that you have done, are we going to have an
opportunity to be briefed on the results of that customer
satisfaction survey?
Mr. Kiko. Yes. We are putting it together right now. And we
want to look at the raw data, and we want to look at how they
use the data, but, yes, we will brief you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Do you expect further price
increases coming from Sodexo?
Mr. Kiko. I am not sure. I think that--under the contract,
they are allowed to request the price increase every year. And
so I don't know whether they are going to, but I think they may
be--or may not be--under the contract, they could request
another price increase.
FOOD CHOICES
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. They would have a lot of nerve
requesting a price increase unless they improved dramatically
what they offer in the cafeterias.
Have you examined whether there are adequate healthy
choices and vegetarian options for staffers? We have a lot of
vegetarians among our staff.
Mr. Kiko. No, I will take a look at that. But they are
supposed to have a healthy food option. But I will dive into
that a little bit more. I know they are very into wellness in
their organization.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That would be great.
CURRENT STRUCTURE OF THE MEMBERS DINING ROOM
And then on the Members' Dining Room, you were doing a
review of the current structure of how the Members' Dining Room
is run. I realize it loses money and isn't frequented very
much, and I don't think it has gotten any better since the
restructuring. What is the status of the Members' Dining Room,
and are there any anticipated changes or formal assessments?
Mr. Kiko. We have spent a considerable amount of effort on
the Members' Dining Room. We have a new chef, who is very good.
We have been trying to have better food offerings. We have been
trying to have it so that you get your food faster; it is not
cold. It is those kind of things.
I would be happy to brief you on it, but I would like you
just to go over there and see what your thoughts were, because
there has been a major effort. I think recently we had more
Members use the Members' Dining Room, I think, right before
this recess than ever has.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Is it still buffet style and
unlimited order?
Mr. Kiko. It is buffet, and you can order--yes. But we are
trying to make everything better because Members bring a lot of
constituents in. And we basically said, ``Look, this is
supposed to be a premier service. It is not supposed to be a
middle service.'' And we have been emphasizing that. And I am
sort of hoping--there has been more personal attention by the
chef and by the people that manage the Members' Dining Room on
some of this.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Did you include that in your
customer satisfaction survey?
Mr. Kiko. I think we did. It is for everything. So I am
sure it would have been part of that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. So if you wouldn't mind
briefing me on the results.
Mr. Kiko. We will.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Closing Remarks
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Thank you to our witnesses today for your testimony and
your answering our spirited questions.
As the Committee knows, we are doing two hearings today and
two hearings tomorrow, so it is sort of like Ohio State
football doing two-a-days getting ready for the upcoming
season. And so, at this point, the subcommittee will adjourn
until 2 p.m. This afternoon when we will hear from the
Architect of the Capitol.
[Further prepared statements for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, May 17, 2017.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
WITNESS
STEPHEN T. AYERS, ARCHITECT
Mr. Yoder. I now call to order the hearing on the Architect
of the Capitol. We have the Architect, the Honorable Stephen T.
Ayers with us today. Thank you for your appearance this
afternoon. We look forward to hearing your testimony.
This is the second hearing we have held today. Earlier this
morning, we heard from the House of Representatives, and we had
some great questions and good witness testimony. I look forward
to another good session with you this afternoon as we work
toward building our 2018 budget.
So I would like to welcome Stephen Ayers, the 11th
Architect of the Capitol, to our committee. The AOC has been
very busy. They successfully supported the Presidential
inauguration, hosted 2.2 million visitors to the Capitol
Visitor Center, and 1.2 million visitors to the U.S. Botanical
Gardens in 2016, all the while managing several large projects
around the campus, including several on the House side: the
Capitol dome and rotunda, of course, in the Capitol; all work
in the Cannon House Office Building and the Rayburn interior
garage as well. So congratulations on all your work and
projects.
Mr. Ayers. Thank you.
Mr. Yoder. Excluding the Senate Office Buildings, the
Architect of the Capitol is requesting $660.5 million. This is
$131 million above the current year. If we include the Senate,
the entire Architect of the Capitol budget request is $773
million, which is $155 million above the current year
appropriation.
The larger ongoing multiyear projects include the Cannon
House Office Building renewal, which totals $752.7 million,
with a total of $440.9 million appropriated to date. Also
included is the Rayburn Interior Garage Rehabilitation Project,
which totals $130 million, of which $68 million has been
provided.
The Architect of the Capitol has estimated that it would
cost $1.5 billion to address the campuswide deferred
maintenance and capital renewal backlog. We understand fully
that, when the backlog is not addressed, that that cost will
continue to go up.
The subcommittee has always had as a top priority those
projects that have life safety implications. We understand the
ability to maintain and keep in appropriate working order the
buildings and grounds, which cover more than 17.4 million
square feet of facilities and more than 570 acres of grounds on
and off the Capitol campus, has been a difficult full task.
Also, before we begin, we would like to express our
condolences for the loss of one of your own, Matthew
McClanahan. Our heart goes out to his family and the entire AOC
organization.
Mr. Ayers. Thank you.
Mr. Yoder. And, with that, Mr. Ryan, do you have an opening
statement?
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, a very brief one. None
of us could do our jobs without you here, and we know when we
get our visitors and we take selfies with the Capitol behind
them, we know that is your handiwork there. The Botanic Garden,
we have you to thank. So we appreciate all of your good work.
We know that several thousand people that you supervise do
everything from maintaining office buildings, caring for
hundreds of acres of landscape, as the chairman just mentioned,
executing major construction projects, operating a power plant,
to restoring historical artwork on the walls of the Capitol.
This is our home. This is where we work. My 3-year-old says,
``Daddy, are you going to Capitol?'' That is where daddy works,
and it is a pretty cool thing, and it is cool that everyone has
access to this beautiful facility. So we thank you.
We have got a lot of work ahead of us in the tough budget
year, but we look forward to hearing from you and working with
you.
Mr. Ayers. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
Do any other members wish to make opening remarks?
Seeing none, then Mr. Ayers, your entire statement will be
submitted for the record. We have it here before us, but please
feel free to summarize your testimony at this time.
Opening Statement
Mr. Ayers. Thank you. Mr. Yoder and Ranking Member Ryan and
members of this subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity
today to present to you our fiscal year 2018 budget request.
Our request of $773 million prioritizes people and projects
that are required to fulfill our mission to serve the Congress,
the Supreme Court, and America's Capitol, and to inspire
memorable experiences every day for those 2.2 million people
you mentioned.
MONUMENTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Over the last two decades, our footprint has increased
substantially, and today, we operate and care for more than
17.4 million square feet of space across 36 different
facilities and 570 acres of land, and the complexity of our
work has also changed significantly.
In 2016, we hosted more than 4.5 million visitors through
the Capitol and the United States Botanic Garden from the
United States as well as from around the world. And during this
time, not only has our office kept up with, but we think we
have staked a leadership role in using innovative technology in
addressing the important security concerns that face us every
day.
Our employees work around the clock to maintain our
buildings and to ensure the health and safety of those who work
and visit the Capitol campus each day, and we couldn't be
successful without the hard work and skill and commitment of
the more than 2,100 employees that make up our workforce.
Last year, at this hearing, I promised that 2016 was going
to be a banner year for us, and I am delighted to report that
we delivered on all of our projects. We successfully completed
the Capitol Dome restoration and Rotunda restoration on time
within budget with minimal disruption to the building
occupants.
We conducted the post-election biennial office moves for
199 Members of Congress in the House of Representatives in just
24 injury-free workdays. And as we have for more than 150
years, we supported the work of the Presidential inauguration
this past January.
IMMEASURABLE RESPONSIBILITY
As substantial and historic as some of our recent
accomplishments are, regular preventive maintenance is the best
defense against deterioration and rising costs. Budget
constraints continue to slow our ability to perform regular
inspections and regular and routine maintenance to improve the
functionality of our facilities and infrastructure. We often
rely on temporary fixes to buy time, and often that is just not
quite enough.
Our fiscal year 2018 budget includes $25 million in overdue
operational increases to meet the demands of mandatory cost
increases and address critical repairs to reduce the risk of
future failures.
Our request will provide for the resources necessary for
day-to-day maintenance, thereby avoiding costlier fixes in the
future, and it will also slow the growth of the $1.55 billion
in backlog of deferred maintenance the chairman mentioned
earlier.
In addition, using our risk-based prioritization process,
we are requesting $240 million in capital projects this year.
Nearly 70 percent of those are specifically for repair or
replacement projects that are past due or for systems that are
approaching the end of their useful life.
We are requesting funds to replace obsolete chillers at the
Capitol Power Plant that date back to the 1970s. Our efforts to
eliminate water infiltration through the stone restoration on
many of our buildings is also part of our budget.
We are requesting funding for the next phases of the Cannon
House Office Building renewal, as well as the Rayburn House
Office Building Garage project, and these jobs continue to
progress on time and on budget.
We are also making an important priority of security
improvements that you will see in our budget this year as well.
We continue to drive down injury rates, drive up our energy
efficiency and drive down our energy costs at every
opportunity. With your support, I think we can continue to make
the Capitol campus accessible to all and ensure that it remains
a vibrant display of our democracy. Thank you.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING RENEWAL
Mr. Yoder. Thank you for your testimony. At this time, we
will turn to questions. I wanted to follow up a little bit on
the Cannon House Office Building project.
To date, $440.9 million of the project projected budget has
been provided. For fiscal year 2018, you are requesting $62
million in no-year funds for the project. Can you tell the
committee the amount of prior year funding that is currently
available for the AOC's use on the project, what are the
specific significant actions that require funding for next
fiscal year we expect you to actually spend on that next year,
and I think what we all want to know, is the project on time,
and is it going to stay within budget?
Mr. Ayers. We have developed a budget for that project of
$752.7 million, and that budget that has been in place for 6 or
8 years. We continue to maintain that cost estimate, and we
have done very complicated quantitative and qualitative cost
and schedule analyses using the best technology available. We
continue to have more than 80 percent confidence rate that we
will meet both schedule and cost on that project.
This was an important year for us as we transitioned from
the initial phase, the work in the basement, into phase 1,
which is the west side of that building. We completed the
initial phase under budget. We probably have $8 million left
from that phase that we will roll over into, and may need to
utilize during phase 1. So that initial phase was done on time
and under budget.
We are 15 percent into phase 1, and we are continuing to
track right on time and right on budget. All of our indicators
today say we are going to meet our schedule and meet our
numbers, and we are pretty confident in it.
Mr. Yoder. You said you used some technological
advancements in phase 0 that have sort of advanced the project
and saved you a little bit of money on phase 0. Do you
anticipate changes over the coming years that might be able to
save us money on this project? I mean, ideally, we would love
to come in under budget to be able to save the taxpayers money,
and I guess, what is the process to do that as you are
examining this? Is that something that is feasible? I don't
want you to raise the bar here and then not be able to meet
that, but I am just getting an idea of what the future looks
like.
Mr. Ayers. On a construction project like this, we have a
series of risks that could potentially materialize, and
included in our budget are funds to help us mitigate those
risks. If those risks don't come to fruition, that money
remains available either to go back to the Treasury when this
job is finished or to roll into some other project.
Mr. Yoder. Part of this is risk aversion, too.
Mr. Ayers. Everything about construction is minimizing
risk. If we do a good job minimizing risks and ensure that the
potential risks don't come to fruition, we think that it will
come in considerably under budget.
There are a couple of things. Phase 1 is our riskiest phase
of all of the five phases of that project. The most important
thing we needed to do on phase 1 is to award that phase early.
As you know, we didn't start it until January 2017. Well, we
awarded the contract for that phase of work in April 2016, and
that allowed our contractor to spend several months before
physical construction work, getting all of their contracts and
subcontracts awarded, getting all of their submittals and
engineering work done. That was a really important risk
mitigation.
I think also, on phase 1, the second riskiest operation, in
my opinion, is about to take place next month when we put on a
temporary roof structure over the fifth floor roof and then
begin to demolish and reconstruct that fifth floor under that
temporary roof structure. If we can do that successfully on the
first phase, learn some lessons as we then begin to incorporate
that on phase 2, 3, and 4, I think that could save us some
money as well.
Mr. Yoder. So you are completely demolishing the fifth
floor?
Mr. Ayers. Yes.
Mr. Yoder. What are you doing to it in terms of higher
ceilings, or are the offices going to look different in some
way?
Mr. Ayers. Yes. They will look completely different. In
fact, on the fifth floor today, you have offices on one side
and storage cages on the other side.
In the new design, you will have offices on both sides.
They are generous, nicely sized, appropriately designed offices
for a Member of Congress, many of them with a great view of the
Capitol, by the way.
Mr. Ryan. When do we put our request in?
Mr. Yoder. Starting now.
One of the challenges I know you have is an occupied
building. If you might just tell the committee how you
negotiated around a construction project in a building that is
occupied, what specific sort of challenges that has brought on,
how that has been handled, have there been any disruptions that
the committee should know about that have been overseen or that
you have had to resolve?
Mr. Ayers. Well, of course, doing a major construction
project in an occupied building is the worst thing you could
do. We can start with that.
Mr. Yoder. Right.
Mr. Ayers. But that is what we are faced with doing. And so
I think, number one is communicating to building occupants
about what is happening, what is coming up, what to expect, and
no surprises. We have a team of communication specialists
dedicated to this job that do just that, that spend their day
talking to building occupants, making the rounds, keeping our
social media and electronic messaging system up to date, making
sure we have good signage around the building so people know
what is about to happen before it happens.
Third, since it is an occupied building, we drive all of
our noise-making activities to nighttime. That adds about a 10-
percent in labor cost to any project, but it is an important
and necessary thing for us to do as construction is, in many
respects, inherently noisy.
Fourth, making sure we carefully monitor the air quality,
water quality, odors and things like that that could emanate
from the construction activities and make sure we monitor them
and abate them as necessary.
Mr. Yoder. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Ryan.
URBAN AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, we want to, on behalf of my whole staff, thank you
for the ramps you put up for the ducks that get into the
reflecting pond. It has been a topic of conversation in our
office. So we want to thank you for that.
I have got a couple of questions, and I actually want to
get in the weeds on a couple and just kind of get your
thoughts.
First, we know that the United States Department of
Agriculture has a program they call the People's Gardens, and
they set up gardens at Federal agencies all around the country
to help grow healthy food and get people and communities
engaged. The first one was in 2009. So several members--Ms.
Pingree, myself, Ms. Kaptur--have suggested that your office
partner with USDA to start one of these People's Gardens on the
Capitol Grounds. I think it is a good idea. We had some earlier
conversations about bringing a slightly healthier culture to
the employees here on the campus.
Is that feasible? Are you exploring anything along those
lines?
Mr. Ayers. I think we are doing a couple of things. Let me
share them with you. First, this is the centennial of the Great
War, World War I, and we are putting together exhibitions in
the Capitol Visitor Center to educate the public about that
war. We have also installed three victory gardens at the Thomas
Jefferson Building, and there are three of them in place now.
We are growing food and educating the public about how to grow
food that was typical for about 1917, 1918. There is great
signage over there, and much of the food that we harvest we
donate to local food banks.
Second, for the last 3 years, we have been focused on urban
agriculture. We think that is an important thing to educate the
public about, and that is really our mission at the United
States Botanic Garden--to educate the public about the value of
plants in our society. For our director there, Dr. Ari Novy,
urban agriculture is a particular passion of his. We have had
three shows the last 3 years, and our current show is actually
indoors, where we are teaching people how to grow vegetables
and vegetable gardens in towers, sort of vertical gardening. We
have a current exhibit in the garden about that now.
That is what we are doing today, and we are certainly open
to continuing that kind of effort. I think educating the public
about the value of urban agriculture and the value of plants is
important.
Mr. Ryan. Yeah, I know, that is very cool. How much of the
technical expertise--so the Library of Congress, for example,
they try to help libraries in Kansas and Ohio with some
technical expertise, I guess, for lack of a better phrase. What
do you--like with the Botanic Gardens, is there any kind of
program that would help people in Youngstown, Ohio, learn how
to do a vertical garden? Is that something that you guys
participate in, and if you do, what level do you participate?
Mr. Ayers. We have a couple of things. One is a botanic
hotline. If you are having plant issues or plant problems or
pest problems, we do have a hotline that you can call in to our
really talented plant specialist, and they will help you
diagnose and find ways to fix problems that you might be having
with plants.
Second, we have a number of partnerships across the country
with other botanic gardens to put on symposia about things like
urban agriculture or to host shows about backyard gardening or
to host a show about a particular plant variety, and we have
some appropriated dollars that enables us to reach out to these
partners across the country. We have four or five or six of
them now that we do, and we change them every few years.
Mr. Ryan. There is such a huge interest now across the
country in urban ag in older cities, you know, like in Ohio and
Toledo and Youngstown and Akron, that we have come in and
cleared out a lot of the old homes, and they are in food
deserts where there is not a grocery store for a couple of
miles. So I think this is an opportunity to help, you know,
after school and the whole 9 yards, but we will be in touch on
some of that stuff.
Mr. Ayers. Great.
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FINANCING
Mr. Ryan. So, on the construction side that Mr. Yoder was
talking a little bit about, I know, when we do local projects
in Ohio, that we are involved in--construction projects--we use
a lot of different tools that are in the toolbox for private
investment.
So, for example, a business will come in and use the local
port authority. The port authority has capacity to buy material
and not pay tax on it. And so the business will work with the
port authority. The port authority will go and buy the bricks
and the mortar and the wood and the nails and all the stuff
that would be needed and save the private investor, you know,
potentially tens of thousands, if not, depending on how big the
project is, hundreds of thousands of dollars just as kind of a
passthrough.
Do you guys use any tool like that here in the Capitol that
would allow you to save some money and get more money into
projects? Do you get everything tax-free? I mean, you contract
it out. Can you walk me through that process?
Mr. Ayers. It is not tax-free, but DC does have a sales tax
exemption process for equipment and materials purchased in DC.
Mr. Ryan. So you guys--you guys--your office goes out and
buys all the material for a--you are going to build this fifth
floor. You are going to redo it. You are going to buy all kinds
of stuff to construct that. Do you buy that yourself?
Mr. Ayers. No, the contractor buys that.
Mr. Ryan. The contractor buys that. So the contractor will
pay sales tax on stuff that they would buy, right?
Mr. Ayers. We direct the contractor to request an
exemption. The Cannon Project is an example of where the
exemption was requested and applies.
Mr. Ryan. I mean, in the normal course of affairs, course
of business, so I am just trying to think of ways that, you
know, we can get more bang for our buck here, and if there are
opportunities for us--I don't know if you have some people on
your staff that you could maybe charge to look into those
things, because 4 or 5 or 6 percent of $100 million, you know,
could build a few extra offices.
Mr. Ayers. Yes.
Mr. Ryan. So if you could do that.
Mr. Ayers. Sure.
Mr. Ryan. And look into that. The other thing--and I know
we have the historic trust fund.
Mr. Ayers. Yes.
Mr. Ryan. Where we are putting some money in. Is there--I
am literally thinking out loud here, as you can maybe tell.
But, again, for local construction projects, we use the port
authority and the bonding capacity of the port authorities.
Have we looked into like floating some bonds and expediting a
lot of this work that needs to get done and then paying it down
over time? Is that--you are straight appropriations, right? You
get money in, money out?
Mr. Ayers. No, not 100 percent. We do have limited
statutory authority to enter into public-private partnerships.
Our statutory authority permits us to do that on energy-related
projects.
We have three of them in place--actually four in place
right now. The first three are valued at about $90 million to
$100 million of private money, and they came into the House
Office Buildings, the Senate, and the Capitol and made
investments in our infrastructure, which saves money. You
continue to appropriate the same amount for our utility costs,
but our costs go down. So we pay them back with that
differential.
Since those three have been in place for 3 or 4 years, that
have been incredibly effective for us and have paid back their
guaranteed savings every year, we are going to do a fourth one
at the Library of Congress. We are in negotiations right now
for that. And a fifth one we have in construction for about
$108 million at the Capitol Power Plant where a private company
will come in and put in a new combined heat and power system,
and we will pay them back over the course of 20 years for that
investment with the energy savings they prove for that.
Mr. Ryan. So the private business gives you the money
upfront.
Mr. Ayers. Correct.
Mr. Ryan. Is there any way----
Mr. Ayers. A contractor installs it, and they get private
financing to do it.
Mr. Ryan. Right.
Mr. Ayers. And sometimes they do that through bonds or they
do it through direct loans.
Mr. Ryan. Is there any way to expand that program into
other sort of more traditional construction?
Mr. Ayers. I think there is. I do think it would require
statutory authority, though. The statute today only allows us
to do that for energy-related projects.
Mr. Ryan. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yoder. Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Not right now.
Mr. Yoder. Okay. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
HOUSE HISTORIC BUILDINGS REVITALIZATION TRUST FUND
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Mr. Ayers, thanks for the
really incredibly good job that you have done and your
stewardship over the Architect of the Capitol, and thanks to
your staff because I think they are among the finest in the
country.
Mr. Ayers. Thank you.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome. How much is in the
historic buildings preservation trust fund right now?
Mr. Ayers. The House Historic Revitalization Trust Fund
available balance is approximately $38.5 million.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to
presume that you are unfamiliar or familiar with, a number of
years ago, we established a House Historic Buildings
Preservation Revitalization Trust Fund for the very reason that
drove the question because--and I alluded to Mr. Ayers'
predecessor. When we built the Capitol Visitor Center, the cost
overruns were astronomical. It was not on time, not on budget,
and there was nothing fiscally responsible about it, including
any process or protocol or accountability in place to make sure
that we could stay on top of it.
And we took over the oversight of that project, along with
GAO, which we assigned oversight to, and brought in, you know,
sort of reigned it in and got it finished, but then we
established this trust fund, given that we were going to go
through Cannon, Longworth, and Rayburn's renewal, the garages,
and you know, we have got really billions of dollars of
revitalization to do. So we have been banking that money.
And a couple of fiscal years ago, we separated out the way
we line item it in the Architect's budget so we could see what
we were banking for this particular fiscal year into the
historic trust fund and what they were--and what they had that
they were spending so that we could make sure we could see it
more clearly.
So what is your proposal in your budget for fiscal year
2018 to add to the trust fund?
Mr. Ayers. Our 2018 budget requests $10 million. Can I take
a minute to expand on that?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes, please.
Mr. Ayers. You and I have had some discussions about what
is the right investment scenario that we should be investing
in.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Correct.
Mr. Ayers. We have spent, as I committed we would do, we
spent last summer looking at that. I was briefed on it a few
months ago, and I am not comfortable that we have thought of
every possible option yet. The investment strategies that I saw
were impractical and unsustainable, and I think we need to go
back to the drawing board.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. As in we are investing too little?
Mr. Ayers. Correct.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes, that has been my concern, as
well.
Mr. Ayers. Correct. Clearly I think $10 million----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So we need more savings.
Mr. Ayers [continuing]. Is too little, but I also think
that I can't come to you and say I need $200 million a year,
which is roughly what our proposal said.
I have asked our team to go back to the drawing board and
bring in some different kind of thinkers for us, some
developers and some real estate professionals to help us think
differently about the investment structure and what we need to
do and when.
With the 2017 omnibus, we now have money to bring those
experts on, and we will continue with that. I think when we get
something that we are comfortable sharing with you, we will. We
are working on it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is great. Last fiscal year, at
these hearings, we initially, when we created the trust fund, I
think put in $50 million or $70 million, and we had----
Mr. Ayers. Seventy.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Seventy, and then, I think 50--or
maybe 50 the next year. We put much more significant amount of
funding initially, and we have only been doing $10 million
increments in the last few. And given the very significant
amount of money we are going to have to spend in increasing
amounts over time, I asked Mr. Ayers last year to take a look
at what was the right amount. And so it is just something that,
in terms of our accountability and oversight, that we should
monitor.
Mr. Yoder. Okay.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
Mr. Ayers. You are welcome.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Also I thank you for taking care of
the ducks.
Mr. Ayers. Thank you.
DUCK RAMPS
Mr. Yoder. How is that going, by the way? The ducks?
Mr. Ayers. The ducks are terrific. There are four broods
out on the Capitol reflecting pool today. The duck ramps are in
use.
Mr. Yoder. Do they have names, these ducks?
Mr. Ayers. Not yet.
Mr. Yoder. Okay. Well----
Mr. Ayers. Twitter has been active for a few days. They
will have names soon, I am sure.
Mr. Ryan. Hey, naming rights we can generate in revenue.
Mr. Yoder. There you go. We can put that in the trust fund.
LEAD IN WATER TESTING
Mr. Yoder. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I wanted to just ask you about the
lead issue in Cannon and where we are. If you could give us an
update on where we are with the lead abatement.
Mr. Ayers. Sure. Two things. First, I just want to
acknowledge that Mr. Moolenaar and I spoke earlier, and he
suggested that perhaps it is time for us to go back and
communicate to staff with an update of where we have been.
We did a great job, I think, communicating with the
Congress through the crisis, and we have not communicated since
then. Perhaps now is a good time to communicate back to the
Congress maybe with some townhalls or something about where we
stand, and we will do that.
We brought in a consulting team to help us figure out what
happened and where the lead was coming from. As we anticipated,
there is no sort of smoking gun, but we did find a number of
things: One is that it is very likely that the construction
activity on all of those water pipes contributed to a lead
problem. Two, the consulting team found pretty significant
variability in the chemical makeup of the water in the
building. Water pipes, especially those with lead content, like
very stable pH and very stable chlorine amounts in water. The
test result showed that those things, both the pH and the
orthophosphate and the chlorine levels had very significant
variability which could result in lead leaching from pipes.
They recommended that we take some action to better control
the variability of those things, and we have done some of that.
They suggested that we implement a significant and regular
flushing program. We have started that. And I would point out
that they said that the lead problems in the building persist
today. From my perspective, they do continue to persist. I
think it is the best plan for us to leave the water turned off.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are still providing bottled
water?
Mr. Ayers. We are continuing to do that and will do so
until the end. And you know, throughout the basement, we
replaced all of that piping. As we finish phase 1, we will
replace all of that piping. From an engineering perspective, we
don't see any reason why we couldn't turn the water on when
Members move back in, because everything is completely new. It
should be okay. So I think that is the first opportunity.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And when is that?
Mr. Ayers. That is the next election move cycle, which is a
year and a half from now.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Got you. Thank you.
RAYBURN GARAGE
Mr. Yoder. Mr. Ayers, we have talked a lot about the Cannon
project. We know the Rayburn Garage project is continuing. I
have had a chance to tour that. Last year, we provided $30.8
million for that project. This year's request includes $31
million for the third phase of four. You might give us a little
update on its progress: on time, under budget, same sort of
questions we had on Cannon.
You are also taking responsibility on the O'Neill Building;
if there are any specific updates the committee should be aware
of there. And then the Capitol Power Plant, we know we deferred
the revitalization of the West Refrigeration Plant for several
years now due to funding constraints. Your fiscal 2018 request
includes $19.19 million to continue this project. You might
update us on the situation there and what would occur if we are
not able to provide those funds and the impact.
And then, lastly, so it is sort of three separate
questions, and then the last thing would just be the deferred
maintenance list. So we have alluded to $1.5 billion. Ms.
Wasserman Schultz has brought up some of the long-term
projects.
What else is out there? What is next after Cannon, Rayburn,
taking over O'Neill, the chillers, what are your other big
projects both in the coming years and long term?
Mr. Ayers. So Rayburn Garage first. We are undertaking a
complete renovation of the Rayburn Garage. The concrete floor
decking in the garage was unsafe. Concrete was falling off and
the steel rebar inside the concrete was rusting and causing the
concrete to fall off. It was in a very unsafe condition. We are
well into phase 1 of four phases on that project, which is on
budget and on time.
Each of those phases will take about 14 months to complete,
and we don't see any issues with turning over those phases one
after the other. We are pretty comfortable on that job.
O'NEILL HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
The O'Neill House Office Building moves over to our control
on June 8, and we have been incredibly busy the last few months
putting together a comprehensive plan and schedule of what we
need to do when to make that happen. This includes the people
we need to hire, contracts we need to award, working with the
United States Capitol Police, the Chief Administrative Officer
and all of our legislative branch partners who all have a piece
of that. We have been working together extremely well.
We think we are ready for June 8. I know the Capitol Police
believe they are ready for June 8 as well. We haven't hired all
the people we need, but we have hired many of them. We are
partnering and have spent a considerable amount of time with
GSA understanding how they run and operate the building,
including what contracts they have in place to things as
mundane as cleaning, trash collection and getting the trash out
of the building to the right place and taking care of the green
roof on the top of the building. We think we have a handle on
what we need to do to make that successful. We feel pretty good
about that.
CAPITOL POWER PLANT
At the Capitol Power Plant, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, we still have two chillers from the 1970s. This is
equipment that is now 37 or 38 years old that just is not
efficient. Chillers today are at least 50 percent more
efficient than chillers of the 1970s era. We are sitting in a
nice cool room today due to the chillers at the Capitol Power
Plant that are making chilled water and sending it out through
underground tunnels to create air conditioning throughout all
of our buildings.
I know I am quite convinced--and we often talk about it
because it is such an anomaly--how important the Capitol Power
Plant is to congressional operations. We have many other
buildings that we think could go offline and that Congress
could continue to do its business, but rest assured, in July,
if we are not able to air-condition any building, I don't think
the Congress is going to be able to undertake its business.
So it is important, and this equipment regularly fails,
regularly fails to start when we need additional chilling
capacity. We start the equipment, it fails to start and we have
considerable trouble with it. I am looking forward to that
investment. And I know we have funded part of that already, and
we are hopeful that----
Mr. Yoder. What is the total project cost of concerns
there?
Mr. Ayers. I think it is $227 million, the total cost.
Mr. Yoder. How much have we already appropriated?
Mr. Ayers. I don't know the answer to how much we have
already appropriated, but I can send you that.
Mr. Yoder. You got 19.19 in your 2018 budget request.
Mr. Ayers. Correct.
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
Mr. Yoder. And then what is on the horizon? What are the
deferred maintenance projects that create--I have looked
through the list of that, but can you give the committee sort
of a broad brush, the $1.5 billion in deferred projects?
Mr. Ayers. Absolutely. I think one of the interesting
things in our budget, for those that might have a budget book
here, we do give you a list of projects that we think need to
go in the budget, and there are 21 of them. But we also give
you a list of projects that we have deferred, projects that
need to be done, that are ready to be done, but we have
deferred them to another fiscal year because, through our
project prioritization process, they don't rise to the top.
Many of them continue to be infrastructure projects. There
are some electrical projects, some transformer projects wiring
replacements, piping replacements for the Capitol Building,
projects like that.
In the House, we have taken a little bit of a different
approach. Instead of doing individual line-item projects, we
will take many of these and group them together like we are
doing with the Cannon project. The Cannon renewal is really 10
or 20 other projects lumped into one big renewal project. We
think that is probably the right approach to continue with the
House. We have not made decisions yet whether the Rayburn or
Longworth is appropriate to move toward next, but I think for
the House, that is the next big thing, after the Cannon
Building runs out, to undertake one of those.
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG
Mr. Yoder. Okay. Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. You know, as I hear, just to reiterate my point
last time, these projects, $1.5 billion today, in 10 years are
going to be a hell of a lot more.
Mr. Ayers. Yes.
Mr. Ryan. And how we can use, potentially use some bonding
capacity to be able to get this stuff done when labor is
cheaper, products cheaper, you know, all this stuff is a lot
cheaper, I think that is worth us digging a little deeper in
trying to explore the opportunities, Mr. Chairman. I mean, you
know, I can only imagine what things are going to cost 10 years
from now if we keep on the trajectory we are on now.
So I want to reiterate that point. Also, if you can give us
an update on the investigations to the tragedy that Mr. Yoder
mentioned in his remarks with Matthew McClanahan. I know there
were two or three different groups looking into it. If you
could give us a little bit of an update on, you know, lessons
learned, I guess.
Mr. Ayers. Sure, happy to, and we will follow up with you
on the bonding and other ideas that----
Mr. Ryan. I mean, if we are doing it for energy, we are
able to do it.
Mr. Ayers. Yes. Exactly.
Mr. Ryan. And so, you know, clear the deck--not clear the
deck, but make a little bit more headway. So anyway, thank you.
TREE MANAGEMENT
Mr. Ayers. Thank you for recognizing Matt McClanahan. That
was a tragic accident and a tragic event for us. I think we as
an agency are continuing to reel from that a little bit and
working toward to get ourselves refocused. Most importantly,
taking care of Matt's family, which I think we have
appropriately done. I know they are incredibly appreciative of
the work that we did and the support of the Congress as well.
We have 4,300 trees across Capitol Grounds. After this
incident, we thought it appropriate that we have one of our
certified arborists--we have several certified arborists on
staff--go out and look at every single one of those trees. That
has been done. It has been done for 2 weeks now, 3 weeks now.
We laid eyes on every single one. That led us to remove seven
trees. We thought seven of them probably ought to come down, so
we took action and took those seven trees down.
After we looked at those 4,300 trees, we identified a
little under 200 of them that we should come back and take a
more indepth, or what we call a level 2, investigation on. We
are halfway through that investigation. We will have that done
by the end of the month, and I think that will give us a much
better handle on where we stand on our tree program.
We do have--and I have told the group this so many times--a
really good and dedicated and professional set of tree care
professionals that take care of our trees across the Capitol
campus. They are really taking this news hard, but I can assure
you they have nothing but the public's safety in mind in the
work that they do, and they continue to go about their work.
Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you. That is it. I mean, it is just so
beautiful to just walk through, and I remember when Mr. Murphy
died, and we went out and dedicated a tree to him. It really
hit home how much thought goes into every little detail of the
campus, and I want to thank you for that, and I appreciate your
work, so thank you.
Mr. Ayers. Thank you.
Mr. Yoder. Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. All my questions are answered.
Mr. Yoder. Okay. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Nothing else.
Mr. Yoder. Okay. With that, I remind the committee we have
a hearing tomorrow at 10 a.m. And we have a hearing tomorrow at
2:30 p.m. So, at this point, the subcommittee will adjourn
until tomorrow at 10 a.m. When we will hear from the U.S.
Capitol Police.
[Questions for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, May 18, 2017.
UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE
WITNESSES
MATTHEW R. VERDEROSA, CHIEF OF POLICE
STEVEN A. SUND, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE
Statement of Chairman Yoder
Mr. Yoder. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for attending our
hearing this morning. Good to see everybody. I would like to
call the hearing to order.
This morning we will hear testimony from the United States
Capitol Police regarding their fiscal year 2018 budget request.
I would like to welcome Chief of Police Matthew Verderosa, who
is testifying before this committee for the first time in his
capacity as Chief of Police. Chief Verderosa has had an
extensive career within the United States Capitol Police,
rising through the ranks and ultimately becoming chief last
March. Congratulations.
Also joining the chief today is Assistant Chief Steven
Sund, who joined the department in January after a
distinguished 25-year career with the Metropolitan Police
Department. Congratulations to you as well.
I would also like to take a moment to thank all the
officers and civilians of the Capitol Police for their service.
Their presence allows Members and staff to safely conduct the
people's work and ensures that visitors can safely enjoy their
time on Capitol Hill. You are the ones who put your lives on
the line every day to protect Capitol Hill in the same way that
our brave law enforcement officers protect our communities all
across America. You are the ones who run into trouble as others
are running away seeking safety. You are heros, and we thank
each and every one of you and your folks for their service.
This week is National Police Week, and Congress has
welcomed many of those policemen and women to D.C. to recognize
them for their heroism and to remember those we have lost. The
United States Capitol Police was the host department for the
Peace Officers Memorial event on Monday, which officers from my
district in Kansas attended. My community back home was all too
aware of the sacrifices that law enforcement makes to keep us
safe.
Over the last year, three police officers have given their
lives in the line of duty in my district alone. Brad Lancaster,
Dave Milton, and Brandon Collins made the ultimate sacrifice,
and they are on my mind this week, along with all their other
fallen officers across the country.
With all that in mind, we turn to the issue at hand in
today's hearing. Chief, your budget request for fiscal year
2018 is $426.6 million. That is approximately 8 percent
increase from the enacted level. We understand the importance
of the critical mission and the role that Capitol Police plays
in ensuring the safety of all of us.
I also understand that as the mission of the Capitol Police
increases, so do the required resources to fulfill that
mission. To that point, in less than a month, the O'Neill
Federal Office Building will be transferred to the legislative
branch, and the Capitol Police will be charged with securing
the building.
Additionally, the police department is working towards
enhancing garage security and adding prescreening capabilities
all while maintaining current operations. However, our job is
to scrutinize this requested increase and make informed funding
decisions. In a tight fiscal environment, many competing
priorities exist across the legislative branch that must be
ranked and stacked in a holistic approach, which this
subcommittee will do over the next coming weeks.
I look forward to hearing your testimony.
Statement of Ranking Member Tim Ryan
With that, I yield to Ranking Member Ryan for any opening
remarks he may have.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Chief, and Assistant Chief Sund. Thank you
for being here, first time as head of the department. Thank
you.
First let me say thank you for your service. I mean, those
of us who have been here for a while or new to the Congress,
you are always there and not there all at the same time. And I
know you are always trying to balance having access to Members
of Congress, access to the government, but also provide
protection for us both sometimes in our congressional district
as well as here, so I want to say thank you for that.
We want to make sure we get you the resources that you need
to be able to do your job. We have school groups coming through
here all the time, a lot of our constituents come here, at the
same time, balance that security with accessibility, and that
is what we are going to try to juggle here with this budget,
but we want to make sure you have the resources that you need.
Finally, let me just extend my condolences on the loss of
Ryan Lee, a canine technician, who had been with the Capitol
Police since 2003. And please extend to his family our thoughts
and prayers are with him.
Chief Verderosa. Thank you.
Assistant Chief Sund. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
At this point we will call on Chief of Police Matthew
Verderosa to testify. Your remarks will be made part of the
record. We have them in our--before us, and you may summarize
your remarks for the committee.
Chief Verderosa. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman, Ranking Member Ryan, and members of the committee. I
am honored to be here today, and I appreciate the opportunity
to present the United States Capitol Police budget request for
fiscal year 2018.
I am joined here by some members of the executive team and
executive management team, including Chief of Operations,
Assistant Chief Steve Sund; Chief Financial Officer Jay Miller;
General Counsel Gretchen DeMar; Inspector General Fay Ropella.
And also with us is the president of the Fraternal Order of
Police Labor Committee, Officer Gus Papathanasiou.
I would like to thank the committee for its unwavering
support of the United States Capitol Police and for providing
the necessary funding to support our personnel and operations.
As we have seen over the past several months, our officers are
well prepared and highly trained to deal with any circumstances
that they may encounter. What at first may appear to be
routine, may in fact be a threat to the safety and well-being
of the Capitol Complex.
Accordingly, we have developed our fiscal year 2018 budget
request of $426.6 million, with a focus on continuing to equip,
train, and prepare our workforce to protect the U.S. Capitol
and the Congress and to ensure they remain safe and secure.
As you know, starting next month, the department will begin
protecting and securing the O'Neill House Office Building. This
new mission requirement is one of our primary focuses, and we
are confident that the transition from the Federal Protective
Service to the USCP will be seamless for both us and the House
community.
Additionally, due to the global threat environment and the
tactics of terrorist organizations attacking public venues, we
have worked in close coordination with the Capitol Police Board
to determine that additional screening of various means must be
employed to continue to keep the Capitol Complex safe.
As a result, our fiscal year 2018 request includes funding
for an additional 72 officers and 48 civilians for the purpose
of enhancing and completing broad security, add increased
capabilities, and civilianizing certain sworn positions as part
of a multiyear plan to bolster the overall security of the
Capitol Complex.
Lastly, our request also addresses investments in training,
recruiting, and outfitting new employees, replacing key
equipment and systems that are becoming obsolete, and restoring
annual levels reduced in previous fiscal years to meet vital
department needs.
Our commitment to the mission and our steadfast dedication
to ensuring the safety and security of Members, staff, and the
millions of visitors who come to the United States Capitol is
our top priority. This would not be possible without the
dedicated men and women of the police department. I continue to
be impressed with their overall performance and professionalism
every day.
We continue to work closely with you and your staff to
ensure that we meet the needs and expectations of Congress as
well as our mission in a reasonable and responsible manner.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear here
today, and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you
have.
[The prepared statement of Chief Verderosa follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Chief.
Assistant Chief Sund, do you have testimony to bring this
morning?
Assistant Chief Sund. No, sir.
Mr. Yoder. Okay.
Assistant Chief Sund. Nothing----
Mr. Yoder. You are just available for questions?
Assistant Chief Sund. Yes, sir.
Mr. Yoder. All right. We will grill you a little bit.
Thank you for your testimony. We will now turn to
questions.
ADDITIONAL POSITIONS REQUESTED IN FISCAL YEAR 2018
Chief, I have noticed in your budget request for fiscal
year 2018, you have asked for 72 new sworn officers and half
year funding for 48 civilian positions. You might discuss a
little bit the purpose of those new positions, why do you need
them, and why they are a priority?
Chief Verderosa. The focus for the next several years of
the Capitol Police is to enhance our ability to accomplish
three major initiatives plus staff the O'Neill building with
regularly assigned personnel.
The three major initiatives are completing the House garage
security, providing prescreening and additional screening at
entrances at all the office buildings, as well as enhanced use
of the portal scanners, which are currently only used during
major events in the House Chamber, such as joint meetings,
joint sessions, or major votes. The thought is to use those and
employ those as a supplemental effect on our current screening,
which gives us another capability to detect any types of
threats that may be entering the chambers.
Mr. Yoder. How much of this increase is related to the
Rayburn House Office garage and other garage security projects?
Chief Verderosa. The garage security projects would equate
to 39 full-time equivalents. Once we begin the O'Neill
transition, which I believe will go seamlessly, we have been
working very closely with the transition team to begin that
process, and I don't think anyone will even notice the
difference other than our staff will be in place, all the
systems that we need will be in place.
Secondarily, since that is primary and that is occurring in
June, that will be the first initiative, the garage security
implementation is subject to funding of those additional
personnel.
In order to effectuate the change, as we did in both
underground garages, the Longworth and the Cannon underground,
you have to implement the security project all at once, you
have to do it completely. Otherwise, there is really no point
in starting security unless you can do the whole building. Once
we have those personnel onboard, we would be able to begin to
cover those open lobbies inside the Rayburn, subject to the
construction schedule. And then once it is done, we would
complete the fifth phase.
Mr. Yoder. I am interested in the timing on that----
HOUSE GARAGE SECURITY
Mr. Yoder [continuing]. Because yesterday we had the
Sergeant at Arms here and we were talking about the completion
of that project and when that security would be necessary. He
thought completion of the project would be in calendar year
2022. So do you see this being a need for those officers to
secure those doors in 2018, because obviously your point is if
you are not done, then there is no point in having partial
security.
Chief Verderosa. Correct. It will take approximately 1 year
to hire, train, and deploy new officers. If funding for these
positions were to occur in fiscal year 2018, we would likely be
able to initiate security at the number of venues inside the
Rayburn which would be open. This would be three or four
places, while the building is still under construction.
It will take about a year from the time that the funding
comes in to actually get the officers in the field. So we could
start prior to 2022.
Mr. Yoder. Okay. And then once garage security is
implemented, how is congressional staff going to flow through
this? I noted that in the Senate, they have garage security,
but as a result, when the Senate staff goes from the Senate
office buildings to the Capitol, they actually don't go through
screening again.
Chief Verderosa. That is correct.
Mr. Yoder. So in the House side, if we had screening at
every entrance into the House office buildings, would the House
staff then have to get screened again to go into the Capitol?
Chief Verderosa. No, they wouldn't.
Mr. Yoder. Okay.
Chief Verderosa. One of the offsets or benefits would be
that once the Cannon and Rayburn are completed, then everyone
entering the buildings, whether it is through a door or through
the garage, would be screened, and that would alleviate the
need for staff to be rescreened to go over to the Capitol.
The staff-led tours, the citizens who would be subject to
the tours would still need to be screened for prohibited items.
This is a different level at the Capitol. So we realize the
offset once both the Cannon and the Rayburn are completed, and
we will be able to eliminate some posts, and that is how we got
it down to the number that we----
Mr. Yoder. So because of that, you have already factored in
the reduction in screening posts for staff----
Chief Verderosa. Yes. Ultimately at the end.
Mr. Yoder. Okay.
Chief Verderosa. Yes.
Mr. Yoder. Okay. Mr. Ryan.
CIVILIANIZED POSITIONS
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have a follow-up on the budget request. You say that
you want to hire 48 new civilians in order to turn some current
positions filled by sworn officers in the command center and
the background investigations, et cetera.
Chief Verderosa. That is right.
Mr. Ryan. So does this mean over the course of the next
year, you want to effectively increase the number of officers
to over a hundred?
Chief Verderosa. We would get utility out of approximately
120, 72 new plus the 48 that are currently in command center,
communications, Rayburn range, firing range. Once those are
civilianized, we would take those sworn officers at a much
quicker rate than we would a new hire and put them in the
field.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. And it is a half a year because of the
training? Is that----
Chief Verderosa. Hiring and training, it takes a little bit
of time to----
Mr. Ryan. Okay.
Chief Verderosa [continuing]. To complete the position
descriptions and get that number of personnel onboard. We would
hire positions in a group, we would hire X number of command
center technicians, X number of communications. Rather than
hiring one or two positions at a time, we would hire a class of
command center technicians so that we could effectuate the
move.
QUALIFICATION STANDARDS REQUIRED FOR NEW HIRES
Mr. Ryan. So just to help me understand, so before you even
hire and get to the training piece, Capitol Police training,
what needs, what level of training or education do they have to
have before they even apply for the job? Is there a certain
standard, a certain level?
Chief Verderosa. It depends on the job for the civilians.
For the command center technicians, we look for personnel who
have experience in running a JOC, a Joint Operations Center.
For communications, we currently do hire civilian dispatchers
and they do three functions: they do alarm monitoring, they do
call taking, complaint call taking, and they also do
dispatching.
We would eliminate the sworn position once we had a
sufficient number. The command center is a larger number, so we
would want to bring people on and train them all at once.
COST TO TRAIN AN OFFICER
Mr. Ryan. What do we spend per officer to train? Do you
have that number?
Chief Verderosa. I don't have it with me, but I do have
that number, and I can submit it for the record.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. I would like to get that.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chief Verderosa. Sure.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yoder. Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MANDATORY RETIREMENT AND RE-HIRING SWORN IN CIVILIAN POSITIONS
Chief, there is something, and I apologize. Because of the
schedule, I didn't get a chance to get with you guys before,
but I would kind of like to--these are all mostly in the
context that I would like to follow up with you on some things.
The first one is my understanding is that in certain--your
mandatory retirement age is 57, I think?
Chief Verderosa. It is, yes, sir.
Mr. Amodei. So in some instances, and it kind of gets into
what you talked about in your opening statement about
civilianizing certain positions, stuff like that, and I think
there is also a waiver where you can, under whatever your
circumstances are, which I am not familiar with, although I
would kind of like to get those if I could----
Chief Verderosa. Sure.
Mr. Amodei [continuing]. You can extend somebody to 60, but
the question revolves around, if there are instances where
people are retiring and then being rehired in civilian
positions to kind of do their same thing.
Now, I am not coming to any conclusion. I will say, hey, if
somebody is pretrained or whatever, maybe, but I am also
wondering about, so does that slow down the opportunity for
folks still in the system for promotion? I know that your
funding isn't the Federal retirement system stuff, so you can
say, well, they may be getting two Federal checks, but it is
not out of the stuff we are talking about here.
So I would kind of like to get an idea of the scope of the
issue in terms of how often has this been done, like, say, in
the last year, and just what the thinking was in terms of, hey,
we decided to rehire Amodei in a civilian capacity because, you
kind of fill in the blanks. So that is one, just to get an idea
of how that is working.
Chief Verderosa. Sure.
Mr. Amodei. Obviously my concern, if there is one, under
full disclosure is, if this is knowingly or unknowingly
prohibiting the opportunity for promotion from within, I just
kind of want to know that you guys have thought about it in
terms of for folks that are--and since----
Chief Verderosa. Sure.
Mr. Amodei [continuing]. I am north of 57, you know, I
don't know why I am sensitive about folks under 57, but just
for the heck of it, let's take a look at that and what the
waiver is meant for in case there are reasons why the waiver
wasn't used.
Then the other thing that I--my understanding is, is that
your counsel for the department, when you do personnel matters,
you have advice of counsel, which is appropriate and all that
other sort of stuff, but that the Police Board uses the same
counsel when they are appealed to. I don't know if that is true
or not, but if it isn't true, then you can just get me back the
information and say, no, the Police Board uses Yoder and Ryan,
Inc., for their counsel or something like that.
But if they do use the same counsel, my concern is this, in
a due process sense, where it is, like, if they are acting as
the appellate authority, then it would seem to me that if they
are in fact using the same counsel, you are kind of combining,
if you will, the prosecutorial with the judicial thing in terms
of separation of--so that is the thought there.
ROLE OF USCP IN DETERMINING DOOR CLOSURES
The final one is, since I am a continual griper about doors
at Cannon, which isn't specifically your jurisdiction, but you
guys play a part in it, I would like you guys to just get me a
short thing saying, when somebody is talking about access to
buildings and whether we open a door, don't open a door, how
long it is open, here is the role the Capitol Police play in
it. And I am not trying to sneak around on the Sergeant at Arms
or anybody else, but if I want to have a discussion as this
goes on throughout the construction in Cannon, I just want to
make sure that I start out at least a little bit educated.
Chief Verderosa. Certainly.
Mr. Amodei. So we will get back with you off-line and get
that information from you, and I appreciate it.
Chief Verderosa. Sure. I will say that the Capitol Police
Board does have the authority to waive mandatory retirement up
to age 60. We have done it. As a matter of fact, we have a
blanket waiver in place until September 30 of 2017, this year,
for those who are mandatory this year. Because of the budget
situation and continuing resolution, we wanted to maximize our
ability to staff.
And we are also contemplating, based on the initiatives and
the need for personnel, extending the waiver again to those who
are under 60. I think in 2017, it affected, I believe 16
people, some took advantage of it, some did not. In 2017, it is
a smaller number, I believe it is 12 that are mandatory. We
have a number of people who reach that 25-year at any age and
decide to go and change options.
When we civilianize, what will happen is these individuals
will convert over to a civilian position. So they are not going
to retire and then obtain additional salary. If someone on the
sworn side wants to put in for a civilian position, they are
free to do so. And some do that.
We have had that in a number of instances where people for
whatever reason, sometimes they are tired of shift work and
they want some steady duties. We had an official become a
background investigator, met the qualifications, hired on as a
civilian employee and they are converted over, as opposed to
collecting retirement and becoming a paid civilian employee.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. Great.
Chief Verderosa. But I will get back to you on those other
things.
Mr. Amodei. We will get on your calendar.
Chief Verderosa. Absolutely.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
Mr. Yoder. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Well, good luck with the accreditation coming up.
Chief Verderosa. Thank you.
Ms. McCollum. You have been successful with receiving the
Gold Standard accreditation in the past, so I am sure you will
do well this time.
SPECIAL EVENTS PLANNING COORDINATION
Mr. Amodei and I are both on the Interior, and so one of
the things that I was noticing that you were talking about in
here with some of your overtime is some of your unscheduled
events, and one of them is listed as the holiday concerts, but
you kind of know when they are coming, they are not too
unscheduled. Memorial Day is Memorial Day and----
Chief Verderosa. That is true.
Ms. McCollum. With what is coming up now with the Folk Life
Festival in July down here, how much of a planning goes on
between you, the Park Police, and the Smithsonian with some of
the upcoming events so that you know you might be having extra
visitors coming through the Visitors Center and things like
that? At one point the conversations were pretty good, and I
haven't followed up to hear how well it is going.
Chief Verderosa. That is a great question. Thank you,
ma'am.
We work very closely, almost on a daily basis, with our
partners in the Park Police, Park Service, and Metropolitan
Police. The three most prominent permit issuers for
demonstration activity, events, special event planning are the
Park Service, Metropolitan Police, and the Capitol Police on
behalf of the board controls the traffic regs.
So we work very closely, we look at the intelligence, we
look at open source information, all the information that is
available to us to determine crowd sizes, movements of crowds,
determine whether or not streets need to be opened or closed to
accommodate large numbers of attendees.
Fourth of July is a good example of multi-agency planning.
We work very closely with all of the entities to make sure that
the flow of people to particular areas is smooth. We share
information about any possible issues, whether it is law
enforcement or other--otherwise in terms of are there any
threats or any types of dangers that the public needs to be
aware of, and it could be as simple as weather related. We
certainly coordinate very closely.
For all of these major events, large events that encompass
the entire National Mall or large demonstration activity, we
have our partners in our command center so that we have direct
communication. We will have a command official from the
Metropolitan Police or the Park Service or the Park Police,
sometimes the military, depending on what the issue is, the
D.C. Fire Department has dispatched all of their medical calls
for events that are occurring on Capitol grounds right out of
our command center.
Ms. McCollum. Right out there.
Chief Verderosa. We have a very great working relationship.
You know, in the year preceding the election and all of the
various events and demonstration activities, I have never seen
the coordination any better in at least the last 10 years. We
really have a great operating relationship with our partners,
and I think it benefits everybody, it benefits the entire city.
Ms. McCollum. Okay, and the air support, the one helicopter
that you rely on is provided through U.S. Park Service.
Chief Verderosa. That is correct.
Ms. McCollum. We have talked about that----
Chief Verderosa. Right.
Ms. McCollum [continuing]. Before and working on constantly
approving that.
NON-REIMBURSABLE OVERTIME EVENTS
Could you tell me a little more, on page 5 you have--at the
bottom, you talk about some of your missions and personnel, and
you have a line in here, it says, this amount will cover--the
amount of $40.7 million--will cover our base mission
requirements and our support of nonreimbursable events at the
Library of Congress.
What are the nonreimbursable events at the Library--I know
we go--we were just over there on Monday night, and so you
probably have more staff on providing security for us. Are
there other nonreimbursable events at the Library of Congress
that wouldn't have a high attendance of members that you are
not being reimbursed for?
Chief Verderosa. The reimbursement goes to any security
initiatives that are over and above what we would typically
have for those buildings.
Ms. McCollum. Well, what would be an example? One example
is when we go to the dinners, when--and it is a highly attended
event by members, but what would be another--I can ask the
Library too, but----
Chief Verderosa. Sure. If we open----
Ms. McCollum [continuing]. You are the one picking up the
tab, not the library, it sounds like.
Chief Verderosa. If we open additional doors--as a part of
the regular cost of doing business, if it is something that we
would do, whether it is a congressional building or another
building that we would have a normal number of patrols or a
normal number of doors open, then we would not seek
reimbursement.
If it was a private fundraising issue at the Library and we
had to provide extra access, doors open, those are the types of
things that are reimbursed. And there is an analysis that is
done between the Library and the Capitol Police to determine
whether or not it is reimbursable.
Ms. McCollum. But it says in here your support of
nonreimbursable.
Chief Verderosa. Which is the typical overtime. So if it is
a Presidential arrival at the Library, we will----
Ms. McCollum. Oh.
Chief Verderosa [continuing]. Provide X number of officers
to ensure that the security is adequate. If it is a large
congressional event, that may be one that was not reimbursable.
We may spend extra additional duty on the event, but it is not
one of the deemed reimbursable events.
SALARIES FUNDING FOR HOUSE GARAGE SECURITY
Ms. McCollum. The last question I have is kind of a follow-
up to what the chairman was asking about staff in the garages.
If I heard you correctly, you are not going to open up and
start doing any of the security until you are ready to open up
the doors for everything, that it is going to take hiring and
training on here.
So my question is, the dollar figure that you have for the
personnel for the garage, is that based on a full year, is that
based on a half year? If you don't have it with you--I am not
trying to play Stump the Band. Could you break that down,
because I am wondering if a year from now when we are doing
this, that column line is going to go up another 3 or 5 percent
because now everybody is on full-time, or have you figured it
full-time and you might not use it all, which is fine, because
you get gold stars from the accounting office, so you keep good
track of all your pennies.
But I am just wondering if that might be an increase that
we should take in account as we go through and plan our budget
for this year, that that actually might be more expensive in
the pending years?
Chief Verderosa. Right. I believe it is half year. It is
half year funding.
Ms. McCollum. It is half year funding.
Chief Verderosa. Yes.
Ms. McCollum. Okay. That makes more sense. Thanks.
Chief Verderosa. Sorry.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief Verderosa. Sorry if I confused the issue.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Ms. McCollum.
Mr. Taylor.
ALTERNATIVE COMMAND CENTER
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you guys for being here today. I appreciate
everything that you do to keep us safe.
Your request for the $2.1 million to invest in a fully
functioning alternative command center, at what functioning
level would you say the current alternative room is and what
needs to be done to get it to 100 percent functionality?
Chief Verderosa. We have minimal ability. We have very
basic ability to continue to function. The addition would be
systems that we have in place at the command center, some of
which are unclassified, some of which are classified. We would
want that capability in the alternate, which I think is easily
done with the requested amount. The capability we have now is
less than perfect. It is a vulnerability that we want to close.
We have redundancy in our communications, we have
redundancy in our data, and this is the third component of the
redundancy. This would give us the ability to get that room hot
in 5 minutes, 5-minute response time.
PERCENTAGE OF OVERTIME FUNDING ATTRIBUTED TO TRAINING
Mr. Taylor. Okay. And the second question, the $40.7
million to cover off-line trainings and overtime, can you
explain what allocation percentage, roughly, is for trainings
and what type of trainings?
Chief Verderosa. The training that is covered, and the
Congress and committee has been very generous with us, and we
are--we are not like a typical police department where we can
pull some cars off the street and send people to training. We
still have to staff doors at the level and the expectation and
controls.
Congress has allowed us--has afforded us in the past 24,000
hours of additional duty backfill. We would take people off
posts and fill those positions that they are vacating at the
cost of 24,000 hours.
Typically, the training is active shooter training,
experienced officer training, which provides also legal
updates, handcuffing, and physical training, various entity
training. Certain elements have different requirements based on
what their job function is. Investigators are different than
the field officers. It is all these types of trainings that
should be done periodically that we really want to get everyone
properly trained.
Mr. Taylor. Just one quick question. What roughly
percentage-wise is that at the $40.7 million and how does that
compare to last year's?
Chief Verderosa. The training was $1.5 million of the
overtime.
Mr. Taylor. Is that roughly the same as last----
Chief Verderosa. Yes.
Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you.
Chief Verderosa. That is an annual request.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yoder. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
SWORN STAFFING PLANNING
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief, welcome. And it is a pleasure to work with you.
Over the last number of years, particularly the last three,
and during my tenure on this committee, I can't remember a
fiscal year in which the Capitol Police didn't request a
substantial increase in sworn officers.
In fiscal year 2016, your actual sworn was 1,769, your
inactive sworn in fiscal year 2017 is 1,871, your request for
fiscal year 2018 is 1,943.
What kind of planning is done over multiple years that
would ultimately one day result in you not needing a
substantial increase in sworn officers? I realize there are
unique needs that we have, as this is not a typical police
force, but the Capitol Police gets a substantial increase, much
more than any other agency in our jurisdiction, every year, a
substantial increase in equipment, substantial increase in
sworn officers. It never seems like your mission is reached.
So how do you come up with the number of additional
officers that you need? Is it based on a formula? Is it based
on threats? I would like to know, in what fiscal year are we
going to not seek an increase in sworn officers, because there
are--there is a sense that you will never believe that you have
a sufficient amount of sworn officers. And I don't mean this as
criticism, I certainly want us to meet the needs of security,
but you do say in your testimony that we, as we know--where is
the--I am going to find it.
As you are aware, the Department's current sworn staffing
levels do not provide the complete and necessary resources to
meet all of our mission requirements within the established
sworn officer utility or the number of work hours in a year
that each officer is available to perform work.
Each year, frankly, when these come--when the Capitol
Police leadership has come, I presume that the request that you
are making, if we grant it, is going to meet the needs that you
have.
Chief Verderosa. Sure.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So I am not aware that we have not
previously met your needs. When we fund your request, to me, we
have met your needs.
Chief Verderosa. Well, thank you for the question. I
appreciate that. I will give a little background.
In terms of the number of 72 recruits, 72 plus the
projected number of attrition is what we can physically handle
through our training academy. Based on the three initiatives,
prior to the O'Neill coming into play, we had a multi-year
plan, and the multi-year plan was to cover what the Department
and the board believe are vulnerabilities to the complex in
terms of the additional screening in the garages, the
additional pre-screeners at the office buildings, and the
enhanced use of the portal scanners for daily use. All of the
FTEs and civilianizing positions to get the utility out of
those sworn that are in positions that could be civilianized
will support those initiatives. The 72 positions, and the 48
positions, the total of 120, would not reduce existing
overtime.
We have an FTE shortage and we have looked at validation
through various studies we have done on our manpower that dates
back to the GAO days on how we utilize our manpower. In regard
to our formula and our processes, we examine vulnerabilities,
we look at what we want to accomplish with the staffing, and
then we add--we seek the staffing to secure those
vulnerabilities.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It feels like that changes every
year.
Chief Verderosa. It does, and it can be based on the type
of attacks that are occurring in the world. We certainly react
to known information and also classified information, but this
is more about a bicameral approach to the entire Capitol
grounds to make the campus safe, to prevent attacks and to keep
the issues that occurred at the CVC last March outside the
building to the extent that we can.
OVERTIME CAP
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Are you still exceeding your
overtime cap?
Chief Verderosa. I think we did not have to--and I will
look at my CFO on this--make any type of transfer last year.
Mr. Miller. We didn't have to transfer. We just had minor
adjustments to it for some excess, but still within our salary
levels.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But you had more overtime than you
are authorized for? Is that it?
Chief Verderosa. We were within our salary appropriation,
but we had to make notification based on the expectation of
what it would be used for.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman, this has been a
problem for a long time. I totally support the Capitol Police
and meeting their needs, but I have been concerned for a while
that you don't have a long-term plan that at least is apparent.
It feels like your mission changes every year, and it
should change based on the needs that we have and shifting
security challenges, but more toys and more officers--the quest
to continue to grow is not appropriate, and so I really think
we need a better sense of at what point and at what level does
this committee need to fund you so that you have the adequate
footprint that you need to meet your mission so that we can
better plan for your funding needs and not get hit with a
substantial increase.
This is the smallest bill of all of them, and while we have
been flat funding, or essentially flat funding many of the
agencies in our bill, the Capitol Police continues to get
substantial increases, and I would just like to make sure that
those increases are planned for.
I have additional questions in the future.
Mr. Yoder. Mr. Moolenaar.
KEEPING THREATS OUTSIDE OF THE CAPITOL
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Chief.
It is nice to see you again.
Chief Verderosa. Nice to see you, sir.
Mr. Moolenaar. I want to thank you and your team for
allowing me to kind of see your operations and kind of
understand how you work here at the Capitol. I very much
appreciate you for that.
Just as kind of a follow-up to some of those discussions
and some of the discussions you were just having, one of the
things that struck me is you have a perimeter that you are
covering, and I think there has been tremendous progress where
people around the Capitol area feel much safer and secure, and
I want to commend you and your team for that, but you also made
a point just now about keeping incidents outside of the
Capitol.
And one of the things you shared with me is, you know, when
there is an incident, sometimes it is already in process in the
Capitol by the time you become aware, and one of your goals is
how you kind of move that barrier out.
Chief Verderosa. Right.
Mr. Moolenaar. Could you speak to that a bit, because I
think that is pretty compelling?
Chief Verderosa. Sure. The goal is always to keep the
threats far away from the body, the icon, the Capitol, and the
various many, many thousands of people here on a given day, the
members, obviously.
Certainly our robust presence influences whether or not
there are negative or criminal acts occurring. In any given
year, we process anywhere between 10--that includes staff and
our members, but between 10 and 15 million people, and there
are many more who walk through the grounds.
It is an open campus and it is a very difficult task to
provide a level of security that assures that the Congress and
the Members can do their work while still fostering that
relationship with the public and having it be a welcoming
environment. We try to do so as unobtrusively as we can and
with as minimal impact to the business process or the functions
of Congress.
What we want to do is we want to keep the bad guy away and
we want to have a deterrent in place. By having pre-screening
at doors, and keeping the threat outside and having the ability
to more easily lock down a door if necessary to engage the
threat outside of the door or in the street or on a border
street. This is preferred to getting close to the campus, that
is the goal. Sometimes we are able to do that and sometimes we
are not.
You can walk up close to the building and eyes are watching
and we have other technology, but the goal is to keep threats
as far away as you can. This takes a significant amount of
personnel. I am certainly very aware of the impact that we have
on the rest of the legislative budget, and the committees have
been very gracious with us in terms of providing us resources.
I do want to be completely transparent in how we operate.
The number of 72 positions over multiple years will
accomplish the goal of getting to the end result of achieving
those three mission sets plus O'Neill, the completion of the
garage security, pre-screeners outside each open access point,
and the portal scanners. That total package will help make this
campus safer.
Mr. Moolenaar. Great. Thank you.
NEW COMMAND CENTER
Mr. Yoder. Chief, in your budget request, you are asking
for $2.1 million for a new command center.
Chief Verderosa. Yes, sir.
Mr. Yoder. And I believe that is in the Fairchild
Building----
Chief Verderosa. It is.
Mr. Yoder [continuing]. Which, as we know, is a building
that is privately owned that we lease. And I wonder what your
thoughts are about why that is the preferred location, and
would it make more sense to have that new command center in a
building we own. It is a $2.1 million investment. And so maybe
you could speak to that.
Chief Verderosa. Sure. It is mostly technology. It is
actually in a space that would be dually used. It would be
vacated by the Chief Administrative Officer. There would be
some minor alterations. Well, I don't want to say minor. There
would be some alterations to that space, but it is four
systems, the cost to bring the systems in, to run a pathway and
to have that capability, and we believe we will have that
ability to do it much sooner if we were to outfit this portion
of the Fairchild Building. If we were to vacate that space, it
is likely most of this technology would be ready for lifecycle
at that point. I think it is a good investment. It is more
immediate. Rather than wait for that capability, we determined
that it would be appropriate to ask in this request.
Mr. Yoder. What about a site that we own? Did you look at
other sites? Like, what about the O'Neill building, for
example?
Chief Verderosa. Well, that is an option, but it is really
dependent on the tenants that are in that space now and people
vacating that area as opposed to--so if it is going to be
extended for a year or two. I am really not sure what the
length that the current tenants would be in that space.
Mr. Yoder. But if the space was available there, that would
also be an acceptable site for you?
Chief Verderosa. Yes.
Mr. Yoder. Okay.
Chief Verderosa. Absolutely.
Mr. Yoder. Okay. You know, one of the things that we have
seen around the country is more concerns with district office
safety. We discussed that yesterday at a hearing we had, and
there are some measures that have been requested in the House
of Representatives budget to allow additional security measures
within district offices.
USCP COORDINATION WITH DISTRICT OFFICES
And what role does the Capitol Police play in that? You
know, in many cases when Members of Congress attend events,
sometimes the local city police will be there just to have a
presence.
Do you coordinate in that in any way? Is there anything in
the budget request that would request some of the additional
concerns that Members have with district office security?
Chief Verderosa. Absolutely. One of the things that we do
is the law enforcement coordination at the request of Members.
Members can work through the Sergeant at Arms or request us to
do an analysis on an event that is at a district office, an
outside event. Thus far this year, we have done 184 member-
related law enforcement liaisons with district offices, and
that also includes reaching out to the local law enforcement.
We do it for both House and Senate. Without requests
reached out to 178 offices when we found something that was
occurring, that was planned to be occurring either at a
district office or at a Member's event. The advent of a lot of
the technology and the information that is out now helps us
with that, but we have investigators that actually look at
these events to determine whether or not there is a threat, at
what level of concern that these events are occurring. That
certainly is something that we do. We also provide threat
assessment and security awareness briefs, not only through D.C.
member offices, but we will also do that for district offices.
A lot of times we can do that through technology, through video
teleconferencing or webinar as opposed to going, but we can
also physically go out there.
Mr. Yoder. Is there anything in your budget that reflects
some of the growing concerns? Is this sort of standard work
that you have always done to protect, or do you see changes in
your----
Chief Verderosa. We are doing that at a much greater rate,
so we are spending some additional duty on that, some overtime.
IMPACT OF NEW OFFICERS ON OVERTIME
Mr. Yoder. And there has been some discussion, Mr. Taylor
brought this up and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, regarding overtime.
And I noticed in the request, $40.7 million in overtime
request, while at the same time we are asking for the 72 new
officers.
Is there a point at which the new officers, if granted,
would reduce that, or is the assumption that if we didn't grant
the officers, you would need more overtime? You know, where--I
assume at some point there would be an offset.
Chief Verderosa. Right.
Mr. Yoder. Like, if we had--what would be the optimal
number of officers where we wouldn't have as much overtime?
Chief Verderosa. Right. Well, you know, that is a great
question. In this request, there will be some offset when the
new hires take over the O'Neill. We do have some additional
duty that is set aside for the O'Neill building. I think
annually it is about $5 million. Once we get utility out of the
officers we hire based on the bill for O'Neill, they will be
able to subside some of that overtime. The 72 positions would
go to new mission sets, as some of the members have indicated,
and those would go to those three initiatives.
To reduce the current mission, whether it is FTE shortage,
unscheduled events, we do plan----
Mr. Yoder. Because that is about 10 percent of your total
budget----
Chief Verderosa. It is.
Mr. Yoder [continuing]. Is overtime.
Chief Verderosa. It adds up in my recollection of all the
of the studies, to about 150 FTE that are overtime. There is
some level--you want to get it to about 90 percent staff, 10
percent overtime. You know, it is a balance.
Remember, we are paying overtime to cover positions when we
are going to hire people. That overtime will stop once they are
out of the academy. That is for existing mission. One of the
things we want to do is perhaps extend the mandatory
retirement, which would reduce the need for overtime and keep
people working for an additional year at a regular rate.
Mr. Yoder. Okay.
Chief Verderosa. It is a balance.
Mr. Yoder. So if you extended the date of retirement, that
would allow you to reduce costs on the overtime, because you
would be training less new individuals?
Chief Verderosa. That is correct. Then we would have people
in the field.
Mr. Yoder. What are the pros and cons of that?
Chief Verderosa. Well, it is at a higher rate. We are
paying people at a exhibit regular rate. It is cheaper----
Mr. Yoder. So the pros and cons of extending the----
Chief Verderosa. Oh. Well----
Mr. Yoder [continuing]. Age of retirement.
Chief Verderosa. At some point you get to the point where
we have to started looking at, you know, the vigorous workforce
and the reason we have the 57 mandatory retirement. I think,
some people would want to raise it, some people don't. I think
it helps keep the workforce ready and prepared to deal with
eventualities. That is a larger law enforcement benefit
picture. If we were to raise our retirement age, for instance
to 60, what affect would that have on other law enforcement
agencies that are under the FERS system that get law
enforcement benefits, as we do.
Right now, given the fiscal situation, I think it is one of
the best options because it could save having to hire half a
class.
Mr. Yoder. Even though they are being paid more, it
actually stills saves you more money, because you are not
hiring and training and going through the process.
Chief Verderosa. Right. We get more utility immediately----
Mr. Yoder. Right.
Chief Verderosa [continuing]. Out of them.
Mr. Yoder. Okay.
Chief Verderosa. Because again, it takes about 8 months to
really train, equip, field training, and get them to the field
on their own after, it takes about 4 months to hire.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you. Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
OPTIMAL STAFFING LEVEL FOR USCP
So as I am listening to all the questions about staffing,
and I am new to the committee, so are you--the number, the end
number, Ms. Wasserman Schultz was saying, okay, what is the
number----
Chief Verderosa. Right.
Mr. Ryan [continuing]. Is that number based on kind of day-
to-day, yeah, we have these events and the Folk Festival and we
have got all this stuff going on, it is kind of--it is already
in the works, this stuff we handle all the time, tours, it gets
busy in the summer, is the number based on that or is the
number based on 9/11 happens and/or there is a major incident
at the Capitol, which I assume you want to be prepared for?
Chief Verderosa. Correct.
Mr. Ryan. So what is your number based on? And as I am
listening, I am thinking, yeah, we have our daily maintenance,
and in Niles, Ohio, there are 50 cops or whatever, and----
Chief Verderosa. Right.
Mr. Ryan [continuing]. No one's going to be--you know,
there is not a lot of threat----
Chief Verderosa. Right.
Mr. Ryan [continuing]. As opposed to here.
Chief Verderosa. Right.
Mr. Ryan. So can you help me understand what you are
thinking.
Chief Verderosa. The number is to accomplish the tasks that
we do today, the level of service we provide today, plus the
new initiatives.
If we fill the billets, if it is deemed appropriate, to
meet those mission requirements for the portal scanners, for
the pre-screeners, for the----
Mr. Ryan. Day-to-day security.
Chief Verderosa [continuing]. Broad security, then I am not
going to ask for additional personnel once that is done. If the
mission requirements expand beyond that, and I don't know if
they will or they won't, based on world events, new mission
requirements, whether it is internally driven, whether it is
Capitol Police Board driven, or however it is designated that
this is the mission and this is the mission requirement that we
need to have an additional building or we need to have
additional asset or this type of coverage, then I will ask for
those.
The alternative is, and we have done that in the past, we
have worked overtime to cover the new mission requirements, and
we do that basically every day with sort of routine shortages,
but these are new mission sets.
We get to that number, and we are trying not to increase
the level of overtime, we are trying to get to the level that
we need to have to meet the requirement to handle those mission
sets. We believe those mission sets will enhance our ability to
secure the facility.
There is going to be unknown mission all the time. If we
had a demonstration or an event that pops up. The Pope visit
was an example of that was an unplanned event, and it was
basically an all-hands event and drove a lot of additional
duty, drove a lot of personnel. We can handle that on an ad hoc
basis.
We wouldn't plan for that just to have those people around
in case we have those types of events, but those are the
perfect opportunities to use overtime to fill the need. This is
the day-to-day requirement to have additional eyes at doors to
be able to secure the outside.
Mr. Ryan. So we get through all this, we get through the
Rayburn, the Cannon, and the pre-screening and all of that
stuff, and you will be at a level that you think you can
sustain, and then should the threat level increase, you would
come back to us and say, look, X, Y, and Z is happening.
Chief Verderosa. Right.
Mr. Ryan. We may need a classified briefing about it,
whatever the case may be, but we need an additional----
Chief Verderosa. We would do a business case----
Mr. Ryan. Right. Okay.
Chief Verderosa [continuing]. And we would either be
successful in demonstrating that there is a need or not.
Mr. Ryan. Right.
Chief Verderosa. Again, it is really in consultation with
my bosses and having the big picture for the entire campus.
OFFICER MORALE
Mr. Ryan. One final question just to get an idea of what is
happening within the force. So I mentioned Ryan Lee----
Chief Verderosa. Yes.
Mr. Ryan [continuing]. And the tragedy there. How are we
doing with our rank and file as far as, you know, health and
wellness and, you know, stress issues?
Chief Verderosa. Right.
Mr. Ryan. Because it is--you know, it is expensive to live
around here and people have families and there are a lot of
economic issues, plus the stress of being a Capitol Police
officer. Are we doing enough to help in that regard so that
maybe we can prevent any kind of future incident?
Chief Verderosa. Sure. That is a very common and great
question. Very tragic. You know, we are a close-knit
department, probably more than some. In some respects, we are
like a family. I have had very close contact with my troops,
particularly those units that are really affected, closely
affected, and they are handling it. It is tough. We will get
through it.
We do have great support from the CAO and the Office of
Employee Assistance, also from some of our brother and sister
police departments, particularly in this case Fairfax County
Police have been outstanding in terms of peer support and those
types of things. The community has been great and the Congress
has been great, the committee staff have been great, in terms
of helping us through those things.
I think that morale is kind of a fickle thing. It can go up
and down and it can turn on a lot of things. I think the troops
are generally in a good place. They are generally pretty happy.
They really understand the mission. They love the mission. All
you have to do is look at the dome, and you understand what
your mission is. It is very simple. We are here to protect you
all and what you do, and I think they take great pride in that.
I think that we have what we need. We can always sort of
expand on our wellness and look to improve communication and
make sure that we are really talking about issues, serious
issues that we need to talk about.
Some issues you need to confront, some issues you really
need to talk about, and we have been fairly fortunate, but it
is a societal thing and I think it is a law enforcement thing.
There is stigma and there are all kinds of emotions
involved. I think that we are very cognizant of our troops'
feelings and attitude, and we foster the conversation, and I
think we try to confirm it, at least the Assistant Chief and I
have been--that is our position on it. I think we can always
use some help, and we look to our partners to really support
us.
Mr. Ryan. Okay.
Chief Verderosa. I don't know if that answers your
question.
Mr. Ryan. Well, you know, you are there for us, you know,
we need to be there for you. And we know this is a tough job,
and we just want to make sure that whether it is on the
training side or on the wellness side day to day----
Chief Verderosa. Sure.
Mr. Ryan [continuing]. That, you know, the men and women of
the force are getting what they need from a wellness
perspective----
Chief Verderosa. Right.
Mr. Ryan [continuing]. From a mental health promotion
perspective.
Chief Verderosa. Right.
Mr. Ryan [continuing]. Not that there is anything wrong
with anybody, but it is a high stress job----
Chief Verderosa. Right.
Mr. Ryan [continuing]. And in addition to, as I said, your
normal high stress family life and living in the most expensive
place in the world, you know. Like, it all adds up. And we
just--I want to make sure you guys are okay and that we are on
the cutting-edge of making sure you got what you need and the
programs you need to take care of the men and women. So that
is----
Chief Verderosa. Yeah. I am very appreciative of all the
support. I will be honest. The officers do get to know the
staff here, they get to know the Members, and they have been
very supportive, particularly in this particular case. We look
to our friends at the DAV and OEA. We do have seminars and we
do talk about things and do have some HR programs available.
We are certainly going to look at it and we are going to
foster the conversation and make sure that everyone understands
what happened and understands, if you can ever understand why,
and then move on and make sure that everyone is at least
talking about it and we are responsive to people's needs.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yoder. Yes. Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. I have nothing further. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Yoder. All right. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Just to follow up on the office.
Chief Verderosa. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. McCollum. I had mentioned early in January when we were
doing our organized meeting that I had a 40 percent rent
increase and, of course, couldn't afford that on our budget, so
I then tried to find a place that would sign less than a 2-year
lease.
We did it, but we worked with both the Sergeant and with
Capitol Police on moving, and it was very much appreciated with
my staff. And I am sorry that I--I am not sorry--I am ranking
member of Interior and I missed the meeting yesterday because
we were having public witness, but I know that that sometimes
moving district offices overlaps between the Sergeant's office,
your office, as well as mail security and working with the U.S.
Post Office and everything else.
Again, so not that we need lots of little handbooks, it
doesn't have to be something that gets put out, but I had
seasoned staff, so they kind of knew how to work through that.
Chief Verderosa. Right.
Ms. McCollum. We actually had a conversation around our
conference table about who we notify about the security camera,
we need to call St. Paul PD, we need to do this, we need to do
that. We had our own check sheet. I know people don't like
moving their district offices a lot, but if at some point--I
think we are going to write down what we did and maybe give it
to you, and that might be a template to use for moving, but I
did want to follow up on the offices too.
I know that it seems like there are a lot of things going
on right now with some of the townhalls. Those things happened
in 2006 and 2007 with townhalls, so for some of the newer
members, they might think this is a brand new experience that
Capitol Police and our local police departments are dealing
with, but it is not. It is a lot of the same, but you need to
be there in coordination and working with that.
What is the follow-up, though, on the Metro? You and I have
talked about this a little bit----
COMMUNICATIONS AND METRO
Chief Verderosa. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. McCollum [continuing]. Mr. Chair, and we are really
close to a Metro stop, and we have had a lot of breakdowns, we
have had more fires, more episodes, and the rest. A lot of our
staff are down there, we have got constituents down there. We
had talked about, doing training, figuring out how to train
either with Metro or with you on, what is the right side, how
do you get out of one of the subway doors, what is the best way
to exit.
Chief Verderosa. Right.
Ms. McCollum. Where are we on that, because we are paying
close attention in my office, and I haven't seen much come
through yet? Is it Metro holding that up?
Chief Verderosa. No. Actually, we have a meeting today, a
planning meeting on a communications and response capabilities
demonstration at the Capitol South Metro. That will be
occurring some time in July, early July.
Ms. McCollum. Okay.
Chief Verderosa. We have been busy. And I believe the
obligation plan has been approved to provide communication
capability in the tunnels, on the platforms for our radio
systems, because once you go down, you are out of touch.
Ms. McCollum. That is right.
Chief Verderosa. But we will have the capability to be able
to communicate at all three of the Close in Metros, Capitol
South, Federal Center Southwest, and Union Station, and all the
rail tunnels between the stations. And that--it is basically
1.8, and it was on new year 2007, I think it was radio 90
equipment required to be interoperable between WMATA and us.
And also radio coverage into the Third Street tunnel, which
is another area where we frequent, we traverse, and we are
looking for interoperable communication. We have attended many
of the regional--the Metro exercises.
Ms. McCollum. Yeah. Because Metro sometimes sends--I know
you are working on it.
Chief Verderosa. Yeah.
Ms. McCollum. That is why I was wondering if--Metro seems
to have some dysfunction with getting their----
Chief Verderosa. They have been very cooperative.
Ms. McCollum. They have been cooperative?
Chief Verderosa. We have also, based on our conversations,
worked with, I mentioned to Chief MacLean of the Park Police
that that was one of the issues that, you know, we also need--
--
Ms. McCollum. The Smithsonian.
Chief Verderosa. We also need to look at, you know,
interoperability with the Park Police, which we do have. I
think we are moving along. I don't think there is any holdup--
--
Ms. McCollum. Good.
Chief Verderosa. I think we are progressing to a point
where we will be ready to talk about training.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
CAPITOL POLICE BOARD ROLE IN MISSION ASSIGNMENT
Mr. Yoder. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a
couple of additional questions.
Chief, you referenced your bosses----
Chief Verderosa. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. Who are the Capitol
Police Board. And I asked the sergeant yesterday about the
dotted line that we have here, which is unfortunate, that
leaves us with, a more difficult situation in trying to conduct
oversight over the Police Board. You are not a member of the
Police Board with a vote, and you referenced that some of your
mission is assigned by them.
What percentage, how much of your mission is assigned by
them, and are you generally aligned with the assignments to
your mission that they have given you as opposed to what your
plans and vision are for the department? And to what extent
does your request result in things that they have added that
you would not have?
Chief Verderosa. Right. The board and I have a very good
relationship. I go to the board much more than they come to me
in terms of any requests, any needs, things that we are looking
at doing, whether it is initiatives or training. The board
initiatives are things that we talked about, at least the three
that I have discussed here, the portal scanners, the garage
security, obviously.
Some of it is driven by, whether it is the House Sergeant
at Arms or whether it is the Senate Sergeant at Arms, the board
collectively and I agree that these three initiatives,
including garage security, the prescreening, the portal
scanners are things that will enhance our ability.
It has been my experience with the board that they have
been very supportive of me. They basically leave the running of
the police department to me. They do provide great counsel. I
have very frank discussions with the board about whatever the
issue is. I give my opinion.
The board generally, in almost 99.9 percent of the time
comes to consensus, and they include me in that conversation. I
don't vote on final initiatives, but I think that, you know, in
terms of these initiatives, I am fully supportive, and it is--I
wouldn't say that it is direction directly from them, it is
more of an integration of the conversation.
We are looking at the best ways to provide security on the
campus in light of Paris, in light of Berlin, and all the other
various types of threats that are out there, and always with
the mind-set that this is an open campus, so what are the
things that we can do to enhance our ability to protect us at
the vital points.
MANDATORY BUDGET ITEMS
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. What happens when you have a
disagreement with the board on the direction that your mission
should take? And how much of your budget is nice to have,
versus got to have?
Chief Verderosa. I think what we have asked for is the got
to haves. I think, in this day and age, and last March's
incident highlights, the need to not have the confrontation in
the building. The confrontation in March occurred at the CVC,
and that was designed for it, and it worked. The CVC performed
flawlessly. The officers performed exactly how they should
have.
What we want to do is we want to be able to keep it at
arm's length, keep the fight out if we have to rather than
inside. Obviously, the buildings were never designed for the
multitude of screening that we do, the office buildings, so it
is difficult, particularly with such cumbersome equipment. The
more we can do to keep it isolated out is better.
I think we are pretty much in lockstep, the board and I, in
terms of the need to think out of the box, be imaginative. For
example, with the portal scanners, you don't want disruption on
the floor. We want to be able to detect things that the regular
magnetometers can't.
Using those in concert and being complementary with the
typical magnetometer and now the portal scanners, I think it
creates a much greater ability to stop things from getting to
the places we don't want them to get, and some very serious
items and other things that just aren't detectable.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman, I just think that the
Capitol Police over the years needs to do a better job of
predicting for us and planning over multiple years what it is
their needs are going to be, because it does appear that we get
a new significant request with expanded missions even in--even
considering that we are always going to have unanticipated
needs because of the shifting security issues that we have. And
so I----
Chief, I really think that you need to spend some time with
your leadership team, because it is not just you. Your
predecessors have also faced that challenge.
OFFICER MORALE
I do want to ask you about the overall morale of the
Capitol Police, because there was significant tension under
your predecessor, particularly with minority officers. And what
steps have you taken to improve that morale and how do you
think it is going?
Chief Verderosa. Again, it is hard to put your finger on
the pulse. It depends on who you talk to. You know, I think
morale has been fairly positive. I may not be the best person
to ask. You can ask--the rank and file, I am sure they will
talk to you and talk to----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is why I am asking.
Chief Verderosa [continuing]. Talk to the members. I have
an advantage in that I have worked many, many of those posts
that the rank and file work. I have walked the foot beat, I
have driven a police car and ridden a motorcycle, and, the
specialty assignments, and done, building security.
I think that, generally when I am out and about, I think
the troops come to me and they tell me, they tell me the good,
they tell me the bad. When we look at, what is going on, I am
always open to looking at things a different way.
I think the Assistant Chief is the same way. He comes from
the outside with a fresh set of eyes. He is an operationally-
based individual. He ran special operations for the
Metropolitan Police for a number of years.
In terms of all of those things and, the effect they have
on the officers day to day, and that is really what it is
about, we are talking about a day-to-day attitude, I think the
officers are in a good place, I think--they certainly have my
respect. The troops have my respect. I respect what they do
every day. I am impressed with the operational ability of
officers.
No one likes to be held accountable. Some people may think
I am a disciplinarian. I think limits and accountability is
good and it validates everything that the officers who come to
work to do their job every day appreciate that, and I think
that is a very small part of what we do.
You are always going to have people who may have been
through the process, the discipline process, and they are
upset, but I think generally, by and large, we are in a good
place. I think people are motivated to come to work. We do talk
quite a bit with the troops.
DIVERSITY IN THE WORKFORCE
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Just to drill down a little bit, and
then I have one more question and then I am done, Mr. Chairman.
What about diversity? It really has been a challenge that
the Capitol Police have faced systemically with diversity,
diversity in your leadership, diversity in recruitment. How are
you focusing in on improving that?
And, I don't mean any disrespect, but it is hard to take
your word for it. As you said, you are not--you are in
leadership now----
Chief Verderosa. Sure.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. You are in not in the
rank and file.
So, Mr. Chairman, it might be helpful for us to have an
open, you know, an informal meeting with the Capitol Police
union leadership so that we can hear from them. We don't have
to do it in a hearing, but it would be, I think, good for
members to hear from the union leadership, we have done that
from time to time, and give them an opportunity without the
Capitol Police leadership here to talk to us about, you know,
some of their challenges, but----
Chief Verderosa. Certainly.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. Diversity has been a
problem.
Chief Verderosa. We have a great diversity officer, Natalie
Holder, who comes to us from the private sector, and she has
done a lot of work with municipalities, including New York
City. We include people.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do you have goals to increase
diversity?
Chief Verderosa. Absolutely. We want to broaden our--
everyone's perspective and we want to be able to----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I mean----
Chief Verderosa [continuing]. Provide opportunities----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I mean numerical goals. Do you have
the goal to, say, take the leadership of the Capitol Police
diversity from where it is now to a higher number?
Chief Verderosa. We are always trying to build a bench with
a very diverse workforce.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, no.
Chief Verderosa. So, yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So you don't have specific goals----
Chief Verderosa. I don't have number specifics----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. Written down.
Chief Verderosa [continuing]. But, what I have is a policy
of inclusion and being able to expand the bench for----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. But without a plan--I mean,
does your diversity officer have a plan that she is following--
--
Chief Verderosa. Sure.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. To increase----
Chief Verderosa. We just started mentoring with outside
agencies and internally. We also are providing opportunities
for people. Of course, they are all validated promotional
processes.
We look at all of the aspects of promotion that we should.
And I think that we are very inclusive. And I think that you
could look at the numbers in the promotions. It is a very
diverse group and we have given opportunities for----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I----
Chief Verderosa [continuing]. Women and minorities all
along the line.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I mean, through the history of my
career, I have never really seen significant changes in
diversity without a specific written plan on how to accomplish
it. And so are you planning on developing a specific written
plan?
Chief Verderosa. Yes, through our diversity office, we are.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. If you could share that plan
with me----
Chief Verderosa. Sure.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. And the process that
you are going through to develop it, that would be great.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
LOST EQUIPMENT RETURN POLICY
And then lastly, I would like to know how Capitol Police
handle equipment that belongs to a member or a staffer that has
been lost within the Capitol Complex and found or recovered by
one of your officers. What happens?
Chief Verderosa. Sure. Well, it is processed on what is
called the PD-81, which is a property record. And depending on
the property, depending if you can legitimately determine
ownership, then it is generally turned back over to the owner
of the property.
If it is part of an ongoing case, then there are other
things that have to occur for that to happen.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So if a Member says that they have
equipment that has been lost, and you find it, it would be
returned to the Member?
Chief Verderosa. In the general sense, yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Chief Verderosa. You have to be able to positively identify
the property and be able to establish ownership.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. And if ownership is
established----
Chief Verderosa. If it is part an ongoing case, then there
are additional things that need to be done.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But if the Member owns the equipment
and there is no ongoing case related to that Member, then the
equipment is supposed to be returned.
Chief Verderosa. Right. In the general sense, yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No. I mean in the specific sense. If
the Member loses the equipment, says they lost the equipment--
--
Chief Verderosa. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. And it is found by the
Capitol Police, it is supposed to be returned.
Chief Verderosa. If ownership has been established----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
Chief Verderosa [continuing]. It will be returned. If it is
subject to an ongoing investigation or additional things----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Chief Verderosa [continuing]. It needs to be----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. But not an ongoing
investigation related to the Member. If the equipment belongs
to the Member, it has been lost, they say it has been lost, and
it has been identified as that Member's, then the Capitol
Police is supposed to return it, correct?
Chief Verderosa. Well, I can't give a yes or no answer on
that, because I know----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It is a simple yes or no answer.
Chief Verderosa [continuing]. No parameters.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you lose--if a Member loses
equipment----
Chief Verderosa. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz [continuing]. And it is found by the
Capitol Police or your staff, and it is identified as that
Member's equipment, and the Member is not associated with any
case, and that is their equipment, it is supposed to be
returned, yes or no?
Chief Verderosa. It depends on the circumstances. And if
the circumstances are----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I don't understand how that is
possible. Member's equipment is Member's equipment. It is not--
under my understanding, the Capitol Police is not able to
confiscate Member's equipment when the Member is not under
investigation. It is their equipment and it is supposed to be
returned.
Chief Verderosa. Well, I think there is extenuating
circumstances in this case. I think that working through my
counsel and the necessary personnel, if that in fact is the
case, and through the investigation, we will return the
equipment, but until that is accomplished, I can't return the
equipment.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I think you are violating the rules
when you conduct your business that way, and should expect that
there would be consequences.
I yield back.
Mr. Yoder. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony today.
Assistant Chief, we let you off easy.
Chief, you answered all the tough questions. But we
appreciate both of your leadership and service to our country.
We appreciate the many officers that are out guarding the
Capitol right now that are away from their families, putting
themselves in harm's way; all the support personnel, civilian
personnel. It is a dedication to service, and we really respect
what you do. We want to make sure we have a fine tuned budget,
that we are putting money in the right places, and so we will
work with you and the Members in both parties here to come up
with a right budget going forward. We look forward to
successful service and safety in this Capitol campus.
With that, the subcommittee will adjourn until 2:30 this
afternoon, when we will hear from the Library of Congress.
Chief Verderosa. Thank you.
Mr. Yoder. The meeting is adjourned.
[Questions for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, May 18, 2017.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
WITNESSES
HON. CARLA D. HAYDEN, LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
BERNARD (BUD) BARTON, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
ROBERT R. NEWLEN, DEPUTY LIBRARIAN FOR INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT
MARY B. MAZANEC, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Opening Statement of Chairman Yoder
Mr. Yoder. I call the hearing to order. Today, this
afternoon, we are having a hearing on the Library of Congress.
We would like to welcome Dr. Carla Hayden, the new Librarian of
Congress to our committee hearing today and your trusted team
here, Mr. Newlen and Mr. Barton. Thank you all for attending.
And we look forward to an excellent hearing and lots of
good conversation about the wonderful things you are doing at
the Library of Congress, and how we can be supportive, and
continue to improve upon the great work there.
The Library's requesting $493.2 million, an increase of
$36.2 million above fiscal year 2017. In fiscal year 2017, we
started positioning the Library so that it can make critical
improvements to its information technology systems with funding
for the outstanding Government Accountability Office IT
recommendation and the relocation of the Library's primary
computing facility. The Library's current primary computing
facility built in the 1970s can no longer provide a sufficient
level of data center reliability resiliency. We continue to
make this a priority for fiscal year 2018.
The Copyright Office request is $72 million, an increase of
$3 million above fiscal year 2017. The subcommittee feels
strongly that the modernization of the Copyright Office is
still a very important initiative, and as long as it falls
under our jurisdiction, we will continue to focus on the future
of the Copyright Office within the Library of Congress and
support what is needed to ensure that they are able to meet the
demands of the digital age.
The Congressional Research Service request is $119.5
million, an increase of $11.5 million over fiscal year 2017.
Thank you for providing Congress with an in-depth research
concerning a wide spectrum of diverse issues there as well.
Lastly, the books for the blind and physically handicapped
request is $52.9 million, an increase of $2.7 million over
fiscal year 2017. So lots of work to do here, and we welcome
you to the committee and look forward to your testimony in a
minute.
Before though, I would like to recognize Mr. Ryan for an
opening statement.
Opening Statement of Ranking Member Ryan
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. Thank
you. Welcome. We had a great tour when we came over to see you.
We enjoyed the inner workings of the Library. I want to thank
Ms. Lowey for being here, gracing us with your leadership and
your presence. Thank you. I am excited to see your whole team
here as well, and as well as every Democrat here on our
subcommittee. This is a pretty nice crowd we have here that you
bring with you.
The Library of Congress is home to some of our Nation's
most valuable resources, and it is a repository for books on
every conceivable subject for historical objects and records
from throughout our history, maps, photographs, films, music,
interviews with veterans, and everyday Americans talking about
their lives an much more. And we need to see ourselves as
trustees of all of these collections, taking care of them for
our children and their children. And you can't put a price on
these national treasures, although that is exactly what this
subcommittee has to do every year.
The Library is also someplace we can turn when we want to
talk to an expert on some area of policy coming up in Congress,
and it is where people who create things turn to help protect
their intellectual property. I am pleased to see that the
Library's budget request prioritizes IT modernization, because
information technology ties in with everything the Library
does. Upgrading the Library systems will help serve Congress'
research needs, serve the needs of copyright holders, and make
it easier for people across the country to access the Library
materials remotely.
The Library has also absorbed a lot of the effects of
inflation in recent years, trying to maintain their current
services, while covering all the new expenses, and not
necessarily receiving the funding to do all of it. For example,
CRS has tried to provide Congress with the same level of
assistance while staffing levels have dropped by 13 percent
since 2010. I hope we will reverse or further slow that trend
if we are able to do so.
Finally, I want to thank you for proposing to increase
investment in the Veterans history Project by 6.2 percent. I
think that would be money well spent in all of our districts. I
think this would have quite an impact. I look forward to
hearing what Dr. Hayden and her colleagues have to say. And I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
We are also honored today to have the ranking member of the
full committee, Mrs. Lowey, in attendance. Mrs. Lowey, welcome
to the committee and we would love to hear your opening
statement as well.
Opening Statement of Mrs. Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. I would like to thank Chairman
Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan, for holding this important hearing
today. Let me also congratulate you on your new position as
ranking member and chair. And I welcome Dr. Carla Hayden,
Deputy Librarian Robert Newlen, Chief Information Officer
Bernard Barton. Thank you for appearing before us today.
And I also want to take the opportunity to thank your whole
staff. I must say for many of us, besides the essential
elements of the Library of Congress, we have some of the most
spectacular evenings, which you host for so many of us. So I
want to thank you again, and acknowledge your wonderful staff
for being so gracious.
This subcommittee provides the critical security and
support necessary for the House of Representatives to function.
It is essential that these agencies receive robust funding so
Congress can operate effectively and respond to the needs of
our constituents.
The Library of Congress has the difficult task of balancing
many competing priorities, such as preserving the cultural
heritage of our Nation, maintenance of the U.S. copyright
system, and responding to requests from congressional offices,
all while handling over a million visitors each year.
The Library is an important resource that provides valuable
information to Members and staff alike and. It enjoys
bipartisan support. Although I am pleased that the fiscal year
2017 spending bill included $631.96 million for the Library of
Congress, a $32 million increase from the previous year, this
subcommittee will need to commit even more funds to ensure the
Library does not fall behind.
The Library is undergoing a major overhaul of its
information technology; the Copyright Office is facing numerous
challenges, and is in need of modernization; and the
Congressional Research Service is under pressure to keep up
with the demands of congressional offices, all of which
requires significant investment. It is up to this subcommittee
to ensure the Library is provided with sufficient resources to
achieve its goals.
Dr. Hayden, I want to thank you again for your leadership,
and I am pleased that your fiscal year 2018 budget request of
$687.7 million recognizes the various challenges the Library
faces, and that you are committed to the efficient use of the
resources available to you. I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mrs. Lowey. And Dr. Hayden, now we
turn to you. Your statements, as well as the statements of the
Acting Register of Copyrights and the Director of Congressional
Research Service have been provided to the members of the
committee and they will be included in the record.
We now turn to you to summarize your statement and address
the committee.
Opening Statement of the Librarian of Congress
Dr. Hayden. Thank you, Chairman Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan,
and members of the subcommittee, and Mrs. Lowey for having me
here today, and giving me an opportunity to provide testimony
in support of the Library's 2018 budget. And it is my 8th month
into my tenure, I continue to be inspired by the breadth of the
collections, the services, and also working with the staff
members of the Library of Congress. We did an estimate of their
collective tenure, and it goes to 80,000 years of combined
expertise and special services. And so today, the Library holds
more than 164 million items in over 470 languages, and it is
the world's largest collection of materials, and it is
recognized as such.
Last year, we did greet and serve nearly 1.8 million
visitors, with 93 million visits to the website. And the
Copyright Office registered more than 400,000 claims. We also
took 10 million preservation actions on the collections and we
responded to over 1 million reference questions from Congress,
the public and other Federal agencies.
I would like to express my sincere support and I know I
speak for the entire staff for your support for the fiscal year
2017 funding. It will allow us to implement modernization, IT
modernization that will propel the Library forward in many
ways, strengthen our ability to serve Congress and also to make
sure that we have the most modern and efficient copyright
process and also making sure that our collections are
preserved.
A modernized Library growing in reputation and the Library
of Congress' reputation is worldwide and well-known. Our budget
request reflects our priorities in terms of expanding our
access to Congress and to the public, as well as being good
stewards of our physical collections and making sure that we
have a technology infrastructure that supports all of our
efforts.
One of the first things we did this year was to strengthen
our oversight and management internally. And I was very
pleased. And I have to say that the Government Accountability
report provided a blueprint for IT modernization and I have
been working very closely with Mr. Barton. In fact, he reports
directly to me, and we meet weekly to make sure that we act on
the GAO recommendations and that we are building an
infrastructure that will support the Copyright Office, CRS and
our other specialized services.
Also, the Director of Strategic Planning and Performance
Management now reports directly to me as well so that all of
our planning and performance management efforts are aligned.
Our requests, as you mentioned, was $38 million additional over
last year, and IT modernization is the primary focus of my
efforts and our request.
The stewardship of the physical collections is not just a
storage aspect, but it is also preserving our collections. We
have multiformat collections, and there are many ways that we
can preserve and conserve those efforts.
In closing, the modernized information technology, being
good stewards of our collections, and also making sure that our
unique workforce, the expertise that I mentioned earlier,
continues into the future is a major focus of this budget
request.
I look forward to opening up to questions and getting into
more specifics with Mr. Newlen and Mr. Barton here.
[The prepared statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Yoder. Thank you for your testimony this afternoon. We
will now turn to questions. I will begin then we will move
through the other members of the committee.
In May 2015, the GAO made 31 public recommendations to
improve the Library's management of IT. Can you just briefly--I
have sort of gotten them before me and we could probably talk
about them for days, but can you briefly just summarize where
you are on these and how we are doing addressing these
recommendations?
Dr. Hayden. I am smiling because I can report that just
this morning, three of the 31 recommendations were closed. The
GAO report gave us the blueprint to follow for modernization.
Yes, the document that you have and that we have been working
on, I mentioned working with Mr. Barton directly. I received a
full report from GAO last week and they--even though it takes
about a year to close out one of the recommendations--they are
very pleased on the Library's progress on the remaining
recommendations, and there are two others that have been closed
already, so it is a total of five out of the 31 that have been
closed so far. And this morning, I must say, we did celebrate a
little bit, that most of the other recommendations, including
making sure that the Library had shared services across its
infrastructure. That was part of my effort to centralize all IT
efforts in the Library are leading to at least 30 to 40 percent
of the remaining recommendations, that is a completion rate for
the rest and they are on track to be closed out.
In the estimated time that originally had originally been
scheduled, we are looking at and working on some other
adjustments to the scheduling of the closeouts. However, they
seem very pleased, and were very complimentary of Mr. Barton
and his staff. They meet with them every week to go over the
recommendations. This is a success story in terms of having
that GAO report as a blueprint and a way that we can go
forward.
Mr. Barton, if you want to add anything to it.
Mr. Barton. I would just add that the staff across the
Library and all the IT departments that are working on the
recommendations from GAO have proven to be very dedicated, very
committed to advancing the mission of the Library, and it has
been very successful so far. As Dr. Hayden mentioned, the
weekly meetings that we have had with the GAO have been very
productive. There is a little bit of a learning experience for
us on the requirements to close out recommendations, but we are
making a significant progress. And I expect that we will have
most of these recommendations closed out in very short order.
COPYRIGHT PROCESSING TIME
Mr. Yoder. Thank you for your report.
Earlier this month, we heard testimony regarding making the
Copyright Office autonomous. I am sure you have some thoughts
on this. But it was stated in the hearing that the Patent and
Trademark Office can process about half a million recordations
on an annual basis with 10 to 12 people. They can have them
online for people to see within 24 to 48 hours. It also stated
the Copyright Office has the same amount of people, can process
about 11,000 recordations, and it takes 18 months to process.
Do you agree with that assertion? And what do you think the
contributing factors are and the difference between the Patent
and Trademark Office and Copyright Office are in terms of the
number of records being processed, and the timeliness of the
process? Twenty-four hours versus 18 months is a pretty big
difference.
Dr. Hayden. IT modernization systemwide for the Library
includes a concentration on the two major specialized units
Copyright, and CRS actually has special IT needs, the National
Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped as well as
Library Services so there are a number of units that require
mission-specific IT concentration.
The submission for this fiscal year includes staffing for
registration to allow the Copyright Office to reduce the number
of backlogged registrations and to begin to make that an
acceptable number in terms of their workload. The IT
modernization for copyright is a major priority and having not
only the staff, but also the capacity to have an IT system that
supports their mission is one of our major focuses.
Mr. Yoder. What do you think an acceptable turnaround time
would be?
Dr. Hayden. Well, shorter.
Mr. Yoder. Right.
Dr. Hayden. Definitely shorter. And in looking at combining
the special needs of registration, and because all types of
items are being registered. And also with the electronic
registration, and that is a special area as well. So we are
working diligently to make sure that the IT component of
registration is more than adequate and efficient and then the
human component of registration is being addressed and working
in this submission as well.
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE STAFFING REQUEST
Mr. Yoder. Okay. Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of
questions on CRS. So if Dr.----
Dr. Hayden. Mary Mazanec. The Special Forces.
Mr. Yoder. If you would introduce yourself for the
committee.
Dr. Mazanec. I am Mary Mazanec, the Director of the
Congressional Research Service.
Mr. Ryan. We have a face with a name now. We all need to
spend a lot of time utilizing your services.
I have a couple of questions. The junior analyst position
that you are requesting, I could see, in some sense, how this
would increase capacity, but I think it also may have the
potential to be very cumbersome. So if you can talk a little
bit about how this may affect the quality, will it affect the
quality of the CRS product? Could it potentially create more
work than it saves? So can you just talk us through what you
are thinking about that?
Dr. Mazanec. In the budget, we are requesting eight
temporary employees. These would be entry level analyst
positions to bolster the high-demand areas. The perennial high-
demand areas are health care, education, defense and budget and
appropriations. This will give us flexibility to be responsive
to the needs of Congress. It also will allow us to start
training people who may eventually join our staff on a more
permanent basis. So it is also, part of our succession plan. I
don't think the quality of the work will be impacted. I think
that these individuals would be part of a team and that they
would be working with more senior analysts who would train them
and mentor them.
Mr. Ryan. And so I would assume that the senior analysts,
then, would have less time to do the work? Is that a concern at
all?
Dr. Mazanec. Actually, part of the intent of this is to
relieve senior analysts so that they can focus on the more
sophisticated, deeply analytical needs of the Congress. These
entry-level positions would be able to handle a large number of
the less complex requests, along with other CRS staff.
CRS IT MODERNIZATION
Mr. Ryan. Okay. You were requesting $4 million this coming
year and a total of $20 million over the next five years to
invest in the integrated research and information system?
Dr. Mazanec. Yes.
Mr. Ryan. Can you explain, in concrete terms, what this new
system would allow to you do that you can't do today. So let's
say a congressional office requests a report on some new
defense project or report on benefits for service-disabled
veterans, what would be different under the IRIS system from
our vantage point? And how we kind of think about this, how
would it be different?
Dr. Mazanec. Let me start by saying that our current system
is a legacy system that is aging. It is highly complex. It was
highly customized when it was designed. It is becoming more and
more difficult to maintain. It is in dire need of being
modernized. Technology has advanced since the system was
created.
Mr. Ryan. When was that created?
Dr. Mazanec. It has been about 10 years. It is a
multicomponent system. It is our authoring and publishing
system, and our client or customer management system. There is
also new technology that would allow us to better analyze and
do research on large data sets. The current authoring and
publishing system is somewhat difficult to use by the analysts
who create the content, and we are hoping that we can test
technology that is available, and identify what new systems
could be put in place. That is what we are already starting to
do. We are reviewing RFIs, requests for information, and we
will demo test and evaluate systems this year. A new system
will free up time of the analysts, so that they can do more of
the analytical work, and spend less time on the production and
publication the content.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. And you think the 5-year plan is doable, $4
million a year?
Dr. Mazanec. I think it is doable. Now I am not a
technology expert. This proposal, this programmatic increase,
was put together in collaboration with the CIO, Bud Barton, who
has reviewed it and endorsed it. It is also part of the
Library's modernization plan.
Mr. Ryan. Okay.
Dr. Hayden. If I may----
Mr. Ryan. Yes, of course.
Dr. Hayden [continuing]. Add to that. What the general
Library modernization allows units like CRS and Copyright to do
is focus on their particular IT needs. Dr. Mazanec mentioned
that she is working with Mr. Barton. And we have developed, as
part of IT centralization, a project management office that
will help all units reach our proposals and look at what their
needs are, specific to their mission and work with the general
IT office. And so that also provides another level of support
for them and this system is one of the IT challenges that the
Library has and is mentioned quite frequently in the GAO
report, Copyright and CRS.
Dr. Mazanec. Can I add one more feature of the new system,
which is a priority of mine? This new system would allow us to
capture our work product and create an institutional memory. As
staff retire and roughly about 25 percent of our staff will be
eligible to retire in the next fiscal year--we will have the
institutional memory preserved.
Mr. Ryan. I yield back.
ACCESS TO LIBRARY RESOURCES
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. Ms. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you again for being here, and I know that
all of us are so impressed with the incredible collection at
the Library of Congress. And I know you have been very
interested in making sure that people around the country can
avail themselves of these incredible resources; not everyone
can come to Washington, D.C. Can you give us an idea what you
are doing and what you are planning to do?
Dr. Hayden. This is one of the most exciting aspects of my
tenure, and really, what makes being at the Library of Congress
at this time so exciting, because of the information
technology, the modernization that the Library is embarking on
that will help improve services. People will be able to--for
instance, with the Veterans History Project, we are developing
a mobile application, an app, so that anyone with their phone
anywhere can start recording their services.
We are actually live-streaming programming from Capitol
Hill and the Jefferson Building and other wonderful programming
that the Library has that you referred to will be available--
and we tested it out, it works. We link the live-stream to
schools and any facility, any public place throughout the
country at the same time. People will be able to interact with
us with traveling exhibits. We have plans for three 18-
wheelers, West Coast, East Coast, Midwest to be able to take
the Library into communities as well with interaction with the
staff members here.
We also are looking at making sure that we digitize as many
unique collections that we can. For instance, Teddy Roosevelt's
papers and Woodrow Wilson's papers in the next few years,
because of World War I, so those will be available. We have
already started with that. And we are making sure that when we
do any programming, or think of anything here, we are thinking
about how can we get it out to as many people as possible. So
we have expanded our education programming, Teaching with
Primary Sources and combined that with the Young Readers
Center, which will be expanded as well.
Mrs. Lowey. How----
Dr. Hayden. Actually down to 6 months.
Mrs. Lowey. You are competing with Sesame Street.
Dr. Hayden. Not quite. Well, we actually have had Clifford
the dog. We are going from the earliest, we are growing. We
want to grow readers, and also make sure that people have
access to primary sources as soon as possible. We are working
with the National Archives and the Smithsonian, so the three
institutions are looking at ways we can have joint exhibits and
joint programming as well. There is one program called Citizen
Archivist, we are expanding it to be Citizen Historian, because
a lot of young people are not able to read the manuscripts, the
original manuscript in cursive so we are going have
translations for that and invite people to do that.
That has been an interesting aspect of making historical
documents accessible, but if they can't read them, that is
difficult. For instance, the draft of the Declaration of
Independence, we have it digitized, but if they can't read
those wonderful words, these are just some of the ideas, and
they are just expanding all the time.
LIBRARY VISITORS
Mrs. Lowey. Very exciting. Just curious, because Members of
Congress come over there a couple of times a year and you bring
out some of the most exciting exhibits. How many people just
walk off the street and say, I think I will go to the Library
of Congress today?
Dr. Hayden. Quite a few. Several years ago, my predecessor,
Dr. Billington, worked very diligently with the Architect of
the Capitol to have an actual tunnel connecting the Capitol
Visitors Center to the Jefferson Building. And we get a number
of people that come in for tours and things like that that come
into the Jefferson Building and the connections that are made
there.
We just hired a new exhibit director who will work on the
visitor experience. And, so, what will people experience on
their way to the Library of Congress, and then when they get
into the Jefferson Building. So there is going to be quite a
bit more of engaging people with that.
And then we are reaching out to the public, social media,
all types of ways to let them know what the Library has
already, what they can see online. So you will be hearing
more--we are not going to be quiet anymore. We are going to let
everybody know.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Moolenaar.
MODERNIZATION PLAN
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
being here. And also, thank you for the tour you gave us a
while back and for the work you are doing. Everybody who
experiences the Library of Congress, I think, just has an awe
of the work that is being done, so thank you for that.
I wanted to explore a little bit about modernization. I
just wondered if you had some benchmarks that you are looking
at where you would say, okay, here is step 1, here is step 2,
and here is step 3. And you may have covered some of that, but
I just wondered if you have kind of a modernization plan in
mind for that?
Dr. Hayden. There is a general Library-wide modernization
plan. And thank you also for the multiyear funding to support
that and get that going. The first part, of course, is really
strengthening the infrastructure, and that includes data
storage and security of the assets that the Library has and the
capacity. Mr. Barton will get more into the weeds about some of
that. The other part, though, in terms of modernization, the IT
modernization plan has aspects for scheduling copyright
modernization as a unit of that and CRS and their efforts. You
will see in the submission about adding specific IT staff for
those type of things. So there is a timeline, and it is being
revised as we move forward, but Mr. Barton might want to
elaborate on that. But there is a definite plan, road map, I
mentioned the GAO before, and that is also giving us guide
points along the way. So it is moving quite rapidly, I would
say.
Mr. Barton. If I may add, really, we are looking at three
phases: The first phase is stabilizing our current environment;
the next phase would be transitioning as much of our production
services as possible to what we would call a tier three level
capability. And what tier three level capability does more is
it provides more redundant power and cooling and heating. So
that in the event that maintenance needs to be done on those
systems, you don't have to bring down your application or your
capabilities.
The next part is really modernizing applications across the
service units. We have been very successful over the last
several years with congress.gov and loc.gov, modernizing those
applications, using very state-of-the-art technology stacks, if
I could use a little technical term there. And that is going to
allow us to be very modular in how we develop our applications.
I think it is important for us to be able to not position
ourselves where we are now where we have legacy systems that
are built on applications and technology that are no longer
supported by the vendors that originally created them. So the
idea is that we create all of our applications in a manner that
allows us to expand, upscale, or even, if necessary, to serve
our purpose, to decommission them in a very logical and time-
sensitive manner, as well as being able to update the system at
the same time.
So pushing forward on the IT areas that we are is
difficult, because we are trying to change every aspect of IT
across the Library, from management to security, to project
management to investment, to monitoring, to the actual
development of software. We are doing it. We are making it all
happen at the same time. And I am very proud of the people who
are making that happen.
INTERNATIONAL ACCESS
Mr. Moolenaar. If I may, Mr. Chairman, when you do that
expansion and make more things available online, and you are
obviously expanding the reach, as you had mentioned,
nationally. How does that fit internationally? Can people
access resources internationally?
Dr. Hayden. Yes.
Mr. Moolenaar. Does that compound some of the security
issues that you are working on?
Dr. Hayden. Before I turn it over to Mr. Barton, I have to
say that in my experience, career, IT modernization is
something that most libraries share the need for. When you have
the world's largest library, with more formats than any other
library in the world, and unique items. I mentioned Teddy
Roosevelt's papers, you have diaries, you have so many types of
materials to be put on online. And it has the specialized units
as well. This is, frankly, one of the aspects of modernizing
the Library of Congress that people and other institutions all
over the world are looking at, because they know about the
complexity of the Library of Congress. And so we are, in some
ways, a model for other libraries in seeing that.
So it is complex, it definitely is challenging, but I feel
that we have--it is one of my top priorities to get this part
of it together, parallel to letting people know about what we
have in that as we create more interest in the Library, we are
also seeing that there is a clamor for us to put more online,
to be available, to not go down, to do all these types of
things. So Mr. Barton has quite a job.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar. Ms. McCollum.
PUBLIC ACCESS TO CRS REPORTS
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Perfect setup for what I am going
to ask. Quite often, when we are in the middle of marking up
this particular bill, a colleague of ours, Mr. Quigley, has an
amendment to make all the CRS reports available to the public
online. And there have been different conversations that
Members have had around the table. Maybe it makes sense for
some of them, but it should be up to the Library what reports
it makes public. There are actually groups that publish CRS
reports of--I just found a website, Congressional Research
Service Reports on Conventional Weapons, I just found that
online. Some scientific organization has uploaded the report.
Sometimes you are developing reports specifically for Members
who are looking at doing legislation, and so there is a
confidentiality and a privacy aspect of it.
Could you maybe tell us what the Library's opinion is--
because I am sure this amendment is going to come up again, and
we usually have this discussion kind of on the fly. But let's
pretend the amendment is being offered right now, I would be
interested in knowing the Library of Congress' opinion on
making CRS reports available to the public, whether it makes it
cost prohibitive, whether it is a security issue, whether it is
just something that you--until Congress says otherwise, you
think should be internally held?
Dr. Hayden. The Library has no opinion about the
publication of the reports, and what we are focused on is the
efficiency making sure that we are retaining the level of
service to Congress, and part of that modernization effort is
to make sure that we are able to serve Congress. And so, there
are a number of elements in terms of providing that service.
You mentioned confidentiality, security of the information
itself. And so, we know that there are a lot of possible
concerns, and we will be able to provide any information to
Congress as you consider all of the elements.
Ms. McCollum. Part of the argument goes, I can request a
CRS report on what is trending with Lyme disease. I could
request it. I could hand it to a constituent, but a constituent
couldn't call and ask for that report. So it is public, but yet
it is not public.
Dr. Hayden. I spent a number of years in the public library
as well--and the Library of Congress, it serves Congress, that
is where they are the Special Forces, and they specifically
reference analysts that answer to Congress, and Congress'
reference needs. There are public questions in reference
questions in reference, I think I mentioned in my opening
remarks, that the public can directly contact the Library of
Congress. The CRS is specifically for Congress, so that is why
it is a decision of Congress, how much public input--not public
input, but public product CRS has.
Ms. McCollum. Well, I thank you for that. I think you draw
a good distinction. The Library of Congress is open to the
public, and they can go on and they can do research, and they
can even request something from the Library, where CRS, is
dedicated and set aside to help us be more effective and
efficient in our jobs. As we see fewer staff available to us,
and we see your staff being reduced over the years, there is a
pressure point at which, I think, some of us are very worried
that you won't be able to do your job as effectively and as
efficiently as you would like to.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECURITY
I am also a little concerned, and I am probably showing my
limited knowledge of technology, that any time you start
opening up more of your system to the public to easily get in,
documents can be manipulated; things can happen to them, even
on the internet. Is that part of the concern as well? You are
trying to protect your IT system, but there are more people
going in?
Dr. Hayden. Yes. That is also a concern in terms of having
a number of different service units that have different systems
that is part of building a unified infrastructure for IT that
helps you lessen not only duplication and waste and expense in
terms of basic commodities and printers and things like that
you purchase in bulk, it also gives you more security and
control when you have all of the units having a basic
infrastructure. And the more--and Mr. Barton can definitely
speak in more detail about that, the more exposure you have
moving from the tier one to the tier three, being able to have
a more secure data center helps with our security.
Ms. McCollum. So Mr. Barton, so right now, if my staff is
requesting something with the Library of Congress, all the
servers are recognizing each other, that this is coming from
one secure site to another secure site?
Mr. Barton. That is correct.
Ms. McCollum. It is kind of scary that I understand that
much.
Mr. Barton. You hit all three of the primary concerns
regarding security. The three areas are confidentiality,
integrity, and availability. Integrity goes to is the product
what you originally put up there. So CRS is publishing a
report. Is that report the same report that they originally
published? That is something that if you find it out on the
open internet, there is no guarantee that that is the same
product that was published by CRS.
Availability that goes to the tier three setup that we
asked for funding for, that means, no down time for the
servers. And then confidentiality, that is the point where only
people who are authorized to see a specific piece of
information see that information. The way that we are designing
the data centers and our information structures, our data
structures these days, allows us to make those distinctions at
several different points within the infrastructure. So I am
confident that once we understand what the owner of the data
wants to be made available, we can do that in a manner that
makes sure only the people who are allowed to see it, see it.
PUBLIC ACCESS TO CRS REPORTS
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chair, for
indulging me in this line of questioning. We know it keeps
coming up, and people ask, what is the big deal? I can order a
report online or see if you have already written one and I can
share it with a constituent. I think sometimes it sounds too
good to be true. Therefore, I think it is too good to be true.
So thank you very much for helping me understand.
Dr. Hayden. Mr. Newlen.
Mr. Newlen. I just wanted to say that the Library, as Dr.
Hayden has just said, is prepared to implement any
congressional directive about the dissemination of the CRS
reports. But what we care most about at the end of the day is
that you have confidence in the integrity of CRS reports, and
work products.
Ms. McCollum. That is why I wanted to have an enlightened
discussion where we weren't voting in 2 seconds.
Dr. Hayden. Mr. Newlen is a veteran of CRS. There is a
special place for him.
Mr. Yoder. Thank you for your input. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
CRS PERSONNEL
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Along the
same lines with CRS, maybe the director could come back up to
the table. I can see the value in raising up the next
generation of CRS expertise, because you are about to have such
a huge export of your tenured professionals. But in your
testimony, Dr. Hayden, you say that you would be reducing staff
capacity in areas that are no longer in demand. How would it be
determined what areas are no longer in demand, especially given
that Congress drives your demand?
Dr. Hayden. Dr. Mazanec can get into more of the details of
how they track the number of requests and keep up with what are
the high-demand areas. And that is something that CRS does
regularly and makes sure that, for instance, health, education,
there are some perennial topics that they know have high
demand, and then they have to be flexible for topics that are
more current, or that are of the time. I will turn it over to
you now.
Dr. Mazanec. Thank you. As was stated, our staffing levels
are down 13 percent since 2010. We have prioritized the
analytical capacity in the service, and the analyst levels are
down 8 percent. We are at the point in the current budget
climate, where we can not immediately fill behind someone that
departs. What we have done is taken their portfolio and
reassigned their issues so that there is coverage. We are
dedicated to providing the full coverage of congressional
issues and process and procedure.
We are not looking to eliminate coverage in any area. What
we are trying to do is reinforce areas that have a very high
number of requests, and do it in a way that allows us some
flexibility. That is why we are requesting these eight
temporary appointments in the five high volume areas. It would
be a temporary appointment for three to five years. It could be
renewed if the demand continues, but it could also allow us to
pivot to other areas of congressional focus that need
additional support.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you had your druthers, would you
prefer that we give you full-time----
Dr. Mazanec. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. FTEs, to fulfill the needs that you
are currently lacking?
Dr. Mazanec. Well, we are authorized for 651 FTEs. Our
current budget, our current resources will support around 582,
583 persons. I am very concerned that although my staff is very
dedicated, very motivated, and they love working for Congress,
we keep on asking them to do more and more. We are at a point
where I want to make sure that we continue to support the
Congress with high-quality work. So we are coming up with other
ways to staff that allows us some flexibility.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that
you consider when you prepare your chairman's mark, this as an
example of where we are shortchanging our own needs by not
having the kind of expertise over a long extended period of
time at CRS, and continually adding more and more Capitol
Police officers. It is a tradeoff. Over the last number of
years, we have dramatically increased the Capitol Police
budget, giving them more personnel. And we are shortchanging
and causing CRS--this is a good idea, I think, but it is not
the way--it is a good idea because they are basically trying to
put their fingers in the holes where the dike is leaking, the
dam is leaking. And so, when you are thinking about the whole
picture of the leg branch budget, this is something that we
should consider because we have been shortchanging ourselves
for far too long, in my opinion.
COPYRIGHT MODERNIZATION
I wanted to just shift gears and ask the Librarian a little
bit about the Copyright Office. The 2017 omnibus bill, omnibus
report directs the Library to defer to the Register of
Copyrights expertise when it comes to copyright specific IT
systems and some of the larger copyright issues. Do you foresee
any challenges to meeting that commitment?
Dr. Hayden. No. And the policy and the advice to Congress
on copyright matters law is intact, and I just want to take
this opportunity to thank Ms. Claggett for being the acting
Register and the work that she has done. She has worked
collaboratively with Mr. Barton on making sure that the IT
modernization effort continues and is strengthened.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. What formal direct role
does the Register of Copyrights have in managing of the
Copyright Office's IT systems, or in planning and implementing
any modernization efforts?
Dr. Hayden. The job of the Register, beyond the policy, is
to manage the process. And part of that is to be not only part
of a Library-wide technology committee, basically, and to
have--make very well known the mission-specific IT requirements
to the Library, and that we depend on the service units to give
the information of what are your specific IT needs and how can
we support those?
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. And lastly, I just want
to commend you and your entire team on the significant advances
you have made in public outreach, particularly for children. I
won't bore anybody with the story, but from the time I came 12
years ago to now, there is a dramatically different ability for
children to get access to the Library of Congress. And your
staff should get full credit for the really excellent job that
they have done in taking us through that process.
Dr. Hayden. The Young Readers Center is now open on
Saturdays and we have seen a marked increase in the number of
people who live locally that come to the Library. We also have
requests for more reference services in connecting to the
collections for people under 16. They can get a readers card at
16. People are saying what about the 12-year-old that wants to
do that? I mentioned the 6-month old. There is a Friday morning
story time as well with the stroller park. And plans now to
expand the Readers Center to be a youth center with learning
labs and ways to connect to collections.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Just so you know, the 5-year olds
that helped cut the ribbon on the Young Readers Center are
graduating from high school in 2 weeks.
Thank you. I yield back.
CHAIRMAN'S CLOSING REMARKS
Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Dr. Hayden, thank you for your testimony today. I think
pretty much everyone has gotten a chance to ask their questions
and we have votes on the floor. So we are going to let you off
the hook a little bit. But as we work through our deliberations
on how to best allocate resources in 2018, your testimony will
be very important to us, and we will continue that dialogue to
make sure that we have all the information before us and that
you will be given the resources you need to do your job. So
thank you for your testimony today and thank you for your
service to our country, Mr. Newlen and Mr. Barton. And thank
you to the rest of the staff, thank you so very much.
And at this time, the subcommittee stands in recess subject
to the call of the chair.
[Additional prepared statements and questions for the
record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I N D E X
----------
Testimony of Members of Congress and Other Interested Individuals and
Organizations
American Association of Law Libraries............................ 88
Center for Data Innovation....................................... 82
Civic Impulse, LLC............................................... 17
Congressional Research Employees Association..................... 99
Copyright Alliance............................................... 41
Crown Castle..................................................... 57
Data Coalition................................................... 75
Demand Progress.................................................. 23
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation................. 68
Preservation Technologies........................................ 93
R Street Institute............................................... 31
Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission............................... 1
U.S. House of Representatives
Bulk Data Task Force............................................. 156
Capitol Police Board and the Chief of the Capitol Police......... 170
Chairman Closing Remarks......................................... 175
Chairman Outlines Proceedings.................................... 107
Chief Administrative Officer Abbreviated Testimony............... 124
Chief Administrative Officer Projects and Programs............... 124
Clerk of the House Abbreviated Testimony......................... 107
Clerk Projects and Programs...................................... 107
Comparative Print Rule Project................................... 156
Cost of Food in House Cafeterias................................. 173
Current Structure of Members' Dining Room........................ 174
District Office Security......................................... 157
DOCS.HOUSE.GOV Website........................................... 157
Food Choices..................................................... 174
Food Services and the Food Services Contract..................... 159
FY2018 Chief Administrative Officer Budget Request............... 124
FY2018 Clerk Budget Request...................................... 108
FY2018 Cybersecurity Request and Policy Changes.................. 165
FY2018 Sergeant at Arms Budget Request........................... 116
Garage Security Initiative....................................... 166
Health and Wellness Program for the House........................ 159
House Cybersecurity Program...................................... 161
House IT Security Policies....................................... 163
House of Representatives Childcare Center........................ 167
House of Representatives Childcare Center Waiting List........... 173
House Policies Regarding Technology.............................. 169
House Rule on Comparative Prints................................. 168
House Security for Parking Lots, Garages and Kiosks.............. 169
The O'Neill House Office Building................................ 168
Opening Statement of Hon. Kevin Yoder, Chairman.................. 105
Opening Statement of Hon. Tim Ryan, Ranking Member............... 106
Personal Equipment on the House Platform......................... 164
Questions for the Chief Administrative Officer................... 158
Questions for the Clerk.......................................... 156
Questions for the Senate Sergeant at Arms........................ 157
Review of House Cybersecurity Program............................ 162
Sergeant at Arms Abbreviated Testimony........................... 116
Sergeant at Arms Projects and Programs........................... 116
Standardized Access Control System............................... 157
Statement of Hon. Karen Haas, Clerk, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 109
Statement of Hon. Paul Irving, Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 118
Statement of Hon. Philip Kiko, Chief Administrative Officer, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 126
Training and Recruiting for the Next Generation.................. 160
Use of IT Applications........................................... 162
Voting Card Changes.............................................. 171
Wounded Warrior Program.......................................... 161
Wounded Warrior Program Information Campaign..................... 172
Architect of the Capitol (AOC)
Cannon House Office Building Renewal............................. 217
Capitol Power Plant.............................................. 225
Chairman Remarks................................................. 209
Construction Project Financing................................... 220
Deferred Maintenance Backlog..................................... 226
Duck Ramps....................................................... 223
House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund............... 221
Lead in Water Testing............................................ 223
O'Neill House Office Building.................................... 225
Prepared Statement of Stephen T. Ayers........................... 212
Project Prioritization Process................................... 226
Questions for the Record......................................... 228
Cannon House Office Building Renewal Project................. 228
Capitol Power Plant.......................................... 233
Deferred Maintenance List.................................... 234
O'Neill Building............................................. 232
Rayburn Garage Rehabilitation................................ 231
Ranking Member Remarks........................................... 210
Rayburn Garage................................................... 224
Summary Statement of Stephen T. Ayers............................ 210
Tree Management.................................................. 227
Urban Agriculture................................................ 219
United States Capitol Police
Additional Positions Requested in Fiscal Year 2018............... 246
Alternative Command Center....................................... 254
Capitol Police Board Role in Mission Assignment.................. 265
Civilianized Positions........................................... 247
Communications and Metro......................................... 264
Cost to Train an Officer......................................... 248
Diversity in the Workforce....................................... 268
House Garage Security............................................ 246
Impact of New Officers on Overtime............................... 259
Keeping Threats Outside of the Capitol........................... 257
Lost Equipment Return Policy..................................... 276
Mandatory Budget Items........................................... 266
Mandatory Retirement & Re-hiring Sworn in Civilian Positions..... 250
New Command Center............................................... 258
Non-Reimbursable Overtime Events................................. 253
Officer Morale................................................... 262
Officer Morale................................................... 267
Optimal Staffing Level for USCP.................................. 261
Overtime Cap..................................................... 256
Percentage of Overtime Funding Attributed to Training............ 254
Qualification Standards Required for New Hires................... 248
Questions for the Record, Chairman Yoder......................... 278
Questions for the Record, Ranking Member Ryan.................... 249
Role of USCP in Determining Door Closures........................ 251
Salaries Funding for House Garage Security....................... 254
Special Events Planning Coordination............................. 252
Statement of Chairman Kevin Yoder................................ 235
Statement of Ranking Member Tim Ryan............................. 236
Sworn Staffing Planning.......................................... 254
Testimony of Chief Matthew R. Verderosa.......................... 238
USCP Coordination with District Offices.......................... 259
Library of Congress
Access to Library Resources...................................... 293
Chairman's Closing Remarks....................................... 300
Congressional Research Service:
CRS IT Modernization......................................... 292
CRS Personnel................................................ 298
CRS Staffing Request......................................... 291
Public Access to CRS Reports...............................296, 298
Copyright Office:
Copyright Modernization...................................... 299
Copyright Processing Time.................................... 290
Information Technology Management................................ 290
Information Technology Security.................................. 297
International Access............................................. 295
Library Visitors................................................. 294
Modernization Plan............................................... 294
Opening Statements:
Chairman Yoder............................................... 283
Librarian of Congress........................................ 285
Mrs. Lowey................................................... 284
Ranking Member Ryan.......................................... 284
Public Outreach.................................................. 300
Questions for the Record from the Chairman:
Availability/Disaster Recovery............................... 328
Big Data..................................................... 328
Cloud Computing.............................................. 327
Collection Storage........................................... 324
Congressional Research Service............................... 320
Copyright Modernization...................................... 317
Copyright Office............................................. 319
Gallup Survey................................................ 323
Information Technology Management............................ 315
National Library Service..................................... 325
Primary Computing Facility................................... 316
Server Consolidation......................................... 327
Written Statements:
Librarian of Congress........................................ 287
Director, Congressional Research Service..................... 307
Acting Register of Copyrights................................ 301
[all]