[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                    LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS
                                 FOR 2022

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 HEARINGS

                                BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                              FIRST SESSION

                                 ________

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

                         TIM RYAN, Ohio, Chairman

  KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts    JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
  ED CASE, Hawaii                      MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York          DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia

  
  
  

  NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full 
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full 
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

                              Steve Marchese
                            Subcommittee Staff

                                _______

                                  PART 2
                                  

                   FISCAL YEAR 2022 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
                         APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS
                         
                         
                         
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                         

                                   

                             ________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
          
          
          
          
          

           PART 2 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022
           
           
           
           
           
 
                    LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS
                                 FOR 2022

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 HEARINGS

                                BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                              FIRST SESSION


                                ________

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

                         TIM RYAN, Ohio, Chairman

  KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts     JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
  ED CASE, Hawaii                       MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York           DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia

  
  

  NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full 
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full 
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

                              Steve Marchese
                            Subcommittee Staff

                                  _____

                                  PART 2

                   FISCAL YEAR 2022 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 

46-270                     WASHINGTON : 2022




                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                ----------                              
                  ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair
                  


  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                             KAY GRANGER, Texas
  DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina                 HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
  LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California              ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia                MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  BARBARA LEE, California                        JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota                      KEN CALVERT, California
  TIM RYAN, Ohio                                 TOM COLE, Oklahoma
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland            MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida              STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas                           JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine                         CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois                         JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
  DEREK KILMER, Washington                       DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
  MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania                  ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
  GRACE MENG, New York                           MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  MARK POCAN, Wisconsin                          CHRIS STEWART, Utah
  KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts              STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
  PETE AGUILAR, California                       DAVID G. VALADAO, California
  LOIS FRANKEL, Florida                          DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois                         JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
  BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey              JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
  BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan                   BEN CLINE, Virginia
  NORMA J. TORRES, California                    GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
  CHARLIE CRIST, Florida                         MIKE GARCIA, California
  ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona                       ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
  ED CASE, Hawaii                                TONY GONZALES, Texas
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
  JOSH HARDER, California
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
  LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada


                 Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director

                                   (ii)




                            C O N T E N T S

                               __________
                                                                   Page

House Wellness Center and Office of Employee Assistance..........     1

Health and Wellness of Employees and State of Damage and 
  Preservation as a result of the January 6 Insurrection.........    33

U.S. Capitol Police and House Sergeant at Arms, Security Failures 
  on
  January 6......................................................    81

Open World Leadership Center.....................................   141

Congressional Budget Office......................................   161

U.S. Capitol Police..............................................   187

Library of Congress..............................................   249

Government Accountability Office.................................   295

House Officers...................................................   367

Architect of the Capitol.........................................   457

Government Publishing Office.....................................   484

Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Hearing_Office of Congressional Workplace 
  Rights.........................................................   503

                                 (iii)


               LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022

                              ----------                              

                                       Thursday, February 18, 2021.

        HOUSE WELLNESS CENTER AND OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE

                               WITNESSES

BRYAN WEISS, MANAGER, HOUSE WELLNESS CENTER
PAUL TEWKSBURY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE
    Mr. Ryan. All right. Well, let's call this meeting to 
order. All right. Thank you. As this hearing is fully virtual, 
I want to make sure that we get some of the housekeeping 
matters out of the way. So, for today's meeting, the chair or 
staff designated by the chair may mute participants' 
microphones when they are not under recognition for the 
purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
    So members are personally responsible for muting and 
unmuting themselves. If I have noticed that you have not muted 
yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to unmute 
you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will unmute 
your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to 
the next member until the issue is resolved, and then you will 
retain the balance of your time. You can see it up there on the 
screen.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how 
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will 
turn to yellow; at 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the 
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired; and 
when your time has expired, the clock will turn red and I will 
begin to recognize the next member.
    I did hear a little background noise so somebody needs to 
make sure they mute their microphone.
    In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order 
set forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and 
ranking member, then members present at the time the hearing is 
called to order. They will be recognized in order of seniority. 
And, finally, members not present at the time the hearing is 
called to order.
    Finally, the House rules require me to remind you that we 
have set up an email address to which members can send anything 
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or 
markups, and that email address has been provided in advance to 
your staff.
    Now, with that out of the way, I am pleased to welcome 
everyone to our first Legislative Branch hearing for the fiscal 
year 2022 cycle. We have 14 hearings planned for this year with 
11 consisting of traditional budget hearings. The first three 
hearings will focus predominantly on the events of January 6, 
2021, the security failures, physical damage, and the state and 
health of wellness of the Capitol workforce.
    While I am excited to start the 2022 cycle, it is with a 
heavy heart that I remind us all of the losses we endured at 
the hand of a mob of insurrectionists that attacked our 
representative democracy. It is clear there were many failures 
on that faithful day, and sadly lives were lost, including 
Officer Bryan Sicknick and Officer Howard Liebengood.
    I hope we can use these first three hearings to examine the 
events of January 6, fix what went wrong, adapt and evolve to 
ensure that the House and its Members, staff, and campus 
workforce can safely continue to work and carry out their 
duties. We are going to have some tough decisions to make over 
the next 2 months.
    And while the subcommittee is small in size, it is a very 
important function, and I am proud to be working with all my 
colleagues to address any physical changes needed to ensure the 
Capitol complex is safe for Members of Congress to carry out 
our constitutional duties, provide resources to our Capitol 
Hill community, to heal from this traumatic event, maintain a 
safe and open campus as much as possible for people to express 
their First Amendment rights so that visitors from across the 
country and around the world can witness representative 
democracy in action.
    So let's get started. Today our hearing is going to focus 
on the Office of Employee Assistance, the House Wellness 
Center, and the ways these offices are working to support the 
Capitol community through stress and trauma of not only the 
January 6 attack on the Capitol but throughout the COVID-19 
pandemic this past year.
    Our witnesses are Mr. Bryan Weiss, the Manager of the House 
Wellness Center, and Mr. Paul Tewksbury, the Director of the 
House Office of Employee Assistance.
    Mr. Weiss and Mr. Tewksbury, thank you for being here today 
to discuss the programs of support your office provides to the 
House community.
    I also want to take a minute to thank Ms. Herrera Beutler 
for her support for the Office of Wellness, which we created a 
couple of years ago.
    And in a year full of trauma and hurt, with the apex being 
the insurrection on January 6, our human resources entities 
within the Capitol complex have adapted to the evolving and 
increasing mental health needs of our campus. And we are 
interested today in exploring the response--sorry, we get a 
cameo from Buckeye every now and again in our Zoom calls.
    We are interested today in exploring the response to staff 
members and our Capitol Police force since January 6, and the 
start of the COVID-19 pandemic as well, accessibility of 
services and outreach plans, how OEA and Wellness are providing 
virtual or hybrid care, what interagency partnerships are they 
utilizing to support themselves during this increased time of 
need, and how OEA and Wellness are accessing the long-term 
mental health and wellness on Capitol Hill beyond the traumatic 
events of the past year.
    So we are very thankful for your leadership and the staff 
of both your organizations who work so hard to help Members, 
staff, police, and all those who work so hard to make the House 
run. I look forward to your testimony today and working with 
you to continue building support for individuals and teams 
through stressful and traumatic times.
    And, with that, I would like to yield to my colleague from 
the great State of Washington and a great partner, our ranking 
member, Jamie Herrera Beutler.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to say thank you both to Mr. Tewksbury and Mr. 
Weiss for being here today and for sharing with us your 
firsthand testimonies to us, to Congress, to the Members, on 
the services you provide to our staff, to the Capitol Police 
officers, and the rest of the leg branch community.
    I also want to recognize the recently retired director of 
the Office of Employee Assistance, Liz McBride, who recently--
or who spent nearly 30 years building the office into what it 
is today. Liz positively touched lives of a lot of House 
Members and staffers and should be really proud of the work 
that she accomplished.
    Workplace wellness programs have evolved a lot in recent 
years. Employers around the country are offering more than just 
retirement, paid time off, and healthcare benefits to retain 
their workers. It is a really competitive market for them. 
Congress must continue to evolve our employee services to 
ensure that Members can hire quality staff and retain quality 
staff. I think we all have the experience of losing a really 
valued member of our team because they had to, because they had 
to move on for life, quality-of-life purposes, and for their 
family.
    So, in today's incredibly high-stress workplace environment 
in Congress, I want to make sure that we are requiring--that we 
are addressing the, I want to say, the holistic needs that we 
all have because it can build a good work/life balance. It can 
promote that overall well-being and increase productivity. 
Honestly, it is a better bang for the buck for the taxpayer, 
quite frankly.
    So OEA and the Wellness Center has a wealth of services, 
like personal counseling, which, I think the chairman alluded 
to, is probably more critical than ever right now, physical 
activity and mindfulness training for Members, our staff, and 
other personnel in the House complex.
    This past year has thrown a lot of challenges our way, and 
your supportive services that the OEA and Wellness Center 
provide are important now more than ever--shhh, baby, shhh--the 
COVID pandemic has obviously upended everything, like--oh, 
look, in my notes, it actually says, upended our 
professionalism and personal lives--that is an understatement--
forcing us to work from home and alter our day-to-day 
operations.
    That was well timed, Abigail.
    We endure, I think we are still all attempting to make some 
sense of how to--what we lived through in the last month and 
what that means, certainly, you know, the threats to staff, to 
Members, to Capitol Police officers, the death of Officer 
Sicknick. I really--to say that it has decimated the morale 
with the Capitol Police officers, that is an understatement.
    So I think we are still struggling with that, and I do find 
us fortunate. OEA and the Wellness Center have quickly and 
effectively adapted to ensure we are going to be able to 
provide the best services possible. OEA was well equipped to 
pivot, I think, to that supportive virtual environment when the 
pandemic forced everybody home. And, obviously, the telework 
opportunities that were prepared to offer I think proper mental 
health counseling for staff, especially in the aftermath of the 
riot, have been key.
    The Wellness Center also added significant enhancements to 
their work/life services, including emergency backup childcare, 
which has been a hot button for me for a while, and eldercare. 
And these programs have been really helpful. So I look forward 
to learning more about your offices and will continue to 
support--and how they are going to continue to support our 
congressional community as we hopefully will get back to 
normal.
    So, with that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    I appreciate it and your timely example of the complexities 
of what is going on here.
    I also want to take a half a second to thank former 
Chairman Yoder, who chaired this committee before I did, who 
was very instrumental and aware of the needs of a lot of the 
office--the techniques and the approach that the Office of 
Wellness is providing, and he was very, very supportive and 
helped us get this off the ground. So I think it is appropriate 
to mention him.
    Now we recognize the chair of the full committee, 
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, who has been extremely supportive 
of this approach and the needs of the people on Capitol Hill. 
Chairwoman DeLauro.
    The Chair. I want to thank all of you today. And I do want 
to recognize both you, Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Herrera 
Beutler, looking at what you have done in the past, it didn't 
take the chaos of January 6 or an insurrection for you to 
understand the needs of, whether it is Members or Capitol Hill 
Police or employees, no matter who it is that works within the 
Capitol, to understand that wellness is critical, that a 
person's environment is critical and their mental health needs 
are as important as their physical needs. So I thank you both 
for your emphasis in this area.
    And a thank you to Mr. Weiss, Mr. Tewksbury, and we thank 
you for being here to testify. I am so proud to join with you 
today because, as I understand it, this is the first 
congressional hearing dedicated to an open conversation about 
mental health in the Congress. The subject is critical, 
especially now.
    In the midst of the constant and relentless heartbreak of 
the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, many of us are still reeling 
from the events of January 6 when the cradle of our democracy 
was viciously attacked. I won't tell my story, but I was in the 
gallery and evacuated, and we keep reliving that day in so many 
ways. We had a mob of violent protesters storm the Capitol. 
Five people lost their lives. Many more hurt. Many sustained 
serious injuries, head trauma, facial injury, and even losing 
fingers.
    But the physical wounds sustained that day are only a part 
of the story. From custodians to congressional staffers, 
Capitol Police, contractors, there is not one person who works 
on Capitol Hill who has not been touched by the events of that 
day. In the aftermath of this tragedy, a Capitol Police 
officer, a District of Columbia Metropolitan Police officer 
have died by suicide. Others on the force have turned in their 
guns. They have turned in their guns for fear that they might 
hurt themselves.
    And even as we continue to work in a place now surrounded 
by fencing, protected by the National Guard, the nearly 30,000 
employees who serve in the legislative branch have been working 
around the clock to serve the American people. Support staff, 
many of whom are people of color, cleaned up the Capitol 
complex just days after a noose appeared on the Capitol grounds 
and White nationalists waved Confederate flags. Meanwhile, our 
district and our constituent service staff have been pushing 
themselves to the limit as they work to meet the increasing 
needs of those affected by the pandemic.
    One of my constituent service staff said that this past 
year has, quote, felt like drinking from a fire hose while in 
free fall. For many staffers working directly with 
constituents, the panic and desperation from those seeking 
assistance compounded with the personal fear of getting sick or 
losing loved ones has taken a very deep emotional toll.
    In turn, the Office of Employee Assistance, OEA, and the 
House Wellness Center, has also been working nonstop to meet 
the increasing emotional needs of those who work on Capitol 
Hill.
    You know, as we celebrate the Congress and its diversity, 
its strength, all of its--the opportunities here, the OEA and 
the House Wellness Center have become a one-stop-shop for 
mental health services on Capitol Hill. These are essential 
resources for the Capitol Hill community. It is critical that 
we provide them the resources to support the well-being of all 
who serve here.
    This is a hearing that is long overdue. It is a step in the 
right direction. But it is important, I think, for all of us to 
talk to one another, to check in, to cultivate a more free and 
an open dialogue about the importance of mental health and just 
make people understand that they are not alone in the feelings 
that they have, and, in fact, yes, there is a place where we 
can go for help and that the resources are there to be able to 
provide that help.
    And I thank you very, very much for this opportunity. And I 
will just say, I will try, as the full committee chair, to make 
as many of the meetings as possible with the time schedule 
because I think the issues that we are undertaking and 
especially here in this subcommittee are critical to our moving 
forward. So thank you very, very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Chairwoman. I appreciate your passion and 
energy behind this. It is definitely needed now more than ever.
    And we are excited about also connecting with a lot of the 
work that is done in your district at Yale and a lot of other 
areas around the country that Bryan and I have talked about on 
numerous occasions of people I have met over the years who 
provide these kind of services. They do it for veterans. They 
do it for police officers. They do it in, you know, war-torn 
areas. And, you know, unfortunately, now, today, in this 
environment, everybody needs access to these kind of 
approaches.
    So, with that, we are going to have Mr. Weiss begin. And we 
are going to--without any objection, we are going to put the 
written testimonies a part of the record, if you can summarize 
your statement, highlight your efforts to the committee. We 
will have, as I said, Mr. Weiss go first and then Mr. Tewksbury 
for his statement. Once the statements are complete we will 
move to the question-and-answer period.
    So, Mr. Weiss, you have the floor.
    Mr. Weiss. Good morning, Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member 
Herrera Beutler, and members of the Legislative Branch 
Subcommittee. It is an honor to testify before this 
distinguished panel, and I thank you for the opportunity to 
discuss issues of great importance to the Office of the Chief 
Administrative Officer and the House of Representatives.
    I also want to thank you and all the members of this 
subcommittee for the unwavering support provided to the House 
Wellness Center since its inception.
    Over the last 28 months, the House Wellness Center has 
grown into a holistic well-being program for the entire House 
community, serving the House, U.S. Capitol Police, Architect of 
the Capitol, and the Congressional Budget Office. Our programs 
and resources are offered on a variety of platforms ensuring 
every employee has the same level of access and care intended 
to positively impact individual and organizational well-being, 
productivity, and workplace culture.
    Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, we increased the 
promotion of our stress management and resilience-building 
application, supported employees in their dietary goals with 
two nutrition applications, hosted a six-part monthly 
mindfulness webinar series, while concurrently launching an 
application to help employees establish their daily mindfulness 
practice.
    We created a COVID-19 toolkit web page with a curated list 
of available tools and services, including exercise, nutrition, 
and mental acuity worksheets. We hosted a month-long virtual 
well-being fair in June and launched a wellness coaching 
platform offering one-on-one lifestyle and behavioral change 
support for employees.
    Considering the environment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic 
and the increased stress and demand placed on employees, we 
added emergency backup child- and eldercare, as well as an 
online academic resource center and educational tutoring 
services.
    These services are in addition to the personalized guidance 
employees can receive in areas such as childcare and parenting, 
senior care and caregiving, legal assistance, financial 
guidance, and house and home needs. Employees can also access a 
discount marketplace to shop for everything from technology to 
movie tickets, receive life event kits to tackle life's 
emergencies and milestones, and other resources.
    During this past health benefits open season, the House 
Wellness Center launched a benefits plan, transparency, and 
comparison tool to help improve health literacy so employees 
can make the most informed decisions when it comes to their 
healthcare.
    The turbulent times caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have 
recently been compounded and magnified by the tragedy of the 
January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol violence. With the strategic 
placement of the House Wellness Center under the Office of 
Employee Assistance, we have been able to provide 
administrative support and resource awareness on behalf of the 
OEA while they valiantly manage the critical incident response, 
mental health, and emotional well-being of the House community.
    The House Wellness Center is working closely with the OEA 
to identify additional opportunities and resources to support 
employees during these extraordinary and unprecedented times. 
The unfortunate reality is that, while the House community 
continues to deal with the aftermath of the violence, the other 
stressors caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and life obligations 
in general do not go away. It remains the responsibility of the 
House Wellness Center to provide day-to-day well-being support 
for the House community to help them achieve work/life harmony 
and improved quality of life.
    In 2021, the House Wellness Center will continue to work to 
identify population health disparities, increase outreach and 
awareness efforts, and work closely with key stakeholders to 
better understand House community well-being needs. The House 
Wellness Center will begin offering regular House communitywide 
health enhancement programs, population-specific offerings, and 
partner with its vendors and business partners on improving 
health outcomes through education, engagement, and empowerment.
    The House Wellness Center will continue to benchmark its 
resources and services against other Federal wellness programs 
while staying up-to-date on industry trends and best practices. 
These efforts and those detailed further above coupled with 
leadership's commitment to employee well-being and positive 
culture change will help the House of Representatives remain an 
agency and employer of choice.
    Again, I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to 
testify on these important topics, and I look forward to 
answering any questions you may have.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
     
    Mr. Ryan. Great. Thanks, Bryan.
    Mr. Tewksbury.
    Mr. Tewksbury. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Ryan, 
Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, members of the subcommittee, 
and Chairwoman DeLauro. It is an honor to testify before this 
distinguished panel.
    For the past 6 years, I have served with the Office of 
Employee Assistance, the OEA, recently assuming the role of 
director. Since its launch three decades ago, the OEA has 
provided a range of professional and confidential support 
services designed to enhance the personal and occupational 
well-being of the House community, the Congressional Budget 
Office, and employees of the U.S. Capitol Police, as well as 
all employees' immediate family members.
    Our confidential counseling, supervisory consultation and 
coaching, trainings, office retreats, trauma response services, 
and job transition assistance have positively impacted the 
well-being and work productivity of generations of Members and 
staff.
    Our counselors use a variety of evidence-based techniques 
drawing from cognitive, behavioral, mindfulness, and strengths 
based perspectives. Our trauma response services are informed 
by the dominant models in the employee assistance field. While 
situations such as the Capitol attack have required a timely 
and reactive response, OEA services strive to be as proactive 
as possible educating individuals, managers, and work teams on 
resilience-building practices.
    Thanks to the generosity of the Committee on 
Appropriations, Members of Congress, and the support from the 
Chief Administrative Officer, the OEA significantly expanded 
its staffing in 2018 and helped establish the House Wellness 
Center. This has allowed us to continue to meet the needs of 
individuals seeking counseling while also enabling the OEA to 
increase its delivery of staff retreats more than fivefold in 
2019.
    The COVID pandemic of 2020 brought about immediate and 
sweeping changes in OEA service delivery. While accustomed to 
providing face-to-face services to individuals and work teams, 
the OEA rapidly and effectively met these changing service 
demands while addressing the increased support needs stemming 
from the pandemic.
    Our decades of experience providing telephonic counseling 
to district House staff enabled us to smoothly shift all of our 
counseling services to this model without any lapse in service.
    During the first 6 months of 2020, OEA counselors had more 
than 3,000 contacts with employee clients. Additionally, the 
OEA facilitated numerous virtual training sessions during 2020, 
reaching over 3,000 individuals through these events.
    I join you and your colleagues in recognizing the 
importance of meeting the emotional needs of the congressional 
community today and beyond. The violent attack on our Capitol 
on January 6, 2021, generated an extraordinary amount of 
reactivity and concern.
    Allow me to highlight the monumental efforts that our team 
has taken in response to the horrific events that transpired 
that day, which include immediately deploying our critical 
incident response posture to engage the full capacity of our 
24/7 services, both in person and remotely; leveraging existing 
contracting mechanisms to secure additional counseling 
resources both for the House community and for the U.S. Capitol 
Police specifically, providing an unparalleled level of support 
services to individual employees and managers. Individual 
interactions with employees and managers since January 6 
totaled 1,150, which includes 760 counseling sessions and over 
300 individual onsite interactions with USCP personnel thus 
far.
    Issuing numerous House-wide messages and communications on 
coping with the aftermath of trauma and the availability of OEA 
services; conducting over 40 live webinars for members, staff, 
and supervisors on trauma and resilience, which are now also 
available in our on-demand format; partnering with the Office 
of the Speaker and the Office of the Attending Physician to 
conduct trauma and resilience briefings and outreach regarding 
OEA services for Members of Congress; and actively developing 
promotional strategies to highlight the culturally competent 
nature of all services that OEA provides and how to portray 
this essential messaging most effectively.
    Additionally, our OEA team promptly contacted companies 
that employees the Capitol complex during attack and learned 
that employers were already providing EAP services to their 
employees who were onsite. In some instances, these services 
include bilingual counseling. The OEA team has been providing 
help and guidance to anyone who has reached out since 1/6 
including House contractors. And as a practice providing 
customized resources upon request, OEA is able to connect 
employees to bilingual support services.
    The CAO ensures our team recruits and hires talent from a 
variety of backgrounds. Currently, 50 percent of our full-time 
counselors are African Americans. In addition, the entire OEA 
team is professionally trained in and regularly delivers 
culturally competent mental health services to a highly diverse 
workforce.
    Recent increases to our budget allow us to hire more 
counselors, expand service, and enhance outreach. We are 
working with the CAO structure to fill a vacant manager 
position and add two new staff this year. We are also using 
available funds to supplement our full-time counseling staff 
with onsite counselors for Capitol Police and three additional 
contracted counselors within the OEA.
    We are so grateful for your consideration and appreciate 
your support now and into the future. I welcome any questions 
you have. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Mr. Ryan. I appreciate it, Paul. Thank you very much for 
that comprehensive review. We are going to go right to 
questions, and we are going to go to the ranking member to 
begin with the question-and-answer period.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. All right. Thank you very much for 
that. I wanted to actually start with--I mean, everything you 
talked--everything that you both just shared, I have so many 
more questions, but let me start with talking about our Capitol 
Police officers. Obviously, many are still suffering some 
significant trauma. I think the chairwoman brought that out in 
her opening remarks.
    Can you detail services that are--you are providing for--
specifically for officers to ensure they have the support they 
need, and are you collaborating with Congress and the Capitol 
Police leadership to ensure the officers know about these 
services and have the ability to access them, given the fact 
that they have been working 21 hours, like they have been--they 
have had no breaks. They have gotten no time off at all, to the 
point where their spouses are reaching out and raising 
significant concern about their mental health. Let's start with 
that.
    Mr. Tewksbury. Yes. Thank you so much for that question. 
And I can speak to specific response efforts that have taken 
place and continue to take place for the U.S. Capitol Police 
specifically. Within our internal OEA team and additional 
assets we promptly secured in the form of four professional 
crisis counselors who have been working around the clock in 
each division of the Capitol Police onsite since shortly after 
January 6 to provide one-on-one trauma response drop-in 
services and group support and also information about services.
    We have worked closely with the Office of the Chief 
Administrative Officer and Capitol Police to do a lot of 
outreach. We have been featured in numerous Capitol Police 
bulletins. I had an opportunity within the past couple of weeks 
to actually write a letter that was distributed through a 
bulletin to all Capitol Police personnel as another way to 
engage personnel and support, educate them on what is 
available, how to access it.
    And, literally, we have been serving the Department around 
the clock and continue to do so. And so other ways our services 
have been promoted beyond the bulletins is messaging from our 
onsite contracted counselors at many roll calls at shift 
change--yes?
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Can I just jump in really quick----
    Mr. Tewksbury. Please.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler [continuing]. On that front? So there 
is four round-the-clock, constantly available counselors, and 
these are counselors who have dealt with, like, I would assume 
like trauma in the sense of war, and they work with police--
there are different types of counselors, and I am forgetting 
the term. But these are specific counselors who specialize in 
this, and they are constantly available, like if someone is on 
a shift and they just are like, ``You know what, man, I needs 
10 minutes,'' and they can just drop in?
    Mr. Tewksbury. Yes, that is absolutely correct. And all of 
these counselors are professionally trained in contemporary 
workplace-based and law enforcement specific critical incident 
and trauma response services, as are our internal staff who 
were initially providing these services directly after-hours 
and on weekends. And, yes, 24/7 four staff available in various 
strategic locations throughout the Capitol complex.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Can I ask, how many are taking you up 
on it? Like what are the numbers of--that you are seeing?
    Mr. Tewksbury. We have had over 300--the numbers keep 
growing, but certainly well over 300 one-on-one contacts 
between our onsite counselors and Capitol Police personnel. We 
have had a couple hundred more receive information and support 
in a group setting and a lot of interaction with managers to 
educate managers on reaching out to impacted personnel to lead 
them to services.
    And that is on the onsite contracting side. In addition, 
our immediate office in the OEA, and, again, we are providing 
telephone services, we have seen numerous individuals for 
counseling sessions. We have done several roll calls ourselves. 
And one of our colleagues, I think this was a little earlier, 
some discussions on, you know, kind of race issues and concerns 
in that dimension for Capitol Police, several discussion 
sessions of that nature.
    So we are very cognizant that this is a very heavy lift for 
the department. We continue to stay in touch with the Office of 
the CAO there, and we are working on ways to keep the onsite 
support in place in addition to the internal services our 
office provides.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Can I ask, so then you--it sounds like 
with--so what are you going to need from us to maintain that 
level of care of the force? Because obviously nothing has 
dialed down for them. In fact, they are all on heightened 
alert, again, in the next, what, couple weeks. So do you have 
what you need from us? What do you need from us?
    Mr. Tewksbury. Well, I really appreciate that 
consideration, and it is something that if I could respectfully 
get with some of our CAO leadership and certainly let you know, 
there may very well be a need. We do have resources between our 
office and the Capitol Police to have financed this thus far 
and to continue to do so for a period of time, but that is a 
real consideration. We will certainly want to follow up with 
you, and I thank you for that offer very much.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Keep in touch. Keep in touch.
    I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Tewksbury. We will. Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Jamie. Good questions.
    Next, the chair of the full committee, Congresswoman Rosa 
DeLauro.
    The Chairwoman. Hello? Okay. Just very, very quickly 
because I don't want to take time from others. Are the Capitol 
Police being vaccinated? So many that I have talked to, as--
now, I have heard that that is a direction we are going in. Are 
they now being vaccinated for their own safety and for the 
safety of their families?
    Mr. Tewksbury. Ma'am, I can address that from just an 
anecdotal perspective of what I have been hearing through 
various Capitol Police personnel that, yes, I understand a 
vaccination is underway. I am not exactly sure how fast that 
has moved or how it is organized. I know that they have like a 
COVID response----
    The Chairwoman. Well, let me just say this because, again, 
I don't want to take from others: I think one of the things in 
order to provide some--lessen anxiety and lessen the mental 
health issues, not only for the Capitol Police officers but 
also for their families, that we ought to then begin the 
process of vaccinating all of our Capitol Police and have that 
on a timeframe, let them know that so that they get a sense 
that their well--we are watching out for their well-being and 
we are going to make that happen.
    I will leave that there, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 
because I think that is one of the first things that needs to 
get done for Capitol Police.
    Thank you and I yield back. I know others have questions, 
so----
    Mr. Ryan. Great. Thanks, Rosa.
    Representative Clark, you are up.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 
Member Herrera Beutler. I just wanted to follow up quickly on 
the ranking member's question about the number of Capitol 
Police. Is the 300 number you cited, is that an increase over 
what you would typically see?
    Mr. Tewksbury. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question. That 
is certainly, historically speaking, a significant increase in 
one-on-one consultations, counseling sessions, trauma response 
drop-ins and the like, given the short period of time in which 
it has occurred, which really speaks to the magnitude of the 
event and the needs.
    We do have a long history as an office serving the Capitol 
Police since 2000 and responding to a lot of other critical 
events, the last notable one unfortunately being the Capitol--
the baseball shooting in 2017. But this is a--at a larger 
scale. So, yes, that is a notable increase and, you know, was 
necessary to acquire that additional asset of our onsite 
counselors. But we think that, statistically speaking, that is 
a very engaging number when we consider the size of the 
department and growing every day and night literally.
    Ms. Clark. Yeah. And I am sure we haven't begun yet to meet 
the full need. But one question I have for you that certainly 
applies to the Capitol Police but to other staffers as well: 
There is still lingering concerns about reaching out to OEA and 
how that could potentially affect employment. What would you 
tell a staff person or anybody looking at OEA with that 
concern?
    Mr. Tewksbury. Thank you for the question. And that theme 
is not unfamiliar to us historically as an Office of Employee 
Assistance, a mental health-related service, and some of our 
cornerstone language in promoting the service is and has been, 
it is highly confidential, and I can certainly speak to details 
on that. Your supervisor, for example, will never know anything 
about you connecting with us unless an employee provides 
written permission and a compelling reason, and even in that 
case, it is a limited release of information.
    Another thing about our services is they are supportive, 
collaborative, easy to access, and cost-free. And all of these 
are things we put in all our promotional materials, outreach, 
e-Dear Colleagues, literature, online presence. In 
presentations, we always highlight this because we know people 
have different perceptions of mental health and help seeking in 
general. So, yeah, confidentiality is really a cornerstone 
because if people don't think it is confidential, they won't 
come.
    Ms. Clark. Yeah.
    Mr. Tewksbury. So we are very meticulous about it at every 
level, and we always highlight it in our promotional offerings.
    Ms. Clark. And, you know, with the pandemic combined with 
the events of January 6, how do you handle clients that need 
medium- to long-term counseling or medication-assisted 
treatment? Do you refer those patients to outside services, and 
how does that process work?
    Mr. Tewksbury. Yes. Great question. And the answer is we 
are not only a supportive counseling service directly, but one 
of our key core services to individuals is just that, is 
comprehensive assessment, immediate short-term support, which 
can vary in length, and referral to specialized resources as 
needed.
    And so, as a generalist practice, we see all types of 
individuals from all walks of life with any type of presented 
concern, and we make it our business to be aware of community 
resources, what is available in individual's health plans, and 
to make quality, reputable referrals in the domain specifically 
of mental health and wellness.
    So some of the most common referrals we make to people 
needing long-term or specialized care are to outpatient 
therapy, to psychiatry and medical, you know, med management 
for medication, to facility-based care if that is indicated for 
mental health or serious substance abuse needs and things of 
that nature. So, yes, it is not merely a referral service. A 
lot of the issues we see are amenable to a short-term solution-
focused counseling model, but we very much do refer people out 
as indicated, as appropriate to their needs.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Clark.
    Mr. Amodei.
    Mr. Amodei. Hey, Mr. Chairman. How are you doing today?
    Mr. Ryan. Good. Thanks for getting up early for us.
    Mr. Amodei. Hey, it was a pleasure. And especially after 
hearing that a bipartisan unity that I brought to the committee 
in the meet-and-greet with derogatory comments about my 
personal appearance, it is a good thing I don't have feelings 
as we talk about the subject matter of today's meeting. And 
they have probably been hurt, but all is good in mental 
healthville for the instant for me.
    Mr. Ryan. You have the floor.
    Mr. Amodei. So I want to--thank you. I want to expand a 
little bit on the chairwoman's remarks because I think there is 
part of--and this definitely plays into mental health, and it 
may not be specific to the 6th, but it is in terms of the 
general sense, and that is I--and maybe I am wrong. I hope 
somebody gets on and says you're wrong about this, but so far 
it doesn't look like it, and that is this: When you go to the 
other jurisdictions in this country regarding vaccinations, 
first responders have all been vaccinated.
    And so I was a little surprised to hear the response that--
I am assuming that the Capitol Police as first responders, law 
enforcement types, have been vaccinated. And if they haven't, 
that is probably a unique circumstance in the Nation.
    But I want to expand it even a little bit beyond that, Mr. 
Chair, because when we talk about mental health stressors and 
stuff like that, I want to point out another circumstance that 
I think needs to be dealt with, and it is not all in these 
folks' bailiwick, but it is something that they need to be part 
of, and that is this: My district's staff in Nevada gets 
vaccinations because they are, you know, public servant, 
essential employees providing services.
    That stuff may all vary from State to State, those 
criteria, but they are vaccine eligible and scheduled in the 
tiers that are applicable in this jurisdiction, but yet nobody 
is talking about--or at least if they are, I haven't heard it--
nobody is talking about staff in the District.
    And so when you talk about mental health and getting stuff 
back to order and performing key continuity of government and 
key public service functions, I think we need to kind of 
confront that issue because, quite frankly, at least in my 
jurisdiction, if I put all my D.C. staff on a plane to Nevada, 
they could get jurisdiction--they could get vaccinations.
    And so that is one of the things I think that maybe in--you 
know, it is not like there is nothing to do these days, but I 
think it is something that needs to be focused on because it is 
like, well, the Members have been vaccinated and you have got a 
couple extra vaccines for your staff for continuity purposes. 
The committee folks have gotten four extra ones.
    But it is like, hey, we need to kind of, I think, make sure 
that we are taking care of business in our own house, not 
changing the rules, not making people--but, quite frankly, I 
think the States have dealt with this, and probably your folks 
in Ohio, I would assume, probably are eligible or already have 
their vaccines based on continuity of government and the key 
public service functions that they provide.
    So I don't expect to solve that in this meeting, but I do 
want to let these folks know we are going to be following up in 
terms of going, hey, what is the plan, what isn't the plan, 
where are we at on this stuff, because, quite frankly, it is 
something that needs to be taken care of, not only for mental 
health but for operations and certainly in the case of first 
responders.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. I appreciate that, Mark. That is a great point. 
So let's keep that on the table for further discussion. I 
appreciate it.
    Now we are going to go either further west and deeper into 
the early morning with Congressman Ed Case. Your--you have the 
floor.
    Mr. Case. Good morning, all. And to both of you, thank you 
so much for your own service in a difficult time.
    You know, there are a lot of tragedies from January 6, but 
to me one of the most tragic were suicides of our officers and, 
I assume, potential suicides by others in our Capitol 'ohana, 
as we call it here in Hawaii, family, because somehow one feels 
that those were avoidable and actually somehow one also feels a 
sense of personal responsibility for making sure that doesn't 
happen to anybody else.
    So let me ask you to get a little bit more into suicide 
prevention efforts. I serve also on the MILCON Veterans 
Affairs' Subcommittee on Appropriations and, of course, suicide 
and suicide prevention has been a major issue in our armed 
services and our vet communities for a long time.
    And one thing is very clear, and that is that if you simply 
assume that people are going to come to you if they need help 
that may lead to suicide, that is not the way to approach it. 
Certainly you want the door to be open, but you have got to go 
out and try to find folks and try to get at the game a little 
bit and also just change cultures that may not favor going in 
for counseling.
    And so, in that spirit, I would ask you, I assume that 
there are many parallels from this perspective with most 
directly our U.S. Capitol Police but not exclusively, and so 
what are you doing to affirmatively outreach and especially in 
the suicide prevention area?
    And I would follow up on the ranking member's question, you 
know, what do you need to do that? Because, you know, to me, 
part of this hearing is what do you need to deal with the 
realities of January 6 and its aftermath? And I am not sure 
which one of you is the right person to ask, so, Mr. Weiss, why 
don't you try it, unless that is clearly over on the other 
side.
    Mr. Weiss. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Case. Yeah, that is 
primarily the office of responsibility--Office of Employee 
Assistance. They are our mental, emotional, well-being subject-
matter experts on the Hill. So I will defer to Paul to answer 
that question, but thank you.
    Mr. Case. Thank you.
    Mr. Tewksbury. And thank you, Congressman, for the 
question. One of the very significant accomplishments along 
those lines that the OEA undertook and completed just within 
the last couple years is a comprehensive suicide awareness 
training that was delivered to the entire force, at least all 
uniform personnel. Over 1,800 officers and personnel were 
trained in a suicide awareness program that was done in person 
over a period of months.
    And it was very well received. The information was 
delivered by a couple of my colleagues and delivered in a way 
as to be very practical, very normalizing, and really helping 
educate people in the department, not only how to take care of 
their own needs but how to look out for colleagues and involved 
in that managers to look for certain signs without putting them 
in a counseling role, but to look for certain signs to lead 
employees to help.
    So this was a, we thought, a pretty significant 
undertaking. We are very aware and very pained by the tragedy 
of the suicides that have taken place this year, and working 
with the office of the CAO and Capitol Police, keeping people 
on site, you know, it is not only to get a lot of people to 
interact, I spoke with--about some pretty impressive numbers 
of, you know, hundreds of officers using the one-on-one 
support, but the rationale is, even if you can save one life, 
it is essential to have support in place and make it inviting 
and appealing enough or to cope with it, enough willingness 
that people will reach out. So----
    Mr. Case. Can I just ask you--
    Mr. Tewksbury. Yeah.
    Mr. Case [continuing]. For a quick followup because my time 
is just about up? Are you affirmatively going back out there 
now, post-January 6 with, you know, an update refresher 
extension of that program that you did a year ago?
    Mr. Ryan. And, Paul, take your time. You can give an 
extended answer here. It is an important question.
    Mr. Tewksbury. Okay. Thank you very much. We are exploring. 
We don't have a lot of details, but if I could respectfully 
share more as soon as I have them, we are exploring ways to do 
just that. We have had refresher trainings following the 
training for all personnel. I can get back to you with details 
on, you know, when/how that is happening and at what level as 
soon as they are available.
    But I want to assure you that, as professionals in employee 
assistance and mental health, we are acutely aware that this is 
a concern, this has been a tragic occurrence and not only 
within our internal team but the folks who are on the ground, 
at the four locations, 24/7 are looking out for officers and 
kind of working the floor, so to speak, to connect with 
managers, supervisors, to not invasively but appropriately 
reach out with people who seem to be struggling.
    So we are very much, you know, working towards suicide 
prevention, and then we move on to, you know, other types of 
well-being. But that is absolutely essential and has certainly 
been something the OEA has been trained in and has dealt with 
over the years, not just with Capitol Police but with, you 
know, anyone who we serve. And we have training and practical 
techniques to provide more awareness and----
    Mr. Case. Okay----
    Mr. Tewksbury. For everybody on that.
    Mr. Case. Thank you very much. And just quickly, as you get 
back to the committee on that, again, the question is, what 
resources do you need to do what you feel needs to be done? 
Because I would hate the answer to be: We didn't do something 
because we didn't have the resources.
    Mr. Tewksbury. Yes. Thank you.
    Mr. Case. Thank you.
    Mr. Tewksbury. I so appreciate that, and we will reach out 
with additional needs so we can do even more of what we are 
doing. It is so important.
    Mr. Ryan. I appreciate it. Great questions, Ed.
    You know, Paul, I think, you know, to me and Bryan and the 
Capitol Police and the Sergeant at Arms and really all of us, 
you know, around the idea of really reaching out and not being 
afraid to ask people how they are doing because I think any of 
us who have been around somebody who has taken their own life, 
you know, the questions, you know, a lot are, why didn't I say 
more? We didn't know, you know, that they were in this much 
pain, they were hurting this much.
    So, you know, I just think we are talking about a culture 
shift not only, you know, in the country, but what can we do in 
our local community here on Capitol Hill to really shift that 
culture. And I hope that, as your trainings and what Bryan is 
doing, like we can really figure out a way to have that 
permeate all of the different, you know, approaches and group 
meetings and all of that to really, you know, hopefully shift 
the culture. So I appreciate the questions there, Ed.
    Congressman Espaillat.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, for 
this opportunity.
    I want to thank both Bryan and Paul for their presentation.
    My question is on a diversity angle. Given the nature of 
the attack and the fact that it was perpetrated with a racist, 
White supremacist tone and the Confederate flag was paraded 
around the Capitol, it has been reported that African-American 
Capitol Police officers stated that they have never been called 
the ``N'' word as much as that day, and a noose was, you know, 
put outside the Capitol. That is symbolic of--we know what that 
is symbolic of.
    I am just concerned that people of color that work in the 
Capitol that cannot blend in by simply taking off their pin 
will be in a very difficult position. And I just wanted to know 
what you are doing about that, what kind of resources you have, 
do you have a diverse staff that will be--that is culturally 
sensitive that will be able to address this as we move forward?
    There is a lot of chatter underneath the pain that has not 
come out yet but is there. I mean, the Congress is more diverse 
now than ever, and so are our staffers. And so there is a lot 
of chatter going on about what happened that day. I think there 
is a lot of pain that has not been manifested yet, and I wanted 
to know, what is your plan to address that and if you have the 
tools and if you have the resources available to effectively 
address that?
    Mr. Tewksbury. Thank you very much, Congressman, for that 
question, and let me start by saying that our staff at the OEA 
is highly diverse. Fifty percent of our full-time staff are 
African American. We are diverse also in the age range of our 
staff. We are diverse in the gender identification of our 
staff, being three-quarters female.
    And diversity is--and respect for and working with 
diversity of personnel of socioeconomic status and so many 
kinds, too many to mention, is really the essence of what we do 
in our training and, you know, just our spirit as people truly.
    So, while we cannot say we have walked in everyone's shoes, 
been in every situation a client has been in, we are culturally 
competent in our approach. And what that means is we try to be 
aware and are aware and we learn from the community around us 
on a daily basis of what the concerns are.
    The concerns that you mentioned, sir, are certainly things 
that I am aware of and that our team is aware of and issues 
that people are already bringing to our office at every level, 
staff and people at every level in the House and the Capitol 
Police. This is very real. We honor this. We try to provide 
practical strategies for people to navigate that.
    And, yes, we are accustomed to connecting people with other 
resources, whether they are focused on, you know, certain 
cultural preferences that people have or just certain, you 
know, care needs people have or both. If we are not the direct 
service to meet their longer term or specialized needs or 
preferences, it is our business to connect people with other 
resources and stay informed on that.
    But the concerns that you portray are certainly things that 
are coming to our attention, and we are working with a lot of 
individuals and, you know, some work groups to allow people 
safe space to process this. And we have seen some of the 
reactions move from just raw trauma, life at risk on January 6, 
now to recovering from that, but all of these undertones, 
right. We understand this is much more than just a one day 
where people's safety was at risk situation.
    So, you know, we are counseling professionals and I think 
caring people, so we very much, if we haven't walked in their 
shoes, can connect with them and appreciate the depth of these 
concerns and create this kind of therapeutic alliance around 
that to build trust and understanding.
    And if people have preferences with, you know, which, like, 
cultural background of a counselor they would like to work 
with, we honor that, you know, when employees ask us that.
    Additional outreach, just briefly, that we are already 
doing in the form of multimedia videos and some other things to 
continue to engage more the workforce is going to highlight 
diversity of our staff and services and approach even more, but 
we have always been striving to do that. Thank you for the 
question.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.
    Mr. Ryan. Congresswoman Wexton, you are now live.
    Ms. Wexton. Thanks, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
    I think I am on the caboose of the committee.
    So I think I just want to touch on some of the things the 
other people of authority have brought up and hopefully get a 
little bit more detail on a couple of things.
    There is no question that this has been a really, really 
challenging year for everybody. I know that everybody was 
operating under very elevated levels of stress and anxiety and 
depression and isolation, leading up to January 6, and then 
January 6 happened, the, you know, violent attack on the 
Capitol, and nobody was more affected by that than the Capitol 
Police, who were literally on the front lines and fighting in 
hand-to-hand combat.
    And, you know, one of the things, as we are talking about 
Officer Brian Sicknick and those who sustained physical 
injuries, I can't stop thinking about those that are going to 
have lasting mental health injuries and damage as a result of 
that day, especially, you know, my constituent Officer Howie 
Liebengood took his own life in the days following, and, you 
know, I don't want that to happen to anybody else.
    So one of the things that was brought to my attention when 
it comes to the Capitol Police is that, after January 6, all 
their friends and family started asking them: How did this 
happen? How could this happen?
    And what they heard was: How could you let this happen?
    Right? So they felt very responsible for it, not to mention 
the fact that, as more facts come out, it appears that 
leadership had intelligence about just how damaging and how 
violent this demonstration could become and left them out there 
without any supports.
    So I think that there is a lot of issues that the Capitol 
Police are going to have to work through, as well as our, you 
know, regular Capitol Hill staff and people at all levels of 
the Capitol staff.
    So, Mr. Tewksbury, you testified that there are four full-
time clinicians on staff at OEA. Is that correct?
    Mr. Tewksbury. And forgive me. And thank you for the 
question. The four refer to the current level of contracted 
staff that are on site for Capitol Police round-the-clock 
trauma response, but we have a full-time staff of eight at the 
Employee Assistance Office and we also have three additional 
contracted counselors with our immediate office and a graduate 
student in mental health. So put that all together, there are 
16.
    Ms. Wexton. And those four that are contracted for the 
Capitol Police, they are temporary employees. Is that correct?
    Mr. Tewksbury. They are on a time-limited contract that 
already has been extended, and we are actively exploring 
strategies to extend that further.
    Ms. Wexton. Are they specialized in law enforcement and 
military PTSD?
    Mr. Tewksbury. They have a lot of specialized training in 
law enforcement and trauma response, using kind of the standard 
best practices in employee assistance. So, yes, they are not 
just generalists. Their organization, this contract company 
specifically provides large-scale trauma response services.
    Ms. Wexton. But specifically geared towards law enforcement 
and PTSD?
    Mr. Tewksbury. Yes, included in that, not exclusively, but 
that is one of the areas of specialty, working with law 
enforcement, identifying clinical concerns that could indicate 
post-traumatic stress disorder, things of that nature.
    Ms. Wexton. Now, it has come to my attention that you all 
don't have the ability to do video conferences for your 
sessions, for your clinicians. Is that true?
    Mr. Tewksbury. Currently, that is correct. However, we are 
providing a huge amount of telephonic services, and that is 
something that is going to be----
    Ms. Wexton. Are you attempting to get approval to engage? I 
mean, sometimes having that face-to-face interaction, if you 
can't literally be face to face, at least having video contact 
and being able to look somebody in the eye is really helpful. 
So are you in the process of getting approval, and what is it 
going to take for that to happen, and how can we help?
    Mr. Tewksbury. Okay. That is a great question, and I so 
appreciate it. Our whole team does. That is something that, 
again, is being explored, admittedly, in the early stages. And 
it is our intention to move forward on that. One thing that we 
are very cognizant of is the high level of confidentiality of 
our services requires something beyond what is already in place 
within House resources, but if I could respectfully kind of 
determine what our needs are and how your subcommittee could 
assist us with that and moving that forward, I would be very 
appreciative.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. That is great. We are happy to work with 
House Admin or whoever it takes to get you guys whatever kind 
of technical assistance you need to make that happen. I just 
want assurances that is something that is a priority and 
something you all will actually explore. Will you provide those 
assurances?
    Mr. Tewksbury. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Fantastic. Great. I see my time has 
expired.
    So I will yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thanks. And we will make sure the staff follows 
up on that, too, Jennifer. That is really important.
    And some of the people that I have gotten connected to 
Bryan and the Capitol Police, Center for Mind-Body Medicine, 
Project Welcome Home Troops--they live in that space of veteran 
trauma--police. I know Center for Mind-Body Medicine has done a 
lot in the West Bank and, you know, helping some of our people 
in the State Department, USAID, really who have functioned in 
those areas where there is a great deal of trauma. I think you 
are right. I think you hit the nail on the head. Those are the 
kinds of experienced people we need helping. And, you know, I 
think we need more, you know, more people with more experience 
but also more bodies. And, you know, we are all dealing with 
this together, Paul. So we want to be helpful and absolutely 
provide some kind of, you know, communication where they can 
get these services online, if necessary.
    Bryan, what is your interaction with the Capitol Police? 
How has that unfolded?
    Mr. Weiss. Thank you, Chairman, for the question.
    So the relationship I have had with the program coordinator 
at the Capitol Police wellness and resilience division has been 
very great. From the very beginning, we have had regular, 
every-other-week phone calls, you know, talking about what we 
are doing, existing programs, future programs, outreach 
efforts, and just resource and service availability.
    You know, from a general well-being perspective, we were 
able to connect our two information technology and security 
teams to make sure they had access to our mobile and web 
applications. We worked alongside them to make sure they had 
access to the House staff fitness center's mobile application 
so they could have in-home, at-home workouts. We coordinated 
and launched at the same time the emergency backup child and 
elder care platform, as well as the online academic resource 
center and education tutoring services. We launched those back 
in November. We also shared information with them about the 
benefits navigation and transparency tool to help improve 
health literacy, you know, for those folks who need that type 
of support.
    So we have been working closely. We continue to look at, 
you know, what the needs are within our mobile and web 
applications. We have the ability to break out aggregate well-
being data so that way we can look at what the specific needs 
are of not only the House community but the Capitol Police 
organization so that we know how to better tailor our programs 
and services, how we look at improving things and adding new 
platforms.
    So it has been a great working relationship, and, you know, 
we continue to talk, and, you know, I am happy and excited by 
what the future brings for that relationship.
    Mr. Ryan. You know, I wasn't surprised, but, you know, 
coming back after January 6 and just going around, talking to a 
lot of the rank-and-file members, you know, it is just an 
interesting experience to see how different people, you know, 
there is, like, a scale. There is, like, a spectrum of how 
people are feeling. One person, you know, I talked to, you 
know, wanted to talk to somebody, and they were. And then there 
was another guy who was, like: I just need a couple of good 
nights' sleep. I just need to see my kids.
    So I think we have got to, you know, figure out, again, 
getting back to really changing the culture, you know, where 
these cops are working 12-hour shifts, going back, some of 
them, to December, going through everything, you know, the 
experience of the 6th, teeing it right back up for the 
inauguration, and not seeing your family, you know.
    So, you know, the things that help you deal with, you know, 
some mental health issues are connection, you know, the people 
you love and care about. If you don't have that connection, you 
start sliding. You mentioned diet and nutrition. You know, the 
research is showing more and more the connection to your diet, 
and, you know, mental health issues or issues of well-being, 
depression are affected by how you can screw up your gut 
bacteria, as crazy as that sounds. But it has an effect on your 
mood and all the rest and sleep. The research on sleep over the 
last, you know, 10, 15 years has been incredible.
    So how do we, you, us supporting you but how do we build 
out and shift this culture around all of these issues around 
well-being? I mean, what is your outreach to new members, 
Bryan? And I know you are trying to do a lot, and it has been 
difficult. Maybe you could mention the storefront and all that 
to really help shift the culture, 'cause I think that is going 
to be the key.
    Mr. Weiss. Yeah, sure. So, for us, it is, you know, 
culture, you know, starts at the top right. It is a top-down 
thing. So forums like this and this committee being invested in 
the well-being of the program is super important, you know, 
kind of walking the walk. So that obviously is an important 
piece. But also from a bottom-up standpoint, you know, we 
recognize that every individual is unique and have individual 
needs that need to be considered. So we are going to be doing a 
lot of research and work on that piece.
    We are going to be conducting focus groups with key 
stakeholders and member committee officer-eligible agency 
offices to better understand what they need, what they need 
from a health and well-being standpoint, how they access our 
resources and services, what barriers or limitations there are, 
and what they would like to see from our office so we can 
provide greater organizational support. So that is kind of the 
grassroots piece of it, kind of the bottom up.
    And then, with that leadership support as well, you know, 
we are going to be able to shift the culture and create a 
greater level of individual and organizational well-being.
    From a Capitol Police standpoint, you know, specifically 
them, I mean, with a fairly new program, they are going to, 
with their wellness program coordinator, they are going to be 
the ones that are going to look at our umbrella of wellness 
services. And as they get a better understanding of what the 
individual needs are of that culture, they are going to be able 
to pick and choose what makes the most sense from our 
collective resources. And then also we can work together with 
our vendors and some of our agreements that we have with 
industry leaders to see how we can better tailor and update 
platforms and services to really meet the needs of what this 
workforce is.
    So, instead of just throwing a whole bunch of stuff at the 
wall and seeing what sticks, really, you know, talking to the 
employees, understanding what the needs are, looking at, you 
know, our population health data and then creating greater 
efficiencies and effectiveness with our programming. That is 
going to be the key to success to determine health and well-
being on the Hill.
    Mr. Ryan. I appreciate that.
    We had--I don't know if we got you connected yet but we had 
a great conversation with a doctor out of Yale, and they do a 
lot of screening around trauma with kids and others. And we 
want to make sure that you get introduced to them, and Paul, as 
well, to where we can have some level of screening. The way I 
see this maybe unfolding is where we have a screening process. 
We figure out where people are. I mentioned there is this 
spectrum of, you know, where people are; and where you think 
you are may not be where you are, you know. It could be 
completely different.
    But do the screening, and then, based on the screening and 
the understanding, then the almost the smorgasbord of options 
are then there with the different areas. You know, that is the 
thing that I have learned a lot with veterans experiencing some 
of these different programs. So some like things like the 
Project Welcome Home Troops, where it is a bunch of really deep 
breathing that really helps release a lot of the trauma that 
you are holding in your nervous system. Other people like 
mindfulness-based meditation where it is more of, you know, you 
are following your breath. You are trying to get detached from 
your thoughts. Other people like things like transcendental 
meditation. Other vets, I have seen a lot of vets who have been 
healed by that, where it is more of a you get a word that you 
say over and over. I have seen vets, and we have talked about 
this, really getting connected with some of the religious 
community and the Office of Faith and Politics where, you know, 
centering prepare and know religious-based contemplative 
practices are very, very helpful.
    So I think, as we look at this, it is the screening process 
to figure out where people are and then have this, you know, 
really buffet of options, which I think you are doing a hell of 
a job, Bryan, in developing all of these. And, you know, we 
want to make sure we continue to support you. I think, in both 
instances here with both you and Paul, we have got to be 
committed, and that means the resources have to be committed to 
the well-being of the men and women who make this thing go. And 
I think the American people would want that to happen. They saw 
what happened on January 6.
    But as I mentioned to Chairman Yoder, we started this long 
before COVID, long before January 6 of 2021, and Capitol Hill 
is no different than most American towns where there is a lot 
going on for people, and there is a lot of anxiety, a lot of 
stress, a lot of disconnection, a lot of issues around well-
being, physicality, mental, et cetera.
    So I think we covered a good deal of what I wanted to cover 
here today. I want to give each of you an opportunity, if there 
is something that you want to add from a previous question that 
you may have gotten and you didn't think of at the time, that 
you want to share before we close things out.
    Paul, do you want to take that first? Is there anything you 
want to add?
    Mr. Tewksbury. Oh, yes, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
for that opportunity.
    There are a couple of items I just wanted to clarify from 
some earlier questions, so thank you. One is the vaccine issue 
with Capitol Police. While I share just my [inaudible], I would 
have to refer the subcommittee to officials at Capitol Police 
to get certainly a detailed read on what their plan is to 
vaccinate officers and where they are in that plan.
    And also regarding the department, up to now, they have 
been actually providing financing for the additional onsite 
crisis counselors. So I can respectfully defer to them on some 
of the details of how that has happened and what needs they may 
have on that front. We are certainly working closely with 
Capitol Police leadership about oversight of those services and 
affiliating them with our office, but technically that is 
something they have been handling.
    Other than that, I just appreciate everyone's time and 
attention, very insightful questions, and foremost the real 
commitment to what we hold dear in wellness at OEA, which is 
just that. It is well-being, work productivity, and the 
exceptional amount of needs in our community right now. We are 
beyond grateful for not only your attention but your offers of 
support, and I owe the subcommittee some responses on some of 
those offers, which we will get back to you very soon on. So 
thank you.
    Mr. Ryan. Bryan, any closing comments?
    Mr. Weiss. Sure, yeah, I just want to thank you, Chairman 
Ryan, not only for today's opportunity but also, you know, the 
referrals that you send my way. I mean, we have ongoing 
conversations. I have multiple today actually this afternoon. 
So we are always looking at new and innovative ways to stay on 
the cutting edge. You know, I know it is important that we not 
only remain an agency of choice but an employer of choice. So I 
do appreciate those. I will keep you posted as we move forward 
with that.
    But just to you, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and 
members, Leg Branch Committee for this opportunities today and 
just for your overall continued support, you know, we 
appreciate everything that you guys do for us and the House 
Wellness Center and the OEA. You know, we look forward to your 
guidance and engagement and advocacy for years to come. So 
thank you again. You know, I look forward to working with you 
all.
    Mr. Ryan. We appreciate it. Thank you so much. We are going 
to be in contact.
    I think we had a lot of great questions and a lot of great 
followup that, you know, we are going to be following through 
with it.
    So, anyway, I want to thank Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, 
Acting Ranking Member Mr. Amodei.
    You are the man.
    Congresswoman Wexton, thank you for sticking around. And 
God bless. You guys take care. We will be in touch. This 
committee is adjourned.

                                      Wednesday, February 24, 2021.

 HEALTH AND WELLNESS OF EMPLOYEES AND STATE OF DAMAGE AND PRESERVATION 
               AS A RESULT OF THE JANUARY 6 INSURRECTION

                               WITNESSES

BRETT BLANTON, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
FARAR ELLIOTT, CURATOR, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CATHERINE SZPINDOR, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
    Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order. As this hearing 
is fully virtual, I have got to address a few housekeeping 
matters. First, for today's meeting, the chair or staff 
designated by the chair may mute participants' microphones when 
they are not under recognition for the purposes of eliminating 
inadvertent background noises.
    Second, members are responsible for muting and unmuting 
themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that you have 
not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the 
staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff 
will unmute your microphone.
    Third, I want to remind all members and witnesses that the 
5-minute clock still applies. If there is a technology issue, 
we will move to the next member until the issue is resolved, 
and you will retain the balance of your time. You will notice a 
clock on your screen that will show how much time is remaining. 
At 1 minute remaining, the clock will turn yellow. And when 
your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will 
begin to recognize the next member.
    Fourth, in terms of the speaking order, we will be 
following the order set forth in the House rules beginning with 
the chair and the ranking member. Then members present at the 
time the hearing is called to order will be recognized in order 
of seniority.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    Good morning to our panel. I am happy to welcome the 
Architect of the Capitol, Brett Blanton; and Chief 
Administrative Officer, Catherine Szpindor; and House curator, 
Farar Elliott.
    Today is our second of three hearings reviewing the 
aftermath of the breaching of the Capitol by an insurrectionist 
mob on January 6. None of us at this hearing will soon forget 
that day, but how we remember it determines how we move forward 
and collectively learn from the mistakes. If we do not adapt or 
choose to only prepare for the last encounter, the Capitol 
campus will continue to be vulnerable to unknown and unexpected 
threats.
    This building, the Capitol, which Thomas Jefferson called 
the first temple dedicated to the sovereignty of the people, 
stands for more than just us. It stands for tomorrow and the 
day after that. It stands for a future for all people. And 
while it may seem to be a leap to some, this very small 
subcommittee is at the forefront as one of the protectors of 
representative democracy.
    But we cannot militarize the Capitol in response to an 
attempted ransacking of representative democracy. This is not 
what these first three hearings are about. The purpose of this 
hearing is to dig deeper into what we are doing to support our 
House employees during these turbulent times. It is to learn 
from the CAO on the current and future security and COVID-19 
related needs for the House. It is to receive an update on the 
damages to the House, both physical and to collections, because 
of the events of January 6.
    And, most importantly, it is to continue the discussion on 
next steps to ensuring the physical safety of our campus for 
Members of Congress to carry out our constitutional duties, 
provide resources to our Capitol Hill community, to heal from 
the traumatic event, maintain a safe and open campus as much as 
possible so that visitors from across the country and around 
the world can witness representative democracy in action.
    It is incumbent on all of us to talk to each other, and I 
welcome our witnesses today. We are thankful for your 
leadership and the staff of your organizations who work so hard 
to make this House run.
    At this point, I would like to yield to my friend and 
colleague from the great State of Washington, Ranking Member 
Jaime Herrera Beutler, for any opening comments she would like 
to make. Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. I was going to put my other headphone 
in, but I have only got the one. Hopefully you guys can hear me 
okay.
    Mr. Ryan. You are fine.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Mr. Blanton, Ms. Szpindor, Ms. Elliott, thank you so 
much for taking the time to be here. It was a pleasure to 
connect with you all before we got going.
    You know, this past year with COVID-19 pandemic and the 
Capitol 6th riot has placed a great strain on our Capitol Hill 
community. It is more important than ever that Members and 
staff have access to resources that help people endure the 
high-stress work environment and access a holistic approach in 
managing the high--really managing everything that we have been 
going through.
    Can you guys hear me okay? I see Chairman Ryan, but 
everybody else looks like they are kind of frozen. Are you guys 
frozen or am I frozen?
    Mr. Ryan. You are fine.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Oh, okay. Everybody else is--all 
right.
    Last week, this subcommittee heard from the directors of 
the Office of Employee Assistance and the Wellness Center on 
their work to provide vital well-being and mental health 
resources to the leg branch. These offices were well prepared 
and well equipped to give the appropriate support to staff and 
Capitol officers in the aftermath of the January 6 riot, and I 
look forward to hearing more from Ms. Szpindor about these 
services and how they continue to grow and to adapt.
    For the Architect of the Capitol and the entire AOC team, 
you all deserve credit for your hard work in cleaning and 
repairing the Capitol Building and the grounds immediately 
after the building was cleared by the Capitol Police--and I 
know we have already talked about the costs that are going to 
be associated with some of those things--and repairing--
basically getting the grounds ready again in such short order.
    This includes the frontline workers who have also kept this 
place running and sanitized even over this last year throughout 
the pandemic. This was something I remember last year talking 
about how--what were the enhanced cleaning procedures going to 
be. And it took monumental effort to restore the Capitol and 
the inaugural stands just 2 weeks after the attack. So it has 
been a lot that you have all been--you guys have been inundated 
with.
    The AOC is charged with the stewardship of the Capitol 
complex and its grounds. The Capitol functions not only as a 
monument and a museum, I would say a living museum, but it also 
is an office building where we do the people's work. With that 
in mind, it is going to be important to balance the need of 
both repairing the damages made from the riot with preserving 
some marks from that day to mark the historical reminder of the 
riot. I think it is something that we do need; we should not 
forget.
    The AOC, along with the House and the Senate curators, have 
the challenge of determining how and what to restore and 
preserve so that future generations can view and understand the 
historical significance of January 6. It is my hope that the 
AOC will work with the curators and the House community when 
making these decisions.
    And, with that, I appreciate everyone taking the time to be 
here, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Without objection, your written testimonies will be made 
part of the record. Please summarize your statements as we move 
to Mr. Blanton.
    We want you to begin, and after your statement we will turn 
to Ms. Szpindor and then to the House curator. Once the 
statements are complete we will move to questions and answers.
    Please begin. We will start with you, Mr. Blanton.
    Mr. Blanton. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member and 
members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to 
speak with you today about the Architect of the Capitol's 
response efforts following the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol 
Building breach. The events of this January 6 were difficult 
for the American people and extremely hard for us on campus to 
witness.
    As we continue to deal with the shock and disappointment 
over the actions of those who attacked the Capitol Building, I 
remain proud of and encouraged by the professionalism displayed 
by the AOC team in the face of this dangerous and stressful 
event.
    On the morning of January 6, my team were preparing the 
grounds and the inauguration stage. Our artists were painting 
the stands a bright white with a deep blue edge on the main 
stage of the platform. About midday, as crowds began to appear 
on the west front, our staff secured our equipment and was 
moved indoors.
    Over the course of a couple hours, the hard work of the 
team was destroyed. The platform was wrecked. There was broken 
glass and debris everywhere. The sound system and photography 
equipment was stolen or damaged beyond repair. Two historic 
Olmsted lanterns were ripped from the ground, and wet blue 
paint was tracked across the historic stone balustrades and 
hallways of the Capitol.
    As the crowd began crashing through windows and prying open 
doors, my staff undertook several unheralded actions in support 
of Congress. AOC employees identified and sheltered 
congressional staff in their shops to protect them from the 
roving mob. Other members of the team raced to the roof to 
reverse the air flow within the building to help clear the air 
of chemical irritants, such as bear spray, repellant, and 
pepper spray, while other team members rushed bottles of water 
and eye wash stations to Capitol Police officers in need of 
assistance.
    In my opinion, we served as a light of hope that day and in 
the days following insurrection. As soon as the security 
officials cleared the building, AOC employees worked tirelessly 
to clean up and begin repair work. Carpenters covered broken 
windows and doors with plywood to secure the building. Laborers 
began sweeping up glass and broken furniture to enable Congress 
to continue its work. Our groundskeepers cleared a small 
mountain of debris left on the west and east fronts, and our 
painters carefully repainted the platform.
    We were committed to, and ensured, the electoral college 
certification process would continue on January 6. Furthermore, 
we were sharply focused on ensuring the campus was prepared for 
the Presidential inauguration without interruption to signal 
our Nation's determination to support a peaceful transition of 
power.
    My team has worked nonstop. As an experienced combat 
veteran, I am mindful of the stress that such an event has an 
employees. I know that, in the next several weeks and months, 
my team will continue to need counseling and support to process 
this event. The safety and personal health of AOC employees is 
my highest priority.
    The agency provides support services through our Employee 
Assistance Program, which is free, voluntary, and confidential. 
Employees have access to trained staff counselors through our 
EAP. They can also use TalkNow, which offers AOC employees 
immediate 24/7 telephonic access to confidential, in-the-moment 
counseling support delivered by quality behavioral health 
professionals with no appointment necessary.
    In addition to these services, many of the resources 
offered by the House Wellness Center and the House Office of 
Employee Assistance are available to AOC employees.
    In the weeks following the building breach, we also hosted 
an ``Office Hours'' employee session to provide a venue to all 
employees to share their concerns, ask questions, and hear 
directly from our director of EAP and the agency's ombudsman. 
We also are planning proactive counseling sessions for our 
tradesmen, support staff, and artists who were directly 
impacted by the 6th.
    Since becoming the Architect of the Capitol a little over a 
year ago, I have been continually impressed and inspired by the 
great work of this agency. We have been in pandemic operations 
for nearly a year, we supported three lying in states or honor 
ceremonies, and prepared for a Presidential inauguration all 
during the pandemic.
    I am honored to lead a team whose extraordinary efforts on 
January 6, and the days that followed, helped Americans of all 
walks of life take solace in seeing order restored to the U.S. 
Capitol. We would appreciate your support to ensure that we are 
positioned to address ongoing and future facility needs in 
addition to the health and wellness of our employees.
    Thank you, and I am prepared to answer any questions that 
you may have.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Blanton. We appreciate it. You 
have had quite the first year here. We appreciate what you have 
done.
    Next, Ms. Szpindor.
    Ms. Szpindor. Good morning, Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member 
Herrera Beutler, and members of the subcommittee. As you know, 
my appointment as Chief Administrative Officer began on Sunday, 
January 3. Just 3 days later, the Capitol was under siege. Like 
so many of the Members and staff, I was sheltering in place 
along with several CAO employees as chaos ensued just outside 
of our office here in the Capitol.
    Although I will never forget those harrowing hours, I am 
tremendously grateful for the dedication and rapid response of 
so many of my colleagues and professionals from all House 
entities, including Members, staff, and the U.S. Capitol 
Police. The efforts to restore order and protect our democracy 
were shining examples of the commitment we all share for this 
great institution.
    As the insurrection was occurring, our Office of 
Cybersecurity took several critical actions to ensure the House 
network, equipment, and technology infrastructure remained 
secure. Over the following several weeks, we provided guidance 
to the House community and responded to various Member 
inquiries about the House's cybersecurity posture. Please know 
that the House's Chief Information Security Officer and his 
staff are prepared to brief any Member interested in discussing 
the current state of cybersecurity at the House.
    In response to the mental and emotional well-being needs of 
the House community, our Office of Employee Assistance handled 
over 1,150 individual interactions over the 6-week period since 
January 6. At the peak of their workload, OEA had seven 
additional contractor counselors to support an eight-team 
staff. The supplemental contracting staff included four onsite 
crisis counselors dedicated specifically to the U.S. Capitol 
Police. Be assured, we will all continue to coordinate with the 
Capitol Police to determine future consulting services needs 
and how we can best support them.
    I recognize the gravity of the moment we find ourselves in, 
and, as such, I encourage any member or staffer of the House 
community who is struggling with a personal issue to please 
reach out directly to the Office of Employee Assistance. They 
are poised and positioned to help 24 hours a day, 7 days a 
week.
    The House Wellness Center has been another integral 
component in promoting the health and well-being of Members and 
staff. And, Mr. Chairman, as a champion of this program, we 
cannot thank you enough. The Wellness Center takes a holistic 
approach to improve well-being providing resources and services 
to the entire House community.
    The solutions are offered on a variety of platforms 
ensuring every member has the same level of access and care and 
includes support for personal issues that may impact the 
individual's overall mental or physical well-being. The growth 
and popularity of the Wellness Center in just over 2 years is 
highly impressive.
    I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight the 
CAO's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Less than a year ago 
today, the CAO, along with our legislative branch partners, 
rapidly responded to prepare offices for maximum telework. This 
daunting and unprecedented challenge required coordination with 
no prior roadmap to replicate.
    Fortunately, the unwavering support from House leadership 
made our transformation to our remote workforce possible. While 
none of us could have imagined the full impact of this 
pandemic, it is important to highlight that our migration to 
Microsoft Office 365 in the summer of 2019 was critical to our 
successful ability to telework over the past 12 months.
    These proactive efforts have supported nearly 21 million 
chat messages, 425,000 virtual meetings, and an average of more 
than 6,000 House staffers who are able to connect on a daily 
basis to do their work. As the Nation continues to cope with 
the COVID-19 pandemic, the CAO stands ready to assist and 
execute critical initiatives in support of ongoing operations 
for the House of Representatives.
    Thank you, Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, 
and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to 
participate in today's hearing. I look forward to answering any 
questions you may have. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
       
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Szpindor. We appreciate you and 
your team.
    Mr. Blanton had an interesting first year; you've had an 
interesting first couple of months, and we appreciate your 
rising to the occasion.
    Next, Ms. Elliott.
    Ms. Elliott. Chairperson Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera 
Beutler, members of the subcommittee, thank you for your 
ongoing support for the Office of the Clerk's work and for the 
opportunity to testify today about the Clerk's response to 
damage to the fine art collection of the House on January 6, 
2021, and our budget request related to that damage.
    The House Collection of Fine Art and Artifacts encompasses 
the sweep of the institution's history, 13,000 objects that 
tell the story of the people's House. As provided in U.S. Code 
and under the direction of the House Collection's oversight 
body, the House Fine Arts Board, the Clerk is responsible for 
care of this collection.
    219 objects from the House Collection were on display in 
the Capitol on January 6. On January 7, I and the rest of the 
Clerk's curatorial staff made a preliminary inspection of every 
object on display. The Senate Curator and I also undertook a 
walk-through of the entire building coordinating with our 
colleagues at the Architect of the Capitol.
    Our preliminary inspection identified eight House 
Collection objects with potential damage, six sculptures and 
two paintings. All of them are adjacent to the Chamber's north 
doors, and they were covered in a fine powder. The Smithsonian 
Institution's Museum Conservation Institute analyzed and 
identified that powder as fire extinguisher particulate and 
containing, among other chemicals, an oily yellow dye.
    In the coming weeks, we will begin conservation treatment 
to remove chemicals and accretions and dye before they cause 
permanent discoloration and harm. Conservation of those eight 
objects is significantly more than the unexpected damage that 
we plan for every year. Our entire conservation plan for this 
fiscal year is only six projects: annual treatment for delicate 
treasures, like the silver inkstand in the Chamber; scheduled 
treatment for other pieces that are stable but eventually need 
work; and a plan to address one instance of emergency 
intervention.
    To enable us to conserve eight objects as emergency 
interventions as well as continue the sound care of the entire 
collection, we respectfully request the subcommittee's support 
for a supplemental appropriation of $25,000 for conservation of 
House Collection objects.
    Thank you again for the subcommittee's continued support of 
the Clerk's role as a steward of the House's heritage, and 
thank you for the opportunity for me to testify about that. I 
look forward to answering any questions that the committee has.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
   
   Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Ms. Elliott. We appreciate it, and thanks 
for all the good work you do behind the scenes. We work in such 
a special place, and I know, like most Members, we sometimes 
take it for granted. We are always hustling to go get a vote in 
or run to a meeting, but we really appreciate the work. And it 
is such a magnificent space that you help preserve. So thank 
you for that.
    We are going to move to the question and answers, and we 
will start with the ranking member, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you so much. Man, just hearing 
that last piece, I mean, hearing from all of you was important, 
but it just--you just--what the chairman said, you stop and 
think about the fact that we get to work in this place, the 
people's House. It is the most amazing thing ever. We do scurry 
around a lot, get into our--getting our business done, don't 
take the time to think about it. So thank you all because I 
know that is a big part of your job is to think about it all 
the time to preserve for the American people, and I so 
appreciate it.
    I am going to start with Mr. Blanton. You know, as a member 
of the Capitol Police Board, you have insight into the events 
and decisions made on January 6, and I am particularly 
interested in the statement you released in response to Acting 
U.S. Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman's testimony where 
she stated that the Capitol Police may have requested the Board 
for support prior to January 6.
    You released a statement refuting Chief Pittman's assertion 
that there were verbal or written requests prior to January 6. 
And I guess, I think the question is, why do you feel compelled 
to release that statement and expand on the assertion you made 
in the statement? And could you detail, if any, formal or 
informal meetings that were held by the Board prior to January 
6 and what those meetings entailed? And then I have a little 
followup if there is time. Thank you.
    Mr. Blanton. Yes, I am happy to answer. There were two 
points that I refuted. One was my attendance at our meeting on 
January 3. And in that meeting, no individual from the 
Architect of the Capitol staff nor I was at that meeting. It 
was later learned that meeting may have been with a smaller 
audience, but it did not include my staff.
    The second point was that she mentioned that Chief Sund 
asked the Capitol Police Board for additional resources. Chief 
Sund, as he stated in his testimony yesterday and his letter to 
the Speaker, went directly to both Sergeants at Arms and asked 
for that, and I was refuting the point that I was not asked 
specifically for those--for additional resources.
    There was a meeting on January 5 that was hosted by then-
Chief Sund regarding the inauguration planning, and it was an 
interagency meeting with the police forces throughout the 
Washington, D.C. area that have a role in inauguration. During 
that, there was--most of it was introduction of what the roles 
and responsibilities were to the inauguration. There was a 
little discussion about the 6th, most of it centering around at 
that time there was no credible evidence, although there is--
was chatter for events that may occur on January 6.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you. With regard to the Board 
specifically, and I know you have just detailed the meetings 
that took place--and I apologize if you can hear babies 
screaming in the background--are you aware of any discussion by 
the actual Board members regarding the intelligence showing the 
possible disturbance on the 6th, like in a more--like the Board 
itself?
    Mr. Blanton. As an entity, we did not have that. I 
understand there was an intelligence assessment that was 
released on the 4th by the Capitol Police. It went to the 
Sergeants at Arms. And from what I have learned later is that 
intelligence assessment says it was an improbable or not likely 
that there would be violence on the 6th.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Are you aware of any requested changes 
by the former House Sergeant at Arms, Paul Irving, to the 
physical security plan prior to January 6?
    Mr. Blanton. There was requested changes, and Chief Sund 
alluded as to it by changing the--expanding the security 
perimeter. He alluded to that both in his letter and in his 
testimony yesterday in front of the Senate.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. So was your office asked to modify 
positioning of any perimeter barricades, and if so, did you 
find the request consistent with the direction given ahead of 
previously planned protests?
    Mr. Blanton. So, yes, our--my staff was asked to move 
barricades, and that was a different footprint than we had in 
previous--whether it was the MAGA or the protests that occurred 
during the summer months. It was a different footprint than was 
originally used then.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you very much.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    I just want to follow up on one of those, Mr. Blanton. So, 
just so the committee is clear on this, when the Chief was 
asking the Sergeant at Arms for more support, that wasn't 
necessarily a clear ask of the Board, correct? Or was it an ask 
of the Board, and if it was, does the Board have to vote on 
that, or how does that process work?
    Mr. Blanton. Yes. So it was portrayed--and I am only 
speaking from what I have seen in media. It was portrayed by 
Chief Sund, or my interpretation of his portrayal, that was he 
was asking for support from Sergeants at Arms. In order to have 
gotten emergency declaration, there would have to be a Board 
vote. So there was not an official ask at that time.
    Mr. Ryan. And----
    Mr. Blanton [continuing]. Go into his mind on whether it 
was--he was asking because he wanted to see--just see if there 
was an appetite for it or he was saying: Okay. I am going to 
come ask for this in the future.
    Mr. Ryan. Yeah. Just so--again, I want the committee and we 
want the committee and the American people to know how this 
works. So, if the Chief--is it two different things for the 
Chief to say to the Sergeant at Arms, ``Hey, we need you to 
declare an emergency, we need more help,'' okay, so that is one 
way of doing it; is that separate from an official ask for the 
Board? So does he have to have a written ask to the Board or 
written ask to the Sergeant at Arms? And if the Sergeant at 
Arms gets a request from the Chief of Police--or from the Chief 
of Police, is he then required to bring it to the Board?
    Mr. Blanton. Sir, what I would--any conversations with the 
Sergeant at Arms and the Chief of Police when it comes to a 
Board matter is just a conversation. In order for it to be 
official, we would have an official request. Now, those don't 
have to necessarily be in writing. We could follow that up with 
the paperwork should it be an emergency, you know, an actual 
quick-needed emergency.
    And in this case, it seemed like he was, at least from his 
testimony, was having conversations and feeling out the need 
for additional resources because if there was a need for it, he 
could have submitted an official thing where we had a Board 
vote.
    Mr. Ryan. That is some of our--that--and moving forward, we 
need to completely understand the operation of the Board and 
how the Board works and what that process is. And, you know, we 
are trying to really determine how that works, and that will 
help us understand how things went down.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Blanton. If I could be clear on one thing, just so--so 
we can do a verbal vote on the Board. So, if he can't--if he 
goes to the chairman of the Police Board and says, ``I want to 
do this, we need to do it now,'' we can have a verbal vote and 
get it done and then follow it up with the written paperwork so 
there is nothing slowing anything down.
    Mr. Ryan. So not at any time did the Sergeant at Arms, did 
Mr. Irving say to you, ``Hey, we need to have a vote on this, 
my recommendation is we, you know, we don't pass an emergency 
order for whatever reason, ask the national--I asked the Chief 
to ask the National Guard to lean in, but we are not going to 
do anything here''? He never brought that to your attention and 
said, ``Hey, should we do a vote on this, do you want to do a 
vote on this,'' or obviously you didn't vote on it, correct?
    Mr. Blanton. That is correct; it never came to the full 
Board's attention.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Mr. Chairman? Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan. And let me just----
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. I just----
    Mr. Ryan. Let me just let the committee know, we are going 
to--because of the importance of this issue, we are going to 
take some liberties, not just the ranking member and I but all 
members, because we want to make sure we follow the line of 
questioning and we are able to tease out all these answers. So 
every member of the committee will have similar leeway.
    So Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. I really appreciate it, and I will 
make it brief, and it is just for consideration. I know we are 
going to be hearing from the Board in different hearings over 
the next few days, but everyone's going to be in a separate 
hearing. It might--I don't know how changing this would be, but 
it might be helpful to have everybody in the Board at once in 
front of us.
    But we can see how this goes. It is just for your 
consideration. I know we are going to hear from the 
individuals. But I think as this line unfolds, I just have more 
of these questions, and it might be nice to be able to have 
them all sitting together. I don't even know if we can do that. 
That is my thought.
    I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Ryan. You are welcome.
    Ms. Clark.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Herrera Beutler.
    And thank you to all the witnesses for coming today to talk 
about not only the events of January 6 but how we keep this 
citadel of our democracy safe and in a state of good repair.
    And, Mr. Blanton, I want to return to you and this question 
around these meetings in advance of January 6. My understanding 
is, from your testimony, that you were not part of the meeting 
on January 3, that you weren't involved until the meeting on 
the 5th. Is that correct?
    Mr. Blanton. That is correct.
    Ms. Clark. And at that meeting on the 5th, was there a 
discussion of additional security barriers?
    Mr. Blanton. No. That meeting on the 5th's primary purpose 
was for law enforcement entities that were involved in the 
inauguration to brief what their planning is for the 
inauguration and then also go over the overall national 
security event chain of command for the inauguration.
    Ms. Clark. Okay.
    Mr. Blanton. There was some discussion on the 6th, but it 
wasn't--there was no discussion about any changes to any 
physical infrastructure or--and it was very minor discussions 
about the threat, just saying that there wasn't likely an event 
on the 6th.
    Ms. Clark. But that is very different than what Chief Sund 
testified to yesterday, that he did make the Board aware of his 
concerns. And he also said that it was a regular practice to 
only discuss these types of security issues with Sergeants at 
Arms of the House and Senate, not including the Architect of 
the Capitol. Do you agree with his statement that it is regular 
practice that you would not be included and your office would 
not be included in these type of meetings?
    Mr. Blanton. So I would say, we do have these discussions 
at Police Board meetings, and so then at--there I am included. 
I do not know what conversations he had on a daily basis with 
either the House or the Senate Sergeant at Arms. If that was 
his regular practice then I think we found an issue with the 
operational chain of command of the Capitol Police Board, 
frankly.
    Ms. Clark. So my understanding is that he asked for an 
emergency declaration. Is it possible that that could have been 
denied without your involvement?
    Mr. Blanton. It could not have because the Police Board 
would had to have voted on it. It never got to the point that 
the Police Board was actually voted on the emergency 
declaration.
    Ms. Clark. So were you aware of that request or were you 
not?
    Mr. Blanton. I was not.
    Ms. Clark. You were not?
    Mr. Blanton. No.
    Ms. Clark. Do you think that there are reforms we need to 
make to the way this Capitol Police Board operates so that you 
are not left out of these crucial conversations?
    Mr. Blanton. I do believe there are reforms that need to be 
made. I think they are broader than just the--what 
conversations occur with the Architect of the Capitol or not. I 
believe that as a member of the Police Board that there needs 
to be more accountability and transparency on some of the 
actions that we vote upon.
    Ms. Clark. Can you go into a little more detail on how you 
would like to see that accountability and transparency improve? 
What are some specific things we should be looking at?
    Mr. Blanton. Well, obviously, my area of expertise is in 
the facilities.
    Ms. Clark. Right.
    Mr. Blanton. A lot of the stuff, when it comes to physical 
security, we overclassify. So there is information that could 
be of vital importance to members but is classified at a level 
that can't be shared. And many of these, if you look in the 
executive branch agencies, the classification isn't as high, or 
they do an unclassified version so that they can get out 
information so that members have--or interested parties have 
the ability to digest what that information is so they 
understand, have a better understanding of what the physical 
constructs are in the area that they are working.
    Ms. Clark. And what about around accountability? What 
reforms would you like to see?
    Mr. Blanton. I think, again, it goes to more a lot of 
decisions are--end up being classified, so it is there are very 
few individuals who actually have visibility of what decisions 
are made by the Police Board.
    Ms. Clark. And do you think that is the reason that you 
were not included in these discussions between January 3 and 
January 6 around these concerns?
    Mr. Blanton. No, I do not think it was. I think it was--
well, I mean, I am speculating on why Chief Sund would have 
done that, but I think it just was just this is the standard 
for how they operated. Now, I can give them some deferences. We 
had a vacancy as the Architect of the Capitol, so you had 
acting people in there for over a year, and so it could very 
well have been their standard practices evolved to a way that 
they didn't include the acting people. But, again, that is a 
speculation more than it is a--something where I would testify 
as a fact.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Blanton.
    I see I am over my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. All right. Thanks. Great line of questioning 
there, Ms. Clark.
    We are going to Mr. Amodei up next.
    Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    If I had written a book, I would have it in the background, 
but what the heck.
    Mr. Ryan. My favorite.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    I would like to--I want to start with something, since 
everybody we have heard from so far that are involved in the 
community of the campus on Capitol Hill has been talking about, 
you know, obviously physical stuff, emotional stuff, all that 
other sort of stuff, so I want to start with Mr. Blanton.
    Mr. Blanton, do you know, since your function here is 
uniquely not able to be done from home, have all your folks 
received COVID vaccinations?
    Mr. Blanton. No. In fact, we have had a small distribution 
of COVID vaccines for my staff.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay. But they are still coming to the Hill 
every day and doing what they do, and especially as increased 
responsibility as a result of picking up the pieces from 
January 6. Is that true?
    Mr. Blanton. Yes, they still are, and we are still 
following our COVID protocols that worked very, very well on 
the Hill since the March/April timeframe of last year.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay. So let me ask you this: As a result of 
January 6, have all of your staff taken advantage of the 
testing things that have been provided here on campus? Have 
they all been tested post-January 6?
    Mr. Blanton. I will say, not the entire staff, but anybody 
who has felt symptomatic or has filled out the Office of 
Attending Physician checklist and has marked one of them as 
positive, they are afforded and do take the available COVID 
test on campus.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay. And I was listening as you were doing 
your introductory remarks, and they were quite rightfully 
complimentary of the mission that your folks have, the 
criticalness of it in terms of keeping the citadel of democracy 
functioning and stuff like that. I am assuming that you are 
basically rock solid in terms of that analysis, and your folks 
perform a function that is vital and was even above and beyond 
the call on January 6?
    Mr. Blanton. I can tell you, from myself and my staff, we 
are at awe every day at the facilities that we work on, that we 
work in, and that we support. The morale of my staff for the 
work that they do, they love the work they do. They are truly 
artisans, and they come to work saying: I like what I am doing. 
I want to come and continue this work, so----
    Mr. Amodei. Well, I don't disagree with you. I just find it 
amazing that they are not important enough to also be somewhere 
on the list of critical government folks that, quite frankly, 
get the vaccine. But that is not your issue; that is mine.
    Ms. Szpindor, same questions for you. Have your folks 
received the vaccine?
    Ms. Szpindor. A small portion of our staff that are 
responsible for business continuity and a few of the staff that 
have to be in the Capitol every day. Like Mr. Blanton's folks, 
we have had people here that are onsite every single day, 
working directly with the Members and their staff. And we would 
love to have all of them who are--who do that vaccinated, but 
as of yet, we have gotten enough to have our critical staff 
vaccinated.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay. So I am not trying to put any words in 
your mouth, but is the answer to my question, has all your 
staff received vaccine, the answer to that question is, no, you 
have prioritized folks, but in terms of your staff and their 
functions, no?
    Ms. Szpindor. That is correct.
    Mr. Amodei. Have you had any communication with the 
Attending Physician's Office or House Admin about, hey, when 
are we going to get around to getting the rest of these people 
done?
    Ms. Szpindor. We stay in direct contact with the Office of 
the Attending Physician, and I know that he has looked into 
requesting additional vaccine. I think that it has been hard 
for him to obtain at this point, but we are waiting on him. We 
are looking to the Office of Attending Physician to notify us 
when he has any additional dosages.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay. Fair enough.
    Mr. Blanton, I want to go back to you on a subject that 
deals directly with January 6, and that is: I have already had 
a discussion with the Acting Sergeant at Arms that goes 
something along these lines: Hey, listen, if we are going to 
have metal detectors to go vote, that is fine. That is not my 
hill to die for. But, quite frankly, with the resources 
available or that can be available, can we do that in such a 
way that does not look like an afterthought in an airport 
lobby?
    And so it is like, is there technology that exists to build 
something tastefully, in keeping with the resource that we are 
talking about, that basically people can walk through without 
having to go queue up in front of something that is taking 
space in hallways and stuff like that?
    And, oh, by the way, can we set them so that shoes don't--
so it doesn't require me to go in barefoot to get around the 
metal detector and then try to figure out, once I get in the 
Chamber, as I am redressing, what shoe goes on what foot?
    Has anybody approached your office about how we can perform 
that security function in the least visually and physically 
intrusive way in terms of the various and sundry entrances to 
the Chamber, whether they be on the Speaker's Lobby, whether 
they be on the hallways by elevator banks? Is there not some 
more elegant thing available, or has anybody even checked into 
that?
    Mr. Blanton. So thank you, and I think that is a wonderful 
question. I can say that nobody has specifically talked with 
me, but my--if I was to presume this, the Sergeant at Arms 
would probably deal with the superintendent of the House 
building first before coming to me.
    I think it is a very valid ask, and it is something that we 
should look at, but it is also something that, frankly, we need 
to look at in the construct of all the security and detection 
equipment across the entire campus. And I know my staff has 
looked at options for replacing metal detectors, and I can say 
that we will definitely take this on as something that should 
be looked at to find something that is--frankly blends more in 
with the architecture of the Chamber than portable metal 
detectors.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    And, obviously, that is--Mr. Chairman, that is--obviously, 
I will talk with you about that more, but I just think that is 
something where it is like, that is fine, I think we can 
achieve the security goals without basically doing what we are 
doing now. And so I am--I will work with you on that offline to 
see if that can't be something that the committee works on. And 
I know my time is up, so I yield back.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. I appreciate it, Mr. Amodei.
    Thank you for your questioning along the lines of the 
vaccine. We have had a lot of work with--in trying to get it to 
the Capitol Police where they had about 200 rank-and-file 
members who had COVID-related issues, which put further stress, 
and so we have had to go through great lengths to try to get 
them their vaccinations.
    But I appreciate your raising that issue and the issue 
around the security. And maybe even Mr. Blanton could maybe get 
one of the engineers or architects over there to help you 
figure out, you know, what shoe goes on what foot. We are happy 
to help you figure that out.
    Next up is Mr. Case.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And to each and all of the three of you, I just want to 
join the comments by the chair and the ranking member thanking 
you and your teams for your service, for your commitment, and 
for your honesty and candor as we try to sort through the 
immediacy of January 6 as well as the broader issues, for 
example, the tradeoffs between securing the Capitol and 
guaranteeing access that we want to guarantee.
    It seems to me that--I would like to step back just a 
second, and, Mr. Blanton, I will direct this at you. It seems 
to me that we have three broad questions dealing with January 
6: Number one is kind of a past question, what happened and 
why? Number two is a present question, which is, how can we 
continue to deal with the lingering effects today of January 6, 
for example, consequences to our employees? And then, number 
three, how do we prevent this from happening again?
    And we can't do much about the past because it already 
happened, but we can take the lessons of the past. The present, 
I think we have tried to address that. But it is more number 
three that I am focused on, which is, how do we sort through 
the lessons and implement those lessons?
    And here is my question to you, and, again, the context is 
that we have already seen division in politics, you know, leak 
into this evaluation. We have got a debate going over, you 
know, whether we should have a 9/11 Commission, and if so, what 
kind of membership it should have.
    I know that each and all of us has had the experience of 
seeing division within our own communities over the continuing 
security barriers around the Capitol with kind of, you know, 
oversimplifying this, you know, one side saying it is necessary 
to prevent, you know, further attacks, and the other side 
basically saying: Take the wall down; it is not necessary. And 
that has a political angle to it, and I think we are trying to 
keep the politics out of this and just figure out what happened 
and why and how to prevent it from happening again.
    And here is my question: How do we actually best get to the 
bottom of that question--those questions, what happened, why, 
and how do we prevent it from happening again? And my question 
has to do with whether we can do this internally adequately or 
whether we really need objective, independent, outside 
evaluations?
    Good-meaning people that were there and present at the 
moment can believe and hope that they have objectivity on it, 
but sometimes that is not the case. Sometimes you are better 
with an external, you know, independent, nonjudgmental, 
nonpolitical view.
    And I am asking, Mr. Blanton, what procedure do you think 
is best for us to pursue the questions that are in front of us, 
what happened, why, how do we prevent it from happening again? 
To what extent do we need independent, objective, external 
views?
    Mr. Blanton. Thank you. That is a great question. So being 
that my expertise is in the facilities side of it, what I am 
proposing we have is a comprehensive facilities security 
assessment, one that starts with threats. And in the past, if 
you go to our [inaudible]--and this is in the entire Federal 
Government, this is not just the legislative branch--have been 
focused since the Oklahoma City bombing on protecting against 
an explosive device of a certain size in a certain location. 
And that is why we had things such as windows that were more 
secure next to--right next to windows that were not secure 
because they were addressing that certain threat with that 
certain set of risks.
    The other thing is, as we look from a broader threat, it 
needs to be in conjunction with our partners within the 
national capital area so that we aren't hardening ourselves to 
the point that makes other entities soft targets, or they 
aren't doing the same and making us a soft target.
    And, frankly, from my perspective, in my job, I have to 
look across the entire campus so that is all the House 
Buildings, Senate Buildings, but it also includes the Library 
of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Thurgood Marshall 
Building; I want to make sure all of those are included and 
accessible.
    But the key to it is it starts with a series of threats 
that we all agree. We can continue with the threats from the 
past of the explosive devices but then bring into it even small 
things like a lone gunman, a squad of six people who want to 
invade, and then from that, what is the risk associated? And 
the risk is the likelihood of it occurring and the consequences 
if it occurs. From that, we come up with a set of mitigations, 
and those mitigations will be short-term ways to implement to 
help protect that. And then, finally, a long-term set of 
solutions.
    And one key to it in my mind is very important is that we 
stay with the logistics tail it is going to be to this, because 
many of these ideas that we have of doing security, they are 
going to--if they end up having to increase the number of 
Capitol Police officers that have to stand a post or have to be 
in a certain area or have to--or are pulled off of a post 
because of what we are doing to secure the area, we need to 
have that identified so we know what the total ownership cost 
is of these ideas, so that you as appropriators are fully 
informed when we go and ask for these what the total cost is 
over the years, not just for this specific project.
    Mr. Case. Okay. I will come back in my second round, but my 
question--you have identified, I think, the issues that we need 
to sort through, but my question was more about, how do we get 
the answers? Is that an internal process or is that an external 
process? Do we need extra help?
    The resources side of it flow from getting the right answer 
to start with. I think we all want to provide the resources. 
But I want to have the right answers so that I am personally 
comfortable that I have done and resourced and directed what 
actually has to happen, and I am fearful of an internal-only 
assessment. So that was where my question was going.
    Mr. Blanton. Yeah. So what I am proposing would bring in 
outside experts. In fact, we are proposing using the Army 
Corps, which has a Protection Center of Excellence that looks 
specifically at that one for facilities.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Case.
    Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see 
everybody. Let me also add my voice of appreciation and thanks 
to the three folks that are in front of us this morning, all 
have very important jobs and responsibilities.
    And I really think that the big question in front of this 
committee as it stands right now is how can we together ensure 
that the institution literally of the Capitol Grounds 
themselves can really continue to provide that catalyst for 
public participation in our democracy but also at the same time 
ensuring that those of us who work here certainly and those 
members of the public that come can remain safe from those that 
may wish to do us harm. So I look forward to working with all 
of you toward those goals.
    I would like to address my first questions to the--Mr. 
Blanton, if I could, and kind of follow up with some of the 
line of questioning other members have taken. Mr. Blanton, you 
mentioned in your testimony that institutional biases and 
action items taken out of sync, if I can use your words, with 
actionable data resulted in poor decisions during the Capitol 
attack.
    So could you talk about what some of those specific biases 
were that were detrimental to your office's response, and how 
can we as a committee help you? If there is a disconnect, how 
can we help you break that down so that you can provide 
positive actionable actions with the data that you receive? And 
I guess putting that into English, how can we help you make 
that line of communication better?
    Mr. Blanton. Thank you. And, again, I appreciate that 
question. So I was hired to transform the Architect of the 
Capitol. It was an entity that had a couple years of history 
that were very troubling, and we have had in the past some 
projects and programs that we did and we did not execute very 
well. I am in the middle of transforming that, and I will say 
that the AOC of today is not the AOC of last year. We are more 
responsive. We are more open. We are more accountable, and I am 
working to make sure that is even clearer on everything we do.
    Part of what I talk about by institutional biases is I have 
conversations with people and staffers, and they all say: We 
don't believe you because a decade ago this is what happened, 
or a project 4 years ago you guys messed up. It is those things 
like that--and it is not just in staffers; it is across the 
Capitol complex.
    And I admit, we had issues years ago. And the staff 
themselves are wonderful people who love their work, do 
incredible work, but we fumbled a few things in the past. But 
those fumbles aren't indicative of what the future is. And if 
we continue to be judged by what decisions were made in the 
past or areas where we could have done better in the past, then 
we will never be able, as a Capitol complex, to advance. And so 
that is what I was alluding to in those statements.
    Mr. Newhouse. And so, in rectifying that, is there a role 
that we can assist you with, or is this going to be, you know, 
the proof is in the pudding, that you have to build your own 
reputation and trust among colleagues and people that you are 
responsible to?
    Mr. Blanton. In many ways, the proof is in the pudding, but 
also it is--I would say, come in with an approach that we are 
trying to do things the most honest, ethical, and efficient way 
possible. I mean, one thing that I have done that has been 
really a sea change for my staff is when we talk about the 
budgets, I say: It is not my money; it is the Capitol complex's 
money.
    So when someone says I am not going to allow you to do a 
project, it is not my project. It belongs to you, sir, because 
it is there to support you. I don't get benefit out of--I enjoy 
supporting you. I enjoy that. That is my job is to support you. 
But the project itself is there for Members and their staff. 
The project is not for AOC just to have work to do. And I don't 
want to have just work to do. I want to do stuff that has an 
outcome.
    Mr. Newhouse. Right.
    Mr. Blanton. So, if you can look at it from that lens and 
that perspective in how we are dealing with things, that would 
be very helpful to our organization as a whole.
    Mr. Newhouse. Well, thank you very much.
    Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to, if we have another 
round of questioning, also delve into some of the workings of 
the Capitol Police Board, as well as some of the assessments in 
where we go from here as far as the building is concerned. But 
I appreciate the--appreciate you all being here this morning 
and look forward to further conversation. Thank you.
    Ms. Clark. You are muted, Tim.
    Mr. Ryan. Ms. Wexton. I am in charge here, Katherine.
    Ms. Wexton, you are up.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to add my 
voice to the chorus of members saying thank you to all the 
witnesses for everything that you have done before and since 
January 6 to keep us safe and keep the Capitol running 
smoothly.
    Now, Mr. Blanton, I want to follow up a little bit more on 
the Capitol Police Board and your involvement in the 
decisionmaking leading up to January 6 because Capitol Police 
Board, just to refresh everybody's recollection, it consists of 
the two Sergeants at Arms, one for the Senate, one for the 
House; consists of the Architect of the Capitol, that is you; 
and then the Chief of the Capitol Police, but the Chief of the 
Capitol Police does not get a vote. Is that correct?
    Mr. Blanton. That is correct.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. So you testified that you had a meeting 
with law enforcement, different agencies on the 23d of December 
just generally talking about logistics for January 6. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Blanton. No. I talked about on January 5, there was a 
meeting of law enforcement, and the subject of it was in 
preparations for the Inauguration.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. And was there discussion at that time 
about requesting National Guard assistance?
    Mr. Blanton. No, there was not.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Now, were you aware that at that time 
that Chief--Acting Chief Pittman, that there had been a meeting 
on January 2 where the DOD asked U.S. Capitol Police if they 
would need the National Guard?
    Mr. Blanton. I was not aware of that.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. And according to Chief Pittman's 
testimony when she was before the subcommittee a couple weeks 
ago, she testified that on January 3, the U.S. Capitol Police 
changed their mind and Sund asked for National Guard and it was 
denied, and apparently he asked maybe the Sergeants at Arms. Is 
that--I mean, did you have--but you didn't have any knowledge 
of that. Is that correct?
    Mr. Blanton. I had no knowledge of that, and I still have 
no knowledge of a meeting on the 3rd. There may have been a 
meeting on the 4th that he talked about, but we have no record 
of any meeting whatsoever, and later on, Chief Sund, in his 
testimony, in his paper talked about the 4th. But there was no 
formal meeting that I was at or nor anyone from my staff, on 
the 3rd nor the 4th.
    Ms. Wexton. So is it just majority rules in the Capitol 
Police Board?
    Mr. Blanton. Well, we try to get consensus, but if it is 
down to--it is a 2-3 vote, then it would be that.
    Ms. Wexton. Is it customary to leave one of the voting 
members out of the decisionmaking process?
    Mr. Blanton. Again, as I stated earlier, if he was 
officially asking for it, then there would not be--then all of 
us would have the opportunity to vote. I only can paraphrase 
what I heard from Chief Sund's testimony and his letter that he 
wrote to the Speaker that he talked to the Sergeant at Arms. 
Now, I don't know if he was doing that to talk so that he is 
seeing, testing the waters if we are able to do that, what the 
Board feels like, but he had not officially asked for it from 
the entire Board itself.
    Ms. Wexton. All right. And have you previously been 
consulted about additional security measures in advance of 
protests and things coming to Washington, D.C.? For example, 
during the Black Lives Matter protest over the summer, were you 
consulted about additional hardening and security measures 
around the Capitol at that time?
    Mr. Blanton. So my staff was working in conjunction with 
the Capitol Police before Police Board meetings in the past to 
put up the bicycle rack barriers around the Capitol Police--
sorry, around the Capitol complex for every single event. And 
as Chief Sund said, they approach every event from a very 
similar construct, and so we do that when there is any known 
protest.
    Ms. Wexton. And that is what you did for the January 6 
protest as well, right?
    Mr. Blanton. Yes.
    Ms. Wexton. Nothing further than the normal. And it was 
never elevated----
    Mr. Blanton. They did extend the police barricade--the bike 
rack barrier for the January 6 event, as Chief Sund testified.
    Ms. Wexton. Right. But there were no additional barriers 
involved?
    Mr. Blanton. Correct.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Now, have they been--has the Police Board 
been in discussions as a committee of the whole talking about 
hardening after January 6?
    Mr. Blanton. We have had several discussions about that.
    Ms. Wexton. And were you----
    Mr. Blanton. Yes, I have been in----
    Ms. Wexton. So you were privy to the discussions about the 
temporary fencing as well as other options for the long term?
    Mr. Blanton. Yes.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired, but I will have 
more questions in another round.
    Mr. Ryan. There we go.
    Congressman Espaillat.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this 
opportunity. I want to thank all of the folks that are 
testifying here today about this horrific day in the Capitol.
    As many of you know, the Capitol staff, particularly the 
custodial staff is made up of many people of color, 
particularly men of color who were targets, obviously, of this 
racist, bigoted mob. The images of the Confederate flag, of the 
gallows with the rope and noose, typifies the horrible history 
of lynching in the South and throughout the country, set deep 
fear among many of us workers.
    I observed, myself witnessed, when I went down to the 
Capitol at about 7:30, about two to three men of color mopping 
the area, the blood where the shooting occurred right outside 
the Capitol. And so I want to know what is being done with 
these workers that are traumatized.
    And, first of all, sending them down there right after this 
horrific attack was somewhat troubling to begin with. I could 
just imagine what they felt. When I saw them, I was terrified 
myself. I didn't really capture the fact right away, 
immediately that they were mopping up blood. And to send folks 
that were clearly the target of this attack and couldn't take 
their pins off and blend to then mop up the floor, I thought 
was a little bit too much. I want to know what is being done 
for these folks and what the AOC and the administrators are 
doing to help the people that were traumatized during this 
attack.
    Mr. Blanton. Thank you. And I will say, my staff had great 
pride in the work they did immediately following. They actually 
were proud of themselves and the organization that they were 
able to clean up. The people who were dealing with blood were 
trained in biohazards, and so they had all the prerequisite 
skills to deal with the biohazards.
    The janitorial staff and the laborers who were vacuuming 
and cleaning up the glass, they volunteered to do that because 
they support the organization and they knew what was at stake. 
What was at stake was the certification of the electoral 
college. They have that sense of mission----
    Mr. Espaillat. But allow me, we have heard from Capitol 
Police that were called the n-word. We saw the Confederate flag 
and the gallows with the noose and the rope out there. I just 
think sending men of color to mop up the blood after this 
horrific act is just a little bit over the top. Now, what are 
you doing now to address any issues, longstanding issues that 
they may have?
    Mr. Blanton. Thank you, and I was just about to get to 
that. I am sorry if I was taking too long. What we are doing is 
they are actively involved in our Employee Assistance Program. 
One of the things that we are doing is instead of having it be 
where they feel like they have to call--because I know some of 
the men and women of the Architect of the Capitol, we are a 
tough group, and some of us want to internalize that. So we are 
going to have--we are proactively taking it for each of the 
trades who were there that day and having counseling sessions 
for them to talk about it.
    Additionally, in one of our--in our supplemental request, 
we have asked for funds so that we could do an awards program 
for these staff that were there that day so that they can get 
recognized beyond what our standard awards are at the AOC 
because I do feel like they went above and beyond the duty. And 
that is why we are looking at them both mentally, and I want to 
look out for them--we look out for their physical health and 
making sure they are properly trained but then also some 
economic benefit for what they did.
    Mr. Espaillat. One last, quick question I want to ask the 
Architect. Are the floor plans of the Capitol easily accessible 
to the general public via the internet? Are they accessible to 
Members, to anyone that wants access to them?
    Mr. Blanton. No. It takes the House Office Building 
Commission and Speaker to approve release of the floor plans. 
In fact, it is even challenging to get my contractors who have 
to use those floor plans to do work to get a hold of the floor 
plans because they are very, very tightly held.
    Mr. Espaillat. There has been allegations that the 
insurrectionists had access to the floor plans of the Capitol. 
Have you been able to assert whether that was true or not?
    Mr. Blanton. I have only heard that in the media. I have 
not seen any indication of that, nor has the FBI, who is 
investigating it, given us any information that they have.
    Mr. Espaillat. Do you have the records of anybody that 
would have--let's say if I wanted to get the floor plans and I 
instructed my staff to do it, would you have the records that 
they attempted to get the floor plans or download the floor 
plans?
    Mr. Blanton. Well, there is no way to download them because 
they are on a secure server, but we hand out hard copies if it 
is deemed that it is needed for an individual to have the floor 
plans. But that group of people is exceptionally small on the 
Capitol----
    Mr. Espaillat. Can your secure server get hacked?
    Mr. Blanton. We have no indication of that. There is no 
indication of any AOC server being hacked.
    Mr. Espaillat. Okay. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your time.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you. Great line of questioning.
    Ms. Wexton, great line of questioning as well.
    I have got a couple followups, and then just for the 
members, we are going to do a second round. We will probably 
have a 2-minute round so everybody can get another question in, 
and we want to be sensitive to everybody's time here with other 
committees going on and the responsibilities of our witnesses.
    Just a couple questions, Mr. Blanton. First, I just want to 
say how much we appreciate you and how you have handled 
yourself through this whole ordeal. You have impressed a lot of 
people. Let me ask, you brought up the FBI, and there was a 
report supposedly from the FBI that went to the Capitol Police 
that Chief Sund said it never made its way up to him about, you 
know, the threat level on January 6. Were you aware at all of 
that FBI intelligence?
    Mr. Blanton. No.
    Mr. Ryan. One of the issues with the Capitol Police that, 
you know, talking to Gus, who is the head of the union there, 
and a lot of the rank-and-file members, was around the 
equipment. Were any of these issues around shields and helmets 
and batons and lack of equipment for some of the rank-and-file 
members, did you ever hear that come before the Police Board?
    Mr. Blanton. Not in my tenure here. Maybe prior to my 
tenure, but I can say it is disturbing what I heard afterwards, 
that limited amount of equipment and then some of the anecdotes 
of people whose helmets are so old that the padding was rotting 
out of it. That was heart-wrenching to me.
    Mr. Ryan. Just out of curiosity, how many Police Board 
meetings, official meetings were you in over your tenure here, 
in the last----
    Mr. Blanton. So it would have been 12 total.
    Mr. Ryan. So you do one a month?
    Mr. Blanton. Something like that.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. And what generally are the--again, we are 
trying to really figure out how this Board is operating because 
this is going to be, I think, at the heart of any reforms that 
we start proposing. What is the general length of time for some 
of those Board meetings?
    Mr. Blanton. We schedule an hour and a half for the 
meetings.
    Mr. Ryan. Does it usually go that long?
    Mr. Blanton. It depends on the agenda. Some months, when 
there is less information, Congress is out of session, for 
example, there is less stuff to pass, and so it won't go as 
long. When there is larger events going on, then it is--they 
are longer meetings.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. Have you talked to General Honore about----
    Mr. Blanton. Several times.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. How many times?
    Mr. Blanton. We have had--my staff has been in constant 
contact with his staff. They have been working significantly 
together. And I have had two direct meetings with him, and we 
have another one once he releases his draft findings dealing 
with facilities assessments.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. I would be interested in, since we have 
you, and I know this is a longer conversation, and I think Ms. 
Herrera Beutler touched on it, the issue of reforming the 
Capitol Police Board. I mean, clearly if--you know, we want 
your opinion as to how we would move forward with any reforms.
    I mean, clearly, if the Chief of Police is saying to the 
Sergeant at Arms, you know, in essence, you know, ``We are 
screwed and we need help,'' and then the Sergeant at Arms just 
kind of single handedly tells him no without bringing it to the 
Board, which is kind of what we are gathering here, what kind 
of reforms--you know, also being sensitive to the fact that, 
you know, we need to respond in a timely manner, so we don't 
want to, you know, create another bureaucracy like we saw, you 
know, happening with trying to get approval through the 
Department of Defense and all that. Any recommendations you can 
share with us here on maybe how we can adjust the Board and how 
we respond appropriately and timely?
    Mr. Blanton. So what I think we should do is enlist in the 
D.C. area likeminded entities. You have the Secret Service. 
They have a command structure over them. You have Pentagon 
Force Protection Agency, which has a command structure over 
them, because obviously they are not--they don't make the 
decisions independently, and really have them look at what we 
are doing and propose best practices. I think an outside look 
at us is worthwhile.
    Mr. Ryan. Uh-huh. And so basically continuing what General 
Honore is doing but in--more in depth over a longer period of 
time, is that----
    Mr. Blanton. Focused on--I don't--I look at--General Honore 
isn't really looking at the command oversight of the Capitol 
Police. That is not one of his areas, unless it has been--
unless it has been expanded since when he has talked to me. But 
that is something that is a valid thing to look at, and it 
would be valid to take entities who have been under significant 
transition and had events and have changed because of those 
events.
    I mean, we have all seen events at the White House, events 
at the Pentagon over the past 3 years, and those organizations 
have changed dramatically. It is a good look to see how can we 
change to support what--how to be more responsive than we have 
been in the past.
    Mr. Ryan. Well, we are certainly going to be leaning on you 
for your recommendations.
    We are going to go to a second round here, a little bit of 
a lightning round where we will give each member 2 minutes to 
be able to ask questions. And so we are going to start with Mr. 
Amodei, if you want. You can certainly pass. I know there are 
other committees happening right now so we want to be sensitive 
to that.
    All right. Ms. Clark.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Blanton, if we could go back just for a moment to the 
request that was made to expand the perimeter. At any point 
after this request to move the perimeter was made, did you or 
anyone at AOC deny any piece of this request, or did you have 
the assets necessary to fulfill this request?
    Mr. Blanton. So no one at AOC denied, nor would anyone at 
AOC have the authority to deny the request, and we did have the 
assets.
    Ms. Clark. To the best of your knowledge, was there any 
discussion or objection about those barriers in place because 
of the optics of it?
    Mr. Blanton. No. I will say, me personally, I had not heard 
the word ``optics'' until the discussions afterwards dealing 
with the National Guard and the Pentagon.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you so much.
    And very quickly, in my last minute, Ms. Elliott, as 
Curator of the House, do you feel it is important that we keep 
some of--some record, some artifacts of what occurred on 
January 6? I know some Members have requested that broken glass 
windows and doors be kept. What is your feeling as Curator of 
the House?
    Ms. Elliott. Thank you for the question. As Curator of the 
House, look, I under the direction of the Clerk am responsible 
for the House Collection objects. And our first duty to those 
is to make sure the objects that already exist in the House 
Collection are cared for as best we can.
    So, in some cases, for us the most important thing is to 
make sure that we first do no harm, that we make sure that we 
conserve and treat and clean the objects that already exist in 
the Collection, and then, after that, take stock of what are 
the artifacts that tell the story of the people's House right 
up through today.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Clark.
    Mr. Newhouse, interim ranking member.
    Mr. Newhouse. Yes. I appreciate the increase in my pay 
grade.
    Ms. Szpindor, we understand that many of the rioters made 
off with some of the technological equipment from some of the 
offices they broke into, including, I think, I understand the 
laptop of the Speaker. Are you confident that every piece of 
equipment that might pose a future cyber threat has been 
accounted for, and do you know exactly what was stolen and 
whether or not they still pose a cyber threat to us?
    Ms. Szpindor. Thank you for the question. I am aware 
through briefings with Capitol Police that some of the PCs--it 
is our understanding at this time it was only a few PCs from 
some of the offices. We do believe that, based on what we know 
about one of the PCs, it is a very low risk to the House 
because of what we--know how it was used.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
    Ms. Szpindor. The other PC, we--again, we know who had that 
PC, and we feel like that it was a moderate to low risk. Of 
course, this is still a continuing criminal investigation, and 
I can't say too much more about it other than we took steps, as 
you know, during the insurrection to begin shutting off areas 
of the network that were impacted during the siege and feel as 
though we did the right thing in doing that, protected any 
additional equipment.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
    Ms. Szpindor. And we are also looking to roll out some 
additional security measures and are in process for that, to 
protect us in the future, to enhance the protection in the 
future.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
    And back to Mr. Blanton, if I could real quickly, Mr. 
Chairman, there was a substantial request for an increase in 
appropriations having to do with security assessments. Could 
you talk a little bit about the ongoing reviews that are--that 
you have and the assessments of campus security and what 
deficiencies these assessments have in order to warrant a need 
for a more comprehensive review? I think the request is 
something in the neighborhood of $30 million.
    Mr. Blanton. Yes, thank you. So we did a transfer from my 
Library of Congress budget for the book module 7 up at Fort 
Meade to us, and that transfer was for--to cover historic costs 
from January 6, the damage for January 6, for the immediate 
repairs, the cost for supporting the National Guard and the 
cost to extend the fence line until March 31.
    We asked for an additional $10 million to do a 
comprehensive security assessment, and this assessment was 
meant to synergize the assessments that all other entities are 
and should be doing. For example, Capitol Police is doing an 
internal one. A lot of it is going to focus on what they do as 
Capitol Police. Part of that may have some recommendations for 
facilities changes.
    General Honore has a study. He has got four key tenets. One 
of those is dealing with quick facilities improvements. And 
then there is going to be other studies probably on the Senate. 
But there is one entity that looks across the entire campus and 
that--and including the Supreme Court and the Thurgood Marshall 
Building and can look at and can synergize all these requests 
into one so that we have a consistent footprint across the 
entire campus. And that is what I am looking to do.
    Additionally, when we do it, when we do this, we need to 
have executable projects that have budget-level data so that I 
can tell you how much the project should cost and when we can 
get it done. By just saying things like, we should put hardened 
glass on all doors, all windows in the Capitol, that may or may 
not be executable, and I say this because the Capitol was 
built--was designed in 1790. It was first started construction 
in 1793. It was never envisioned when they first laid the 
foundation that there would be a 9.7 million ton cast iron dome 
on top of it. It was expanded.
    Now, if you put over a ton of glass on the windows, that 
may cause structural problems, and we need to analyze that 
before it is just a good idea of putting stronger glass on 
windows. And that is what we do in our study is to make sure it 
is actually an executable project.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much.
    And thanks for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 
it.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Case.
    Mr. Case. Thank you. Two comments and a question.
    A comment to Ms. Elliott. Thank you so much for taking care 
of our cultural heritage. I think you said you needed an extra 
$25,000 in supplemental to complete some of the assessments and 
damage repair, and I just wonder whether that is too low. This 
is not the time to come in with, you know, lower requests. I 
think we all want to do the right thing here.
    And then, Mr. Blanton, I would--back to my initial line of 
questioning on how we best get the answers to what do we do 
going forward, I would strongly endorse your instincts to get 
third-party best practices assessments from the DOD as well as 
Secret Service, and I would further ask you to consider whether 
further additional independent reviews may be necessary.
    Because General Honore is, as you pointed out, going to the 
facilities assessment and the securities issues, and what I 
think we are about here right now is an understanding of what 
broke down operationally, procedurally, and how to adopt an 
operational procedural framework that we don't, you know, go 
through the same mistakes all over again, and do we need 
external assessment even at cost to get the right answers 
there?
    Ms. Szpindor, a very quick question following up on Mr. 
Newhouse. Is there any indication that there was any 
simultaneous or coordinated cyber attacks or cyber activity in 
your shop or to your knowledge elsewhere in the Capitol around 
the January 6 physical attack, which some claim was, you know, 
a spontaneous combustion and, of course, associated 
cybersecurity, cyber activity would indicate something other 
than that? Is there any indication of that?
    Ms. Szpindor. There really is not. We have had individuals, 
other outside consultants that we use helping us check the 
network. We were monitoring everything real time, both the dark 
web as well as other areas of web activity. We did not see, 
have not seen any penetration in the network at all, any 
indication that anyone was trying to get into the network on 
January 6.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Szpindor. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Mr. Case. Great questions.
    And I encourage all the members of the committee to--last 
year I went over and visited the Cybersecurity Office over 
there and House Administration, and I just--it is a neat place 
to go, but it is that essential work that Mr. Case just brought 
up.
    And we have got to make sure--because I think moving 
forward, it is a very important point. I mean, we are talking 
about being aware of all the threats and being prepared with 
all the threats. And we saw with the pipe bombs at the RNC and 
the DNC, how that was coordinated, in addition to, you know, 
what else is going on as a distraction. And so I think Mr. Case 
rightly, you know, brings that point up about the issues around 
a coordinated effort around cyber. So we appreciate that.
    Mr. Amodei.
    Ms. Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to the witnesses again for all your great 
answers and to my colleagues for asking a lot of the questions 
that I had. So thanks for that.
    You know, I still am so in awe that I get to work in this 
place, you know, and the amazing history that it has, and I 
never, ever want to lose that. And so January 6 felt like a 
huge violation, you know, for I think all of us, seeing people 
marching around in the Capitol and defacing it as they did.
    And I have thought many times how just days before I was 
present in the crypt when Virginia removed one of its statues 
from the Capitol, which was our statue of Robert E. Lee. And 
that was something that I spearheaded along with my colleague 
Congressman McEachin, also from the Commonwealth of Virginia, 
so--which, by the way, they do at 3 a.m. For those--you guys 
probably already knew that, but I didn't until it was time for 
you guys to move it.
    So it was especially jarring to see the insurrectionists 
marching through the crypt, you know, carrying the Confederate 
battle flag, and I thought more than once how glad I was that 
there was no longer that statute of Robert E. Lee there for 
people to take selfies with.
    So I was especially inspired to hear how staff was so quick 
thinking on January 6 and moved to preserve the safety of 
portraits like Congressman Joseph Rainey and Shirley Chisholm, 
the first African-American Congresswoman, as well as the new 
collections that honor Representative Rainey.
    Ms. Elliott, I would inquire if you have any information 
about whether any particular pieces or artifacts were 
specifically targeted by the mob on January 6?
    Ms. Elliott. Thank you. No. I don't have any information 
that that is the case.
    Ms. Wexton. Well, that is reassuring. Now, were there hate 
symbols defacing any artifacts or property within the Capitol?
    Ms. Elliott. No, nothing on the House Collection at all.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Well, I guess that is reassuring. So 
thank you for all that you are doing, and I will yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Great. Thank you. Ms. Szpindor, I just have a 
question. You mentioned--because I want to get some context. 
You mentioned that the--I forget how you said it, but it was 
the engagements or around the issues of some of the wellness 
visits, or I forget how you said it, but there were 1,150 in 
the 6 weeks from the January 6 event. Was that correct?
    Ms. Szpindor. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Ryan. What is the context for that? So what is the--you 
know, how many visits happen in a year? And if you don't have 
that number, just----
    Ms. Szpindor. I do. It is, typically, I think we see 3,000 
visits on an annual basis. So, when you compare that to the 
1,150, that is a critical percentage of what we normally see 
and anticipate that we will continue to see some higher 
numbers. However, over the past week, we see things beginning 
to level out a little bit, probably about 50 percent of what we 
have seen the week before.
    But we are still providing the outreach and also literature 
and publicizing everything that we have to encourage people to 
keep coming like they always have. I mean, the Capitol Police, 
we have been serving since 2000, and we will--we have a great 
relationship with them, and we will continue to reach out to 
them and make sure we are satisfying whatever need that the 
community has here.
    Mr. Ryan. And are you--do you guys--how integrated are you 
with the House office of well-being and the wellness 
initiatives? Is that--are you guys pretty much in lockstep on 
how you communicate to the staff and members?
    Ms. Szpindor. They are. And I think it is--certainly Brian 
Weiss with the Wellness Center, he is doing a great job, but it 
is a good thing that he works directly with Paul Tewksbury in 
the OEA. And so that helps them stay in sync with one another 
and make sure that they are supporting one another with 
whatever items that one of them may produce, the other one may 
be able to make use of it, and so it is a great relationship.
    So we are continuing, I want to put a plug in for Brian and 
his staff, what a great job they have done. And their 
storefront location that is open now in Longworth. We encourage 
staff to please go there and visit with them.
    Mr. Ryan. Yeah. We want to continue to try to push that 
out. You know, there is still a lot of people on the Hill that 
don't know about it, and we want to make sure that they 
recognize the resources that are there, both for mental health 
promotion and fitness and financial literacy, financial help, 
deals on all kinds of different programs. And it is really on 
the cutting edge.
    And that was the idea is to make sure that the employees 
here--this was pre-pandemic and pre-January 6--but that in a 
very high-stress environment, that our employees here, while 
they may not make as much in the private--as they would in the 
private sector, that they are offered the same kind of support 
that improve their quality of life and the quality of life of 
their families. And so we want to make sure we continue to 
promote that so that the men and women who work here have 
access to all of that.
    And I just want to personally just say thank you to you, 
Ms. Szpindor. Immediately after January 6, we saw, you know, a 
number of the Capitol Police who were continuing to work 12- to 
16-hour shifts, you know, the influx of the National Guard who 
are here. And I think it is important for this committee to 
know how quickly you responded to open the Dunkin' Donuts, to 
make sure there was--in the evening for the midnight shift, 
making sure there was food accessible for them, and how quickly 
you made those determinations. And I just want to personally 
thank you for that. That was--you know, it goes beneath, you 
know, the radar for most people, but how quickly you responded 
to make sure that they had what they needed, and that was very 
impressive, and we continue to thank you for your support.
    So we are going to wrap it up. Let me just say, Ms. 
Elliott, thank you for all you do, again, much behind the 
scenes. Much of what you do is behind the scenes, but it 
clearly has made this such a special place, and we want to 
thank you for your service and your commitment to preserving 
this special building that we work in.
    Ms. Szpindor, thank you again. And please thank your teams. 
You know, we know that, as Members of Congress here, how 
important the staff is for all of us, unknown and unnamed many 
times, but please thank your teams for us.
    Mr. Blanton, again, thank you for all your work. And, you 
know, moving forward, as I said, we are going to rely on all of 
you. But Mr. Blanton especially, when it comes to these issues 
around security, we are going to be relying on your judgment. 
And we appreciate you and your viewpoint because you have been 
very helpful in helping the committee understand exactly what 
transpired and I think exposed some of those flaws that are in 
the system, especially around the Capitol Police Board that 
seem wholly inadequate to addressing the needs that the Members 
here had and the staff here had.
    So I also want to just take a second to thank our team, our 
staff, Steve and Anna, and the minority staff, Rachel on my 
personal staff, and all the members of the committee. As the 
panelists can see, we have a lot of intellectual firepower here 
on both sides of the aisle that care deeply about the role that 
this subcommittee now plays in protecting this institution and 
really crafting a model for how we move forward from both a 
security standpoint and taking care of the men and women who 
are here. And hopefully they can be an example for how we 
should treat our workers around the country, and that is the 
goal of the committee.
    So, with that, this committee is going to adjourn, and we 
will see everybody tomorrow morning.

                                       Thursday, February 25, 2021.

 U.S. CAPITOL POLICE AND HOUSE SERGEANT AT ARMS, SECURITY FAILURES ON 
                               JANUARY 6

                               WITNESSES

HON. TIMOTHY BLODGETT, ACTING SERGEANT AT ARMS
YOGANANDA D. PITTMAN, ACTING CHIEF, UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE
    Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
    As this hearing is fully virtual, I must address a few 
housekeeping matters.
    First, for today's meeting, the chair or staff designated 
by the chair may mute participants' microphones when they are 
not under recognition for purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise.
    Second, members are responsible for muting and unmuting 
themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that you have 
not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the 
staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff 
will unmute your microphone.
    Third, I want to remind all members and witnesses that the 
5-minute clock still applies. You will notice a clock on your 
screen that will show how much time is remaining. And if there 
is a technology issue, we will move to the next member until 
the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of your 
time.
    Fourth, in terms of the speaking order, we will be 
beginning with the chair and ranking member. Then, members 
present at the time the hearing is called to order will be 
recognized in order of seniority.
    Finally, the House rules require me to remind you that we 
have set up an email address to which members can send anything 
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings. That 
email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    Good morning to our panel.
    I am pleased to welcome Acting Chief of the Capitol Police 
Yogananda Pittman and Acting House Sergeant at Arms Tim 
Blodgett.
    Today is our third of three hearings reviewing the 
aftermath of the breaching of the Capitol by an insurrectionist 
mob on January 6. The purpose of this hearing is to dig deeper 
into the failures that occurred on January 6.
    I and the members of this subcommittee will be asking some 
very uncomfortable questions as we conduct a thorough review of 
what went wrong. I want to emphasize at the outset that the 
hearing is not a ``gotcha'' exercise.
    None of us at this hearing can forget the events of January 
6, but how we respond will determine how we collectively learn 
from the trials of that day, not as Democrats and Republicans 
but as Americans charged with the responsibility of being 
caretakers of our Republic.
    As we move forward, we do not want to fall into the trap of 
preparing to fight the last war. We must be prepared to ensure 
the next one never happens. And if we ignore the mistakes of 
the past, the Capitol campus will continue to be vulnerable to 
unknown and unexpected threats.
    So I am going to start with the meeting I had on January 5. 
I was briefed by then-House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving and 
U.S. Capitol Police Chief Sund. During the briefing, both Chief 
Sund and Mr. Irving provided assurances that the Capitol 
complex had comprehensive security and there was no active 
intelligence that groups would become violent at the Capitol 
during the certification of the electoral votes.
    I was later told by Chief Sund that his department did not 
have intelligence that there would be an armed insurrection, 
although we now know that there was, in fact, an intelligence 
report from his own department released on the 3rd, which 
states, quote, ``Unlike previous post-election protests, the 
targets of the pro-Trump supporters are not necessarily the 
counter protesters, as they were previously, but, rather, 
Congress itself is the target on the 6th. As outlined above, 
there has been a worrisome call for protesters to come to these 
events armed, and there is the possibility that protesters may 
be inclined to become violent. This, combined with Stop The 
Steal's propensity to attract White supremacists, militia 
members, and others who actively promote violence, may lead to 
a significantly dangerous situation for law enforcement and the 
general public alike,'' end quote.
    But even putting the Capitol Police intelligence assessment 
aside, how could the security planning, policies, and 
procedures apparently be so lacking and ill-prepared? This 
event was widely promoted on social media weeks in advance, and 
your own report specifically shows the department was 
monitoring these posts. There were numerous groups with a 
history of violence known to be planning to attend, and these 
groups were actively discussing their plans on social media.
    I, for one, am at a loss to understand how your 
intelligence report and then later, as the mob walked 16 
blocks, growing in size and aggressive demeanor, failed to 
impact the Capitol Police force security posture.
    I also would like the panel to address the failures 
regarding command and control and communication. I have spoken 
to many officers who felt that, on that day of the attack, they 
were left alone and unsure how to respond. How did command and 
control break down so quickly? What needs to be changed?
    It has been widely reported that senior leadership was not 
reachable nor providing direction to the officers. Is that 
true?
    We have also been told that there was not a clear 
understanding of the rules of engagement and the level of force 
that officers were expected to use as the attack unfolded. How 
could that have happened?
    Once the Capitol was breached, was there a strategic plan 
to secure the building?
    Now I look forward. I hope you can provide updates to the 
committee as to how the Capitol Police and Sergeant at Arms are 
currently protecting the campus and its workforce and to talk 
about the next steps to ensure the future physical safety of 
our campus.
    We need to know what you think are the major institutional 
and cultural reforms and/or overhauls needed to maintain as 
safe and as open a campus as possible so that the visitors from 
across the country and around the world can witness 
representative democracy in action.
    I look forward to your answers to these questions and more. 
I want you to know that we are very thankful for your service 
and that of the staff of your organizations, who work so hard 
to make this House run.
    At this point, I would like to yield to my friend and 
colleague, the ranking member, Jamie Herrera Beutler, for an 
opening statement that she would like to make.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Acting Chief Pittman and Acting Sergeant at 
Arms Blodgett, for being here today.
    January 6, the whole world watched in disbelief as the 
center of American democracy was assaulted. The very ideals of 
democracy that make us the envy of the world were attacked. It 
was the Constitution in action, it was the counting of the 
electoral votes, it was the transfer of power that takes place 
every 4 years, and it was literally under insurrection. The 
very ideals were coming under fire.
    And, that day, an angry mob with the intention to destroy 
not just the symbols of our freedom but the people who took an 
oath to serve and protect the Constitution--the assault on the 
Capitol will forever be a painful reminder that democracy and 
the rule of law are not guaranteed to us. We must continuously 
fight to uphold them.
    With that in mind, we have to take very seriously that it 
is our job as both the American people and as Members of 
Congress to make sure this never happens again. This starts 
with a clear and candid assessment of what went wrong.
    Here is the truth: Top officials either failed to take 
seriously the intelligence received or the intelligence failed 
to reach the right people. This meant that the Capitol Police 
force was woefully unprepared for the attack.
    To be clear, the United States Capitol Police force is not 
meant to be an army. Expecting 1,600 officers to hold back an 
unruly mob of 8,000 to 10,000 people, many of whom were armed 
and had their own homemade explosive devices or came with 
weaponized everyday items, is not a position we should ever 
have to be in.
    But we must understand what failed on that day, whether it 
was the broken lines of communication, whether it was 
inadequate training, not enough or the correct equipment, 
decision-making processes, or everything in between.
    Look, security is essential, and we all have a fundamental 
need to feel safe on the Capitol Grounds. It is up to the 
Capitol Police and the Sergeant at Arms to provide that 
assurance so that we may work on behalf of the American people 
without obstruction or fear of violence.
    While we absolutely must do better to keep this place 
secure, I have to say, it is also important that we try to keep 
this institution as accessible to the public as possible. We 
are the people's House. Sacrificing the openness of this 
institution is not the only way to keep the Capitol secure. I 
don't like that there is a fence around the Capitol complex 
that makes the seat of democracy look like a military base, and 
I don't like that it costs almost $2 million a week.
    I hope we are able to find ways to secure this place 
without such measures--a balance I believe must be and can be 
struck. I look forward to working with the legislative branch, 
with Chairman Ryan, and with the different agencies involved to 
figure out what that balance is and to execute it as quickly 
and efficiently as possible.
    With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Ms. Herrera Beutler. Appreciate your 
leadership on all this, and appreciate how you have conducted 
this in a bipartisan manner. It has been a joy to work with 
you.
    Next, we will ask the chair of the full Appropriations 
Committee, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, for any opening 
statements that she would like to make.
    The Chair. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
and thank you, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and welcome to 
our witnesses. I am so grateful to join with you as we dig 
deeper into the security failures that occurred on January 6.
    On that day, our Nation held its collective breath, 
watching in disbelief as violent insurrectionists rioted in our 
Capitol. We listened in horror as insurrectionists were spurred 
on.
    As the mob stormed the Capitol Building, aiming to disrupt 
Congress--and, yes, they came for the Congress--members of the 
U.S. Capitol Police and the House Sergeant at Arms valiantly 
leapt into the fray, but they were overwhelmed.
    These courageous women and men risked their lives to defend 
our democracy. It is a testament to their bravery and their 
dedication that no Members or staff were physically harmed. But 
it breaks all of our hearts that so many Capitol Police 
officers were injured in the attack, many quite severely.
    We pray for the officers and their families as they have 
dealt with the unfolding tragedy of that day, especially the 
family of Officer Brian Sicknick. And our hearts are heavy for 
the loss of Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood, who died 
by suicide in January.
    As we honor these sacrifices, we must take the hard look at 
just what exactly happened on that dark day and what we need to 
do to ensure such an alarming breach, such an alarming failure 
of our Capitol security--this should never happen again.
    The attack exposed weaknesses in our Capitol security 
systems that are far greater than any of us would have ever 
anticipated. And it has made it abundantly clear that the 
Capitol Police and the Sergeant at Arms require major 
institutional and cultural reform.
    What went wrong on January 6? As the committee that funds 
the security of the Capitol, today we hope we can gain a better 
understanding of the problems that the Capitol Police and the 
Sergeant at Arms must address, what resources they need to 
reform themselves to keep Members, congressional staff, 
employees, and their own officers safe. What are the solutions? 
What should the role of the Capitol Police Board be?
    I say a thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. 
Acting Chief of Police Yogananda Pittman briefed members of the 
Appropriations Committee last month, and I hope we can continue 
to drill down on the issues that we discussed then. And Acting 
House Sergeant at Arms Tim Blodgett brings an important 
perspective from his office.
    On January 6, 2021, our Nation gazed into the abyss. Our 
democracy indeed is fragile, but the security of our seat of 
government should never be. And that is why it is so immensely 
important that we have an open and honest discussion to ensure 
the events like those that took place on January 6 can never 
happen again.
    And I yield back and thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Chairwoman DeLauro.
    Next is the ranking member of the full Appropriations 
Committee, Kay Granger, for any opening statements you would 
like to make, Kay.
    Ms. Granger. I would like to thank Chairman Ryan and 
Ranking Member Jamie Herrera Beutler for holding this important 
hearing today.
    The January 6 attack on the Capitol was something I never 
thought I would witness. In the face of great danger, U.S. 
Capitol Police bravely fought to defend the complex and ensure 
our Members and staff were safe.
    In addition to making sure that the Capitol Police have the 
support and resources they need to process and heal from the 
traumatic events of that day, we must ensure that they have the 
resources necessary to defend the Capitol against similar 
attacks.
    It was clear from our briefing last month that the failure 
to protect the Capitol was not due to a lack of intelligence 
but, rather, a failure to properly act on the intelligence. 
There was also a clear lack of command and control, because so 
many agencies were involved, yet their actions were not 
coordinated. This is unacceptable and left our law enforcement 
men and women on the ground unprepared for the very real threat 
they faced.
    At the center of this controversy is the Capitol Police 
Board, which includes the Sergeant at Arms, Architect of the 
Capitol, and Capitol Police. Serious questions remain about 
their failure to approve the request from the Capitol Police 
Chief to call in the National Guard and properly notify Members 
and staff on the status of the threat through the emergency 
notification system.
    As we speak, miles of fencing still surrounds the Capitol, 
and the center of American Government is now tarnished by 
razor-wire and limited access. While we must take the necessary 
steps to make the Capitol complex safe and secure, we must have 
the ultimate goal of safely reopening the Capitol and its 
grounds to the public.
    The Capitol and its buildings belong to the American 
people, not us. They need to be able to visit their elected 
Representatives and know they will be safe while doing so. I 
want the witnesses to discuss what changes have been made and 
will need to continue to be made to ensure the Capitol complex 
is protected.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ranking Member Granger.
    We are now going to move to our witnesses.
    Without objection, your written testimonies will be made 
part of the record. We ask you to please summarize your 
statement and highlight your efforts to the committee.
    Chief Pittman, please begin. And after your statement, we 
will turn to Sergeant at Arms Blodgett for his statement. And 
once the statements are complete, we will move to the question-
and-answer session.
    So please begin, Chief Pittman.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Thank you for the opportunity to 
testify before the committee.
    On January 6, our strength, determination, and commitment 
to the mission of protecting the democratic process was tested. 
Fortunately, the USCP succeeded in its mission. With the 
assistance of law enforcement partners like MPD, the United 
States Capitol Police protected the congressional leadership, 
Members, and the democratic process.
    On January 6, I was the Assistant Chief of Police of the 
department's protective and intelligence operations. Leading up 
to January 6, the department gathered information about the 
anticipated events of the day and released assessments that 
analyzed the raw information received from multiple sources.
    The department issued four assessments about the January 6 
event. The final assessment indicated, amongst other things, 
that militia groups, White supremacists, and other extremist 
groups would be participating in the January 6 event, these 
groups planned to be armed, the target of the demonstration 
would be Congress, and the demonstrators saw this as a last 
opportunity to overturn the results of the Presidential 
election, and they were desperate.
    The assessment was widely shared throughout the department. 
And in response to the assessment, the department made 
significant changes to its security posture. We increased the 
size of protection details; deployed countersurveillance agents 
across D.C.; increased our CDU platoons, including deploying 
hard platoons; we deployed SWAT teams; enlarged the security 
perimeter; and increased exterior and interior patrols, to 
include the subways.
    Since the 6th, it has been suggested that the department 
was either ignorant of or ignored critical intelligence that 
indicated that an attack of the magnitude that we experienced 
on January 6 would occur. The department was not ignorant of 
intelligence indicating an attack of the size and scale we 
encountered on the 6th.
    There was no such intelligence.
    Although we knew the likelihood for violence by extremists, 
no credible threat indicated that tens of thousands would 
attack the U.S. Capitol, nor did the intelligence received from 
the FBI or any other law enforcement partner indicate such a 
threat. Indeed, the Secret Service brought the Vice President 
to the Capitol that day as they were also unaware of any 
credible threat of that magnitude.
    The department also did not ignore intelligence that we 
had, which indicated an elevated risk of violence from 
extremist groups. To the contrary, we heightened our security 
posture.
    There is evidence that some of those who stormed the 
Capitol were organized, but there is also evidence that a large 
number were everyday Americans who took on a mob mentality 
because they were angry and desperate. It is the conduct of 
this latter group that the department was not prepared for.
    The department did face some operational challenges that we 
are addressing. For example, the Capitol lockdown was not 
properly executed. Some officers were unsure of when to use 
lethal force. Our radio communications to officers were not as 
robust. And we are ensuring that our incident command system 
protocols are adhered to going forward and re-implementing 
training in those respective areas.
    We are addressing those operational challenges, but I want 
to make clear that these measures alone would not have stopped 
the threat we faced. To stop a mob of tens of thousands 
requires more than a police force; it requires physical 
infrastructure or a regiment of soldiers.
    Since the 6th, we have hardened the complex, and we know 
that some of those temporary enhancements are not popular, but 
these are necessary in the short term.
    The department is beefing up its flow of information and 
now holds daily calls with its intelligence partners.
    I would like to thank the committee for their continued 
support in ensuring the department has what it needs. I would 
also like to thank the chairman for helping the department to 
ensure that our officers have the mental wellness resources 
that they and their families need.
    As to the USCP officers that proudly serve the 
congressional community, they fought bravely on January 6. They 
are heroes.
    I am ready to answer your questions. Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Mr. Blodgett. Chairwoman DeLauro, Ranking Member Granger, 
Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and the members 
of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Leg. Branch, thank you 
for the opportunity to testify today on the security failures 
of January 6.
    Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the debt of gratitude 
we owe to the officers of the United States Capitol Police, 
Metropolitan Police, and the law enforcement partners who came 
to the aid of the institution and risked their lives so that 
our Constitution and democracy could endure. I cannot thank 
them enough.
    I want to thank Congress for helping provide a fitting 
tribute to Officer Sicknick. We mourn as a community for the 
loss of his life, but the recognition rightfully bestowed upon 
him hopefully served as a moment of healing for the Capitol 
Police and for all law enforcement who make sacrifices on a 
daily basis to provide for our safety.
    And I want to acknowledge the sacrifices of Officer 
Liebengood and Smith and their families. Their sacrifices will 
never be forgotten.
    And I, finally, want to thank the National Guard who have 
come from near and far to keep our city on the hill safe. They 
have left their families amidst a pandemic to work in uncertain 
environment, and their presence makes us safer.
    As I stated in my previous briefing to the Appropriations 
Committee, the intelligence surrounding January 6 was 
problematic. Intelligence requires finding needles in a 
haystack. On January 6, there was a failure to either gather, 
synthesize, or disseminate intelligence, and there were 
indications that the intelligence was muddled or contradictory.
    For example, the January 3 intelligence assessment from the 
Capitol Police has been touted to include information that 
makes it clear that January 6 would become violent. However, 
the document also states that the protesters' rallies were 
expected to be similar to the previous Million MAGA March 
rallies in November and December of 2020, which drew tens of 
thousands of individuals.
    As we know now, the events of January 6 were not like the 
previous marches or any other rallies that we have had on 
Capitol Grounds. The intelligence provided to the Capitol 
Police and other law enforcement did not anticipate a 
coordinated attack.
    Warnings should not be qualified or hidden. Bad 
information, conflicting information, or missing information 
leads to poor decisions.
    In fact, when the Capitol Police presented this assessment 
to the Sergeant at Arms, they simultaneously briefed on the 
plan of action for January 6, and one would think that the plan 
was developed taking into account the intelligence that they 
were seeing at the time.
    One would also expect the warnings to be reflected in all 
subsequent intelligence reports. The Office of the Sergeant at 
Arms received daily intelligence reports from the Capitol 
Police following the initial assessments referenced on the 3rd. 
On January 4, 5, and 6, the Capitol Police listed 
demonstrations and categorized the probability of civil 
disobedience or arrests as remote, highly improbable, or 
improbable for each of those days and for every single 
demonstration.
    The characterization of the threat posed by these protests 
only reinforced the notion and thinking that they were similar 
to the two previous demonstrations and not the violent 
insurrection that we experienced.
    The Office of the Sergeant at Arms is a consumer of 
intelligence products. We do not independently acquire or 
analyze intelligence. We are dependent on the Capitol Police 
and the intelligence community to provide timely, accurate, and 
succinct intelligence to help guide our decisions.
    And it pains me to say it, but the intelligence missteps 
cascaded into inadequate preparation, which placed the health 
and lives of frontline officers at risk. While frontline 
officers did everything they could that day, the Capitol Police 
was prepared for a First Amendment event but not adequately 
prepared for the events of January 6.
    For example, former Chief Sund noted in his letter to 
congressional leadership that he had expedited the delivery of 
approximately 104 helmets to officers. It was a good decision 
to expedite the delivery of the helmets, but it also raises 
question as to why the officers did not have the helmets on 
hand. I support any efforts we can to acquire all gear for our 
officers to keep them safe and to be able to keep the gear on 
hand that express the support to the Capitol Police Board.
    Proper planning before an event will provide the needed 
support to the officers on the line and help ensure that the 
event does not turn into a crisis. We must also prepare for 
contingencies. The failure to prepare for contingencies can 
result in greater difficulty in execution.
    Security examinations are currently underway to make sure 
that we are prepared for the next January 6. Lieutenant General 
Honore and his task force have been working to not only examine 
the security postures on the Hill but also the security of 
Members traveling, as well as in their districts. My office has 
worked in coordination with General Honore and his team to 
support this critical tasking. This could prove to the valuable 
input in how we better align the Office of the Sergeant at Arms 
to provide security services to Members.
    In the aftermath of January 6, I know the Office of the 
Sergeant at Arms must provide more to Members and staff to keep 
them safe. These better services will come with an accompanying 
cost. I have committed to carefully stewarding the funds that 
the subcommittee provides.
    Funding is an important aspect, but just as important, if 
not more so, is the right organizational structure. A new look 
and perspective will help inform my own proposals this 
subcommittee will see. I also support necessary infrastructure 
improvements, support the changes to the Capitol Police will 
propose to its FTE structures, equipment upgrades, and, more 
importantly, the investment in its officers.
    The Capitol Police and the Office of the Sergeant at Arms 
will evolve to better secure Congress. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify, and I welcome your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Chief Pittman and Acting Sergeant at 
Arms Blodgett. We appreciate it.
    Chief Pittman, let me start with you. First, let me say 
thank you to you for--the lines of communication have improved 
dramatically over the past weeks, and I want to just say thank 
you to you and your team, Chief Pittman, for making sure you 
are staying in contact with the committee and the Congress.
    I have a couple questions. So you were talking about 
increasing the size of the dignitary protection, posting 
dignitary protection agents, extending coverage of the 
investigations division.
    So, when you said you increased the size of dignitary 
protection, how many people were increased there? How many law 
enforcement people were increased?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. Thank you.
    So we went from four-man protection details and increased 
that to six-man protection details.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. So that is--I mean, that is not a 
significant increase at all when you are talking about, you 
know, what we went through.
    How about some of the other things you mentioned? So you 
embedded an analyst, deploying countersurveillance agents. So 
how many countersurveillance agents did you deploy in the 
morning of the 6th?
    Acting Chief Pittman. So we deployed all of our 
countersurveillance agents that we have available to us. We 
also increased our open-source operations, if you will, to go 
from a 16-hour day to--we separated our manpower to ensure that 
we had open-source operations around the clock.
    So all of our PSB operators, if you will, which includes 
dignitary protection, the investigations division, as well as 
intelligence, were operating on a 24/7 platform.
    Mr. Ryan. No, I understand that. And my main point is that 
this is not in any way a significant increase in the amount of 
law enforcement that were out there. Moving a detail from four 
to six, even if you did that multiple times, is not any 
significant increase.
    And I guess the question I have is that, if you felt like 
and everybody felt like this was adequate, why was Chief Sund 
trying to press the Sergeant at Arms for more help?
    Acting Chief Pittman. So let me just be clear. As it 
relates to dignitary protection, that is just a small portion 
of U.S. Capitol Police. So there is a limited number of 
dignitary protection agents that are specially trained in that 
area. So increasing from a four-person team to a six-person 
team essentially is all of the dignitary protection agents that 
U.S. Capitol Police has available to them.
    Mr. Ryan. No, I----
    Acting Chief Pittman. So there was----
    Mr. Ryan. I understand----
    Acting Chief Pittman. So going from that four-person team 
to six is every person that we have.
    As it relates to the operational side of the house, that is 
where the bulk of the agency is employed, by the Uniform 
Services Bureau. So that is where the increase came primarily 
from, as it relates to forming up those civil disturbance 
units.
    So, prior to that January 3 assessment, the operational 
plan required for four platoons to be activated for the January 
6 event. Uniform operations increased that platoon size to 
maximize its strength to seven platoons. That is essentially 
every available officer that we have to form up our CDU units. 
That is 276 officers, approximately, with 40-person platoons 
each.
    Four of those platoons--excuse me--three of those platoons 
comprise of hard platoons. Those are the officers that you see 
in the hard turtle gear. And they have extra, if you will, 
less-than-lethal options available to them as well as tactical 
gear, sir.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. And I appreciate that. But my point is 
that, clearly, Chief Sund didn't think that was enough, because 
he was going to the Sergeant at Arms, Mr. Irving, and saying, 
``Hey, we need more help.'' And so he knew--did you feel that 
same way?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. So I have an accurate 
account of the request that Chief Sund made to lean forward as 
it relates to the National Guard. And I think that is what you 
are referring to. My team, since January 6, actively pulled all 
of the cell phone records from Chief Sund, and they show the 
following:
    On January 6, Chief Sund first reached out for National 
Guard support to the House Sergeant at Arms at 12:58 p.m. He 
then spoke to the Senate Sergeant at Arms to make the same 
request for the National Guard at 1:05 p.m. And he repeated his 
request to the House Sergeant at Arms at 1:28 p.m., speaking 
again with them at 1:34, 1:39, and 1:45.
    Chief Sund spoke to both Sergeant at Arms to request 
National Guard support----
    Mr. Ryan. Now, Chief Pittman, I don't mean to interrupt 
you, but we are limited on time here a little bit.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Ryan. I am talking about prior to January 6.
    My main point here is that--we appreciate that you 
increased dignitary protection and the platoons and all the 
rest. That is still a limited number. I think it is important 
that the committee and the Congress knows----
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
    Mr. Ryan [continuing].--That that is a very limited number 
compared to what the threat was and what we think the threat 
assessment is.
    And my question to you is: Chief Sund clearly was worried, 
and he called Mr. Irving prior to the 6th----
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Ryan [continuing]. And said, ``Hey, we need more 
help.'' Mr. Irving said, ``No. Go ask the National Guard to 
lean in.''
    And, quite frankly, I don't even know what ``lean in'' 
means, if that is some kind of term that I don't know. But what 
does ``lean in'' mean? It means, you know, shut up and don't 
ask me for any more help, is how I take that.
    And my question is--and we have a lot of questions here, 
but my question is: Were you in agreement with--because you are 
now the Acting Chief, and part of this enterprise here that we 
are into is about moving forward. At that time, were you in 
agreement with Chief Sund that you needed more support, 
primarily from the National Guard?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. Thank you.
    My time is up. And I just want the committee to know, like 
yesterday, we are going to take a little bit of liberties with 
the time to make sure that these questions get answered. We 
have a smaller committee that allows us to maybe do some of 
that.
    So, with that, I am going to yield to Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Acting Sergeant at Arms Blodgett, if 
we could, and then maybe scale back.
    You know, when I talk about communications failures, I am 
not necessarily talking about, like, the tweets and the texts 
that came to Members while this was happening. What you and I 
discussed on the phone and what I think is really important is, 
I was standing next to officers, both Sergeant at Arms and 
Capitol Police officers, as the insurrection was happening on 
the House floor, getting to the House floor. It was very clear 
that their headpieces, like, the communications pieces, they 
were getting no actual real communication. They were getting no 
leadership. They were getting no direction. There was no 
coordination. And you could see the fear in their eyes. Like, 
they literally--the brave men and women who were just kind of 
left out on their own to defend did the best they could with 
what they had.
    You know, there is a video on YouTube where the woman who 
was shot--there is a time, you know, with different armed 
forces and different forces coming in from different angles. 
And it was very clear that the person who shot didn't know that 
there was a tactical team coming up the stairs. And they all 
have earpieces in.
    So, when I talk about communications failures, I am 
literally talking about the leadership, no one owning the 
frequency and giving direction. And that is the thing I want to 
know. I want to know if you are fixing that.
    I mean, it is great that you guys send out text messages 
when there are, like, you know, closures and things, and that 
is helpful. But the big communications failure, from my vantage 
point and when I have talked to other Members, is--I have 
talked to Representative Markwayne Mullin, who was on the floor 
helping barricade the door with those officers who had their 
firearms drawn, and he said he could hear the shouting and the 
chaos in the earpieces of the officers who were trying to do 
the defense. So they were on their own.
    Are you fixing that?
    And please be brief, because I have a couple more 
questions.
    Acting Sergeant at Arms, are you there?
    Mr. Blodgett. I apologize. I was on mute. I have to 
remember to unmute.
    Yes, that is something we need to fix, and we need to fix 
it immediately.
    I believe the Chief acknowledged in her statement--and I 
don't want to speak for the Acting Chief--but that 
communication needs to be enhanced, either out of the command 
center or the incident command post, wherever that is set up, 
in terms of that.
    In terms of the communications with my staff in the 
Sergeant at Arms, we don't control the Capitol Police radios. 
While we have the radios and can hear what is or is not going 
on, we do not interject during a crisis. We communicate with 
our staff via cell phone, text message. And we were in close 
contact.
    That situation you discussed where Officer Byrd (ph) was at 
the door when Ms. Babbitt was shot, it was our Sergeant at Arms 
employee who rendered the aid to her at that site.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Can I jump in there?
    Mr. Blodgett. Sure.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. You guys are in charge, though, of the 
security on the House floor, or are you just there to make sure 
that we take our coats off when we are on camera?
    Mr. Blodgett. We are there to enforce the rules of the 
House, to work in conjunction with the Capitol Police to make 
sure that it is safe. We had staff on the floor and in the 
galleries as well.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. So can I ask--so, talking about what 
happened on the floor, when the Senate was evacuated--and maybe 
this will be a Chief Pittman question.
    When the Senate was evacuated, it was several minutes--and 
I don't have the timeline in front of me--before the House was 
evacuated. Why were we locked in and left on the House floor 
when there were known assailants in the building and the Senate 
was being evacuated? Did we not have a plan for evacuation?
    Mr. Blodgett. Yes, we had--the Office of the Sergeant at 
Arms put together a plan for evacuating the House floor. The 
tactical decision to evacuate would be left to the Capitol 
Police, because at the command center they can see what is 
going on throughout the campus. We don't have eyes on that.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Okay. Let me switch over, then, to 
Chief Pittman.
    Chief Pittman, can you speak to the lack of communication 
to your officers on their radios? And can you also speak to the 
reason that there was a decent time delay between when the 
Senate was evacuated and the House was evacuated?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am.
    So, as it relates to communications, U.S. Capitol Police 
has practiced routine drills, if you will, for the incident 
command system since the September 11 incident. On January 6, 
our incident command protocols were not adhered to as they 
should have.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Why?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Basically----
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Yeah. Tell me in specific.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am.
    Within an incident command structure, you have operational 
order, if you will, and it designates who is in charge of what, 
from your incident person, incident command structure on the 
ground, as well as a lot of your leadership folks, to include 
myself and several other--the other deputy chiefs, are posted 
within the command center.
    So you actually have a 1,000-foot view, if you will, and 
then a boots-on-the-ground view. Those boots-on-the-ground 
view, the persons in charge of our civil disturbance unit as 
well as those operational commanders that are in charge of the 
Capitol, are responsible for that implementation of that 
incident command system.
    So, when there is a breakdown, you look for those 
commanders with boots on the ground to provide that 
instruction. That did not happen primarily because those 
operational commanders at the time were so overwhelmed. They 
started to participate and assist the officers with boots on 
the ground, versus providing that guidance and direction, if 
you will.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Can I ask--so are you talking about 
the officers who were--when you say ``boots on the ground,'' 
the guys and gals who were literally defending us against the 
attackers, are you saying they were responsible for the 
communications breakdown amongst themselves?
    Acting Chief Pittman. No, ma'am.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. So I want to know why yourself and the 
other leaders did not maintain or regain control of the comms 
system, because you had a bird's-eye-view advantage.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. So the expectation is not that 
those officers would be in charge of the communication, those 
commanders would be in charge that were directly responsible, 
that those officers reported to. Because they have the tactical 
advantage and strategic lens, if you will, with those officers 
on the ground.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. But you are saying those commanders 
then somehow--and this is an honest question.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. So the commanders failed to regain 
control of the comms systems and direct the officers who were 
on the front lines?
    Acting Chief Pittman. I think it is a multi-tiered failure, 
if you will----
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Can I, really quick----
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. You just raised--this is something I 
think is really important.
    ``The U.S. Capitol police union issued an overwhelming no-
confidence vote for the force's top leaders, including acting 
Chief Yogananda Pittman `--yourself--'and a half-dozen other 
agency leaders.'' ``Pittman drew a 92 percent no-confidence 
vote,'' with 657 of the 1,050 union members participating in 
the vote.
    The vote is symbolic, obviously; it is not actionable. But, 
of note, roughly half of the U.S. Capitol Police sworn officers 
belong to the union.
    So I am frustrated that what I am not hearing is, you know, 
``Hey, I was sitting there watching this with a bird's-eye 
view, and I tried to''--like, some--I am hearing a lot of 
process and a lot of, like, almost explaining why there is a 
problem, versus hearing how you are going to make sure that 
there is a command center who speaks into the earpieces of the 
officers and provides direction and leadership.
    Part of the reason there was chaos was because each and 
every one of these officers, boots on the ground, commander or 
not, had to make a decision with no information. Like, there 
was no incoming help, as far as they knew. They had no idea 
what you guys were doing.
    I mean, my hat is off to these brave men and women. They 
saved our lives. And I am frustrated that I am not hearing, 
``This is how we are fixing that right now. This is what we are 
doing.'' And that is what I expect.
    And I know, Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I will wait for a 
next round, so I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Yep. Thank you, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Just quickly, as a quick followup before we go to Ms. 
DeLauro, in line with what Ms. Herrera Beutler was just saying, 
can you give us an explanation, like, about the preparation for 
January 6? And was there any special training for the officers 
to have them prepared for this?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. So a couple points of 
clarification.
    Explaining the incident command structure was just 
basically to detail what the system was supposed to do. The 
executive team here has taken a number of proactive steps to 
ensure that incident command protocols are adhered to in the 
future.
    As it relates to the command staff that are giving 
directions in the command center, that was forthcoming. I, 
myself, directed the Capitol lock-down on the day in question.
    With that said, there are many more improvements to be 
made.
    As it relates to the vote of no confidence, the numbers are 
not totally accurate. Thirty-six percent of our sworn 
population, less than half of available officers that could 
have voted, said that they vote ``no confidence'' for the 
Capitol Police leadership.
    With that being said, I think that one vote is one vote too 
many. February 11, on the day of that vote, marked 1 month and 
3 days since I was sworn in as the Acting Chief. Since then, my 
team and I have been working around the clock and the entire 
department has been working around the clock, and I think that 
we have made some very important changes as well as 
improvements.
    We are working on the communications to improve that. We 
have streamlined a number of items, to include the joint 
emergency notification messaging system. We have streamlined 
communications between U.S. Capitol Police and our law 
enforcement partners. We have also streamlined communications 
between the upper management and how that information is 
delivered to the rank and file.
    In addition to that, we have increased our wellness 
resources and the delivery of vaccines to all of our employees.
    Obviously, with that vote, we acknowledge that there is 
more work to be done. I know that because I talk to the 
officers. I have been here for 20 years, and I have grown up in 
this agency. Many of those officers are not just my colleagues; 
those are my friends. And their personal well-being is personal 
to me.
    As it relates to CDU training, all of our officers that are 
coming out of the training academy receive 40 hours of training 
as it relates to CDU.
    In addition to that, our officers that have specialized 
training, what we refer to as the hard gear or turtle gear, 
receive an additional 27 hours of training--or 24 hours of 
training for them to be trained on special equipment.
    So, to answer your question, Mr. Chairman, there absolutely 
is additional training for those hard platoon CDU officers.
    Mr. Ryan. Well, I don't want to take up too much time, and 
we are going to come back to that. But there wasn't any special 
training specifically about January 6, to have them prepared 
for that. You are talking about the standard training that they 
get, not in particular for this moment in time with all of the 
intelligence and everything else that we had. There was no----
    Acting Chief Pittman. That specialized training carries 
over with those officers. Those officers train on a routine 
basis as it relates to hard gear platoons, that they are 
prepared for civil disturbance riots. So those officers are 
trained specially for those types of events, yes, sir.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay.
    Ms. DeLauro.
    The Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I would like to direct my attention here, if you will, to 
the role, the function, the relevance of the Capitol Police 
Board.
    Can you, either or both--both of you, what does the Capitol 
Police Board do? What is its mission? What is its authority?
    Mr. Blodgett. Thank you, ma'am.
    The Chair. Somebody?
    Mr. Blodgett. Yes. Yes, thank you, ma'am.
    The Capitol Police Board acts as a policy, kind of, board 
of directors over the Capitol Police. There are some statutory 
authorities that they do have with vehicle and traffic, and the 
Capitol Police enforce those on a day-to-day basis. There is 
obviously the emergency and request for executive branch 
assistance, protection of leadership overseas, and deployments 
are just some of the direct statutory inputs that the Capitol 
Police Board does have.
    I see the role of the Capitol Police Board as to provide 
the policy guidance to the Chief, support the Chief in the 
needs that she has to both your committees and then, obviously, 
on the Senate as well, and then to take your concerns with the 
police and work with the Capitol Police to correct those 
concerns that you have, as well as personally providing a House 
perspective to the policing of the grounds.
    The Chair. And, Chief, what is your view of the role of the 
Capitol Police Board?
    Acting Chief Pittman. I am sorry, ma'am. You were breaking 
up. Could you repeat your question?
    The Chair. Oh, sure. Your view of the role of the Capitol 
Police Board.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. So the Capitol Police Board, in 
my view, provides direct oversight to the United States Capitol 
Police. When there are huge or special events that are 
occurring on the campus, the United States Capitol Police 
develops an operational plan, and they share those plans with 
the Capitol Police Board.
    As it relates to an intelligence perspective on any types 
of events, the Capitol Police Board is kept apprised of any of 
those things as well.
    But the Capitol Police Board works in close collaboration, 
if you will, with the Members of Congress so that they can make 
their security needs known. And then that information is kind 
of like a two-way communication. The Capitol Police Board would 
then share those requirements with the Capitol Police as it 
relates to security.
    The Chair. With regard to January 6, was the Capitol Police 
Board functioning? Did it function? What operational plans were 
being reviewed? Is it not the fact that, when there was a 
request for National Guard, the Capitol Police Board said that 
the optics wouldn't be good or we don't need this or the 
request was denied?
    There doesn't appear to be--what is its real role? Does it 
have a role in oversight of the Capitol Police? I know it does 
a lot of ceremonial things, and I appreciate that. Everybody 
has to be taken care of. But this board and its--where was the 
board, and how did it function prior to January 6 and on 
January 6?
    Acting Chief Pittman. So, ma'am, if I could answer that 
question as it relates to Capitol Police, prior to January 6, I 
think it is important to note that, by statute, in order for 
U.S. Capitol Police to have the National Guard on its grounds 
in a law enforcement capacity, the Capitol Police Board must 
first declare an emergency. So, in order for us to----
    The Chair. The Capitol Police, your responsibility was to 
declare an emergency before the Capitol Police Board could 
respond?
    Acting Chief Pittman. No, ma'am.
    The Chair. No? Okay. Help me.
    Acting Chief Pittman. So, by statute, in order for the U.S. 
Capitol Police to have the National Guard on our grounds, the 
Capitol Police Board must declare an emergency----
    The Chair. The board has to?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am.
    The Chair. Was there any emergency declared either prior 
to, with intelligence information that determined that they 
were coming for the Congress, and, quite frankly, in the 
midst--what--where were they? Where was this board prior to and 
during this insurrection?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am. So it is my understanding 
that Chief Sund did make the request to the Capitol Police 
Board to declare an emergency----
    The Chair. When?
    Acting Chief Pittman [continuing]. So that----
    The Chair. When?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Prior to January 6.
    The Chair. Prior to January 6.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
    The Chair. And the response from the Capitol Police Board 
was----
    Acting Chief Pittman. Was that this request was denied.
    The Chair. Right.
    And the issue was--and I don't have all of my quotes in 
front of me here--but that it was the optics of the National 
Guard being on the complex that was the concern?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Ma'am, I don't have--I was not privy 
firsthand to those conversations----
    The Chair. Okay. Fine. Got you.
    Acting Chief Pittman [continuing]. To say whether or not 
they said optics. But I know the request was denied.
    The Chair. The request was denied. The request was made 
prior to January 6 that we have National Guard on the premises, 
and that request was denied by this board.
    And it would appear that this board has--I can't get a 
delineation, and we will find it, of where its authority 
begins, where it derives from, what it is. And does it rule by 
fiat? They make a decision and it occurs?
    Mr. Blodgett
    Mr. Blodgett. Ma'am, I believe that----
    The Chair. You are on the board.
    Mr. Blodgett. Yes. I am currently on the board, yes. I was 
not on the board on January 6.
    However, my understanding is it was brought up at the 
December board meeting--I would have to go back and check--that 
Chief Sund brought up the National Guard to Mr. Irving on the 
4th. Mr. Irving, I believe, testified the other day that he did 
not take that to be an ask for an emergency declaration. He 
talked to Mr. Stenger. I do not believe that the Chief ever 
spoke to the Architect of the Capitol prior to that. I believe 
that is what Mr. Blanton testified to yesterday, who was also 
on the board. So the ask would have to come from all three.
    The Capitol Police Board issued a verbal declaration of 
emergency to give authority to National Guard deployment on 
2:10 on the 6th.
    Mr. Ryan. Rosa, if I could just----
    The Chair. Please. Go ahead.
    Mr. Ryan. Rosa, if I could just follow up here, because I--
--
    The Chair. This board seems to be obsolete.
    Mr. Ryan. Yes.
    The Chair. This board seems to be nonfunctioning.
    Mr. Ryan. And I think we are getting to the point here.
    So, whether it is Tim or Chief Pittman, it sounds like 
there was an official denial in the December meeting for the 
emergency order?
    Mr. Blodgett. No, no. I apologize. The demonstrations were 
discussed. There was no request at that time for an order that 
I recall.
    Mr. Ryan. There was no request [Inaudible]. And there was 
never a vote by the board. And I think this is what is really 
important about getting to the bottom of this.
    So it sounds like Mr. Irving was taking all of the 
authority that the board should have had and was basically 
denying Chief Sund's request without even bringing it to the 
board.
    So that brings up two questions that this committee has, 
that I think a lot of us have, is that, who the hell gave Mr. 
Irving the authority to not bring requests by the Chief of the 
Capitol Police who wants more help?
    Mr. Irving makes a decision, a unanimous decision, all by 
himself, to deny that request, and then to go say, tell the 
National Guard to lean in. That is problem number one.
    And problem number two is, why didn't Chief Sund push back 
and demand--I think this is a question for all of us--and 
demand that he brings that to the board for a vote? So now you 
bring in the Architect of the Capitol. You maybe build an ally 
to help make this happen.
    So it sounds like, Chairwoman DeLauro, that the Sergeant at 
Arms took the liberty of making this decision without bringing 
it to the full board.
    Mr. Blodgett. Sir, if I may, I don't think that Mr.--I 
can't speak for Mr. Irving, but he did testify that he did not 
take that January 4 conversation with Chief Sund as an ask for 
an emergency declaration.
    But you have hit on a historical tension on the board. 
There was a report in 2002 from GAO and a subsequent report to 
Congress by the board at that time in 2003 which talks about, 
you know, emergencies and the board and how the structures need 
to be tightened and they need to be forward thinking.
    And I am happy to provide that report to the committee as 
well. But it sums up the tension and it talks about some of the 
issues that you raised.
    Mr. Ryan. Chairwoman DeLauro, do you have any further 
questions?
    The Chair [inaudible]. It is critical. Whether it needs to 
be revamped, what kind of authority does it have. At the moment 
I view it as a vestigial--it is just there. It doesn't appear 
to do a hell of a lot nor did it do a hell of a lot to deal 
with this situation on January 6.
    It is like your appendix. It is just there. It doesn't have 
any real function.
    So the question is the photos of--footage of Capitol Police 
posing for photos with insurrectionists. There are ongoing 
investigations, is what my understanding is. How many officers 
are under investigation? What is the rationale? When will the 
investigation be concluded? When can we get a report?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am.
    So right now we have 35 officers that are under 
investigation, and we do have 6 police officers that have been 
suspended with their police powers being revoked. So those 
investigations are ongoing at this time.
    The Chair. What was the rationale--what is the rationale 
for the investigation? I mean, on what premise are you 
investigating them?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am.
    If there is an allegation of misconduct, Capitol Police has 
what is called a rules of conduct, and it is basically a code 
of conduct that governs our behavior as police officers. If 
there is a violation of that rules of conduct based on those 
violations we make decisions to investigate those officers and 
proceed accordingly if discipline is warranted.
    The Chair. When is the investigation going to be concluded? 
When can we get a report? The investigation is going to be 
concluded when?
    Acting Chief Pittman. The investigations are concluded 
based on typically a 60- to 90-day scale.
    The Chair. No, no--okay. Okay.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am. And as soon as we have 
that information, we will report it out.
    The Chair. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
indulging me the time for going over.
    Mr. Ryan. Yes, of course.
    Ms. Granger.
    Ms. Granger. Thank you.
    What I am seeing is--what I was hoping to hear are 
important changes and lessons learned and where we go from 
here.
    What I am hearing is the same old stuff and pointing 
fingers and it looks like protecting jobs. And having faced 
something as serious as we faced and know that this could 
happen again, this is very, very disappointing at the least and 
frightening at the most.
    And it seems as if, particularly in the communication in 
the days leading up to the 6th or whatever, then we have a 
system that failed at every level.
    And even at the time when we were seeing very, very 
serious, dangerous things happening and we were watching--or 
participating in the case of Members of Congress--I think that 
this has to be looked at and go back and have proof of the 
communication and then why in the world could action not be 
taken at that time, when there was time to do something.
    I would also like, having sat through another meeting where 
we listened to testimony, I would like the testimony at the 
other proceedings of the Acting Chief and the testimony today 
in a comparison of how the explanations have changed.
    I think we have got a lot of work to do on this committee, 
but I think we have to start with looking at the system and 
saying what should happen and who should have the authority to 
say, yes, we must have extra help right now, immediately, or, 
no, can say, no, you can't have that, because that happened all 
up and down and I think we really need to understand that 
before we meet again.
    Thank you. No more questions.
    Mr. Blodgett. Ma'am, I agree that there needs to be more 
robust communication, both leading up to an event as well as 
during an event.
    As we move into the communication realm, we tend to send 
out very short, concise, nontransparent messaging for fear of 
sending out incorrect messaging. That was something that was 
obviously apparent on the 6th, and that needs to change.
    And I talked about that at the Appropriations briefing and 
I have asked my staff to work on that, because in a big event 
like that we have to give you more information, not less.
    The canned messaging may be good if there is a barrier that 
doesn't go down and you need to go in through another entrance, 
but not when it is a considerable life safety event. You need 
to have the information available to be able to make the best 
decision to protect yourself, and I agree with you that that 
needs to be looked at and corrected.
    Ms. Granger. In my situation--in some situations the--I 
know in my situation I was at Hill House and I was 
quarantining, so we were, of course, under threat of a bomb. So 
we ran out in the street.
    And then what happens out in the street, I had a situation 
where a police officer recognized me and said, ``Where can you 
go to be safe?'' And I couldn't go back to where I lived. So he 
helped me get to where my office was.
    We got inside the building, but the security person said, 
``No, she is not allowed to go in her own office and be locked 
in her office to stay safe.''
    So there is a communication problem from the lowest level 
to the top level of what is important, what is immediate, and 
who has the authority.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am, I agree.
    Capitol Police is acknowledging that there are numerous 
lessons to be learned from the top down. We are leaning 
forward. We are actively working with the task force that the 
Speaker has at the request of Lieutenant General Russel Honore. 
So we are leaning forward with those recommendations, really 
conducting several assessments from the Office of the Inspector 
General, our own internal assessments.
    But really acknowledging what can we do in the short term 
to acknowledge those failures and make sure that those things 
don't happen again and then leaning forward to say what are 
those long-term projections that we can implement over time as 
it relates to training, policies and procedures, equipment, and 
things of that nature.
    We put a number of requests in the fiscal year 2022 budget 
so that we can ensure that our officers have the proper tools 
and resources needed so that something like January 6 never 
happens again.
    We are leaning forward to improve our communications, not 
only internally with our officers and leadership, we have also 
leaned forward--and I think that Mr. Blodgett and I recognize 
the failures of the previous Capitol Police Board as it relates 
to communications and we have a robust communications. Tim and 
I talk daily, multiple times a day.
    So we acknowledge that there are a lot of things that 
should have been done differently. But this is an opportunity 
for us to make change, and we are making that happen.
    Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Ms. Granger.
    I mean, that is the question, Chief Pittman, that I was 
getting to about the training and particular training.
    Now, here you have the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee and the officers weren't properly trained to be able 
to even know where to take her in that situation, and we find 
that unacceptable.
    Ms. Clark.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thanks to both of our witnesses and in particular to 
Acting Chief Pittman.
    I want to thank your department and you for the valiant 
efforts to protect us, the Capitol, and our democracy during 
the January 6 insurrection and also for the work you do every 
single day.
    And on a personal note, I want to thank you and your 
department for the recent efforts to bring to justice an 
individual who threatened me and my staff.
    But if we are going to ensure the safety of the Capitol and 
our democracy going forward, we must get to the truth and a 
complete understanding of what took place.
    My goal is to honor those officers who gave their lives, to 
honor everyone who was injured, terrorized, and traumatized. 
And I cannot get past a glaring discrepancy between 
intelligence received and preparation.
    So I want to start with the Special Assessment of January 
3.
    You testify in writing that the U.S. Capitol Police were 
aware that there were militia members, White supremacists, and 
other extremist groups who were coming to DC on January 6, that 
they were armed, that they were targeting Congress and the 
joint session certification process, and that they were 
motivated by seeing this as the last opportunity to, quote, 
``overturn the election.''
    That is some ``who, what, when, why'' listing. And you 
testified that this Special Assessment was widely distributed 
through the U.S. Capitol Police and to the Sergeant at Arms, 
including that there was responsibility of sergeants and 
lieutenants to ensure that the rank and file got this vital 
information. Is that correct?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. That is correct.
    Ms. Clark. You also testified that this Special Assessment 
was discussed at the January 4 multi-agency meeting. Is that 
correct?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. That is correct.
    Ms. Clark. And, again, it was brought up on January 5. Is 
that correct?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. That is correct.
    Ms. Clark. Mr. Blodgett testifies that on January 4, 
January 5, January 6 the U.S. Capitol Police listed the 
probability of civil disobedience as, quote, ``remote, highly 
improbable, or improbable.''
    Your own testimony today says that that January 3 
assessment, quote, ``foretold of a significant likelihood for 
violence on the Capitol Grounds.''
    How do you rectify these two polar opposite analyses of the 
likelihood of violence?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. So those documents that you are 
reading from that state that some groups were going to be 
improbable or less likely to incite violence is not even an 
assessment. It is a document that is provided by one analyst.
    So, for example, there are several, there are hundreds of 
documents that are combed through by our task force agents. We 
receive information through open source and from a number of 
sources, that we have analysts that comb through that 
information to put together the assessment.
    So if I could explain it as being tiered, the Special 
Assessment is the highest tier of assessment rating. That is 
the document that you are going--that we are going to use as a 
department to make operational plans for any type of 
demonstration.
    Ms. Clark. So let me follow up on that.
    So your testimony is that to make operational plans, you 
were going with this assessment that you had that there were 
armed militia members coming, targeting Congress, and that was 
a significant likelihood of violence. That was your position.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
    Ms. Clark. Okay. On January 5, the Norfolk FBI sends 
intelligence that says, in part, comments picked up online that 
Congress needs to hear glass breaking and doors being kicked 
in, blood from their BLM and Antifa soldiers being spilled, 
that there were maps being shared of the Capitol tunnels and 
facilities, and rallying points for groups traveling to D.C.
    It is disputed who saw this report, but you do not dispute 
that it was received by the U.S. Capitol Police. Is that 
correct?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am. And if I could just 
follow up with some additional on that Norfolk document.
    That document was sent the evening of January 5. We know 
that it was received by task force agents with U.S. Capitol 
Police.
    But I think that to put it in its proper context, that FBI 
document also stated that this is an information report, not 
finally evaluated intelligence. It was being shared for 
informational purposes but has not been fully evaluated, 
integrated with other information, interpreted, or analyzed. 
Receiving agencies are requested not to take action based on 
this raw reporting.
    So I think that I would consider that an additional 
document that would feed into the assessment that was 
consistent what Capitol Police already knew. We knew the White 
supremacist groups and militia groups were coming, and we did 
anticipate those groups being violent.
    Ms. Clark. In fact, you said there was a significant 
likelihood and you had already looped that into the fact that 
this was going to be different and targeted at Congress and at 
interrupting the electoral college process.
    So now we have some disagreement about whether Chief Sund 
actually asked for a declaration of a state of emergency. Mr. 
Blodgett says his understanding from the former Sergeant at 
Arms, Irving, that he says this never happened.
    But, boy, does this look like we have a violent situation 
brewing. And you sent counterintelligence officers to the rally 
that day. You must have seen the crowds that were gathering. 
You must have been gathering that intelligence back. That is in 
your testimony.
    Yet still we come down to this failure to be ready, that 
there is, you know, 140 helmets that are ordered, maybe 126 
National Guard might be able to come help, when we are at a 
significant likelihood of attacks. And however we tier that FBI 
report, it fed right into what you knew already.
    So my question is in the end of this--and I see that I am 
out of time--we had White supremacy that is fueling the 
violence, White supremacy that fueled the big lie about our 
elections.
    Do you believe that institutional racism, that a culture of 
White supremacy--and I am not saying any specific person or one 
action--do you believe that played a role in the discrepancy 
between the intelligence received, the assessment of the 
likelihood of violence, and the preparation that left our 
officers really at the mercy of the mob?
    Acting Chief Pittman. So as the first Black and female 
chief of this department, I take any allegation of inequitable 
policing extremely seriously. I can assure that you under my 
command the USCP will continue to police equitably.
    With that said, I have no evidence whatsoever that suggests 
that there was any discrepancy based on our security posture 
and as it relates to making enhancements or not based upon 
race.
    Ms. Clark. Do you believe that part of us moving forward on 
this--there are many things we have to do, technical and 
otherwise.
    But how are you going to plan in this new position, with 
the morale being so low, and especially for those people of 
color in, you know, our Capitol community on your force who see 
all of this through a very different lens and life experience, 
how are you going to address this and get to addressing 
institutional racism that exists in every institution we have 
here at the Capitol Police to ensure that this does not play a 
role in the decisions that we make?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Absolutely.
    As the granddaughter of civil rights activists, a proud 
graduate of an HBCU university, and the mother of two African-
American sons, I know all too well about the differences as it 
relates to policing and institutional racism.
    After the Black Lives Matter movement during the summer, I 
spearheaded townhall meetings for the first time at U.S. 
Capitol Police where I provided a platform for officers to 
express their concerns with law enforcement as it relates to 
race. We brought in speakers, chiefs from all over the country, 
and we provided an opportunity for officers to speak freely so 
that we could address some of those morale issues that occurred 
after the Black Lives Matter movement.
    I am proud to say that from those townhalls we were able to 
identify themes, working with our training services division, 
as well as the employment assistance program, to ensure that 
our officers have the tools and resources that they need to 
address things like institutional racism.
    We will be leaning forward with the executive team to 
continue to ensure that our officers remain trained up on 
things such as unconscious bias, implicit bias. But we will 
also be providing new platforms to address those themes that 
were identified in October of 2020, last year, as it relates to 
policing and institutional racism.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Chief Pittman.
    Thank you, Ms. Clark.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Mr. Amodei.
    Mr. Amodei. Hey, Mr. Chairman. Thanks.
    I want to start with Tim Blodgett.
    Tim, are you there?
    Mr. Blodgett. Yeah, I am here, sir.
    Mr. Amodei. Hey, listen, first things first, before we move 
into where we are going from here, because there are plenty of 
people paying attention to the 6th and I get that and I 
appreciate that, but in the background of your shot you have a 
Buffalo Bills helmet.
    And I am just telling--I am not giving you political 
advice. I am just saying, quite frankly, the committee chairman 
is from the State of Ohio and I don't think they play there.
    If you need something, try this book that the chairman 
wrote. It is not a page-turner, but the chairman did write it. 
So as we go forward, just a thought.
    Now let's go to the topic at hand, huh? Hey, I want to 
concentrate on where we are heading as a result of lessons 
learned from this. And the first thing I would like to do is, I 
hope that as we are looking about security examinations and 
going forward, that we are taking a holistic look.
    And so I want your response to this, which is, listen, I 
know equipment is part of it, I know procedures are part of it.
    Chief, this applies to your folks, too.
    I know training is part of it. I know communication is part 
of it. I know standard operating procedures in the future are 
part of it.
    I want your response to, as we decide what role barriers 
play--and in case anybody is missing it, it is temporary prison 
fences with razor wire--that we can mold all this stuff 
together and say, in a holistic way, okay, so barriers play a 
part of it, but we don't want the maximum barrier, you know, 
like we are not doing other stuff. It is, like, let's take a 
look at what our posture is in terms of how we operate, how we 
train, how we talk with the National Guard, how we whatever.
    And so I would like, if it is possible, to have you put 
something on the record that, as we talk about what the 
holistic way to go is, that we evaluate all these tools at our 
disposal in a lessons learned sense and don't just go back to 
we want to do the maximum of everything.
    And the first thing is, it is kind of like working in a 
minimum security prison right now. And I am not trying to be 
judgmental on anybody. I am just saying, quite frankly, fences 
and razor wire are--and by the way, the Architect of the 
Capitol should be involved. But, I mean, in terms of placements 
and effectiveness as opposed to stark, visual sadness.
    So, holistic approach, what do you think, Mr. Sergeant at 
Arms?
    Mr. Blodgett. I agree there has to be a holistic approach, 
sir. The General Honore study, as well as studies that Security 
Services Bureau is doing, and any that the Architect may do at 
some point will take into account the security hardening that 
has to come around the campus, look to a future state. By 
future state I don't mean looking at necessarily barriers, but 
what new technology can we implement to keep the openness of 
the Capitol.
    The Chief has a plan for--to attempt to draw down the 
Guard, the wire, and the fencing. It won't be as fast as some 
people want and it will be longer than other people want.
    But we will be working with the committee and leadership on 
that, as well as any structural items that have to be done, 
especially the big-ticket structural items. Your committee is 
going to be fully engaged and your staff. So, we are going to 
be looking to you, too.
    Mr. Amodei. And I appreciate that, too. So expect that to 
be a continuing line of questioning in terms of transitioning 
away from the penal institution look for the Nation's Capitol 
campus.
    I am not putting that at anybody's doorstep. I am just 
saying, as we get farther away, we should be able to transition 
to something that once again is nonpenal.
    Chief, a couple of things for you.
    First of all, I am going to ask you this question. I don't 
expect you to have the answer right off the top. So you can 
just return to us and the other members of the committee.
    But I was listening to your testimony and you said tens of 
thousands. And I am looking at the documents available to me 
and I know that there were approximately 30,000 at the rally 
and that DOJ has estimated approximately 800 people entered the 
building.
    I would just like to know what the source for the data, 
unless I misunderstood you, that the statement that there were 
tens of thousands of people, and obviously, I am talking about 
the Capitol.
    And so maybe I am wrong, but I was unaware of the fact. 
When you say tens of thousands of people, that means 20,000 or 
more to me that were basically outside the Capitol, north, 
south, east, or west. And so I would just like you to get back 
with us and give us the authority for that statement.
    Along those same lines, when you said you had all of your 
surveillance people deployed, I want to know what that number 
was. And so that is fine for online.
    For purposes of my limited time today, there are some 
pedestrian issues that are current. And I will give you an 
example of the one at I think it is C Street and behind Cannon 
right there by the Madison Building where the fencing has been 
deployed in a way that for pedestrian people that are entering 
that after being screened, they basically put the fence all 
over the sidewalk. So you either have to traipse through a 
flower bed or kind of see how you can shimmy through on that.
    So I would appreciate it if there is someone our office 
could contact for purposes of fencing placement and just walk 
the perimeter so that if it is something where it can be 
relocated so sidewalks are actually conducive to pedestrian 
traffic for those who are cleared to enter the campus, that 
that can actually take place.
    Mr. Blodgett. Sir, I believe we have opened up some 
pedestrian accesses as of this morning based on some feedback 
we heard yesterday. So if it hasn't been opened, please let us 
know and we will look into that.
    Mr. Amodei. Well, don't misunderstand me. It is open. You 
just have to be able to walk through a flower bed to use the 
access point. And, by the way, that is the Metro access, which 
has always been open.
    It is unacceptable that you have people queuing up to get 
through a gate for pedestrian access but the fence has rendered 
pedestrian access difficult, to be generous.
    Mr. Blodgett. We will take a look at that, sir. Thank you.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay.
    And then finally I would like to know--that is not you, 
that is the Chief and you.
    But finally I would like to get a briefing a little later 
on what the coordination is between both of your offices and 
the AOC in terms of fence design, evaluating the proper places 
for whatever those barriers are as we go forward.
    And, listen, I am not suggesting an answer. I just want to 
know that issue is being worked as opposed to, yeah, yeah, we 
will get that later on.
    And the final one that I want offline is this. Who has 
operational control over the National Guard troops on the 
Capitol campus right now?
    For example, if there is an incident at that area where I 
told you that the gate where the sidewalk is, it is like so, if 
something happens there and we have got an incident and stuff 
is going, who is in charge? How do they handle that, at least 
in the first 30 minutes?
    I am hoping that the communication issues that we have been 
hearing about are not communications issues in terms of using 
those resources in, quite frankly, a coordinated chain of 
command if something pops up.
    And I will take all those offline later on. I am mindful of 
your time, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Amodei.
    I would like to just kind of follow up and ask Chief 
Pittman if she could answer the question about the tens of 
thousands of insurrectionists, what that exact number was of 
people on the Capitol complex that were pushing through to get 
to the Capitol.
    If you could get us that--do you have that number handy, 
Chief?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, I do.
    So we base that number off the numbers that were screened 
down at the Ellipse from the Secret Service. We know that they 
screened over 15,000. I believe that number was closer to 
20,000. And there were 15,000, approximately, that were outside 
of the Ellipse that were unscreened. We know that those groups 
left there from our camera footage and came to Capitol Hill.
    So that is where those numbers are primarily based off of. 
We know what they were able to screen down at the Ellipse.
    And then as it relates, a couple of follow-up, if I may, 
sir.
    First and foremost, there was a question previously as it 
relates to evacuation routes. So I am willing to provide that. 
I know that some of that information is sensitive, if not 
classified, if you will. So I would like to provide a follow-up 
answer as it relates to why we evacuated some of the Chambers 
in the manner that we did.
    As it relates to infrastructure, we are actively working, 
as I said, with the task force. And I know that I speak for 
everyone here in the leadership when it comes to the fencing 
that is surrounding the campus, as well as the National Guard. 
We have no intention of keeping the National Guard soldiers or 
that fencing any longer than what is actually needed.
    We are actively working with a scaled-down approach so that 
we can make sure that we address three primary variables. One 
is the known threat to the environment. Two is the 
infrastructure vulnerabilities. And then that third variable 
being the limitations that U.S. Capitol Police knows that it 
has as it relates to human capital and technology resources. So 
we are actively addressing those.
    If I may just add one more point. With that said, we know 
that the insurrectionists that attacked the Capitol weren't 
only interested in attacking Members of Congress and officers. 
They wanted to send a symbolic message to the Nation as who was 
in charge of that legislative process.
    We know that members of the militia groups that were 
present on January 6 have stated their desires that they want 
to blow up the Capitol and kill as many Members as possible 
with a direct nexus to the State of the Union, which we know 
that date has not been identified.
    So based on that information, we think that it is prudent 
that Capitol Police maintain its enhanced and robust security 
posture until we address those vulnerabilities going forward.
    Sir, as it relates to the fencing and the problems with the 
pedestrian access, I will reach out to your office today and 
make sure that I will lean forward by taking action, working 
with the House Sergeant at Arms, to ensure that pedestrian and 
staff that need to traverse the grounds are able to do so in a 
safe and efficient manner.
    And one more side note for the chairman. You said that you 
were from the great State of Ohio, and we gave Mr. Blodgett a 
hard time about his Bills. I can tell you that my husband is 
from the great State of Alabama. And we are avid Roll Tide, 
Crimson Tide, national champions and fans. So I just had to put 
that plug in there for my Roll Tide fans on the call. Thank 
you, sir.
    Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Chief. That will get you nowhere with me, 
I will tell you right out of the gate, as an Ohio State 
Buckeye.
    If you could, Chief, again--Mr. Case is next. Just let me 
slide this in because I think Mr. Amodei's questions were 
important. What was the number outside the Capitol? We know 
that it was 15,000 maybe plus at the Ellipse. How many made 
their way down to the Capitol at the bike fencing right after 
that?
    Acting Chief Pittman. We don't have an exact number. Like 
we didn't implement screening that day like Service. But based 
on the estimates that we saw from our TV camera, we could tell 
approximately who was coming from the Ellipse to the Capitol 
grounds. So we know that there were excess of 10,000 
demonstrators that traversed the campus on January 6.
    Mr. Ryan. So you think it was 10,000 that came to the 
Capitol, left the Ellipse, walked down to the Capitol, and then 
forced their way in.
    Acting Chief Pittman. I think that we were well in excess 
of 10,000 that traversed the grounds. But as far as the number 
that actually came into the building, we estimate that that was 
approximately 800 demonstrators.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. Well, that brings about a lot of questions 
around use of force and other things.
    Mr. Case.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Blodgett, Chief Pittman, I want to go back to a line of 
questioning that I pursued yesterday with the Architect of the 
Capitol. And the gist of that is, how do we best figure out 
what happened, why it happened, and how to move forward?
    The observation that I have is that we need some 
independent, objective, outside review and advice. I think even 
the best of us in circumstances such as this are hard-pressed 
to evaluate ourselves, to evaluate where we ourselves made 
mistakes.
    Chief Pittman, you were there at the time, so you are not 
objective in that sense. And you may have done everything 
exactly right, but the issue is that you were part of it. And 
so, therefore, the question is, how can we get to the right 
overall answers?
    And so in that spirit what I would like to ask is, first of 
all, just for clarification, exactly what investigations of any 
kind do you know are underway right now, aside from obviously 
the oversight function of Congress itself, including this 
subcommittee?
    My understanding is that we basically have at least three 
that I know of.
    The first, of course, is the General Honore study, which is 
focused on the physical security of the Capitol complex.
    The second is the Architect of the Capitol, which is 
similarly focused on physical security in which he at least has 
some outside input through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 
their area of expertise.
    I also believe, Chief Pittman, that you have referred to an 
internal U.S. Capitol Police review. And so I will just go with 
you, Chief.
    First of all, is that correct? Do you have your own review 
underway?
    And are either of you aware of any other, more formal 
active reviews?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir.
    So Capitol Police does house what we call the Security 
Services Bureau. It is primarily responsible for securing 
national security documents, as well as our physical security 
implementation of equipment and/or procedures.
    So Security Services Bureau is conducting an internal 
assessment. The Office of the Inspector General is also 
conducting an assessment. That would be considered external to 
Capitol Police.
    You already mentioned the task force that is being led by 
General Honore. They are conducting an assessment primarily as 
it relates to infrastructure, as well as some of our policies 
and procedures.
    And then, lastly, the GAO is also conducting an assessment 
of the January 6 event.
    Mr. Case. Okay. So let me just go to those.
    So when you refer to the Office of the Inspector General, 
just for my own clarification, what are you referring to there? 
That is not the GAO. It is who?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. So the Office of Inspector 
General is independent of Capitol Police. They provide 
oversight typically to the Capitol Police Board and some of our 
appropriators as to the operations, if you will, to Capitol 
Police.
    They not only do this for incidents like the January 6 
event, this is an ongoing independent review that is routinely 
analyzing Capitol Police's policies and procedures.
    And then, once they make those analyzations, they then turn 
that information over to the board and make recommendations 
that Capitol Police must adhere to, to ensure that we are 
adhering to the best practices for a Federal agency.
    And I would just turn it over to Mr. Blodgett in case he 
has any additional as it relates to the OIG.
    Mr. Blodgett. Thank you, Chief.
    The inspector general is going through and investigating 
various points along the January 6 timeframe, the different 
units, and will be coming out with a series of reports on that.
    Other than the reviews that the Chief has spoken of, I am 
unaware of any other independent review, other than the 
criminal cases that are going on.
    Mr. Case. Well, there is certainly the overall review by 
the FBI, which we haven't really made reference to, but, 
obviously, that is underway.
    So going back to the question of adequate independent, 
objective review and advice, you know, it strikes me that the 
physical infrastructure side of this, that is a very difficult 
question with a lot of difficult decisions to be made at the 
end of the day. But it is more about a physical structure to 
protect the Capitol and its inhabitants.
    What we are really at in these hearings, I think, far more 
is the organizational structure of the Capitol, whether that 
structure worked, which I think we all have concluded it 
didn't, whether the failures were failures of people under 
difficult circumstances or failures of systems or exactly where 
those failures occurred, and how can we correct for those to 
ensure that they don't get repeated.
    And so, Chief Pittman--and I would also observe the 
Architect of the Capitol yesterday observed the possibility of 
engaging other parts of our Federal Government who have dealt 
with similar crisis management situations and have come up with 
their own best practices. For example, the Architect mentioned 
the Department of Defense, also the Secret Service.
    Chief Pittman, I have got ask you pretty straight, because 
I am concerned about your objectivity, not you personally, 
Chief, but somebody in your situation who, again, was, you 
know, there, have the responsibility and obligation and, as you 
said, friendship with many of your colleagues.
    I am concerned about the ability in that context to develop 
that kind of independent, objective review that I think any of 
us would want. I mean, it would be comparable to asking a 
Member of Congress to investigate and conclude ethics 
investigations against him or her. So that just doesn't happen, 
right?
    So what do you think? Do you think that we have the right 
processes in place to get to the bottom of this and to make the 
corrective judgments that we have to make going forward? Do you 
see a need for any further review or structure, or what do you 
think about the possibilities of the DOD and/or the Secret 
Service or some other structure?
    I think I would add to that--excuse me, Chair--I would add 
to that that Mr. Amodei's line of questioning was resonant with 
me in terms of looking at a more holistic view of this, meaning 
an across-the-board review, where we are not thinking in terms 
of stovepipes.
    My observation here is that there is a lot of stovepiping 
going on and not a whole bunch of communication across the 
board, and that structure broke down. And in that way it is not 
all that dissimilar to some of the critical and tragic, in 
retrospect, mistakes in systems that occurred around 9/11.
    So how do we crack through all of this, Chief? What is your 
thought on it?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. So I know that there are the 
three independent after-action reviews, if you will, in 
addition to U.S. Capitol Police's internal assessment by the 
groups that I identified.
    It is also my understanding that at the Speaker's request 
there is going to be a 9/11-style commission, if you will, 
similar to what occurred after the 9/11, September 11, attacks.
    So I believe that those groups of independent evaluators 
will come in and advise things that we can do in addition to 
what the external evaluators will provide as well.
    So I think that is going to be key and prudent going 
forward, soliciting those from outside of even the 
organizations that we have named, that would come in and 
provide that independent assessment and review to state how we 
would go forward, particularly in the long term.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Chair.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Chief.
    Thanks, Mr. Case.
    Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I appreciate both of you being here with us this morning.
    Kind of along the same lines as Mr. Case's questions, both 
of you are members of the Capitol Police Board where--you 
weren't at the time of January 6, but, as the structure is, 
your positions are. And you receive information from different 
agencies about threats to the Capitol, et cetera. We have heard 
that process.
    We learned earlier this week from testimony given in the 
Senate that the Capitol Police Board did not receive an FBI 
threat report warning that there were people traveling to 
Washington to commit acts of violence.
    Ms. Pittman, you on January 6 were the Assistant Chief of 
Police of the Department of Protective and Intelligence 
Operations. I hope I have that title correct. This morning I 
believe I heard you say that the Capitol Police did, in fact, 
receive this said report on January 5.
    So, I guess, kind of like I said, along the lines of Mr. 
Case's questioning, tell me what should have happened or what 
you did to make sure the police board got that very important 
information. Or they say they didn't. So why didn't they, and 
what happened? What broke down to where a critical piece of 
intelligence was not shared with the decisionmakers that maybe 
could have allowed a better preparation prior to January 6?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir.
    So that FBI document that was shared on the evening of the 
5th, it was shared with task force agents that are embedded 
from Capitol Police with the FBI.
    They, in turn, sent that email that they received to a 
lieutenant within the Protective and Intelligence Operations 
side of the House. That information was not then forwarded any 
further up the chain.
    So that is a lessons learned for U.S. Capitol Police. And I 
have put in corrective measures to ensure that going forward 
information is shared in a timely fashion and it is shared 
appropriately going up the chain of command.
    With that said, we do not believe that based on the 
information in that document we would have changed our posture 
per se. The information that was shared was very similar to 
what U.S. Capitol Police already had in terms of the militia 
groups, the White supremacist groups, as well as the extremists 
that were going to participate in acts of violence and 
potentially be harmed--armed, I should say--on the campus.
    So moving forward, we have put in corrective internal 
controls to ensure that information is shared in a timely 
fashion, because we understand that that was a breakdown in 
communication. We own that and we have taken protective--
corrective measures to change that going forward.
    Mr. Newhouse. But you just said, if I understood you, that 
even if it had moved up the chain, you wouldn't have done 
anything different.
    Acting Chief Pittman. That is correct, sir. We do not 
believe that that document in and of itself would have changed 
our posture. We believe it was consistent with the information 
and intelligence that we already had, that those groups were 
going to be violent and they were expected to participate in 
unlawful activity on the campus.
    The one thing that we were already leaning forward and 
asking for was additional resources as it relates to the 
request for the National Guard. That request at that time had 
already been denied. And we made that request repeatedly after 
January 5, to include several more denials before the National 
Guard were actually on campus. So that would be the request 
that we did make after the fact.
    Mr. Newhouse. Well, I appreciate that.
    Mr. Chairman, would it be proper to ask for the committee 
to be able to see firsthand copies of some of these reports 
that are being referred to? That would give us better 
information and context as to what they were seeing.
    Mr. Ryan. Yes, absolutely.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
    One more question. I know my time is running short, but I 
appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
    While I was on the floor of the House as the building was 
being broken into, my staff was in Cannon, in my office in the 
Cannon Building, and at that time there was a pipe bomb that 
had been discovered near the Cannon Building. So we received--
but let me just try to recount that day as accurately as I can.
    My staff received an emergency notification from the 
Capitol Police about an evacuation of the Madison Building. I 
believe that was at 1:10 p.m. The next communication that they 
received from the Capitol Police were officers running down the 
hallway, banging on doors, and yelling to people to evacuate 
immediately, not identifying themselves. So there was a little 
bit of vagueness as who was telling people to come out of their 
offices.
    And then it wasn't until nearly 15 minutes later, after 
they had evacuated, that they received official notification 
about the evacuation of the Cannon Building. That was at 1:23.
    So, I guess, as an Appropriations Committee, my question 
has to do with, despite substantial resources that we have 
appropriated to your department, at the request, obviously, of 
your predecessors, the emergency notification system seems to 
continue to have issues.
    And so, Madam Pittman, I would just like to ask the 
question, under your management now, what kind of changes are 
you looking at to rectify the notification system?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Sorry. I was having a little trouble 
with the mute button.
    Yes, sir. So we have made a number of changes going forward 
as it relates to our communications, one primarily being those 
canned messages that the department refers to in our Joint 
Emergency Mass Notification System. I believe that Mr. Blodgett 
referred it to earlier as well.
    We understand that those pre-prepared messages, if you 
will, do not give the congressional community in times of 
critical incidents enough information to proceed accordingly on 
the campus. So we are working with our Command Center staff to 
make sure that they are not just pushing out those pre-prepared 
messages, but actually providing more accurate, timely 
information to the community.
    We are also leaning forward, working with our law 
enforcement partners, as well as community partners like D.C. 
HSEMA, to make sure that our community notifications and 
improvements are coming from the U.S. Capitol Police's Command 
Center.
    We have also implemented several daily calls as it relates 
to intelligence and the information that we are able to share 
in a timely fashion by embedding not only our agents and some 
of the known law enforcement leaders as it relates to 
intelligence--for example, the FBI--but we also have the law 
enforcement intelligence leaders embedded now here at Capitol 
Police. We believe that that will help to streamline the 
relaying of that information.
    And also to piggyback just on one of your other questions 
as it relates to the FBI document, and it ties right into how 
we are streamlining communications, the FBI already has a Joint 
Terrorism Task Force executive committee, if you will, that is 
responsible for sharing all important communications with law 
enforcement leaders.
    We believe that that intelligence document, if it had been 
priority--and as I stated before, it states on the document 
itself it wasn't for action--we do understand that that 
executive committee would have streamlined the communication 
with law enforcement leaders, if you will, not just hearing it 
at the lowest level.
    Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Newhouse. Let me just observe about the notifications. 
The substance of the message, that wasn't the issue. My 
conjection is that if there is a 15-minute delay in emergency 
notifications, then really there is not an emergency 
notification.
    And by the way, those other notifications you are talking 
about are helpful, but they are kind of like the boy that cried 
wolf. If we get six or eight notifications for one incident in 
a building on campus, pretty soon you stop looking at them, 
just to throw that out there.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I know I am over my time, but would you 
allow me one more question?
    Mr. Ryan. Yes, since I love you. Go ahead. Make it quick. 
And let's have a quick answer, too, from Mr. Blodgett.
    Mr. Newhouse. I will make it really quick.
    This is to Mr. Blodgett. And I know you have heard this 
question before, but I didn't hear it this morning so I wanted 
to bring it up.
    You said at a briefing the other day that it is your 
decision here. But I just want to ask about the magnetometers 
entering the Chamber of the House.
    Tell me what the security rationale there is for placing 
those there. You know, as Members, we don't have to pass 
through these devices to enter any other location on campus. So 
I am just curious as to what causes the threat to be imminent 
right there on the House floor.
    And then, to your knowledge, is there any exceptions to 
Members who--whether or not they have to pass through there?
    And this is not meant to be a political dig, but this was 
an observation on the 4th of this month that Speaker Pelosi was 
observed entering the House Chamber without going through the 
metal detectors that she, herself, I believe, have ordered to 
be in place.
    So could you reflect on those questions for me?
    Mr. Blodgett. Thank you, sir.
    After the briefing, my attorney slapped me in the head and 
reminded me that the House voted H. Res. 73 and directed fines 
for complete screening security at the entrances to the 
Chamber. So the screening at this point is within the House 
rule and we are there to enforce the rule.
    In terms of putting up the magnetometers, we had Members 
stating that they were carrying on the House floor. 40 U.S.C. 
5104 states that firearms aren't allowed in the Capitol.
    However, the Capitol Police Board can have regulations to 
deal with that. There is a 1967 Capitol Police Board regulation 
that states that firearms are not allowed on the House floor.
    So I have to protect all the Members. I have to protect 
them anywhere. Congress is particularly suited to change that 
if they don't want me to enforce the statutes that they enact.
    And in terms of enforcement, I rely on the Capitol Police, 
who are the experts in the screening, to tell me if a Member 
has not adequately gone through security screening.
    Once I receive the report from the Capitol Police, that is 
when I impose the fine, not because someone said, hey, they 
didn't do it. They are not the experts. The Capitol Police are 
the experts.
    Mr. Newhouse. Are there exceptions to the usage of this--to 
the requirement to go through?
    Mr. Blodgett. No exceptions. There may be someone with a 
medical exception card, which will be consistent with the 
Capitol Police screening. There are methods that the Capitol 
Police have to deal with that. So, if there is a medical 
exception, that will be different, but that will be consistent 
with the Capitol Police policies.
    Mr. Newhouse. All right. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
    Chief Pittman, I just want to follow up on something that 
Mr. Newhouse brought up, and this has been kind of a theme 
throughout the hearing here. You are saying the FBI document 
wouldn't change anything. And, you know, the average person 
sitting in Ohio right now is saying, ``Wait a minute. You got 
this information through the Capitol Police. The FBI was saying 
the same thing.'' It is a whole other issue that that didn't 
make its way up to you or to Chief Sund. That is a whole other 
issue about communication and all the rest.
    But when we are sitting here having this conversation the 
average person is saying, ``You are getting all this 
information of threats. You know these groups are going to be 
down there. What is your definition of a credible threat?''
    And it is not that you would necessarily have to do 
something super-, like, proactive and go after anybody, but, 
knowing all that, knowing the tone and the tenor in the 
country, knowing the rally was happening, why wouldn't we have 
been prepared for the worst-case scenario? That is what the 
average American is sitting home thinking about.
    So, in a pointed way, can you tell us very clearly, what is 
your definition of a credible threat?
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Absolutely.
    So a credible threat is a threat that can be acted upon. 
What is the intention? Is there an opportunity for the 
individuals to actively engage in this threat? Do they have 
access to the means of making that happen?
    As it relates to U.S. Capitol Police changing its posture 
because of that FBI document, I believe that the clarification 
should be that we were already leaning forward based on that 
January 3 assessment. So we were already leaning forward to 
increase those CDU platoons, we changed the security perimeter 
plan, and all of those things that I mentioned as it relates to 
how we beefed up what we had.
    With that said, I agree with you, Chairman. Hindsight is 
20/20. There are numerous lessons to be learned. If we were 
planning for a level 6, I believe that Chief Sund, if he could 
get that day back, would have planned for a level 10 security 
posture. We would have had assets and resources on the ground 
prior to. We would have changed from bike rack to the global 
fencing that we have in place now. But all of that is lessons 
learned.
    And we still have a lot more to learn. But I think that it 
should be acknowledged that we were already preparing for what 
we knew was going to be violent acts and civil disobedience for 
that day, bringing in essentially every employee we had 
available to us and reaching out to our law enforcement 
partners to make sure that we had some pre-staged, if you will, 
which is why we had the immediate response from the 
Metropolitan Police Department. We are so thankful for them, as 
well as the U.S. Secret Service.
    With that said, there were those additional requests for 
the National Guard. So there were several security enhancements 
that were requested, but, with that said, it wasn't enough. It 
was not enough.
    Mr. Ryan. I don't understand why Chief Sund and yourself 
weren't pushing for a full vote at the board. That, to me--if 
it was such a priority for you, then why wouldn't you say, ``I 
want to force a board vote, let's bring in the Architect of the 
Capitol, you know, we want to know exactly''--I mean, to me, it 
is, you know--and you are right, hindsight is 20/20. But, given 
everything going on, and there are going to be 15,000 people up 
the street, you know, to me, you adding two more dignitary 
protection people here or there and a couple people to go into 
the crowd, that is fine, and that is needed, but the reality of 
it is, even if you got to the National Guard, it was just a few 
hundred. We needed the whole thousand at the D.C. and Maryland 
and Virginia and all of that.
    And so, to me, it is--you took the intelligence and I feel 
like you didn't put it all together and synthesize it in a way 
and go, ``Holy cow, I mean, something really bad can happen 
here, and, given everything else going on, we need to be ready 
for that.''
    And I don't think saying that, well, the Secret Service, 
you know, didn't see a threat either--that, to me, doesn't cut 
it either, because who cares? So they got it wrong too.
    Like, I mean, that is the underlying issue here. And really 
just trying to understand--moving forward, I think it is going 
to be important for us to really understand what is a credible 
threat in this new reality that we are living in.
    Ms. Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to the witnesses for appearing today and for 
everything that you do to keep our community safe.
    And I want to thank you also for acknowledging the officers 
who died as a result of the events of January 6 in your written 
testimony and in your testimony here today.
    Chief Pittman, I just want to be absolutely clear for the 
record, do you acknowledge that the death of Officer Brian 
Sicknick was a line-of-duty death?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am, I do.
    Ms. Wexton. Do you acknowledge that Officer Howard 
Liebengood's death was a line-of-duty death?
    Acting Chief Pittman. I can't speak to that at this time, 
ma'am.
    Ms. Wexton. So you are not going to acknowledge that it was 
as a result of the events on January 6 that Howard Liebengood 
is no longer with us?
    Acting Chief Pittman. I cannot speak to that at this time.
    Ms. Wexton. Why can't you speak to it at this time?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Because it is still under active 
investigation.
    Ms. Wexton. Well, do you acknowledge--I know that he is not 
your officer, but would you acknowledge that Officer Jeffrey 
Smith, who was MPD, that his death was a line-of-duty death?
    Acting Chief Pittman. I am sorry, Officer Jeffrey Smith is 
not a U.S. Capitol Police officer.
    Ms. Wexton. So you are not going to acknowledge that his 
death was a line-of-duty death either?
    Acting Chief Pittman. I am sorry, ma'am. He is not our 
officer, U.S. Capitol Police.
    Ms. Wexton. So I am kind of concerned--and I know that the 
ranking member brought up, you know, that there was a vote of 
no confidence for you in the union. And I am kind of concerned 
because you are not standing by your officers. I think it is 
very clear that Officer Liebengood would still be with us today 
but for the events of January 6. And the fact that you are not 
willing to stand by him today is very concerning to me.
    Now, the Capitol Police does offer death gratuities for 
survivors of all officers. Is that correct?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am. As I stated before, I 
have been on this organization for over 20 years now. I do 
stand with my officers, and there is a large number of officers 
that have expressed that they stand with me----
    Ms. Wexton. Ma'am, the question--Captain, the--Chief, the 
question was----
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Wexton [continuing]. Does the Capitol Police offer 
death gratuities to survivors for all officers for any reason 
that they may have passed away?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am, we do.
    Ms. Wexton. And can you confirm whether this has been--at 
least been processed for the family of Officer Liebengood?
    Acting Chief Pittman. I am sorry, could you repeat the 
question?
    Ms. Wexton. Has that death gratuity been processed for the 
family of Officer Liebengood, that his survivors will receive 
that payment?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am, it has.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Thank you.
    Acting Chief Pittman. You are welcome.
    Ms. Wexton. Now, I want to talk a little bit more about the 
logistics and the number of officers that were on duty on 
January 6 and what you did to prepare.
    Now, on an average Sunday when Congress is not in session, 
what would the staffing levels be at the Capitol grounds with 
Capitol Police? About how many would be on duty?
    Acting Chief Pittman. So, on an average day, our manpower 
is driven by whether Congress is in session or out. During the 
COVID-19 pandemic, Capitol Police lean forward with an 
aggressive ready reserve posture. So we typically----
    Ms. Wexton. So, I am sorry, the question was, what would 
the number of officers be on, let's say, an average Sunday when 
the Congress is not in session?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. So I would say less than 700.
    Ms. Wexton. And how about on an average Wednesday when 
Congress is in session?
    Acting Chief Pittman. So those numbers, upward--pass 1,000.
    Ms. Wexton. So that is just an average Wednesday when----
    Acting Chief Pittman. It depends on a lot of--I am sorry. 
It depends on a lot of factors, but that is kind of average.
    Ms. Wexton. So over a thousand?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. And how many would be on duty for some 
sort of special dignitary event like a State of the Union? How 
many officers would you have on duty for that?
    Acting Chief Pittman. That would pretty much be our full 
complement, with the exception, we would adjust shifts even for 
our midnight officers; they would come in early.
    So it is not as cut-and-dry as ``we have X number of 
people.'' It just depends on the timing of the event. But that 
is typically a full-hands-on-deck, if you will, for lack of a 
better term.
    Ms. Wexton. And can you give us some sort of ballpark 
number of about what all-hands-on-deck would entail in terms of 
numbers?
    Acting Chief Pittman. U.S. Capitol Police's full strength 
right now is over 1,800 officers.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay.
    Acting Chief Pittman. But, with that said, there is a 
complement of officers that would come and relieve those who 
had worked, let's just say, a 16-hour shift, because we are a 
24/7 operation.
    Ms. Wexton. And how many did you plan to have on duty prior 
to the January 3 assessment? So, prior to getting that 
assessment and making the adjustments that you outline in your 
testimony, how many did you plan to have on duty?
    Acting Chief Pittman. So the adjustments were made 
primarily to our civil disturbance units. A civil disturbance 
unit is comprised of what we----
    Ms. Wexton. I am just asking you for numbers, Chief 
Pittman. I am just asking you for numbers. So----
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, I am just----
    Ms. Wexton [continuing]. How many did you plan to have on 
duty?
    Acting Chief Pittman [continuing]. Giving it context. We 
went from approximately four platoons to seven.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. And what do those----
    Acting Chief Pittman. A platoon is----
    Ms. Wexton [continuing]. Numbers mean?
    Acting Chief Pittman [continuing]. 40 officers.
    Ms. Wexton. I am sorry?
    Acting Chief Pittman. We went up to 276 officers for civil 
disturbance units.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. But the other officers stayed the same.
    Acting Chief Pittman. No, ma'am. We also--we were prepared 
for a 24-hour session, if you will, based on the number of 
challenges that would be allowed as it relates to the electoral 
votes being counted. We knew that there were a number of hours 
that each State could contest those electoral votes, so we 
prepared for going over 24 hours with our officers. So our 
officers were strategically positioned so that we would have 
coverage from 0800 hours on the 6th all the way through January 
7, so over a 24-hour period.
    Ms. Wexton. So between 1,000 officers on an average day and 
1,800 officers on a State of the Union-type day, how many 
officers were you expecting to have present for January 6?
    Acting Chief Pittman. So we had 1,200 officers at 
approximately 12:00 p.m. On that day.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay.
    Acting Chief Pittman. And then by 1600 hours we had 1,400 
officers on the campus on January 6. But the full----
    Ms. Wexton. But even before you got that intelligence, you 
knew that you were going to have the first, second, and third 
officials in line for the Presidency all in the same place at 
the same time, correct?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. So you would think that you would make it 
more of a security--more along the lines of a State of the 
Union than, you know, an average day. And it sounds like, even 
with the threat assessment, it was kind of still treated like 
an average day.
    Acting Chief Pittman. No, ma'am. There----
    Ms. Wexton. Now, there was--I am sorry. My time is----
    Acting Chief Pittman. Okay.
    Ms. Wexton. I don't want to waste my time.
    There has been some talk about this January 3 Special 
Assessment from your office, which went out on that Sunday. Is 
that correct? Sunday, January 3, right?
    Acting Chief Pittman. I am sorry?
    Ms. Wexton. That Special Assessment from January 3, that 
came out on a Sunday and was disseminated to staff within the 
Capitol Police, right?
    Acting Chief Pittman. That was widely distributed within 
the department, yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Now, in your written testimony, you said 
it was emailed to all officers above the rank of sergeant.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
    Ms. Wexton. Does that mean sergeant and above or 
lieutenants and above?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Above the--lieutenants and above.
    Ms. Wexton. So isn't it the sergeants who handle the roll 
call and have the most contact with the day-to-day officers on 
the street?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Wexton, I apologize; 
that is sergeant and above.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. So it did include sergeant.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Wexton. Good.
    And then there was some discussion from Representative 
Clark and Representative Newhouse about these daily 
intelligence reports that came out in the days following. Is 
that right? You acknowledge that those exist, right?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
    Ms. Wexton. And that they were disseminated to the Sergeant 
at Arms, the Architect of the Capitol, the various folks within 
the Capitol Police as well?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, that is correct.
    Ms. Wexton. And you acknowledge that the threat assessments 
in those were down to remote, highly improbable, or improbable. 
Is that right?
    Acting Chief Pittman. That is a separate assessment from 
the report that was issued on January 3, but that is correct.
    Ms. Wexton. Right. But they were subsequent reports that 
went out and were disseminated by the Capitol Police. Is that 
right?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, that is correct.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. And you are going to provide those to 
this committee. Is that right?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. Absolutely. Yes, ma'am, I will.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Very good.
    I want to follow up very briefly on a question from the 
ranking member about the command and the communications.
    Who made the call for the commanders to leave the incident 
command center and assist officers under assault? Is that a 
protocol? Is that a fail-safe? I mean, what do you do when that 
happens?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Leave the command center?
    Ms. Wexton. You were talking about the communications 
center and that is why the officers on the ground were left to 
fend for themselves when it came to communications.
    Acting Chief Pittman. No, it is referred to as the incident 
command system, not the command center itself.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay, the incident command system.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
    Ms. Wexton. Who made the decision for that center to be 
abandoned, that incident command system to be abandoned?
    Acting Chief Pittman. No, it is not a physical place. It is 
a policy and procedure that we have, that we train to for 
critical incidents, if you will.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. So that you will have one line of 
communication coming from the top down to all the officers on 
the ground? Is that what the purpose of it is?
    Acting Chief Pittman. It doesn't align one communication 
down from the top. It is a structured system. It is tiered. The 
person with boots on the ground has certain responsibilities. 
And then it defines each of those persons in the incident 
command structure, what their role and responsibility is.
    Ms. Wexton. So is it safe to say that that structure failed 
on January 6?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Thank you.
    Now, the United States Capitol Police is notoriously 
opaque. You guys have had zero public press conferences in your 
department in the nearly 2 months since the attack.
    Now, having this kind of a news vacuum creates a community 
where conspiracy theories and misinformation can spread easily. 
That is obviously something that is very concerning to all of 
us.
    Why haven't you had any public press briefings?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am. So U.S. Capitol Police 
has issued a number of press releases. But, with that said, we 
felt like the primary responsibility after an attack like 
January 6 was really to focus on our employees, their health 
and well-being, as well as providing the necessary information 
to our oversight committees.
    So we have streamlined those communications, set up regular 
calls with oversight and core leadership. So we make sure that 
we communicate with them on a regular basis.
    Ms. Wexton. But it has been almost 2 months. Will you 
commit to having public press briefings in the future, from 
this point going forward?
    Acting Chief Pittman. No, ma'am, not at this time.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. And I know that you are Acting Chief 
right now. If you become the full-on Chief and you are 
confirmed as Chief, would you agree to have them at that point? 
Or is it just this is not something that you are interested in 
doing ever?
    Acting Chief Pittman. My priorities would still be my 
employees, first and foremost. And I know that I am to respond 
appropriately and timely to the oversight committees that 
govern not only the U.S. Capitol Police but the Capitol Police 
Board.
    Ms. Wexton. All right. So you will answer our questions but 
not those of the press. Is that what I am getting from you?
    Acting Chief Pittman. No, ma'am, I am not saying that I 
would not answer questions of the press. But leaning forward, 
as we go forward, my priorities still would remain with the 
workforce and to the committees that provide oversight, as well 
as our appropriators.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Thank you.
    And I just have one final question. As a Member who 
represents a chunk of the national capital metro region, you 
know, looking at all these fences and having these fences 
around what really is a beautiful public park on any other day 
is disturbing and not sustainable, in my mind.
    Chief Pittman and Mr. Blodgett--because I don't want you to 
feel left out, Mr. Blodgett--can you reassure us that the 
fencing around the Capitol is not permanent?
    Mr. Blodgett, we will start with you.
    Mr. Blodgett. In my mind, it is not permanent, no.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Thank you.
    How about you, Chief Pittman?
    Acting Chief Pittman. No. The temporary infrastructure is 
only to address the vulnerabilities after the attack of January 
6. Our priority is to make sure that the Members of Congress 
are safe and that democratic process is protected.
    Once we have appropriate infrastructure and human assets in 
place, we will lean forward with the removal of the fencing.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I am confident that my time has expired. 
I didn't see the timer going off, but thank you so much for 
your indulgence, and I will yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Yeah. Appreciate it. Great questions.
    And let me just say, Chief, I think, you know, we can do 
both. We appreciate your communications with us, and that has 
improved dramatically, but we also think the American people 
and the press need to hear directly from you.
    So I would just encourage you to take some time, you know, 
in making sure that--the residents of Capitol Hill, Washington, 
D.C., the people around the country, after having watched what 
happened, would benefit from hearing from you directly.
    With that, our final member, Mr. Espaillat.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you.
    Right now, I am sort of like the Mariano Rivera of this 
committee. A lot of the questions have been asked. But, Chief, 
I want to thank you, and, Sergeant at Arms, I want to thank you 
for coming forward today.
    I want to ask you, Chief, was there any sweep of the 
Capitol or the premises around the Capitol ordered for 
explosives during the days leading up to January 6?
    I ask that question because, as I came to my office that 
morning, early in the morning, I was walking on the sidewalk by 
Rayburn with some of the protesters. So, obviously, they were 
in the vicinity of the Capitol and around the compound, 
perhaps, of the Capitol much before the actual insurrection 
occurred or the breaching of the Capitol occurred.
    So I wanted to know whether you had ordered the sweep of 
the office buildings and the Capitol compound for any potential 
explosives.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. So U.S. Capitol Police does 
daily sweeps of the congressional campus. But, specifically on 
large events that are planned for the day, we have K-9 
detection dogs as well as additional bomb, HDS units, hazardous 
device section. But those officers go out and conduct sweeps, 
and they do what we call ``button up the premises'' when we 
implement what is restricted to Members and staff.
    But to answer your question, yes, sir.
    Mr. Espaillat. Yeah, but I am referring--for example, I am 
on Rayburn, and as I was coming up Rayburn by the horseshoe 
area--are you familiar with that area?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir, very familiar.
    Mr. Espaillat. Okay. So you know the area. And there are 
green areas there. And, of course, it is a drive-through 
horseshoe-shaped entrance to that part of Rayburn. And there 
are green areas all around Longworth and, of course, Cannon as 
well. And people were just--members of this insurrectionist 
group were walking around there very early in the morning.
    Was there any sweep whatsoever of those areas for any 
potential explosives?
    Acting Chief Pittman. So the Capitol itself is what was 
closed off. Of course, we had the inaugural platform that had 
been closed for a period of time on the west side of the 
Capitol Building and then the east front. But the areas that 
you are referring to outside of the Longworth and Cannon were 
actually open to the public. But those sweeps [inaudible] At 
the Capitol Building.
    Sorry, I think my system cut off.
    Mr. Espaillat. Yeah. So no sweeps occurred around Cannon, 
Longworth, or Rayburn, where most of the Members obviously were 
before the protest, the insurrection came to the Capitol 
Building.
    Or nothing occurred, also, the day before, in preparation 
for the assault on Congress?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. So U.S. Capitol Police--and 
probably I just was a little confused as it relates to your 
question. Specifically for the Capitol Building and/or for the 
congressional office buildings, House or Senate side, U.S. 
Capitol Police conducts daily sweeps, not just for this major 
event. But for the event itself, we closed off a portion of the 
grounds over at the Capitol.
    But, to answer your question, that is daily that we conduct 
K-9 sweeps. We have specialized trained dogs, if you will, that 
do a sweep of the premises, and that is on a regular basis.
    Mr. Espaillat. So that was done on the day and the prior 
days?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
    Mr. Espaillat. How extensive was that, given that you were 
expecting some level of protests in front of the Capitol and 
the surrounding areas? How extensive was the sweep effort that 
you conducted? Was it as you always do it on a regular basis, 
or did you intensify it?
    Acting Chief Pittman. We sweep our grounds, yes, sir, like 
I said, on a daily basis. So we use a number of deployments of 
K-9 capabilities. But I think that if we want to go into more 
granular details we probably should talk more in a classified 
setting.
    Mr. Espaillat. Okay.
    Now, you also, obviously, coordinate with local law 
enforcement and the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. And 
the RNC offices and the DNC offices are relatively close to the 
Capitol area. In fact, you know, I walk to the DNC offices. It 
is a two-block walk from where I am right now. And there have 
been reports that pipe bombs were found near those offices, 
near the RNC and the DNC offices.
    Were there any sweeps for explosives in those areas prior 
or during January 6?
    Acting Chief Pittman. No, sir, no sweeps were done at the 
RNC/DNC prior to January 6. Those areas are off our Capitol 
Grounds proper. It is not in line with our primary 
jurisdiction, if you will.
    Mr. Espaillat. So was there any communication with local 
law enforcement? And since you conduct sweeps on a regular 
basis here, as you testify, in Longworth, Cannon, and Rayburn, 
was there any conversation with law enforcement about potential 
sweeps for explosives in those two sites?
    Acting Chief Pittman. So, no, sir. We conduct daily 
intelligence briefs with our law enforcement partners. Right 
before the 6th, there was a call with all the law enforcement 
in the region. But as it relates to them doing sweeps of the 
extended jurisdiction, there was no conversation specific to 
that.
    Mr. Espaillat. I mean, it may be an extended jurisdiction, 
but this is just a block away, basically. So it is within eye 
view of the Capitol, of Rayburn and Longworth.
    The reason why I ask this, Chief, is because a potential 
next attack may not necessarily be the way it occurred on 
January 6. And so I am concerned that your sweeping operations 
for explosives may have to be improved and increased 
dramatically to keep us all safe.
    I think that it is important that you come back to us at 
another point with more detailed information about your 
capability to do this and whether or not, in fact--how 
extensive was it done on January 6 or the days before the 
seditious insurrection. I think it is important that we have 
that information and that you have the capability to do that 
kind of work.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Thank you, sir. Yes, we----
    Mr. Ryan. Go ahead. Go ahead, Chief.
    Acting Chief Pittman. I am sorry, sir.
    Yes, we will evaluate that. I know that the task force that 
has been assigned has already leaned forward in making 
recommendations in that area.
    With that said, while there were no sweeps done of the RNC/
DNC prior to the 6th, we have coordinated routine patrols, 
posting officers in a marked unit outside of those areas, to 
ensure the safety of the community.
    But as it relates to K-9 specifically, we will lean forward 
with those recommendations and look forward to hearing what 
those assessments suggest and, you know, proceed accordingly.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat, for doing that.
    So just a couple quick followups, Chief.
    My understanding was that the K-9 units weren't sweeping. 
Are you clear on that?
    Acting Chief Pittman. We are not sweeping----
    Mr. Ryan. You were saying, we were leaning in, all hands on 
deck. My understanding was that there were a lot of dogs in the 
K-9 unit that weren't being used. Is that true?
    Acting Chief Pittman. I will follow up on the number of 
dogs being used, but I can tell you right now that we did 
conduct sweeps of the campus on January 6. There is no doubt 
about that.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. But it was, like----
    Acting Chief Pittman. As to the number of dogs that were 
used to participate in the sweeps, I would follow up on the 
specific number. But as far as the sweep of the campus, those 
happen daily.
    Mr. Ryan. Yeah. No, I am just saying, the previous answers 
that you gave were ``all hands on deck,'' ``leaning in,'' all 
of that, and if there were not enough sweeps happening, not 
enough dogs happening--because the pipe bombs, were they called 
in or were they the spotted? How did you find that information 
out?
    Acting Chief Pittman. The RNC owner notified us.
    But going back to what you said about the sweeps, no, we 
are very clear on that, as far as them sweeping the campus.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Ryan. You are saying that--I just want to be very 
clear, because your position has been throughout the last 2\1/
2\ hours--and we thank you for all your time--that it was all 
hands on deck. And I remember yesterday, I think it was Captain 
Mendoza was saying she was on her way home and had to get 
called back. So what does that mean? I mean, that, to me, 
doesn't seem like all hands on deck if people were----
    Acting Chief Pittman. Absolutely, and thank you, Chairman 
Ryan, for providing us the opportunity to clarify.
    ``All hands on deck'' doesn't mean that they are all here 
at the same time. ``All hands on deck'' means that we were 
preparing for an operational period that would exceed 24 hours. 
So we bring in the bulk of the workforce during the heightened 
periods that we expect demonstrations, but we do understand 
that our workforce is human. They can't just continually work--
--
    Mr. Ryan. Sure.
    Acting Chief Pittman [continuing]. Exceedingly past 24 
hours. So there is a contingent of the workforce that comes in 
to provide relief for those that have been here in excess of 20 
hours, sir.
    Mr. Ryan. I gotcha.
    We have gotten a lot of information here. I want to ask one 
final question. I will just say--and I want to thank all of the 
committee members for great questions on both sides of the 
aisle.
    You know, a lot of disappointments here with the 
information flow not getting to where it needs to be, but also 
the response. Again, what is a credible threat? Many of us 
would think that that information that was being presented was 
a credible threat.
    The lack of pushing from you guys, on your side, both Chief 
Sund and yourself, to push the board to have a vote, to push 
harder and harder, because, you know, the end result is the 
rank-and-file men and women ended up, you know, being put in a 
situation that we believe they shouldn't have been in. The lack 
of equipment.
    Clearly, there wasn't a review of the training. I mean, I 
was here years ago when the Governor of Kentucky's plane 
started flying in the airspace coming towards the Capitol, and 
the evacuation from us was, ``Run like hell,'' you know? We 
were all just running out. So that was, I can't remember, 10-
plus years ago, if not more.
    So there are all these issues that we absolutely need to 
deal with moving forward.
    The one question that I get most when I am home in 
northeast Ohio is the issue around the use of force. Because it 
was clear that the men and women on the front lines weren't 
sure what to do as far as how to respond to what was happening.
    And, again, that tells me that there wasn't the level of 
training beforehand or clarity coming from command throughout 
the incidents, which we have heard on multiple occasions from 
many of the rank-and-file members.
    So what was the use-of-force rules-of-engagement policy for 
the rank-and-file members on January 6?
    Acting Chief Pittman. So the U.S. Capitol Police use-of-
force policy has not changed. Based on the type of event that 
we are responding to, our officers are required to use the 
amount of force that is necessary in any given situation. 
However, as it relates to lethal force, our officers are only 
permitted to engage in lethal force for the protection of life, 
either their own or to protect another person's life. As it 
relates to the protection of property, our officers did use 
less-than-lethal force, which is what they are permitted to do.
    Based on that, though, I acknowledge that there are 
additional resources that this department needs. There is 
additional training that is needed for our officers. I, too, 
have been posed those same questions as it relates to use of 
force.
    So, at this point, I have directed specific commanders, 
those persons in charge of the training services bureau, to 
work along with the CAO, as well as our general counsel, to 
provide that specific guidance to our officers.
    So we are leaning forward with the direction that those 
persons in charge of those areas of responsibility will lead 
the charge in making sure our officers have the training that 
they need going forward.
    Mr. Ryan. Well, I hope you understand our frustration. And 
you weren't in charge, but you were one of the leaders at the 
Capitol Police on that day and the days leading up. And it is 
really frustrating for us, who have become friends with so many 
of these rank-and-file members who take care of us every single 
day here, to watch them be put in a position where they are not 
told clearly what they can do to protect themselves. And they 
have kids, and they have spouses. And, as you said, they are 
your friends too.
    But, you know, we have to make sure that the leadership of 
Capitol Police is operating and functioning at a very, very 
high level, especially in this current environment. And I know 
you can tell from the committee here and rank-and-file Members 
of Congress who don't sit on this committee are extremely 
disappointed, extremely concerned that these guys, men and 
women that we love, were put in this position.
    And you look at the lack of communication, you look at the 
lack of--you guys didn't even see the FBI threat assessment. 
You know, so it is one thing to say, ``Look, I mean, you know, 
we didn't see it, but even if we did, it wouldn't have changed 
things.'' Well, that is fine, but you need to see that stuff. I 
mean, what is the information flow over there? And how does it 
not make its way--because you said you didn't even see it, 
right, that you didn't see the FBI report, and nor did Chief 
Sund. That is mind-boggling to us, how, given everything going 
on, the FBI issues some kind of report that confirms your 
intelligence, and it never makes its way to the Chief of Police 
or never made its way to you? I mean, what is going on?
    You know, I mean, these are legitimate questions. And I 
know you are doing daily calls and all of that, but I think, at 
some level, it is about judgment. And it speaks to being able 
to run an efficient operation that allows for the kind of 
information flow in this day and age where we are picking up an 
enormous amount of intelligence, making sure that the right 
intelligence gets to the right people in a timely manner and 
then the response is appropriate.
    That is the key there, is to get the intelligence and have 
the guts to tell Paul Irving or the Sergeant at Arms, like, you 
know, ``I am not leaning in. I am leaning in to you to have a 
vote with the police board.''
    And, look, it takes a lot of nerve to be in a leadership 
position today like the one you are in. And we commend you for 
your service and your leadership and, you know, everything you 
bring to bear. But this is--you know, minute by minute, things 
can go sideways here. And we have to be pushing you and the 
Department to run and function at a very, very high level, 
because mistakes made at your level lead to what happened here 
on the 6th.
    And, you know, we are here to support you. That is our job 
on the Appropriations Committee, is making sure you have the 
resources that you need. But, you know, you have to be clear 
with us; you have to make sure you are executing. I mean, these 
issues around equipment, it is hard to believe that the men and 
women of the Capitol Police didn't have the equipment that they 
need.
    And so I have made my point. We have taken up a lot of your 
time today. You know, please know that we appreciate your work 
and we know how difficult it is. But we have to expect the 
best, and that is what the American people tell us that we have 
to do, and that is our mission here.
    As I said in my opening statement, we are just caretakers 
here. You know, we come in and we come out. And, you know, your 
position, too, people come in and out of. We are caretakers. 
And so we have to make sure that, in this moment, with 
everything going on, we have to rise to the occasion. And the 
American people deserve that.
    So I want to thank you, Chief Pittman. I want to thank Tim. 
Thank you so much. We are going to continue to be in dialogue.
    Again, I encourage you, Chief, to make sure you are trying 
to communicate to the press the best you can.
    I want to thank our staff on the committee and all the 
members of this committee for a good hearing.
    And we will continue to be in very, very close touch.
    With that, this hearing is adjourned.

                                            Tuesday, March 2, 2021.

                      OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER

                                WITNESS

JANE SARGUS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER
    Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
    This hearing is fully virtual, so we need to address a few 
housekeeping matters first for today's meeting.
    The chair or staff designated by the chair may mute 
participants' microphones when they are not under recognition 
for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
    Second, members are responsible for muting and unmuting 
themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that you have 
not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the 
staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff 
will unmute your microphone.
    Third, you will notice a clock on your screen that will 
show how much of the 5-minute clock is remaining. If there is a 
technology issue, we will move to the next member until the 
issue is resolved and you will retain the balance of your time.
    Fourth, we will be beginning with the chair and ranking 
member. Then members present at the time the hearing is called 
to order will be recognized in order of seniority.
    Finally, the House rules require me to remind you that we 
have set up an email address to which members can send anything 
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings. That 
email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    So let's begin. Today we have Ms. Jane Sargus, the 
executive director of the Open World Leadership Center.
    Ms. Sargus, thank you for being here today to discuss the 
budget request for the Open World Leadership Center. I also 
understand that you are also requesting to be called the 
Congressional Office for International Leadership and that this 
name change is intended to reflect the mission and the 
congressional affiliation of the agency more accurately.
    This year you are requesting $6 million in fiscal year 
2022. This is the same as the fiscal year of 2021 funding.
    Although the budget for your organization is small as 
compared to the rest of our legislative branch agencies, it has 
had a real impact in increasing understanding of and 
appreciation for United States democratic values and democratic 
institutions in an area of the world where Russia's malign 
influence stands firmly opposed to our democratic principles 
and national security interests.
    Your small but influential organization does this by 
facilitating visits to the United States on a geographically 
and professionally broad cross-section of emerging leaders from 
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, 
Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Mongolia, North Macedonia, Russia, 
Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan, who 
might not otherwise have the opportunity to visit the United 
States.
    And I think that was an opportunity for my staff to try to 
get me to screw up one of these countries' names. They tried 
but failed miserably.
    I understand the center continues to use the strength and 
expertise of local volunteer organizations in cost-sharing and 
grant proposals to maximize savings. This is a benefit to the 
taxpayer, visiting countries, and local communities, a win-win 
for everyone involved.
    International exchange programs are a proven and cost-
effective way for the United States to remain internationally 
competitive, develop leaders friendly to our American 
interests, and promote American values worldwide. These 
programs support global engagement that is critical to our 
prosperity and national security.
    We are thankful for your leadership of the center, its 
staff, and the many volunteers across the United States who 
have worked hard to ensure the success of Open World, or the 
Congressional Office for International Leadership. And I like 
the new name.
    I look forward to your testimony today and working with you 
to continue building global relationships.
    At this point, I would like to yield to my friend and 
colleague from the great Northwest, Ranking Member Jaime 
Herrera Beutler, for any opening comments she would like to 
make.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr.--can you hear me? Yes.
    Mr. Ryan. Yes, you are fine.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Chairman Ryan. I am really 
happy to begin the fiscal 2020 budget hearing process for the 
leg branch agencies. And due, obviously, to the ongoing 
pandemic, all 10 of our hearings are going to be virtual this 
year, which is unfortunate, but that is what we are dealing 
with.
    I am really looking forward to working with you, Chairman 
Ryan, to put together a bill that includes member priorities 
while exercising the fiscal restraint that we can, and that 
also means we are going to get this job done.
    Ms. Sargus, it is really good to see you again. Now I am 
going to screw up and say the old name that is supposed to be 
the new name, so please excuse me. But the Open World 
Leadership Center has requested $6 million for fiscal 2020, the 
same as the fiscal 2021 enacted amount.
    So the center provides the opportunity for Congress to 
foster diplomatic relationships with leaders throughout Eurasia 
and Europe, and in a typical year the center will be conducting 
several exchange programs, bringing leaders to the United 
States to engage and interact with Members in their districts 
in person.
    Obviously, the COVID pandemic has forced a bit of a change, 
but it is not a permanent one. And despite the pandemic, the 
center has successfully adjusted its operations to allow 
foreign leaders to connect virtually with Members and their 
staff.
    In fact, a delegation of national park and national reserve 
officials, which were obviously supposed to visit my neck of 
the woods to experience the natural beauty of southwest 
Washington--and it is unparalleled--but, obviously, this has 
been a year of curve ball.
    I would like to note that the center's Board of Trustees 
have chosen the name of the Open World, to change it from, as 
Chairman Ryan said, the Open World Leadership Center to the 
Congressional Office of International Leadership--you are not 
going to call it COIL, right? I will get good at that--to 
better reflect the mission and congressional affiliation of the 
agency.
    The new name solidifies the vision--I think it is really an 
appropriate name--among Members of Congress and clearly 
represents what your mission accomplishes.
    Finally, I am pleased to see that the center has already 
hired a grant writer--whoo--we have talked about that a few 
times in the past, to help the agency secure nonappropriated 
funds for its mission.
    So with that, I look forward to hearing more about the 
agency and what you are doing and how you are going to continue 
to adapt and grow.
    And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan [inaudible]. DeLauro is here or Ranking Member 
Granger? Is that correct?
    Staff. They are not present, sir.
    Mr. Ryan. All right. Thank you.
    So without objection, Ms. Sargus, your written testimony 
will be made part of the record. Please summarize your 
statement for the members of the committee. Once you have 
finished your statement we will move to the question-and-answer 
period. Please begin.
    Ms. Sargus. Thank you.
    Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify on the Open World Leadership Center's 
fiscal year 2022 budget.
    The budget request, as you say, is for level funding in 
2022 that will continue to provide support for operating 
expenses of the center.
    There is an additional item of note in the budget. As you 
say, the Board of Trustees did vote to change the name of the 
center to the Congressional Office for International 
Leadership, a name that more accurately reflects the mission 
and congressional affiliation of the agency.
    As a unique congressional center and resource, is a dynamic 
catalyst for hundreds of international projects and 
partnerships that constituents have developed with emerging 
leaders throughout the countries of Eurasia and Europe.
    More than 8,000 volunteer American families in all 50 
States have hosted more than 29,000 young professionals. Our 
dedicated hosts immerse these professionals in American life, 
values, and practices, while contributing an estimated $1.5 to 
$2 million in cost shares and in-kind contributions annually.
    Americans from all walks of life have had to adjust the way 
they conduct business because of the global pandemic. The 
Center began by asking the question: How does an exchange 
program reinvent itself in the time of COVID when there is no 
international travel?
    The program came to a complete halt and sent us all home on 
March 18, 2020. However, the challenges brought on by the 
pandemic created opportunities to bring delegates into the 
homes of Americans across the country virtually.
    As we settled into teleworking, the staff rallied to create 
a vibrant and extensive virtual Open World program. Using Zoom, 
because of its unique ability to accommodate simultaneous 
interpretation, each tele-delegation was introduced to their 
future program organizers and their local families that would 
host them.
    In less than a year, staff designed, developed, and 
implemented more than 120 virtual programs with nearly 8,000 
people participating from all Open World countries. This 
programming engaged Members of Congress and their staff, as 
well as hundreds of American host families and program speakers 
and presenters.
    Unexpected benefits emerged from our virtual programming as 
our efforts to utilize teleconferencing revealed the strength 
of the relationships Open World has helped to form. From every 
country, every region, every walk of life, our alumni from all 
Open World countries joined in virtual reunions.
    The impact of congressional participation in all these 
virtual events was significant and memorable, especially for 
the many American hosts who joined in.
    Constituents throughout the country are proud to be a part 
of the Open World brand of citizen diplomacy. They know that 
they are building bridges between Main Street America and 
countries in transition.
    In fiscal year 2022, we plan to increase the number of 
visiting delegations substantially. New delegations will follow 
the preexisting groups delayed by the pandemic. To the extent 
that circumstances permit, we plan to increase the depth and 
breadth of our programs, including pilot programs in Poland, 
Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria.
    And, finally, in our efforts to stay up to date 
technologically, the center embarked on a project that involves 
the digitization of our records.
    A digital archive will allow the center to demonstrate its 
effectiveness and tell its success story. With advanced 
analytics, the Center will leverage data to make a more modern 
and effective agency.
    The archive will not only showcase this unique example of 
cooperation between the Congress, that branch of government 
closest to its citizens, and the countless American communities 
that have partnered with the center, but also to document the 
Center's nimble, peer-to-peer approach to exchanges.
    Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today. 
Your interest in and support of the Open World Leadership 
Center is paramount for our continued success.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
   
    
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Sargus. We appreciate it.
    I always get excited hearing about the programs and all the 
great work that you are doing. And given everything that has 
happened in the country and the world in the last year plus, 
these kind of programs and relationships are really essential. 
So thank you for that.
    We are going to go to question and answer, and I am going 
to yield to my distinguished ranking member, Ms. Herrera 
Beutler, for the first questions.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I am interested, Ms. Sargus, to hear about the grant 
writer and how that is starting and what you see happening.
    But I also kind of wanted to understand a little bit better 
how in the world you adapted an exchange program in the middle 
of a pandemic--I can't believe it has been a year that we have 
all been kind of fighting through this--and what challenges 
that may have presented in garnering private support, because 
that is obviously something we have encouraged you in.
    Additionally, I would love to hear about the kind of 
changes in the--you were talking about the data--the only word 
that is coming to mind is archiving, but digital archiving in 
order to better share and expose--I mean, people from southwest 
Washington don't always get to come to the Capitol to see and 
hear what is happening. But having access to that digitally is 
really important.
    So those are some of the things I would like to hear about. 
And I will turn it back over to you.
    Ms. Sargus. Great questions.
    We appreciated the language and have taken steps that I 
believe will please the subcommittee. Our legislation does 
permit us to receive extra budgetary resources. We are doing 
this already with the funding we receive from the Department of 
State for programs that we have deemed appropriate to undertake 
at their request.
    We recently hired a staff member who is investigating what 
grant money is available to us and will explore, when the 
pandemic is over, in a more open fashion ways to make those 
connections.
    The pandemic did set us back a bit on that effort, but we 
are drafting a strategic plan for fundraising and development, 
as well as a strategic plan for the future of the Center.
    The pandemic's impact on our program was fairly obvious, 
and we tried very hard to adapt quickly. But it took us a few 
weeks to understand what hurdles existed. We like to call them 
challenges, not problems. It did not take long for staff to 
figure out that the virtual platform was the only way to go.
    We did that by immediately setting up tele-delegations, 
such as they are, with the ability to meet their future hosts 
and perhaps become engaged with some of the presenters. We 
invite the relevant Member of Congress to participate or a 
staff member often will participate in these tele-delegations, 
and it is a very meaningful experience for the delegates.
    We also tried to enhance and grow our alumni program, and 
that is where the Zoom platform worked really well, and we have 
been able to engage so many of our alumni in all of our 
countries. In fact, it has gotten to the point where our alumni 
are asking us for engagement.
    Our staff has been very busy working on that and hoping to 
grow our alumni engagement.
    The interest in follow-up is very strong, and when our 
alumni are meeting again with their host families it is like a 
family reunion. It is very warm. I wish you could see how happy 
they are to see each other again. Many of our delegates refer 
to their American hosts as their American parents. It is that 
kind of relationship. It is very well received and very many 
people are happy to have that opportunity.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Ryan. Great. Thank you.
    Mr. Case.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Sargus, let me talk to you about the Indo-Pacific.
    You have been so successful in kind of looking to the east 
of where we are today, and your mission statement does include 
Asia. But the Asia that you really encompass today is really 
those countries that Chair Ryan mispronounced, didn't really 
include Northeast Asia or Southeast Asia or the countries of 
the Indo-Pacific.
    I think we talked about this in some prior hearings, about 
some further extension of your success to the Indo-Pacific, the 
broad Indo-Pacific. I think the other half of the world 
deserves that attention as well.
    So I know that in the fiscal year 2021 approps bill we did 
include language really discussing an orientation towards 
Australia as just kind of a foothold perhaps in that area, 
putting in the potential of a reverse exchange program. I 
certainly would like to see that extended to other critical 
countries where we might have the same means and have the same 
effect.
    Some of the ones that would occur to me would be India, the 
Philippines, Malaysia, some other countries that certainly we 
could stand some strengthening of ties with and in the spirit 
of what you have pursued for over two decades.
    Do you have thoughts of whether that is on your agenda? And 
do the resources that you have permit you to do that?
    Ms. Sargus. Thank you for that question.
    The Center considers new countries by a process, via the 
Board of Trustees, which is made up of Members of Congress and 
other ex-officio Members, who has to consider the capacity and 
the resources available to the Center in order to approve the 
additional countries.
    We prefer to receive requests that are bipartisan and 
bicameral, if possible, because the board then considers that 
an interest from Congress that permeates both sides, and that 
is an important part of their ability to consider any new 
country.
    Australia came up last year because of a request from the 
Senate, but it was not bipartisan, and it didn't exactly fill 
the needs of the board who wanted to see a bipartisan request.
    Also, when we consider adding countries, we need to 
consider funding. It is, and we have some countries of Eastern 
Europe now in our wheelhouse, and we can do those countries, 
but in the course of a year, in a normal non-COVID year, we can 
bring a thousand people.
    In that planning, which we do many months out, there is a 
certain level of attrition. So when we get the attrition and we 
fall below the 1,000, we try to supplement it with pilot 
programs in the countries that we have been asked to do.
    We have managed to keep the numbers at around a thousand, 
but it is generally through the course of the year when we are 
able to accommodate additional requests and additional 
countries.
    Mr. Case. Okay. So I think what I am hearing you saying is, 
in order to consider some of the countries in the Indo-Pacific, 
you would want a bipartisan, bicameral request to you, number 
one. And, number two, you would have to find some extra 
resources in the current allocated resources for the current 
countries. Is that about right?
    Ms. Sargus. That is correct.
    Mr. Case. Okay. And specifically as to Australia, since 
that seems to be where you are farther along, is that now one 
of your countries? Are you still taking a look at it? And what 
about the possibility of a reverse exchange program?
    Ms. Sargus. That is a good question. The Australia case has 
been tabled for now, but we are developing an idea for a 
reverse program.
    A reverse program would cement relationships between the 
professionals in the United States who are meeting with their 
peers from Open World countries.
    We are also drafting a whole program outline for that. I 
would be happy to share that with you when we finish.
    There are lots of things to consider with a reverse 
program, and I would say the most important one to consider is 
how are individuals in the United States nominated to travel.
    It is tricky, and Open World does not want to be a travel 
agency, so we don't necessarily want to be a part of the 
logistical effort. But we are exploring some options about that 
because we feel it is important that we manage the outcomes and 
not so much the process and logistics of bringing--of taking 
people abroad.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Ryan. Mr. Amodei. Mark.
    All right. Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
    Ms. Sargus, I appreciate you being with us this morning. 
Thank you for taking time to share with us your plans for the 
coming year.
    Let me, first of all, compliment you for not asking for an 
increase in your appropriation. We have gone through a 
difficult year as a country, obviously, and a lot of 
unanticipated challenges. And I just wanted to say it has not 
gone unnoticed that you are managing and being able to do so 
with the same level, budget level.
    And just to expand on that a little bit, could you share 
with us the process that you went through? I am not sure 
whether to call you Open World or the Center, I think, yet. But 
could you share with us how--the process you went through to 
reprogram funds from the way you used to do things until how 
you do them now? Could you enlighten us on that?
    Ms. Sargus. Sure.
    In a typical year, we provide grants to a number of 
independent NGOs around the country, and the grants are the 
mechanism by which delegates are brought to the U.S., with the 
programs are written for them or set up for them.
    Under COVID, of course, without travel, we had to think 
about how to implement the program within the parameters of the 
existing grant amount, and we encouraged our grantees to come 
to us and offer suggestions and proposals for engaging with 
delegations.
    It was a remarkable response from all the grantees. It got 
to the point where the local hosting organizations were also 
very interested in participating in the Open World program.
    We had a number of requests just for the alumni to meet 
with their host families, but we decided that we wanted to have 
professional programs, not just open world program alumni 
reunions. So we engaged speakers and presenters, and with the 
help of our logistical contractor we were able to manage these 
events on a Zoom platform.
    We are able to do multilingual programs now. In fact, we 
had one this last week that had four languages. So Zoom creates 
an interpretation channel, which is really important.
    We provide full interpretation and all kinds of other 
support for these tele-delegations. We participate in them. I 
greet every group and let them know how much we appreciate 
their participation and their coming back to join us. We get a 
lot of questions about: When can we come? When is travel going 
to resume? Nobody knows that.
    My challenge is not only will we start implementing 
programs again when international travel starts, but 
understanding that many of our host families are empty-nesters, 
there will be a bit of a reluctance to host again for a while.
    We are watching all the moving parts carefully, and we hope 
to have programs resume certainly by next January, but possibly 
in the fall. It depends on each country's vaccination program 
and all kinds of things going on. But we hope very much to have 
groups on the ground again in the fall, late fall, maybe 
October.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Thank you.
    And with new challenges come new opportunities sometimes.
    Ms. Sargus. Well, exactly.
    Mr. Newhouse. So you have had operations in my district in 
Washington State, but, frankly, not unlike a lot of rural areas 
in the country, some of my constituents lack adequate broadband 
to conduct video calls.
    Have you had any issues with people who want to participate 
but just have had difficulty because they don't have a good 
connectivity? Or how do you deal with that?
    Ms. Sargus. We do have that problem, especially when we are 
talking about Russian participants from the Far East, for 
example. There are some connectivity issues. People will fade 
in and out occasionally.
    But generally the people that choose to participate have 
managed to overcome those hurdles generally. We don't have many 
dropped participants. And because we have the account that we 
have, we are able to accommodate large, large alumni 
gatherings.
    We do multicountry programs, which are very interesting, 
especially if we decide to use a theme like conservation or 
national parks, and we will bring alumni from several countries 
who traveled on that theme to discuss it together. And the 
result is that they are beginning to form their own network in 
Eurasia of Open World participants who come from different 
countries.
    That is another unexpected benefit of these Zoom calls, we 
can invite anybody and everybody.
    Mr. Newhouse. I am guessing some of these new ways of doing 
things may become more permanent.
    My time is up, but I do appreciate you being here this 
morning.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for that.
    Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Mr. Newhouse. Always thoughtful 
questions.
    Ms. Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Ms. Sargus, for joining us this morning.
    So I also serve on the State and Foreign Ops Subcommittee, 
and so we hear a lot about the executive branch democracy-
building programs. So it is good to hear we have some within 
the legislative branch as well.
    And it sounds like you guys were able to transition to a 
virtual program pretty seamlessly and well. But how are you 
measuring success metrics with a virtual curriculum?
    Ms. Sargus. That is being developed as we speak, not having 
any past experience with measuring a virtual program.
    I would say that one of the main things is we are able to 
learn more about what people are doing as a result of their 
Open World experience. Somebody would open up a shelter for 
abused women, victims of domestic violence. That might be a 
result that we consider very important. Another will hold a 
conference on forest management or conservation or something 
like that.
    We hear about them, especially during COVID, because we 
have so many interactions with our alumni now in person 
virtually that we learn quite a bit about what they are doing 
and what they are up to. And they are committed, very 
committed. I mean, we even had a Russian delegate who traveled 
outside her village to a library to have access to internet. 
That was how strong the interest in staying in touch is.
    It is very important that the network of alumni that we 
have--in Russia alone we have more than 20,000 alums--it is 
important that we stay in touch with them and they tell us what 
is going on. It has been very refreshing.
    Ms. Wexton. So that actually segues nicely into my other 
question, my next question, which is, what happens when a 
participant finishes a program? Like, how do you develop your 
alumni programs, and how do you find alumni to help with those?
    Ms. Sargus. Well, we have in our logistical contractor the 
ability to conduct alumni programs. We work with the American 
embassies in our countries, and they often will host an alumni 
event where people will gather at the ambassador's residence. 
It is a very nice way for the group to see each other again and 
also to meet new participants on the program.
    That network will continue once the pandemic is over, but 
we are going to continue with the alumni virtual program 
because the outreach capacity on the virtual platform is 
phenomenal, and we will continue to use that.
    Ms. Wexton. And one of the things I was pleased to see was 
that my hometown of Leesburg, Virginia, is a host city or host 
town.
    Ms. Sargus. Yes, it is a host city.
    Ms. Wexton. And I was kind of surprised actually because it 
is a little town, but it was very nice to see.
    So how do you ensure a diversity of participating towns and 
localities?
    Ms. Sargus. Well, there are two ways--the grantees 
themselves have a network of hosting clubs around the country. 
For example, Rotary International is one of our grantees, and, 
of course, they have Rotary Clubs in every State. But there are 
also sister city relationships that want to host, and 
Friendship Force, which is another service club of sorts. We 
rely on them to expand the network and change up sometimes.
    It is a matter of capacity for some of the local hosting 
organizations, but we are able to host in all 50 States, maybe 
not every single year, but almost every year we have 47, 48, to 
50 States.
    Ms. Wexton. A mixture of urban and suburban and rural as 
well?
    Ms. Sargus. Absolutely. One of the favorite spots in the 
United States is Big Canoe, Georgia. Go figure. But it is a 
very popular destination for our delegates.
    Ms. Wexton. Great.
    And then my final question is, I saw that you have some 
pilot programs slated for 2021-2022 in Bulgaria, Hungary, 
Poland, and Romania. Can you talk a little bit about those, 
what the pilot programs are going to be?
    Ms. Sargus. Well, I believe that in Poland and Hungary the 
focus will be on civil society or perhaps local legislators, 
like mayors or council members. And in Bulgaria and Romania, it 
will be a rule of law program.
    Ms. Wexton. Very good. Thank you so much.
    I see my time is up, so I will yield back.
    Thanks for all you are doing.
    Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Ms. Wexton.
    Mr. Amodei. Yeah. Mark, you are up.
    Mr. Amodei.
    Mr. Amodei. Hey, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Sorry you had to 
double clutch on that.
    I think that you are doing such a great job that I am going 
to yield back my time in the interest of moving right along. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Amodei.
    Ms. Clark.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Director Sargus, for joining us today.
    I am so impressed with your transition to virtual 
programming. And I wonder if you have thought about, when it is 
safe for international travel again, are you going to 
incorporate the virtual programming into your ongoing 
programming?
    Ms. Sargus. Great question. We talk about this quite a bit, 
and we plan to definitely keep the virtual platform as part of 
our program.
    In our countries the normal procedure has been to have a 
pre-departure orientation. The delegates arrive at the U.S. 
Embassy in order to receive their visas, and then our people 
organize an orientation for them to explain to them what is 
going to happen, how this will be, where you will go, and what 
you will do.
    We decided to use the virtual platform so that that pre-
departure orientation will include the host families and the 
local organizing host. That way people will be meeting who they 
are staying with and there will be perhaps a settling down of 
nerves when they know who they are meeting and who they are 
staying with.
    The virtual platform will not disappear from Open World. It 
has been a real boon to making and keeping connections.
    Ms. Clark. That is what you are all about.
    Ms. Sargus. Exactly.
    Ms. Clark. Are there any other challenges that you have had 
arise during the pandemic that we should be aware of on the Leg 
Branch Committee or can assist with?
    Ms. Sargus. Thank you for that question.
    I believe that we worked out most of the hurdles. We think 
we have all our bases covered at this point. We don't have too 
much left to explore, except how do we resume a normal program 
again.
    At this point we feel very confident in implementing our 
virtual program., but as we segue into real travel again, there 
will be parts of what we are doing now that will remain part of 
the future programs and the delegations.
    In fact, we plan to bring not double, but maybe one and a 
half times the number of people we normally bring. We are 
thinking 1,400 to 1,600 people in the 12 months of travel as 
soon as it is resumed, and that is to make up a little bit for 
the lost time of travel.
    By the time we shut down last year, we had already brought 
166 people on the program, and we had 1,020 on our agenda. So 
we have a lot of backup plans we need to work on.
    Some people will not be able to travel anymore, but others 
will. We are going to work it out. I talked to the staff, the 
program staff in particular, and they are very confident they 
could manage 1,500 in a 12-month period.
    Ms. Clark. That is great.
    I was also pleased to see that one of the national grantees 
is a sister city association with Cambridge in my district and 
Armenia's capital city.
    Many Armenian Americans have expressed concern about 
Azerbaijan's military actions against Armenians in Artsakh last 
year. Have these recent hostilities between two Open World 
countries had an impact on your programming? And how do you 
address the situations where there are geopolitical 
considerations between participating countries?
    Ms. Sargus. Well, that is a great question. Considering 
that there is always that tension between Russia and Ukraine 
and also Georgia, this is not a new thing for us.
    We address each country uniquely, and we intend to make 
available to them the ability and the opportunity to talk about 
what concerns them. And if an Armenian delegation wants to talk 
about Azerbaijan, we are able to do that.
    We allow those conversations to take place because one of 
the things that happens when our delegations meet with Members 
is that their concerns are brought up. Those are the things 
they tell you about. Those are the things they want help with.
    It is important that we still do virtual programs with both 
countries, no problem, but we certainly don't have them 
traveling together at the same time, obviously, we wouldn't be 
in the future.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you so much.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Clark.
    Ms. Sargus, thank you so much. You are always so 
impressive, and we love having you before the committee every 
year. And especially thankful for your ability to navigate the 
tumultuous waters of 2020 and now 2021.
    As you mentioned to Ms. Herrera Beutler's question with 
regard to the grant writer, we are sorry you had a little bit 
of a setback here, and, obviously, no fault of your own. But we 
just want to continue to encourage you to pursue that. We think 
that you make such a compelling case, especially in the world 
we are living in, that I think there are going to be ample 
resources out there for you once you are able to articulate and 
tell the story to those other NGOs and foundations.
    And, of course, we think expanding this program is in the 
best interests of the country, and we think we could maybe do 
that with some private funds.
    So we are very, very thankful for you continuing to do 
that.
    Ms. Clark stole my question about the virtual. I figured 
you had some plans to keep and amplify the virtual 
opportunities that you discovered this year, which I think says 
a lot about your organization.
    You know, we see it in telehealth and telework and 
telemedicine and tele-education and everything else, that 
everybody is saying, okay, you know, maybe we don't want to do 
this all the time, but there are some opportunities here for us 
to take advantage of. And I think that speaks to your 
leadership in being so adaptable.
    I just have a couple of quick questions.
    The expansion into Hungary, which I find very interesting, 
I just want to know what kind of reception. You are talking 
about Poland and Hungary. In Hungary it is obviously a very 
complicated political situation there. I am just interested in 
the response you are getting there and how the rollout is 
happening there.
    Ms. Sargus. That is a great question.
    We start on a pilot program, we start by working being with 
our embassy partners in that country, because they know what 
and who and how to form a program with a delegation that would 
be able to travel. It is tricky sometimes.
    We work very closely with them because we don't want to 
upset their apple cart, but we need to do an Open World program 
that, in fact, still represents what we consider our core 
values. It will be homestays. It will be looking at rule of law 
or the legislative process, which is something that we talk 
about quite a bit with every delegation. Understanding how laws 
are made is part of what we show.
    We work with embassy personnel, particularly the public 
affairs and political officers usually at the Embassy to help 
us craft that program.
    It is tricky. But we plan to have a virtual program as soon 
as travel resumes and a regular program. We are going to try, 
and I think we will be successful.
    Mr. Ryan. Great.
    Final question. We know you were talking about another 
full-time employee in the request. Can you just tell us what 
that full-time employee's responsibilities will be?
    Ms. Sargus. Yes. Well, nobody in Open World wears one hat. 
So not only will this person be tasked with proposal writing 
and pursuing grant opportunities, but also be part of our 
strategic planning initiative and our congressional relations, 
which we consider to be very important.
    Mr. Ryan. Great.
    Ms. Sargus. I am still the budget officer, but I am also 
the director. Everybody has to wear more than one hat. That is 
why we are so good with money. We make everybody do many 
things.
    Mr. Ryan. Yeah, that is great.
    Well, we can't thank you enough. We appreciate your time. 
Keep up the great work. We will continue to work with you. And 
if there is something you may need along the way, we are here 
to help.
    Ms. Sargus. That is great to hear. Thank you so much.
    I want to give a shout-out to my outstanding staff. They 
are simply the best. I don't think we could have done this year 
without their wits, coming to the table with good ideas and the 
ability to implement like that. They did a great job, and I 
don't think I could ever express my appreciation enough.
    And also I want to say hi to all my relatives in Ohio and 
West Virginia who are watching today. I appreciate that, too.
    Mr. Ryan. All right. Where in Ohio are they?
    Ms. Sargus. Belmont County, and also in the Columbus area, 
and Akron and Canton. I actually have family in a lot of 
different places in Ohio, Groveport, Bellaire, which is where I 
am from. So the eastern part mostly.
    Mr. Ryan. Gotcha, gotcha.
    Well, we can't thank you enough. Thank your staff.
    And I thank all of the members of the committee for great 
questions.
    With that, the committee is adjourned.
    Ms. Sargus. Thank you.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
    

                                            Tuesday, March 2, 2021.

                      CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

                                WITNESS

PHILLIP SWAGEL, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
    Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
    This hearing is fully virtual, so we need to address a few 
housekeeping matters.
    First, for today's meeting, the chair or staff designated 
by the chair may mute participants' microphones, when they are 
not under recognition, for the purposes of eliminating 
inadvertent background noise.
    Second, members are responsible for muting and unmuting 
themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that you have 
not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the 
staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff 
will unmute your microphone.
    Third, you will notice a clock on your screen that will 
show how much of the 5-minute clock is remaining. If there is a 
technology issue, we will move to the next member until the 
issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of your 
time.
    Fourth, we will be beginning with the chair and ranking 
member, then members present at the time the hearing is called 
to order will be recognized in order of seniority.
    And, finally, House rules require me to remind you that we 
have set up an email address to which members can send anything 
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings. That 
email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    Dr. Swagel, thank you for joining us this afternoon to 
discuss the $61 million budget request for the Congressional 
Budget Office.
    Phillip, we spoke a little over a week ago where you 
briefed me on your fiscal year 2022 request and what the 3.7 
million, or the 6.4 increase, would be for. Specifically, the 
increase is mostly intended for salaries and benefits to 
increase for your full-time equivalents by 11 positions to 275.
    Plus, the increase is intended for software and information 
technology to make CBO even more responsive to the analytical 
needs of all the Congress.
    CBO is a nonpartisan office that plays a vital role in 
helping Congress effectively exercise our duties enshrined in 
Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution, known 
colloquially as the power of the purse.
    You have become such a part of this institution that we may 
take it for granted. CBO's role remains vital for the 
legislative branch to have our own independent economic 
analysis and cost estimate of proposed legislation so we do not 
have to rely solely on the Office of Management and Budget 
within the executive branch.
    I should note that the Appropriations Committee are the 
source of some of CBO's heaviest workload. We employ CBO's help 
in making sure our bills add up to what they are supposed to, 
and we need CBO cost estimates at each stage of legislative 
action.
    The committee appreciates all that the staff of CBO does, 
as I am certain other committees similarly appreciate CBO and 
all the work you do for them.
    Even though we are one of your biggest customers, we 
understand that all of Congress are your clients and that, last 
year, you had increased workload because of legislation 
surrounding expanded healthcare coverage, drug pricing, and the 
COVID crisis.
    Additionally, I know that this year you are preparing for 
an increase in legislation involving infrastructure, climate, 
as well as the continued focus on healthcare, as well as 
reconciliation, regular and potential supplemental 
appropriation measures.
    We do keep you busy, and we are thankful for all of the 
work that you do. I look forward to your testimony today.
    And at this point, I would like to yield to my friend and 
colleague from the State that produces more apples than any 
other State in the Union, Ranking Member Jaime Herrera Beutler.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. More potatoes, more potatoes, too, 
than Idaho, Mr. Chairman, but less well-known.
    Mr. Ryan. We will bring that up at tomorrow's hearing.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Okay.
    Mr. Ryan. That will be your new introduction tomorrow.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Potato lady?
    Thank you for that.
    And welcome to our witness, Director Swagel, Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office.
    The CBO's fiscal year 2020 budget request is 60.953 
million, which represents a 6.4 percent increase from last 
year's enacted level. I am looking forward to hearing a little 
bit more about the needs there.
    The Congressional Budget Office obviously provides 
incredibly important information. I do like having our own 
independent budget analysis separate from the executive branch, 
and even from private entities, just because it allows us that 
direct access.
    And I recognize you do preliminary cost estimates on a lot 
more than you even are able to put out, and you provide direct 
assistance, technical assistance, to Members, committees and 
staff, ad nauseam. So we are really grateful. The tireless work 
of and your staff is really appreciated and incredibly 
necessary.
    So ensuring that all offices have equal access to the 
information that CBO produces continues to be a top priority 
for me. I recognize that big pieces of legislation put in place 
by leadership are obviously going to take time and attention, 
but I think it is incredibly critical that, once things are 
made public in any way, that the CBO produces that information 
to all of Congress, because we are all your constituents, as it 
were.
    Congress has appropriated additional funds in the past 
funding bills to allow CBO to implement a plan to improve your 
responsiveness and transparency, and I encourage your office to 
continue this focus, especially on those big, major pieces of 
legislation that we all are working on.
    So I look forward to hearing more from you on your agency's 
work and your ideas on how to help CBO improve.
    With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Mr. Swagel, without objection, your written testimony will 
be made part of the record. Please summarize your statement for 
the members of the committee. Once you have finished your 
statement, we will move to the Q&A period.
    So please begin, Mr. Swagel.
    Mr. Swagel. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman Ryan, 
Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and members of the 
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to present the 
CBO's budget request.
    I am privileged to work with my colleagues at CBO as we 
support the Congress in these challenging times. Our chief 
administrative officer, Joe Evans, and chief financial officer, 
Mark Smith, they are both on the Webex as well, and they lead 
an outstanding group of financial professionals who handle the 
CBO budget.
    So as you said, the purpose of my testimony today is to 
request an appropriation of $61 million for 2022. And as you 
said, that is an increase of $3.7 million, or 6.4 percent, from 
the amount provided in 2021. And I thank the entire committee 
for your continued support of our agency.
    CBO's proposed increase reflects the expectation of 
continued intense interest in our analysis. So let me first 
briefly explain how our budget request would support that goal 
to be even more responsive to the needs of the Congress, and 
then I will explain, again briefly, what it would mean for 
CBO's outlook.
    So with the request, CBO would maintain its staffing level 
and then hire four new staff to address issues for which we 
anticipate significant legislative initiatives. So, since 2019, 
before I was Director, the Congress has increased CBO's budget 
to bolster our capacity to make our work more responsive and 
transparent.
    We have been working hard to accomplish those objectives. 
For example, expanding staff in high-demand areas, such as 
healthcare, but organizing staff to work on broader shared 
portfolios.
    Now, about half of the requested $3.7 million increase for 
next year would be for added staffing. So this would cover a 
full year's worth of salary and benefits for the seven new 
staff members hired in 2021, who will come on board later this 
year.
    And then the increase would allow us to hire four new staff 
members, focused on analysis of infrastructure and energy and 
climate change, as you said, and these are the areas in which 
we are already making investments and we expect heightened 
legislative activity.
    I think we all understand infrastructure spending is 
coming, and we want to be ready to analyze that, including the 
effects of infrastructure on the economy, the broader economic 
effects.
    CBO is also working to improve our capability to analyze 
the effects of legislation on people in different demographic 
groups and different income groups.
    Now, the remainder of the increase would largely cover the 
normal increases in personnel costs, and also IT enhancements.
    Let me very briefly highlight our work over the past year, 
and then how CBO's budget would support the high volume of 
output we expect in the coming year.
    Well, 2020 involved extraordinary circumstances, and we 
continued to analyze the economic and budgetary developments 
for the Congress, analyzing the legislation that responded to 
the pandemic under tight timetables and with our staff working 
from home at all hours also. I am thinking back to the work on 
the CARES Act last March. It was just routine to have 
conference calls after midnight. And of course supporting the 
Congress as the Congress developed the legislation.
    In response, we provided more frequent updates of our 
budget and economic projections to make sure that the Congress 
had timely information on the impacts of the pandemic.
    And at the same time, we produced reports on a wide range 
of topics, so about people who lacked health insurance even 
before the pandemic, what mechanisms to reach universal health 
insurance coverage. We had a report on single-payer healthcare 
as one way to reach universal coverage.
    We had a variety of defense-related issues covering all of 
the armed services. We had reports on student loans, on 
veterans' income, and other topics.
    And, importantly, we incorporated the impacts of climate 
change in the budget baseline for the first time and published 
a report explaining how we did it.
    So looking ahead briefly, the requested funding would allow 
us to provide about 700 cost estimates, mostly to the 
authorizing committees; fulfill thousands of requests for 
technical assistance from committees and Members of Congress, 
including before they introduce legislation; produce about a 
hundred scorekeeping reports and estimates supporting the 
appropriations process; and then produce about 70 analytic 
reports and papers, some required by law, some in response to 
requests from chairs and the members; and then provide a 
variety of other products.
    So in summary, to achieve our goal to be as responsive as 
possible, CBO requests an increase of $3.7 million. And with 
your support, we look forward to providing timely and high-
quality analysis to the Congress.
    Thank you again. I am happy to take questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Thank you for 
your testimony.
    We are going to go into the question and answer period now, 
and I will yield to the ranking member, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In your written testimony, you mentioned that CBO devoted 
extensive resources to analyzing legislation that responded to 
the pandemic, and you have also highlighted things that are 
upcoming, transportation and others, that are going to continue 
to take a lot of analysis.
    These pieces of legislation, like the CARES Act, more 
specifically on the healthcare side, have huge effects on our 
economy. Would you be able to elaborate more on the challenges 
you and staff faced in analyzing those--and they were fast-
moving as well--large pieces of legislation and how you 
addressed those challenges?
    Mr. Swagel. No, that is right. I mean, the dollar figures 
were large, and then the economic effects were large.
    The provisions that are mainly appropriations, we have to 
figure out--such as the spending of outlays--sort of how much 
money is available, how quickly can the money go out for the 
purposes described by the Congress.
    As you said, the economic analysis is, in some sense, 
harder. So as an example, the legislation enacted last year to 
respond to the pandemic broadened and extended the unemployment 
insurance system. And so we knew that had multiple effects. It 
meant money for people to support their spending and support 
the economy.
    On the other hand, that meant that some people--it would 
have different effects for working, different incentives for 
working. And we had to do that analysis, balancing the 
increased demand and increased spending and the positive 
effects that would have on the economy, and try to figure out, 
well, what would it mean on the incentive effects for the labor 
supply, people to take jobs.
    And our views changed as the economy progressed, as the 
virus progressed. When the economy was locked down the 
incentives to work were just not, you know, sort of not there, 
but as the recovery proceeded and the economy opened, that 
changed, and we had to do analysis along those lines.
    So this is just one illustration of the sorts of 
complicated analysis resulting from the pandemic.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you. You know, it brings to mind 
just your--even the ability to kind of update, because that is 
such a dynamic situation, based on opening and closing again.
    Are you providing updates on that, more of like a dynamic 
analysis or an ongoing, or is it just you did the bill and you 
are done?
    Mr. Swagel. So within CBO, we have a group that is 
continuing to track this. So we have a virus team that is 
looking at what is happening with the virus and the effects and 
the interactions with the economy.
    We did an analysis in September of the effects of the CARES 
Act on the economy, and looking at the different provisions of 
the CARES Act. And I expect we will do the same thing with the 
CAA that was enacted in December. And then, if legislation is 
enacted in the next couple of weeks, I expect we will do the 
same thing, analyze that, analyze that as well.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Last year, one of the difficulties CBO 
had in completing reports and analysis in a timely fashion was 
the delay in receiving data from the Federal executive 
agencies.
    Do you still believe this is an issue? Is there something 
that we need to do to help speed that process up to ensure CBO 
is getting the information it needs in a timely manner?
    Mr. Swagel. On the whole, we have good working 
relationships with the agencies that provide us data. This year 
was especially challenging as we moved essentially into the 
cloud.
    On the whole, the agencies were incredibly helpful as we 
get data on healthcare and for Social Security, a long-term 
analysis from the IRS. And they were incredibly constructive 
with us in moving to a secure environment in the cloud. The 
Joint Committee on Taxation also provides us with some data, 
and they also were constructive.
    So the past year the delays have been mostly 
understandable, mostly working on security.
    We also get a lot of data from OMB, for example, on the 
budget execution, and that comes with the President's budget. 
And obviously, with the transition this year, the President's 
budget is delayed. So we are waiting for those data.
    But, again, we work well with OMB on the staff level. We 
will get it when it is ready. So it is not a complaint. It is 
not a problem. It is just saying, look, there is a natural 
delay there.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. And you have mentioned working in the 
cloud--and I will make this quick--but that is part of what 
your increase is for, for nonpersonnel costs that include 
improving your ability to detect cyber threats and continue to 
shift staff to workstations on the cloud.
    Have you encountered actual, like, significant cyber 
threats in recent years?
    Mr. Swagel. You know, I mean, just like everyone, we have 
intrusion attempts and surveillance activities. I think all of 
the staff, including me, there is attempted phishing attempts 
and things like that.
    We have not had a particular attack on us or particularly 
something targeted, that we know of, that is specifically at 
us, but of course we are still enhancing our ability to detect 
and respond.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you.
    Yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Mr. Case.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I am proudly coming to you from the State that produces 
more macadamia nuts than Ohio, Washington, New York, Virginia, 
and Nevada combined. I know this because none of you produce 
macadamia nuts.
    Mr. Ryan. Mr. Case, you are muted.
    Mr. Case. Doctor, is that increase enough for you given--
you know, I am just thinking back over the past year and what 
is in front of us. I mean 2.2 trillion, CARES Act; 900 billion 
in December; 1.9 trillion in front of us; probably more bills, 
more complexity, infrastructure, healthcare reform. I could go 
down the list.
    Most of the increase that you are asking for is actually an 
increase in salary and benefits for existing staff. The number 
of new positions is minimal compared to the scope of all of 
that, it seems to me. And at the same time, we have asked you 
to be kind of more responsive.
    And, as I recall, responsiveness, really, if you look at 
the priorities of committees first and kind of Members last, 
individual Member requests still, unless they are linked to 
some committee request, don't get done. I think that is 
effectively the answer there.
    Is it enough? I mean, I don't want to be penny-wise and 
pound-foolish about this.
    Mr. Swagel. Right. No, no, it is a good question. And maybe 
I should start at the end and just acknowledge what you said, 
that one of our challenges is that individual Member requests, 
we just don't have the ability to do those. And it is, 
generally, if a Member wants something from us, they will go to 
the chair or ranking member, and the chair will tell us to move 
it up the priority stack. So for sure that is a challenge.
    The request this year, there is four new positions. There 
is the seven that we are hiring this year. Those people will 
come on board starting in the middle of this year and then 
through the end of next--through the end of this year. So there 
is a sense in which the request would support all 11 of those.
    So it is--I am not--I don't think I am asking for too much, 
or at least we are not trying to, but also not for too little, 
in a sense, since we are trying to make sure we fund this 
entire--the seven this year, and then the four we hope to add 
next year.
    And then, in terms of the kind of is it enough, the 
principle here is that we are trying to look ahead and see 
where Congress is going and just be ready, and that is when we 
are at our best. And, here, that is like infrastructure and 
energy and climate, and I know that is where the Congress is 
going, and Members have told me, and that is where we are 
building expertise.
    We are pretty good on health. We have ramped up. We are 
ready. And so things like a public option and expansion of 
coverage, we have been working on those for the last year, and 
some of that is in the reconciliation legislation that the 
Congress is considering now.
    So I think we are in good shape for health, for 
immigration, macro. And building on energy and climate, I 
think, is the right approach for us.
    Mr. Case. And given that, what about the responsiveness, 
which has been a concern with the workload? And we have asked 
you formally and informally to respond to and get on top of the 
responsiveness. I mean, do you think that, with that addition, 
you can--are you going to be slipping on responsiveness, or 
getting ahead of the game, or just treading water?
    Mr. Swagel. Yeah. I think we will maintain the 
responsiveness in the areas that we have been busy on this 
year. And so I just think of the reconciliation bill. It is on 
health, it is on income security, unemployment insurance, on 
pensions, where we have worked especially intensively with the 
committees of jurisdiction--it was the Ways and Means, E&L, the 
Finance Committee in the Senate--and providing technical 
assistance to them while the committees are developing the 
legislation.
    I think we have succeeded in doing what we need to do to 
support them with their legislation. And we will continue that 
and those sort of requests. We will continue in that.
    And so I think we will--in some sense, it is not--treading 
water, I guess, is technically right--but continue, I would 
say, at a high level in those areas.
    Mr. Case. Okay. And then expert consultants. I notice you 
really don't utilize all that many. It looks like you do much 
of it in-house. Not that many expert consultants, not that big 
a part of your budget. And it seems to be confined to just a 
few of the specialty areas.
    Is that just highly specialized analysis, or are those 
areas where you have difficulty competing with other sectors of 
our economy to get folks into CBO?
    Mr. Swagel. Okay. No, no, thank you. It is an important 
issue for us.
    So we have essentially two different types of expert 
consultants. One is we have two groups of advisers, one on the 
overall economy, both macro and micro, and then a specialized 
group of health advisers. And so we pay them very modestly. 
This is, I don't know, $500 a year, each of them. So this is 
just a token for most of them. Mostly they are academics, some 
from industry. And we rely on them pretty intensively, and this 
year, pretty intensively, we have.
    The other one is the more expensive one, as you said, and 
that is on, as you said, on specialized knowledge, you know, on 
some legal, some environmental expertise especially, where 
there it is more expensive. And so that is the second half of 
it.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Swagel. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Case.
    Mr. Amodei.
    Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. It is the button that says ``mute'' on it. When 
you hit it, it will turn green, and then you talk. And, when 
you are done, you hit it, it will go red, which means stop, and 
then you can't be heard anymore.
    Mr. Amodei. Well, I cannot thank you enough for reaching 
out to me on a personal technical basis, because, as you know, 
I need all the help I can get.
    Mr. Ryan. The gentleman has 5 minutes.
    Mr. Amodei. So under the category of let's walk before we 
run with my technical ability, I would only say this, that from 
the State that produces more silver and gold than Hawaii and 
every other State, I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. I thank the gentleman.
    Ms. Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Dr. Swagel, for coming to testify before us 
today.
    So I saw in your request that you asked for some 
nonpersonnel costs, and a part of that is to help CBO's ability 
to mitigate cyber threats and improve remote work capabilities. 
So I want to follow up on some of that.
    How many employees does CBO currently have working 
remotely, and what proportion of your workforce is that?
    Mr. Swagel. Right now everyone is working remotely. We have 
a couple of people at the Ford Office Building. Two in 
particular are there regularly, one supervising some of the 
renovation of our conference rooms to facilitate hybrid 
operation and one a computer engineer.
    The rest of us are remote, and you can see my office turns 
back into my dining room on Friday nights.
    Ms. Wexton. So you are working remotely. Basically your 
entire workforce is working remotely full-time. Is that right?
    Mr. Swagel. That is correct, yes.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Now, did CBO update any of its network 
infrastructure to support this remote work, or are you just 
able to rely on the network infrastructure that you already 
had?
    Mr. Swagel. No. We had the ability at the beginning. And 
so, when the pandemic made us go remote, actually our 
information tech people had already licensed some of the remote 
access software. So we were in good shape, and about 30 percent 
of our staff were already working in the cloud with 
workstations that were virtualized. The rest of us shifted 
right away.
    And then we have put more resources into it, making some of 
the data that was only available inside the Ford Building, 
pushing that out to the cloud and making sure it was secure.
    So we have put more resources into it. I think we were 
basically effective from day one, but now we are doing better. 
It is smoother in a sense.
    Ms. Wexton. And have you trained your workforce about 
avoiding those phishing attacks and other sort of cybersecurity 
training, how to log into their VPNs, keep it secure, those 
kinds of things?
    Mr. Swagel. We have. I mean, I guess CBO, we are an agency 
of, in a good way, of rule followers. That is the way we work. 
We go by guidelines and rules. And so we have a pretty good 
approach, I think, in keeping us safe.
    Ms. Wexton. And is that mandated, that training mandated to 
be taken by 100 percent of your workforce?
    Mr. Swagel. It is, yes. We have computer security training, 
we have ethics training, and we have diversity training that is 
required as well.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Very good. And what is your current 
assessment of your capabilities right now with hardening 
against cyber attacks?
    Mr. Swagel. I think we are doing pretty well. Again, the 
move to the cloud, I think, has helped us on the whole, just 
because the individual workstations--the more we move away from 
individual workstations, we are reducing sort of the number of 
aspects in which we are vulnerable.
    Of course we are vulnerable to something going wrong in the 
cloud. We had a fiber optic cable that was sliced at our data 
center, and we were down for a couple hours. So things like 
that.
    But in terms of security--things like that happen--but on 
security, I think the move to the cloud on the whole has been 
beneficial for us.
    Ms. Wexton. Good. And do you think you will maintain that 
sort of option for your workforce even after the pandemic is 
over?
    Mr. Swagel. It is exactly the question we are trying to 
think about now. We are serving the staff and what people, in 
some sense, want. And of course there are some people who just 
want to go back to the Ford Building as soon as possible. Some 
people envision working remotely more.
    I suspect we will have a mix of it, and we are going to try 
to figure that out. We will try to make sure--of course we will 
make sure we are effective. I think we have been effective now. 
I sure would like to be back in person to meet with people in 
person. So I look forward to that.
    And obviously a large number of our staff are your 
constituents, and I know they are really looking forward to 
summer camps and schools and all the--those sort of--that part 
of life reopening.
    Ms. Wexton. Yeah. I am sure that some proportion of them 
really are eager to come back, and some proportion are like, 
``I am very delighted not to have this commute.'' So, as long 
as you have that flexibility, I think that everybody will be 
happy.
    Great. Well, that is all the questions I had. Thank you so 
much.
    Mr. Swagel. Okay.
    Ms. Wexton. Yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Wexton.
    Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the 
opportunity.
    And in the spirit of competition, just wanted to say that 
the State of Washington produces more hops, more cherries, more 
blueberries, almost 300 other crops that we produce in our 
State. And who knows, with climate change, we may be coming 
after macadamias soon, too. So just wanted to get that out 
there.
    Mr. Swagel, thank you very much for your presentation 
today. Always a pleasure to see you. You are a very important 
part of the work that we do around here.
    Several of the members have talked about your efforts to 
decrease response times. And you may have answered this and I 
just didn't hear it. I understand it is not an easy yes-or-no 
type of answer. But, overall, talk about the--I guess tell me 
just quickly the progress that you feel you have made in 
decreasing those times with the increased appropriations that 
we have given and now you would like a little more as well.
    Mr. Swagel. Okay. No, absolutely. And I can give an example 
on the health side, which is where we have built up our 
capacity over the last several years with the appropriations 
that you have provided us. And there, in a sense, I think we 
have decreased our response time by preparing.
    And so the legislation that the Congress is considering now 
in reconciliation has provisions that expand and extend the 
subsidies in the Affordable Care Act. Everyone calls them the 
Underwood provisions.
    And we have been working on those provisions for months, 
probably more than a year, since even before the pandemic. And 
as the Congress adjusts and changes those provisions, we are 
ready, and we are sort of instant--not instantly, but we are 
ready to work with Congress.
    So that is the sort of progress that we have made.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
    Last March Congress came together and, as you recall, we 
were able to pass an unprecedented spending bill. I think it 
was the largest ever. I could be wrong about that. But 
Americans and small business needed support during the COVID 
shutdowns.
    The bill was signed into law on the 27th of March. Congress 
didn't receive a CBO cost estimate, I think, it was until the 
middle of April.
    And so you talked about what goes into creating that kind 
of an analysis. But would you care to comment and discuss the 
potential ramifications of Congress passing large spending 
bills, such as what we did last year, without the critical CBO 
analysis?
    Mr. Swagel. Right. Thank you. It is an important question. 
It is something we think about.
    And so, with the CARES Act, we were essentially focused on 
the technical assistance, knowing that that meant that the cost 
estimate would be delayed. And so the committees were working 
on the UI provisions, the healthcare provisions, and others, 
and we were providing technical assistance, PPP and others, 
knowing that, whatever was enacted, we would then have to take 
a step back and analyze it, and that would just take some time 
after.
    And so that was a--I mean, it was a decision by me and by 
the senior CBO management, just knowing that the cost estimate 
would come a little bit later as a result, just to respond to 
the needs of the Congress.
    Mr. Newhouse. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Well, that is something 
that we all have to think about, I think, how do we best deal 
with that kind of a scenario, because most of us want to know 
the potential results of what we do.
    Mr. Swagel. Congressman, can I just--I am sorry--can I add 
one more thing? That, in a sense, with the reconciliation 
legislation now, we were able to provide the cost estimates--I 
mean, there was over, I don't know, 100 pages of cost 
estimates--so before the House voted on the reconciliation 
bill.
    Mr. Newhouse. I see.
    Mr. Swagel. So you are right. For the CARES Act, we 
couldn't do it. And this time we were able to do it.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Good. Good. Well, I appreciate that, 
and appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much for keeping 
us up to date on what you are doing, and always look forward to 
your reports.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Espaillat.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Swagel.
    I believe you said that the CBO's IT security system has 
not been breached or hacked. Is that correct, Mr. Swagel?
    Mr. Swagel. No. Well, I was--well, I have been Director 
since June. I know, in the past, before my time, there was a 
very serious attack on CBO. I actually don't know offhand when 
it was. I just know there was in the past.
    2000. I am sorry. One of my colleagues just sent me a 
message. It was in 2004. So it was 17 years ago.
    Mr. Espaillat. And so are you working on ways to address 
instances where CBO will have to fulfill its duties to Congress 
in a situation where they cannot operate in the Capitol 
compound, for example, the campus?
    Mr. Swagel. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Espaillat. You have the ability to do that, right?
    Mr. Swagel. Yes, sir, we have. And right after we went 
remote when the pandemic took hold in the U.S., we still had 
some people who had to go into the Ford House Office Building, 
because there was certain data that we could only access 
physically on the site for confidentiality reasons, and that is 
some of the work we have been doing over the past several 
months.
    And by--I guess it was by December is when we had the 
ability for everyone to work fully remotely.
    Mr. Espaillat. Okay. And what measures are you taking to 
prevent any potential breach of your IT infrastructure?
    Mr. Swagel. So we have worked very closely with the data 
providers. And so on the confidential data, the IRS has an 
important--actually, it is very involved in a good way--
information security regime that we adhere to and that they 
monitor us, and it is a whole process that, every year, we 
certify. And so that is on the tax data side.
    On the individual workstation side, we have training for 
our staff. And then we have taken steps essentially to 
virtualize our computer systems, so that the individual 
workstations our staff don't have the control over, those are 
actually operated in the cloud, and so we have central control 
over them.
    And about 30 percent of the workstations are in that 
situation now, and we are going to move, I don't know if we 
will get to 100 percent, but mostly in the cloud, so we can 
maintain that kind of data security.
    Mr. Espaillat. I know that in your increased funding 
request for new staff you tried to address some of the issues 
that are relevant, that are important to Congress, or that we 
may be taking up, such as some of the health-related challenges 
that we have.
    I know that we will be taking up an immigration reform 
effort, and I was wondering whether you are requesting--you are 
requesting additional staff for that area.
    And would that lead for your--the increased capacity to 
evaluate, for example, the impact of any proposal that may come 
up regarding immigration reform? How would that translate into 
some real life numbers or analysis of how it would impact the 
economy or how it would impact our States?
    Mr. Swagel. Okay. No, no, good. I can talk to that.
    And some of the investment we have made over the past 
several years that I talked about in healthcare, the second 
area has been immigration. And I didn't say it just for reasons 
of time, but that actually is the second area in which we have 
built up.
    We have also realigned the internal structure of CBO, just 
slightly, but in a way that allows us to focus--one group is 
focused on healthcare. There is one group focused on energy, 
infrastructure, climate, other, you know, microeconomic issues. 
And then there is a new group focused on labor issues, 
including immigration, including inequality.
    And so the buildup that we have done over the last several 
years has put us in position to do this quick--to be 
responsive.
    And then just the last thing on this I will add, that we 
will do the analysis, as you have said. A major immigration 
reform would have an important effect on the economy. The labor 
supply would be larger. Our society would be larger, more 
innovative. And that will affect the economy, and that, in 
turn, will have fiscal consequences.
    And that is work that CBO has done in the past. When Doug 
Elmendorf was Director, the CBO did that work as well, and we 
will do that again.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Mr. Espaillat.
    So my colleagues have covered, I think, a large swath of 
the questions that I had personally, Mr. Swagel, so I want to 
say, first, thank you to all of them and to you for your 
answers.
    I do have one question that I just wanted to ask you about. 
We have the Office of Employee Assistance, which serves the 
staff at the CBO. And I know just you talking about the--sounds 
like a level of exhaustion within your own ranks over the last 
year and all the hard work that you have done and late nights 
and early mornings and a lot of time put in for the cause here.
    Are you guys accessing and using the Office of Employee 
Assistance, the Wellness office, the office of well-being, that 
we have stood up a couple years ago? Are you interfacing with 
them at all?
    Mr. Swagel. Yes. Yes, sir, we are. Just to try to maintain 
the sense of connection and community, we have been holding 
regular online townhalls. And the Office of Employee Assistance 
and Wellness, twice they have sent really excellent staff to 
talk to CBO employees just sort of broadly, but then also 
specifically about the programs that are available. And so that 
has been very helpful.
    The kind of burnout, it is a challenge. And, look, we 
have--we know we have a couple more weeks of sprinting, and 
then hopefully we will do that, and then maybe have a 
slightly--a period to regroup, in a sense.
    Mr. Ryan. Yeah. I appreciate that. I mean, we are 
consistently on calls. Those of us, especially in the 
Appropriations Committee, we talk about staffing. We talk about 
salaries and benefits and retirement and really us trying to 
compete across the board with the private sector in which many 
positions pay more on the outside, as you know. They 
potentially could be in areas of the country that are less 
expensive than Washington, D.C., less stress that comes with a 
job like working at the CBO.
    So one of the things we have been committed to doing is 
really trying to create an environment and a culture here on 
the Capitol that addresses some of those needs, that maybe 
provide some of those benefits around quality of life, and we 
hope that you all take advantage of that.
    But, again, we just want to say thank you for your service. 
Please thank your entire team. It doesn't go unnoticed. We know 
we can be pains in the butt a lot of the time, and we just 
appreciate you being there for us. And we look forward to 
supporting you the best we can in the budget cycle here, in the 
appropriations cycle here.
    But thank you so much.
    And with that, this committee hearing is adjourned.
    Mr. Swagel. Thank you.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        

                                          Wednesday, March 3, 2021.

                          U.S. CAPITOL POLICE

                                WITNESS

YOGANANDA D. PITTMAN, ACTING CHIEF OF POLICE
    Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order. This hearing is 
fully virtual so we need to address a few housekeeping matters. 
First, for today's meeting, the chair and staff designated by 
the chair may mute participant's microphones when they are not 
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise.
    Second, members are responsible for muting and unmuting 
themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that you have 
not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the 
staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff 
will unmute your microphone.
    Third, you will notice a clock on your screen that will 
show you how much time is left on the 5-minute clock. If there 
is a technology issue, we will move to the next member until 
the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of your 
time.
    Fourth, we will be beginning with the chair and ranking 
member, and then members present at the time of the hearing is 
called to order will be recognized in the order of seniority.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings. That email 
address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    Acting Chief Pittman, thank you for joining us this 
morning. Before we get started talking about your budget needs 
for fiscal year 2022, I want to say thank you to you and to all 
the officers and civilians of the Capitol Police who work 
tirelessly to ensure the safety and security of the Members, 
employees, visitors, and facilities, both here and within our 
districts. The Capitol Police have a unique role as the only 
law enforcement agency responsible for protecting the Congress 
and the U.S. Capitol complex. The Capitol Police is an 
essential agency of the legislative branch. The men and women 
of the Capitol Police put their lives on the line each day to 
ensure Congress can operate efficiently.
    You do your jobs so that we can do ours.
    Threats to the Members and to the facilities are not new. 
We saw that on January 6, and last year, your predecessor, 
Chief Sund, testified before this subcommittee that, since 
calendar year 2017, the number of threats the U.S. Capitol 
Police has investigated has increased by more than 75 percent.
    We have already had three hearings on the events of January 
6. And while this is the budget hearing, I hope you will 
address how this increased budget request reflects the Capitol 
Police's response to the attack on the Capitol and the Members 
of Congress, and how the more resources will positively impact 
the security planning, policies, and procedures that were 
lacking on that day.
    As you know, safety, security, and wellness remain the 
subcommittee's top priorities. Currently, resources for Capitol 
Police are almost 10 percent of the entire legislative branch 
budget, totaling $515 million. For fiscal year 2022, the 
Department has requested $619.2 million, which is a 20-percent 
increase, or $103.7 million, over the fiscal year 2021 enacted 
total. I think January 6 made clear that increases are needed, 
but we need to understand what the increases will be and what 
they will be used to accomplish. We need to understand the plan 
for this year and the next year and how the increases provided 
will be regularized.
    I hope you can address how the requests will impact 
command, control, and communication. You are seeking a 91-
percent increase in screening technologies, 131 percent-
increase in security systems, a 43-percent increase in training 
services. I hope you can explain to the members of the 
committee the rationale for these increases. I look forward to 
your testimony today.
    And, at this point, I would like to yield to the ranking 
member, my friend and colleague from Washington State, a State 
that has more glaciers than the other 47 contiguous States 
combined, Jaime Herrera Beutler, for any opening comments she 
would like to make.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. And 
now I am going to have something for you in the next hearing if 
you just give me a minute.
    Acting Chief Pittman, thank you so much for joining us 
today. And welcome to your first actual regular budget 
Appropriations hearing.
    The Capitol Police force and your fiscal requests this year 
for fiscal year 2022 is, as the chairman noted, a 20.96-percent 
increase over the fiscal year 2021 enacted level. The U.S. 
Capitol Police's mission to protect the Congress, its Members, 
its visitors, employees, and the facilities, it is just 
crucial, and you do it so that we can fulfill our 
constitutional role and our legislative responsibilities. And 
we are really grateful to you and to the force for being 
willing to do that, especially, I think, more than ever now.
    As you know, the Capitol Police's core mission is now 
really front and center. Your success and the success of those 
that you command means that Congress can conduct their business 
in an open and secure and acceptable manner.
    As we discussed last week, January 6 should serve as a 
wakeup call that the Capitol Police must make major changes in 
the leadership organizations and operations to refocus the 
mission. Intelligence gathering practices, I believe, need to 
improve. Lines of communication between the Capitol Police and 
other law enforcement agencies need to be strengthened. 
Training programs must adjust to prepare officers for the new 
threats that they face, and officer wellness programs must 
adapt to the increased stress on rank-and-file members. And, at 
some point hopefully soon, the fence surrounding the Capitol 
complex will come down, and the National Guardsmen will return 
home. And, over the coming months, the reviews by the U.S. 
Capitol Police inspector general, third parties, congressional 
oversight committees will provide recommendations to improve 
the U.S. Capitol Police operation. But it is up to you and to 
your leadership to start preparing now, to strengthen your 
operations so that your officers feel like the changes that 
need to be made are being made and they feel supported and 
strengthened and empowered to do their jobs. I want to make 
sure that they are adequately prepared to protect the Capitol 
as we move forward.
    I greatly appreciate the sacrifices of the men and women of 
the Capitol Police force, that they make to keep us safe. I 
look forward to hearing detailed testimony on how you plan to 
accomplish your mission this year.
    With that, I yield back. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Chief Pittman, at the beginning of your 
testimony, please introduce any colleagues who will be joining 
you for the presentation today.
    Without objection, your written testimony will be made part 
of the record.
    Chief, please summarize your statement for the members of 
the committee. And once you have finished your statement, we 
will move to the question-and-answer period. Thanks again, 
Chief Pittman, and the floor is yours.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Thank you and good morning. Chairman 
Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the U.S. 
Capitol Police budget request for fiscal year 2022. The 
department greatly appreciates the subcommittee's continued 
support, as well as Congress providing the resources needed to 
support our mission.
    Joining me today is the department's executive team: Acting 
Assistant Chief Sean Gallagher, Chief Administrative Officer 
Richard Braddock, and General Counsel Thomas DiBiase, as well 
as members of the USCP Executive Management Team. As you said, 
USCP has a unique role in policing. We are the only law 
enforcement agency responsible for protecting Congress and the 
U.S. Capitol. We detect, investigate, and prevent threats made 
against Congress and Washington, D.C., and around the Nation. 
The department's personnel are resilient, highly trained in 
specialized fields, and deeply committed to our critical 
mission. Our mission, however, has become more difficult.
    In the first 2 months of 2021, there has been over a 93-
percent increase in the threats to Members compared to the same 
period last year. And from 2017 to 2020, there has been over a 
118-percent increase in the total threats and directions of 
interest with overwhelmingly a majority of those suspects 
residing outside of Washington, D.C.
    On the Capitol complex, the level and complexity of those 
threats to the Capitol are increasing as well. This was 
abundantly clear on January 6 when insurrectionists tried to 
stop Congress from certifying the 2020 electoral college. But 
due to the heroic actions of USCP officers with the assistance 
of MPD, the National Guard, and many of our law enforcement 
partners, the violent rioters were prevented from accomplishing 
their goal. We do realize that the possibility of a similar 
incident occurring in the current environment is a very clear 
and present danger. The events of January 6 demonstrate that 
USCP must quickly assess and adjust to successfully carry out 
our mission. And this will require a significant investment in 
staffing, training, tools, and information gathering resources 
needed to meet the ever-changing security challenges, including 
the threat of domestic terrorism.
    USCP employees are our greatest assets. Therefore, our 
budget request focuses on our employees and on meeting 
mandatory salary requirements, overtime for critical training, 
and securing capabilities within the general expenses to 
increase resources available to our personnel. Salaries and 
general expenses combined for the fiscal year 2022 annual 
budget request is $619.22 million, which is an increase of 
20.96 percent over the fiscal year 2021 enacted levels.
    The fiscal year 2022 salary budget request includes the 
budgetary authority and resources to fund 2,112 sworn and 453 
civilians. This includes funding for 212 new sworn officers for 
mission-critical requirements, such as a quick standby force, 
threat assessment agents, and dignitary protection agents. The 
main drivers of these costs are for the mandatory increases and 
benefit rates that were not reflected in the fiscal year 2021 
enacted levels, as well as overtime, COLA adjustments, and 
within-grade increases.
    USCP is also requesting $2.5 million for its student loan 
repayment program. This is a critical component for employee 
recruitment and retention. The fiscal year 2022 general 
expenses portion of this budget request places an emphasis on 
providing mandatory and specialized training, investing in 
tools, equipment, technology, as well as wellness initiatives 
we need to maintain our workforce at the highest levels of 
readiness. It also includes protective items, such as travel, 
support, hiring, outfitting, and training new sworn personnel, 
making sure that they have security equipment, and providing 
uniforms, and weapons, in addition to our wellness programs.
    Again, I want to reiterate that our officers who are on the 
job 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, are our greatest asset in 
helping preventing and responding to threats.
    The 1998 shooting and the 9/11 and anthrax attacks have all 
been historic pivotal moments that have forced the department 
to evolve rapidly. January 6 will no doubt be another pivotal 
moment in time in history.
    Again, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our fiscal 
year 2022 budget request, and I would be pleased to answer any 
questions that you have at this time.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
    
                        Capitol Security Posture

    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Chief Pittman.
    I have a couple of questions out of the gate here. What is 
the current security posture at the Capitol?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Thank you, Chairman Ryan.
    The current security posture for the Capitol is enhanced. 
We are working with our law enforcement partners, as well as 
the National Guard, to provide a robust security posture around 
the campus. Of course, that security posture is layered. We 
have an outer perimeter, as well as an inner perimeter. We have 
CDU units on standby, and we work with the National Guard to 
practice training and drills so that we can address any of the 
known threats to the security environment and address any gaps 
that we know that still have not been addressed on the campus.

                      Identifying Credible Threats

    Mr. Ryan. And one of the questions we had in the last 
hearing was distinguishing really what a credible threat is, 
and this is all of course in the context of the budget and, you 
know, the request for more officers and all the rest. How do 
you distinguish--we are hearing all the stuff about March 4 and 
all of that. How do you distinguish between chatter that is on 
the internet and an actual threat?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Absolutely. So we know that 
intelligence is more than just what we see and hear on the 
internet. We have intelligence directors, as well as analysts, 
within the department that are required to look at all of the 
information that we see on the internet from open sources. We 
routinely meet with our law enforcement partners to ascertain 
what is credible, what is actionable versus what is just 
chatter and noise out in the community. We use that information 
that we obtain from working with our law enforcement partners. 
We gather information from fusion centers in the national 
capital region, as well as from across the country. We take 
that information, and our analysts are then required to sift 
through the noise and provide us with an actionable assessment: 
How should we posture ourselves on the campus? What of the 
internet chatter is actually credible? What intent does the 
group have? And can they act on this nefarious intention to do 
harm to you all, to members of the congressional community? We 
use all of that information to combine what we call a special 
assessment. That special assessment is then shared with the 
members of the department. We share it internally. We share it 
with those who have a need to know externally. And we have 
routinely updated--one of the questions in the previous briefs 
was, how do we communicate that? We know that it is important 
not to only communicate that intelligence information up the 
chain of command to you all, the oversight committees, as well 
as the Capitol Police Board, but it is also important for those 
intelligence directors, analysts, and assessors to create a 
product that is valuable to our officers, the rank and file 
standing on posts. So we have increased those communications, 
making sure they get that valuable, credible intelligence 
information as well.
    Mr. Ryan. Yes. Clearly that needs to be improved from the 
6th, as you know.
    How many analysts do you have reviewing the intelligence?

                         Intelligence Staffing

    Acting Chief Pittman. Thank you for that question. And if I 
could just put a little context on it versus just giving you a 
number, I would like to do so. Prior to me coming on as the 
Acting Chief, I did serve as the Assistant Chief for Protection 
and Intelligence Operations. When I went there, I immediately 
assessed the staffing for intelligence. Within a matter of 
months, I put out a vacancy, and I brought on a new 
intelligence director. His name is Jack Donohue, and Jack has 
over 30 years of experience in the intelligence community. I 
also brought on an assistant director from the Department of 
Homeland Security to provide a Federal lens.
    And Jack did a strategic assessment of U.S. Capitol 
Police's intelligence capabilities. We currently have 13 
members on staff that provide anlysis. They do our assessments. 
They work with our law enforcement partners. We knew it was 
important prior to this fiscal year 2022 budget. Even in fiscal 
year 2021--I had only been there a year--when Jack provided 
that strategic assessment, one of the things we realized is 
that staffing has to increase. Some of the numbers that you 
reported regarding the threats to our Members of Congress have 
increased over 118 percent. Ninety percent of that increase is 
just in the first couple of months of 2021 alone. I have been 
briefing over a year on these threat increases. So we had to 
take action on how we are going to deal with those increases. 
So those numbers are in context. We were making sure that the 
intelligence director came up with a holistic strategic plan on 
how we can mitigate those threats to Members such as yourself.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. Let me ask you one--because I know the 
committee members here all have a lot of very good questions--
let me just ask two quick ones if you could give me two quick 
answers. One, the budget for this year, the increase for 
analysts, so we have 13 now; what would that number be if we 
pass this budget as you request it?
    Acting Chief Pittman. That would be an eight-person 
increase.
    Mr. Ryan. An eight-person increase.
    Acting Chief Pittman [continuint]. Alone. Twelve of them 
would be contractors. Yes, sir, an additional 12 contracting 
staff.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. So what would the total be? So 13 plus 8 
plus 12?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay.
    Acting Chief Pittman. A total of 33.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. Thank you for doing that math for me.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Ryan. Lastly, just real quick, so let me make a brief 
comment, and I am sure we will get to this throughout the 
hearing. I know you have 212 new personnel that you want and 47 
civilian. To me, looking at each shift, right, so there is 
three shifts in a day usually, right?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. That is correct.
    Mr. Ryan. I know you have been doing 12 and 16s, but you 
divide each of that by 3, and I don't know what the specific 
number would be per shift and how that meets the needs of the 
current threats that are out there, plus a lot of these threats 
are to district offices, so this number won't necessarily, as 
we look forward into a new reality and we wait for General 
Honore's recommendations, this number just at first blush for 
me doesn't seem quite adequate enough. Again, we have got to go 
through this with a fine-tooth comb, but we want to figure out 
how you got to that number of 212.

                       Recruitment and Retention

    All right. We will go to Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few 
different questions, and it is along the line of recruitment 
and retention. Your budget justification noted that the 
challenge that the Capitol Police has when finding highly 
qualified applicants who can meet rigorous employment 
suitability standards of the department. In fact, your budget 
is requesting over $100,000 for recruiting and advertising. 
Could you explain what some of those, really specifically, what 
some of those challenges are and, in detail, what steps you are 
taking to recruit and retain qualified officers?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am. Capitol Police prides 
itself on recruiting the best officers that we can. We know 
that we are competing heavily against other law enforcement 
agencies in Washington, D.C. We also know that we have 
extremely high and rigorous hiring standards, and our 
suitability standards make sure that we weed out the things 
like cultural bias, any discriminatory practices of those that 
we are trying to hire. We make sure that those persons not only 
undergo a criminal background check, but we thoroughly 
investigate them and whoever their associations are frontwards 
and backwards. We make sure that we do a thorough 
investigation.
    We also know that COVID has severely impacted our ability 
to recruit. Our officers train down in FLETC Georgia. The 
COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted us because FLETC Georgia 
was forced to close.
    Where we normally screen for officers, it takes about 18 
persons for us to have one good qualified candidate. We also 
know that we had to double up the number of classes down in 
FLETC Georgia. Usually within a year, we just had a couple of 
classes, but we are now running five classes of 24 officers so 
that we can make up for those differences that we lost due to 
the COVID-19 pandemic.
    For some of the more granular details regarding recruiting 
and hiring practices, Mr. Richard Braddock will be able to 
provide some more of those details. Richard is well versed. He 
has been here 16 years doing just that. So, Mr. Braddock, I 
would like to turn to you for some more specifics in regards to 
hiring. Thank you.
    Mr. Braddock. Thank you, ma'am. I will make this quick 
because I know you have other questions, but the majority of 
where this money is going is centered around processing more 
applicants. We are having to process more polygraphs, medical 
evaluations, more psychological processes, and then we are also 
in a virtual environment now, so we are paying to tap into 
things, into Handshake and other kinds of technology that 
allows us to recruit.
    We still have a focus, though, on making sure that we are 
recruiting females and underrepresented populations, even when 
we are trying to bring in larger populations of applicants.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. How many of your officers right now 
are, a percentage, are at or near retirement?
    Mr. Braddock. So that is a very good question. Because of 
the post-9/11 hiring surge, we have about 400 people in the 
next year that could look at retiring.
    Mr. Herrera Beutler. So----
    Mr. Braddock. And that is something we have been working 
towards.

                   Improving Top-Down Communications

    Ms. Herrera Beutler. So, just in talking with different 
officers in and around the Capitol complex, I know there are 
some whom I have known for a while--I have been here for about 
10 years, and I was a staffer before that. And I have heard 
several of them say that, because of the challenges just around 
the culture and the perceived inadequacies, real or I am sure 
you guys will have a different opinion, but around the 
leadership, there are people who have said: I have a few more 
years, but I am going to look at retiring because it doesn't 
feel worth it.
    And one of the things I think would be helpful in 
retaining--and that was another part of the question--retaining 
employees is for I think a change in the culture between the 
leadership and the frontline officers. I think one of the 
things I wanted to ask you, what efforts are you, Chief 
Pittman, making to ensure you are more visible and accessible 
to the folks that you serve? And when I say ``serve,'' I mean 
lead, same thing in my mind.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Thank you for that question. I take 
my leadership role seriously. I have come up through the ranks 
of this agency--I have been here for the past 20 years. I have 
a number of friends; some of them I consider my family.
    Since being sworn in after January 8, I have attended all 
of the roll calls of my officers. I have engaged with them. I 
have listened to their concerns. I know some of the concerns 
they have about leadership. I provided a platform for them to 
express themselves. I also opened up communications with them 
more robust than we have ever done before. For example, with 
our K-9 officers, they expressed concern over their safety, 
having marked vehicles. I immediately implemented that they 
take those markings off so those officers could feel safe at 
home.
    We knew, after January 8, we had a big mission to 
accomplish; we were planning for the inauguration. We knew the 
officers were working long hours, and they were extremely 
exhausted. We provided over 20,000 nights of hotels for all of 
our workforce. We also knew that they had limited access to 
getting food working while around the clock. They work 365 
days, 24 hours a day. With the COVID pandemic, restaurants up 
on the Hill have very limited hours. Myself and the leadership 
team provided hot meals to all of our staff. Over 90,000 meals 
were provided. I also ensured that command staff was getting 
information that they could relay same day in regards to 
intelligence. I now host a daily command brief with all ranks 
but primarily focusing on the captains, inspectors, and deputy 
chiefs.
    In addition to that, I heard from my officers from visiting 
all of those roll calls, from management by walking around. 
They still weren't getting the intelligence information. I 
directed that my director and some of those intel analysts 
start attending those roll calls to provide those briefs 
directly to the rank and file. It gave them an opportunity to 
ask questions about intelligence from the intelligence experts. 
I also meet regularly with the FOP chairman. I had a meeting 
last week with the chairman, and I also brought in the 
intelligence director to provide them updated communications. 
This leadership team has made sure that we have put in place a 
number of action items to communicate with our workforce. We 
know that our workforce----
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Let me jump in really quick because my 
time is up. But I just want one more, just yes or no. So you 
feel like you have the confidence of most of your officers? I 
realize you can never make everybody happy. Do you feel like 
that is an accurate assessment?
    Acting Chief Pittman. I do believe that is an accurate 
assessment.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I will stop taking the time. I appreciate it. 
I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    The chair of the full Appropriations Committee, Ms. 
DeLauro.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 
Ranking Member.

        Aligning the FY2022 Budget With Security Review Findings

    I just would like to follow up on the personnel and 
recruiting and the increased numbers. Have you had 
conversations with General Honore and his team about what the 
department needs in order to move forward, especially in light 
of what happened on January 6?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am. I have had several 
conversations with General Honore and his team. We worked 
closely together for them to provide that draft report to the 
Speaker. So every level----
    The Chairwoman. Let me just--I am delighted that you are 
talking with the general. But is the general--his 
recommendations, are there any of his recommendations with 
regard to the officers or the numbers, et cetera, that are 
reflected in your budget? Has the analysis and the evaluation 
that the general is making, how is that reflected in your 
budget?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. To answer the question directly, 
when I met with the general, his recommendations directly align 
with the requests that are in our budget. This fiscal year 2022 
budget focuses on Member protection. We want to ensure that we 
provide our workforce the absolute best so that they can 
provide, the Members, the absolute best, not only here in 
Washington, D.C., but also districts when you are at home. The 
budget directly aligns with his recommendations.
    The Chairwoman. I appreciate that a lot because we know we 
are going to hear from General Honore, and this full committee 
will be looking at what the supplemental request is. So what I 
want to do is to make sure that we are looking at what we have 
here, which is the annual budget, obviously, and that what in 
addition we will need. I want to see where the trains are going 
to meet here.
    Let me then ask you quickly about, if you can get to us, I 
want to know about your training protocol. And you don't have 
to lay this all out today, but I would very much like to know, 
what is the--who are you working with? How are these officers 
trained? What does the training curriculum include? What is the 
length of time for training? All of those questions as to 
looking at where you are as a highly professional law 
enforcement team here. So, if you could lay that out for the 
committee, I think it would be enormously helpful. And if you 
can tell us if there are any changes being made of what 
happened prior to--is there a new regime, a new protocol for 
training, what that is, where it is going, and how it is going 
to be implemented. So that would be enormously helpful to us.

                  Mental Health Services for Officers

    And I just have one other, and I don't want to--I want to 
ask you, are all of the officers able--and do you have within 
your budget the kinds of mental health services--and I know 
this is an issue that the chair is very concerned about--the 
mental health services, is that part of your budget? Is there a 
special line item that is dealing with whatever counseling 
services are there and not part of the officers being part of 
general counseling for everyone else but specific to Capitol 
Police and to their families?
    And attached to that--and maybe I will leave it this way, 
Mr. Chairman--I really think we need to know what that protocol 
is on the mental health services and how is that going to be 
implemented and what are the costs and where are they within 
the budget so that we can address some of--look, I have talked 
to a number of officers and, you know, their concerns about 
their own psyche and what is going on for their families. I 
think this is critically important. So I want to see where it 
fits in the budget, what is the line item, how is that going to 
be implemented, and how we move forward with those efforts. And 
I know about your concern for the officers and so forth. But 
what we need to do is see in dollars and cents and 
programmatically and implementation what is going to be done in 
this direction. And that, coupled with the training and the 
vetting of officers, we really need to understand and know that 
protocol so that the officers are safe and we begin to build 
back the trust, both internally and externally, about the 
Capitol Police force. So I want to just say, you know, thank 
you. If you can get that to us, then we can go from there.
    And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take up more 
of your time, but I yield back.

                     Officer Wellness and Training

    Mr. Ryan. That is okay. Thank you, Chairwoman DeLauro.
    Chief Pittman, those are two questions I think every member 
of this committee would like an answer to. And I am happy to 
give you some time to give us at least a snapshot on both the 
training end and the mental health promotion, mental health 
services, and how you communicate that and try to reach out to 
the rank-and-file members to make sure that they know the 
opportunities that are available. So take a few minutes and 
please share that with us.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, absolutely. I am going to 
address the wellness question, what are we doing, how have we 
included that in the fiscal year 2022 budget. And I will turn 
it over to Mr. Braddock to answer the training question. And I 
am willing to come over and provide a more indepth brief so we 
are not limited to that 5-minute window.
    Mind, body, and medicine is something that we know is 
important after a traumatic experience like what our officers 
experienced on January 6. I have talked to a number of officers 
and commanders out in the field as well, and I know that they 
are dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder. There is no 
end--specific date that those types of disorders, that type of 
trauma is going to end. So we know that we need ongoing care 
for our workforce. We, along with the congressional leaders, 
have been able to bring on numerous peer-support teams, 
specialized trauma counselors.
    Chairman Ryan, I have to thank you for the recommendation 
that you gave for Dr. Gordon. I know that Mr. Braddock is 
working with him, and we have developed a program. But if I 
could even go back to fiscal year 2021, that is when we first 
made the request to have a wellness and resiliency director. We 
have recognized the need long before January 6, but it has been 
exacerbated because of the events on the 6th. We have phone 
applications. Everybody right now has an Android or an Apple 
iPhone; the young people, as well as some of our seasoned 
officers, are able to access apps that address nutrition, apps 
that address physical fitness, apps that address their 
finances. We know that policing is a stressful job. It is 
around the clock. Midnight officers have stress just because 
they work midnights, in addition to being a law enforcement 
officer dealing with critical incidents. We also know that 
their physical well-being directly affects their health. We 
have our gyms back open following COVID-19 protocols. We know 
that if our officers address health and nutrition, it helps to 
reduce diseases like heart disease, hypertension, diabetes. And 
if we can reduce that, we can have a healthier workforce. It 
drives down the need for preventative care and we have our 
officers on staff, available to us when needed.
    Working in a COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge. I am 
thankful to the Speaker that we have had onsite COVID testing. 
After the 6th, there were concerns expressed by our officers. 
And due to the efforts of the Speaker and Lieutenant General 
Honore's task force, we were able to secure COVID-19 
vaccinations for all of our staff. By the end of March, 80 
percent of our staff will have taken advantage of those COVID-
19 vaccinations. We anticipated about a 30-percent rejection 
rate, and right now we are at just about 40 percent, with some 
folks changing their mind. But we know that it is important 
that we address mind, body, and medicine for all of our 
employees.
    We have in this fiscal year 2022 budget, budgeted for 
$900,000 directly related to wellness and resiliency, and we 
want to bring on three additional civilians in addition to what 
we already had from fiscal year 2021 so that we can expand 
those capabilities.
    We also are working closely with Mr. Bryan Weiss of the 
House Wellness Program to make sure that our efforts aren't 
redundant. Our employees can go there to get assistance, but we 
have peer support and counselors onsite that USCP is pushing 
and funding so that they have what they need. We know it is a 
long road ahead for our staff. And we appreciate the 
congressional community support.
    Richard, I will turn to you for a quick response, if we 
can, on training.
    Mr. Braddock. Yes. Just to mention, we will provide to the 
committee in writing the training overview protocols and our 
hiring process and then answer any questions you have with 
that.
    One of the things we are looking at right now is the need 
for an enhanced refresher training in CDU for supervisors. In 
addition, we are looking at our recruit training to see what 
changes or shifts we need to be making there as we are training 
new officers to come in based on the threats we are seeing.
    The budget contains additional training for intelligence 
specialists, for threats, and advanced cyber threats, 
protection intelligence countermeasures, and insider threats. 
We have really stopped and took a look at what needed to be 
added on top of what we were reviewing to enhance our training 
across the platform.
    The Chairwoman. Mr. Chairman, just for one second. Included 
in that training, it is also social and emotional determinants, 
as well as some of the items that you have laid out. I would 
very, very much like to know what then kind of training is 
engaged or involved in? Who are the trainers? Are we 
contracting out for training? If we don't have the answers now, 
I really want to see--I believe it would be important to the 
committee to know what the dimensions of the training protocol 
regime that you are putting together and again the dollar 
amount attached to that, the various pieces that have to do 
with the overall, the intelligence, all that, and what are the 
qualifications for that in terms of your recruitment to people, 
but, also, as I say, the social and emotional and determinants 
which then go into the mix of your recruitment and your hiring. 
So thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Do you have anything you want to add, Richard?
    Mr. Braddock. Just to say, ma'am, we definitely will follow 
up. To do it justice, we would want to package it up for you so 
you can see it holistically.
    Mr. Ryan. Great.
    Chief Pittman, with regard to rank-and-file members coming 
to access whether its Dr. Gordon's program at the Center for 
Mind-Body Medicine or any of these other opportunities that 
they may have, can they do that without any fear of being 
disciplined or labeled or stigmatized as somehow unfit then for 
service?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. We support our workforce 
100 percent. We know that that specialized trauma counseling 
and peer support is critical to them being able to do their 
job. We know that we have had firefighters from the association 
from New York come down. We have had Warrior's Rest from 
Oklahoma City. We have had peer support from professionals who 
are outside of U.S. Capitol Police.
    I have heard from a number of officers that expressed 
concern with going to the Employee Assistance Program. They 
want to make sure that the information they are sharing is 
confidential and will not be shared with the leadership, their 
supervisors here on the department. So we have made sure that 
we provided them with outside peer counselors so that they know 
that they have a level of confidentiality that the leadership 
doesn't even know or have a personal relationship with those 
outside folks so that makes them comfortable. And they are 
comfortable with the internal peer-support program that we are 
standing up. Because they are talking amongst their peers, they 
know that information won't be shared with their command staff.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay.
    Mr. Amodei.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                 Rightsizing in the New Threat Posture

    Hey, Chief. Thanks again for sitting in the fun seat.
    I get that everything is going forward in terms of how do 
we go forward and what are the lessons learned and all that 
other sort of stuff. But the one thing that I am hoping that is 
part of this process is that we are not doing silos. And you 
say, well, what the heck do you mean by not doing silos?
    What I mean, Chief, is when you talk about how we need to 
staff up going forward in terms of operations, I am hoping that 
that is with an eye toward, what does the campus as it is 
defined going forward look like in terms of the physical 
security? Because I know the Police Board and the Architect of 
the Capitol and the other involved folks are all talking about 
how we go from 4 miles of temporary fencing, which is costing 
$1.9 million a week, to something that is more permanent and in 
keeping with the facility and the security requirements so that 
when we talk about staffing going forward, it is in terms of 
the changes that we have made, that fit harmoniously and 
effectively with what we are doing to the Capitol Building 
itself, what we are doing to the campus itself, what piece of 
that is slowing people down or whatever, traffic patterns, 
pedestrian patterns, points, video, all that other sort of 
stuff so that we are not creating a physical force which really 
wasn't blended with what we want the Capitol improvement of 
what you are protecting looks like. So I know you are not going 
to accomplish that in whatever time is left for me in this. I 
am just going to say we are going to be reaching out to you 
after the hearing to sit down, perhaps with you and an AOC 
person or whatever, and say as this, which is clearly a work in 
progress right now, develops, that when he we talk about what 
your budget needs are, that they are for a force and an 
operational posture which matches what the new physical plan is 
going to look like in terms of individual buildings.
    Can you give me an idea whether or not that has gone into 
any of the requests that you have done now, which I assume 
hasn't because you don't know what the heck it is going to look 
like yet?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. I understand exactly what you 
mean when you say ``operating in silos.'' Does the left hand 
know what the right hand is doing?
    We know that there are known threats to the campus. We know 
that there is some concern with the fencing. We have heard from 
the congressional community that this is the people's House. It 
is all about finding that balance, that balance between 
security and then how do we keep the campus open and accessible 
to the congressional community, as well as all of the millions 
of visitors that come here to exercise their First Amendment 
rights. We know that there is a delicate balance there. And I 
think that we have done a number of things to include in this 
fiscal year 2022 budget to ensure that we are not operating in 
silos. We are looking at infrastructure. There is a number of 
technologies that we could leverage. The team has worked 
closely with Lieutenant General Honore's task force so that 
they are aware of our needs. We know some of the information 
hasn't come out. Some of those reports are concluding quickly. 
But for our own physical security assessment, I directed that 
immediately after January 8 so that we were working on our own 
internal process to say, what are the infrastructure 
limitations? How can we better communicate with the physical 
force that we have, the infrastructure, and make sure that it 
is directly in line with the staffing requests that we are 
making? So we have----
    Mr. Amodei. And I appreciate that. So we are clear: What I 
want to talk about offline is--none of my question is related 
to your response after the 6th until now, until a while from 
now. It is clearly when we get back to whatever the new normal 
is for security on the Capitol campus; are we incorporating the 
knowledge of the advances we have made in technology, the 
advances we have made in metal detection, the advances we have 
made in barriers, all that stuff so that when we say, ``We want 
to size you with the appropriate operational assets,'' not that 
everything is operations, but you know what I am saying. So 
that is the discussion I want to have with you. It is not--I am 
not trying to sharp shoot what you are doing now. I am not even 
looking at that right now. I am looking at, when we get back to 
whatever operations are going to be normal a year or 2 years 
from now, that we have sized our Capitol Police on the ground 
operations, undercover, K-9, patrol, whatever it is, 
appropriately for the new threat posture improvements that we 
have made in terms of barriers and all that other sort of 
stuff.
    My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. And, Mr. Chairman, I would just 
respond by saying I would love to provide a more indepth brief, 
but the short answer to that question is yes. This fiscal year 
2022 budget is laying the foundation to build from now and 
address how we see the vision going forward for this police 
agency.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you.

            Preparations for Potential March 4, 2021 Protest

    Ms. Clark.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Chief Pittman, for joining us again and for 
going over your budget request.
    I think most members of this committee would agree that the 
Capitol Police need additional resources to respond to the 
events of January 6. But I am hoping that you can briefly tell 
me about tomorrow. And do you have what you need for the 
security of the Capitol complex tomorrow, March 4? And what can 
you share about the threat level?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. Thank you for that question.
    I want to ensure everyone on this call that USCP is working 
with all of our law enforcement partners in the D.C. capital 
region to make sure that all of the intelligence we have and 
threats to the campus, we are prepared to respond 
appropriately.
    We do have some concerning intelligence. That intelligence 
is law-enforcement sensitive. And it wouldn't be prudent of me 
to share it in a public hearing, a public format. But I would 
love to come over. I am available at any time to provide an 
additional brief to everyone on the call. But we have enhanced 
our security posture. We have taken immediate steps to let the 
National Guard, as well as our workforce, know what to expect 
tomorrow and going forward. Other than that, I would be more 
than happy to come over and provide you a brief.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you for that offer. I am sure we will take 
you up on it.

                       Balancing USCP Priorities

    I want to talk a little bit about, as we talk about 
security for the Capitol complex, I want to make sure we have 
the right balance going forward. Traffic and drug enforcement 
activities: Traffic incidents are--52 percent of your incident 
reports involve traffic-related infractions; 14 percent are 
drug-related offenders. Do you have the right balance? And do 
you think that this is striking the right balance between these 
activities and the safety of Members, staff, and the Capitol 
community?
    Acting Chief Pittman. I do believe that we are striking the 
right balance. We have a patrol mobile response that patrols 
the grounds that surround the campus. We know that a large 
number of the staff that work here live around those grounds. 
They also use the South Capitol Street Metro and Union Station 
Metro to go back and forth to work. A lot of times when we are 
patrolling the grounds, that is where that type of activity 
comes from. But I, again, would be glad to provide you a more 
indepth brief than can be explained in this 5-minute period.
    Ms. Clark. Okay. I would love to understand the dollar 
figure on it and what percentage of your budget is going to 
traffic and drug offenses.

                    Civil Disturbance Unit Readiness

    I would love to also follow up on your testimony of last 
week that the department has seven civil disturbance unit 
platoons but enough hard gear to only equip four of those 
platoons. Unlike the D.C. Metro Police, you do not supply every 
officer with even the minimum amount of hard gear, like hard 
helmets. It is a pretty amazing statistic, given that you are 
the 12th largest police force in the country. I did not see in 
your budget proposal a request for funding to purchase 
additional hard gear. Will you be doing that? Will you be 
equipping the other three CDUs?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. And thank you for the question 
and opportunity to provide some additional follow up and 
context.
    Those officers that were on the front lines on January 6 
fought with everything they had. We are eternally forever 
grateful for them. They are our heroes. We know that, because 
of them, that electoral vote process was able to continue. We 
know that we ordered CDU helmets prior to the January 6 
incident. They were actually ordered in September of the 
previous year.
    Ms. Clark. Chief Pittman.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. Those helmets have arrived, and 
we have already issued----
    Ms. Clark. Any other hard equipment to equip our officers? 
I think the best way we can honor their incredible bravery is 
by making sure they have the hard gear they need.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. Over 1,300 of those helmets have 
arrived. We do have several hundred that are still coming in to 
be issued out. In addition to that, we have a number of other 
equipment assets that are reflected in the fiscal year 2022 
budget for our officers. We do want to honor them and make sure 
that they are in the best position to protect themselves as 
well as protecting you.
    Ms. Clark. In my final seconds here, there is an inspector 
general's report. It is one of the primary ways that we ensure 
Federal dollars are being spent appropriately. Your office, 
U.S. Capitol Police, does not make--your office does not make 
the IG reports available to the public.
    Do you support the release of those? Yes or no?
    Acting Chief Pittman. That is up to the Capitol Police 
Board. The Capitol Police Board has oversight over USCP, and 
they determine whether or not we release the recommendations 
from the Office of the Inspector General.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you, Chief.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Clark.
    Chief, we are going to be reaching out to your staff here 
immediately to see if we can put together a quick briefing 
right after this committee, if you have time. We can just find 
a room and we can all head over there, or whatever the 
protocols are, or call, or we will figure it out. But I would 
like to get that done right after the committee hearing, if 
that is okay.
    Acting Chief Pittman. I will work with your chief of staff 
to make sure we get that scheduled ASAP.
    Mr. Ryan. Great. Thank you.

        Ensuring the FY 2022 Budget Addresses Areas of Weakness

    Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would 
appreciate that briefing as well. There is some questions that 
I would like to ask that maybe this isn't the right setting.
    But welcome back, Acting Chief Pittman. It is a pleasure to 
see you again. And thanks for taking so much of your time in 
the last couple of weeks and spending it with us.
    I have got some questions still about January 6, Mr. 
Chairman, but since this is about the appropriation request, I 
will try to focus on that particularly. So maybe a follow-up 
meeting would be good for those questions too.
    But, you know, as appropriators, Chief Pittman, we want to 
make sure that--you know, we want to help. We want to make sure 
you have got all the tools that you need to provide the men and 
women that serve in the Capitol Police force so that they can 
do their job appropriately and safely. And so my questions are 
in light of that. I want to make sure you understand.
    It has only been, you know, less than 2 months since 
January 6. That is not a--you have spent a lot of your time 
responding to a lot of our questions, throughout Congress, 
about what happened, and I guess I want to be certain about the 
steps that you have taken, the processes that you went through 
to come up with these numbers that you are asking. I want to 
make sure we have confidence that we are just not throwing 
dollars at the problem, that we truly are addressing the tough 
questions that we need to in order to be better prepared into 
the future.
    In my humble opinion, I am not convinced that January 6 
happened because of life cycle replacement issues or because of 
software maintenance agreements and those kinds of things.
    I think that there was truly a lack of communication, a 
breakdown of command, and it seems like a failure to pass along 
important reports to people in leadership so that decisions 
could be made.
    And so, like I said, I want to make--I want to have the 
confidence that by providing the dollars to these areas, we are 
actually helping to solve the problem, and I would like to hear 
your response to give us the confidence that we are.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. And thank you for the 
opportunity to provide clarity and context.
    I hear your concerns about the fiscal year 2022 budget. Our 
goal and focus has been to strengthen our intelligence 
capabilities. Having intelligence in and of itself is not 
enough. We know that we need to be able to convey and 
communicate to the workforce internally, as well as to our 
stakeholders externally, in a way that they understand that 
those intelligence capabilities, vulnerabilities are being 
plugged and they are being addressed in a manner so that they 
drive operational security posture.
    One of the things that you asked about in the previous 
hearing was specifically about that FBI document, and I know 
that this is a budgetary hearing, but I think it is important 
that we address how intelligence information is gathered. The 
USCP has----
    Mr. Newhouse. So, Chief, I know we have a short amount of 
time. Tell me then how the budget request addresses that and 
the breakdown in command. That is what I am getting at, just 
those simple--boil it down.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. For member protection, we know 
that the threats are through the roof. We asked for 111 
dignitary protection officers--dignitary protection agents 
because right now we only cover the congressional leadership. 
When we have things such as the impeachment hearings, we had 
nine managers. We have to pull from those 10 leadership details 
to cover those nine managers. If we have other threats that are 
coming in, we are really dependent upon our law enforcement 
partners. They do a great job, but these numbers in this fiscal 
year 2022 budget give us a chance to address that from within. 
We know that we are the best at protecting Members of Congress. 
We also----
    Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate--my time is just about out, but 
my question is--
    Mr. Ryan. Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Newhouse. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Ryan. Mr. Newhouse, take your time.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I really want to--I am not trying to be a jerk about this. 
I really want to understand--I think the committee does too--
that the dollars that we appropriate actually get to the root 
of some of the problems that have been identified, and you have 
talked about some of them. But I think the breakdown in command 
and communication and leadership was a big contributing factor, 
and so maybe that can't be reflected in a budget request. But I 
am hopeful that it can be, and I am just--that is what I want 
to understand from you this morning.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. I understand the 
community's concerns with the Capitol Police leadership, 
command, and control. I immediately came in after January 8 and 
addressed a number of those issues. One of the issues that was 
raised on the previous hearing was, why wasn't more direction 
given? How come the officers couldn't hear? Why weren't 
evacuation routes communicated one way on the House and a 
different way on the Senate? I have addressed all of those.
    I first started by addressing communication out in the 
field for riots. I procured an LRAD system for those 
commanders, deputy chiefs, with boots on the ground. It is a 
communication system on steroids. It makes sure that if you are 
dealing with large crowds, you can hear, you can give clear and 
concise direction to your officers, how you want them to form 
up, where you are going to draw your line in the sand, so that 
we can prevent a January 6 from ever happening again.
    I directed a review of the command center so that those 
notification messaging systems that are going out to the 
community, we make sure that they are clear and concise and 
timely.
    I also ordered that those commanders at the Capitol 
immediately start training with those evacuation routes. We 
want to make sure that we have the officers that are assigned 
to those chambers in the chambers during a critical incident. 
Some of the information is law enforcement sensitive, so I 
can't go into the details of those evacuation routes, but I can 
assure you, within days of me being assigned as the Acting 
Chief of Police, I made sure that those communications went out 
to those commanders. I made sure that we filled those 
intelligence gaps, because we acknowledge that they do exist.
    I acknowledge that there were failures of command and 
control, but I have put in internal controls immediately after 
being appointed to this position to address those gaps, sir.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. That is very helpful, and I 
appreciate that.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your allowing me to go 
over time, but I think that was a very important point that I 
wanted to hear. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Ryan. Yes. Thanks, Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate it.
    And let me just add, with regard to the details and 
everything else, I am not necessarily saying every Member of 
Congress should have a detail, but if you are a Governor of a 
State, you have a security detail. You have security at your 
home. If you are chair of the Appropriations Committee or the 
Ways and Means Committee or the Defense Committee, you know, it 
is a much different story. So I think most of us would say we 
have got to increase that, and it could be threat-based given 
politics of the moment, and I think that is important.
    And the information flow, just to reiterate what Mr. 
Newhouse's question was, we appreciate those reforms. We want 
to look closer at them, because the kind of information we are 
getting that the FBI was confirming intelligence for the 
Capitol Police and that intelligence never made its way up to 
you in your old position or to Chief Sund is a breakdown in the 
information flow that we need that has got to be organic and 
integrated and then make its way up to the decision makers.
    So we are going to be looking very, very closely at that. I 
know we are the appropriations side of this, but if we are 
going to be jacking up the budget by hundreds of millions of 
dollars, or whatever the number ends up being, we want to make 
damn sure that the information, the processes, the 
communication, the command and control, the training, the 
helmets, the equipment, all of that has got to be tops in the 
country. This police department needs to be a model for all 
immersion training, mental health, wellness, the whole 9 yards. 
It needs to be a model for all other departments in the 
country.
    Mr. Case.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And just on a quick aside, I cannot let your opening 
comments on Washington's preeminence with glaciers go 
uncommented on because you spoke of it in terms of the 
contiguous parts of our country, and this risks great division 
and polarization as between the contiguous and noncontiguous 
parts of our country. I just want to assure everybody that 
Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Marianas, American Samoa, Puerto 
Rico, and the Virgin Islands do not have glaciers. And so what 
you should have said was Washington is far better than anybody 
else other than Alaska. I think that sounds better all around.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Well, why don't you invite us to 
Hawaii and we can talk about it.
    Mr. Case. I am happy to do that. I am just trying to defend 
Washington.
    So, sorry, Chief Pittman. Very serious topic, but levity 
never hurts.

          Funding the Inspector General Independent Assessment

    I spoke to you last week about my great concern, which is 
actually getting to be a deeper concern, that in trying to 
figure out as to January 6 exactly what happened, why, and what 
we need to do to prevent it, we are not getting objective, 
independent assessments.
    I think we also established last week that as to General 
Honore--and it is good news that you are in touch with him--his 
evaluation is more about the physical infrastructure, the 
physical protection, the physical, you know, attributes of 
greater prevention and protection, to include what has gone 
into your budget request in terms of increasing officers. But 
as I think Mr. Newhouse was trying to get at, and Mr. Amodei, 
we are just as concerned, or at least I am just as concerned 
about the nonphysical human areas that went wrong, whether it 
be command structure or flow of communication or whatever. And 
I am very, very concerned that that is not yet at least being 
subjected to an objective, independent assessment that is not 
driven by the people that were there on the spot, because I 
don't think that that results in either a good overall 
assessment or in credibility and confidence in the result.
    And so last week, I asked you who is actually doing that, 
and you responded in part the inspector general, by which I 
think you were referring to as the U.S. Capitol Police 
Inspector General. But I don't see anything in your budget 
request that would actually allow the inspector general to do 
that job. I mean, you have got, if I understand it correctly, 
10 FTEs and the inspector general, that you are not trying to 
increase. If I understand correctly, only one or two of them 
are actually investigators, and I assume that they have their 
hands full in investigating kind of individual incidents within 
the U.S. Capitol Police.
    And so I just ask you straight out again, how are we going 
to get that objective, independent assessment? And is your 
budget request adequate for that kind of participation by the 
inspector general's office to actually do the job?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. Thank you for your question. We 
welcome all independent assessments and reviews of the U.S. 
Capitol Police. We know that Lieutenant General Honore and a 
couple of the others that you mentioned are doing an 
assessment, and I understand that you are saying that is not 
actually independent. We need to have someone outside of the 
agency, someone who is not tied to government per se to come in 
and do that assessment. We welcome those reviews, because I 
believe that the proof is going to be data driven. How we build 
out from fiscal year 2022 is going to be looking at those 
independent assessments, taking that information so we can use 
it to effect change on our policies, we can provide better 
accommodations for our people, and we will evaluate our 
processes to make this an opportunity to make things better for 
the entire department. We----
    Mr. Case. I am sorry.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
    Mr. Case. Let me just, because my time is ticking down 
here. I am not saying that General Honore is not independent. I 
am saying that he is not looking at the totality of the 
picture, at least as I understand it. I am talking about the 
other half of the assessment, which is, you know, what 
happened, what went wrong, what didn't go wrong, and what needs 
to be corrected about the noninfrastructure part of this; so, 
in other words, the human actions, the Capitol Board, you know, 
all of the areas where you could have the best possible 
infrastructure, the best possible police force and things may 
well still have gone wrong. I am talking about the 
organization. And so I am trying to get at, you know, where is 
that coming from? And are we resourcing that effort then----
    And I ask you very specifically, because your answer last 
week was, it is coming from the inspector general. And I don't 
know whether this inspector general under this budget request 
has the resources to do that job. So I am focused very much on 
the inspector general. Is the inspector general in that 
business? And do you have the resources in your budget request 
for that inspector general's office to take a look 
independently, which is what inspector generals are supposed to 
be about?
    I accept that the inspector general is a good place to 
participate in this independent, objective assessment, but I 
ask the question whether they have got what they need to do 
that.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. So we do provide funding to 
the Office of the Inspector General for contractors, and that 
request is in this budget.
    And I would like to turn it over to Mr. Braddock. He can 
provide some more details about the budget itself and the 
inspector general.
    Mr. Braddock. Yes, sir. I will make it brief.
    They determine their own budget requests. That is what is 
in the book that you see. That came directly from the IG. That 
said, as a result of the events of the 6th, the department was 
requested to provide additional contract resources to the IG, 
which we did. We used some of our no-year reimbursable funds 
that we get for things like the O'Neill House Office Building 
security, and we moved that over to the IG so they could have 
the resources they need to do this.
    Mr. Case. Okay. But that is--excuse me, Mr. Chair, just a 
quick one, if I could.
    I don't see that in the budget request itself. I see a 
level budget request here. So is that in a supplemental? Is 
that a diversion of existing resources from one function to 
another that is within the purview of your authority under the 
current budget or what?
    Mr. Braddock. So, sir, we don't make that decision on what 
the IG asks for. We are literally a passthrough from the IG to 
you in our budget book. That said, statute requires that if 
they have additional needs, that the department is responsible 
for resourcing that. So anytime they have a surge need that 
they have that isn't in a budget cycle, we step in with the 
resources we have and we do divert that to the IG. But any 
request you see is coming directly from them.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Braddock. Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan. Ms. Wexton.

                      USCP Intelligence Operations

    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Chief 
Pittman, for joining us here again today.
    You know, like everybody else on this call, I really don't 
ever want to see anything like January 6 happen here again, 
but, frankly, it really did showcase to the world the 
vulnerabilities here at the Capitol. And I share some of Mr. 
Newhouse's concerns that we don't just throw a bunch of money 
at the problem when the structural changes haven't been 
implemented which we are going to need in order to move 
forward.
    I just want to talk a little bit about the intelligence 
operations that you currently have at Capitol Police because, 
Chief, prior to your current role as acting chief, you were the 
assistant chief of the department's protective and intelligence 
operations. Is that correct?
    I am sorry, you are still muted, so you need to unmute.
    Mr. Braddock. She is having a technical issue.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Sorry about that.
    Yes, that is correct.
    Ms. Wexton. And in that capacity, you oversaw the 
Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division, or IICD?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. Yes, I did.
    Ms. Wexton. So who makes up IICD? You testified earlier 
that you had 13 intelligence officers. And who else is on 
there?
    Acting Chief Pittman. We have a number of analysts, and we 
have an intelligence director, a new director that was hired. 
We also have a deputy director, and we have the open source 
section.
    Ms. Wexton. So about how many people total work within IICD 
for Capitol Police?
    Acting Chief Pittman. About 13 people.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. And are any of them assigned to the Joint 
Terrorism Task Force within the FBI?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Not within IICD, but we do have task 
force agents that are assigned to the FBI in various task force 
units. They are throughout the FBI but in different units.
    Ms. Wexton. So how many of your officers are assigned to 
the JTTF?
    Acting Chief Pittman. We do have officers assigned to the 
Joint Terrorism Task Force. We have eight of those officers 
that are currently assigned.
    Ms. Wexton. But none of them is with IICD?
    Acting Chief Pittman. No. They are two separate entities.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. So how does intelligence flow from the 
officers who are on the JTTF to IICD?
    Acting Chief Pittman. The national JTTF is part of IICD, 
and that information flows from the national level to those 
IICD partners.
    Ms. Wexton. So you don't have anybody who is a part of the 
regional JTTF?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, we do have investigation 
officers. So there are two different entities within Capitol 
Police. One side is investigations, and the other side is 
intelligence. They work within the same bureau.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. So if an investigator were to get 
intelligence from the JTTF, how would they pass that on to the 
right channels right now?
    Acting Chief Pittman. They are responsible for reporting 
that to their supervisors. U.S. Capitol Police has a chain of 
command, just like any other law enforcement, but they push it 
up through the chain of command. The chain-of-command sergeant 
gives it to the lieutenant, and it goes to the intelligence 
director who shares that information with the leadership.
    Ms. Wexton. But that didn't happen with this January 5 
bulletin that was shared with the JTTF, did it?
    Acting Chief Pittman. That January 5 bulletin was given to 
those task force agents that you referenced. They gave it to 
their sergeant, and it stopped at the lieutenant. They did 
report it to their----
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Very good.
    So are you familiar with the U.S. Capitol Police's 
strategic plan for 2021 to 2025 which was issued under Chief 
Sund?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, I am.
    Ms. Wexton. And you are aware of strategic goals 3.1 and 
3.2, 3.1 being to evaluate the USCP capabilities and maximize 
the use of information gathering across the department? Does 
that sound right?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. I don't have the plan in front 
of me to know, but it does sound right.
    Ms. Wexton. 3.2 is to establish processes and implement a 
department-wide framework for converting information and data 
into actionable communications for the workforce.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, it sounds right.
    Ms. Wexton. And the explanatory section for 3.2 says: 
Establishes the communication channels that make it possible 
for information to get quickly to those who need it without 
unnecessary delay or confusion. Right?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
    Ms. Wexton. The goal. So it is safe to say that as of 
January 6, the Capitol Police was already aware that you guys 
had communication issues and trouble--shortcomings when it came 
to acting on information. Would you agree with that?
    Acting Chief Pittman. I would say that there is always room 
for improvement in the area of communications. That is why we 
brought on the intelligence director. We realized that there 
were gaps. Mr. Donahue has come in and developed a strategic 
plan to help Capitol Police plug those gaps. Department-wide we 
are always looking to improve our communications internally as 
well as externally.
    Ms. Wexton. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one more quick 
question?
    Mr. Ryan. Yes, of course.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you.
    So is there now a comprehensive plan in place for how 
information would flow from intelligence to Capitol Police 
decision makers?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, there is. The Director of 
Intelligence has been given specific direction to communicate 
with those task force agents, and those task force agents also 
know to communicate directly with him. We make sure that it has 
gone up to a higher level, it won't just stop within that chain 
of command at the lieutenant level.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Thank you very much.
    I see my time has expired, so I will yield back because I 
know everybody else has a lot of questions as well.
    Thank you, Chief.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
    One quick question before we go to Mr. Espaillat.

                Communications Between the FBI and USCP

    Chief, was there any contact from the FBI? We know the 
bulletin got over, didn't make its way past the sergeant, which 
is obviously very frustrating for all of us to hear that. Was 
there a phone call? I mean, among discussions among ourselves, 
we would say, well, wouldn't somebody from the FBI call Chief 
Sund, or your counterpart with intelligence get a call from 
somebody from the FBI? Did that happen at all?
    Acting Chief Pittman. No, sir. Thank you for the 
opportunity to clarify.
    The FBI only sent the email. I know that Director Wray 
reported out yesterday that that information was shared in a 
roll call type of setting. But the FBI does have deliberate 
ways if they want to communicate information that is 
classified, if it is sensitive, if it needs to be communicated 
at a high level, the FBI has the Joint Terrorism Task Force 
Executive Committee.
    If the FBI thought that that Norfolk document was the 
smoking gun that many have alleged that it is not, in our 
assessment, that information would have been communicated 
directly to high-level executives, like Chief Sund, from the 
Joint Terrorism Task Force Executive Committee.
    And I think that Chief Contee said it best when he was on a 
briefing hearing. If your house is on fire, you are not going 
to send an email to someone's child to give a message to the 
parent that a house is on fire. If that document was the 
smoking gun that many have alleged it is--and we think it is 
not--you are going to make sure that you have deliberate 
communication so that quick actions can be taken and law 
enforcement would have postured differently, not just U.S. 
Capitol Police, but there are a number of law enforcement 
agencies within D.C. that did not posture differently as well 
due to that one document.
    Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Ryan. Well, just to be clear, that document basically 
affirmed your intelligence as well. And I, for one, believe 
that the leadership at the Capitol Police Department still 
should have acted, whether they got the FBI or not. It was just 
another example of, look, this is the intel that is out there, 
and there wasn't a--you guys didn't push for a vote with the 
Capitol Police Board. You know, we don't need to get into all 
of that right now because, you know, we are doing a hearing on 
the appropriations request. But that being the case that they 
didn't call you is not a pass for the lack of leadership from 
the Capitol Police, just so we are clear on that.

               Properly Equipping and Protecting Officers

    Mr. Espaillat.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Chief Pittman, for your testimony.
    Clearly, I think all of us, no matter which side of the 
aisle we are on, can agree that Police Officer Eugene Goodman 
is an American hero and, you know, he may have saved dozens, if 
not hundreds, of lives.
    However, my staff and I have had numerous off-the-record 
conversations with rank-and-file officers since the 
insurrection on January 6, and they have highlighted their 
concerns and have come out giving us concerns about the lack of 
preparedness in terms of deficient equipment or the lack of 
equipment.
    And seeing the film footage of Officer Goodman steering the 
racist mob away from the Senate floor, it just jumps at us that 
he perhaps didn't have all the equipment that he needed to 
protect himself. I felt that he was unprotected there.
    If you had it another way, Chief, what kind of equipment do 
you think Officer Eugene Goodman should have had on that day, 
on January 6, to be protected from that racist mob?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. Thank you for the question, and 
thank you for acknowledging Officer Eugene Goodman. I have 
known Eugene Goodman since he came on the department and have 
talked with him several times. We thank you for acknowledging 
his efforts. We appreciate his service.
    Our department uniforms that our officers wear, you will 
see different uniforms when you come in. The barricades, for 
example, the officers have on BDUs because they work outside. 
If they ride a bike, they wear a bike uniform. Eugene Goodman's 
uniform for that day was indicative of where he works. Eugene 
has been a Chamber officer for a number of years, so he wasn't 
assigned to the civil disturbance units that were outside 
fighting in that riot gear. I also----
    Mr. Espaillat. Excuse me, Chief. You knew that there was 
going to be a mob out there. Should have Officer Goodman wore a 
helmet?
    Acting Chief Pittman. I think the question is twofold. 
Officer Goodman is assigned to Chambers, and the Chambers have 
very specific uniform requirements, whether they are on the 
Chamber floor or outside. But I do agree with you one hundred 
percent that we have looked at the equipment for our officers 
that are assigned to CDU. We have already put in this fiscal 
year 2022 budget request a number of things that will address 
those gaps regarding the officers' equipment. So there is 
helmets--uh-huh.
    Mr. Espaillat. Was he wearing a vest, a bulletproof vest?
    Acting Chief Pittman. I am sure that Eugene was wearing a 
vest, because all of our officers are required to wear a vest.
    Mr. Espaillat. But you are sure? Do you know that he was 
wearing one?
    Acting Chief Pittman. I haven't talked to Eugene to ask him 
that specific question, and I wasn't in the Capitol, but I have 
no reason to think that he would not have been wearing a vest 
on that day.
    Mr. Espaillat. Were there any weapons confiscated from the 
racist mob?
    Acting Chief Pittman. We made a number of arrests. Along 
with Metropolitan Police Department, arrests were made and 
weapons were taken.
    Mr. Espaillat. So if weapons were taken and you knew it was 
going to be a mob of thousands of racist, bigoted people there 
that were ready to storm the Capitol, shouldn't Officer Goodman 
have worn a helmet, a bulletproof vest, and perhaps other 
equipment to protect his own safety?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
    Mr. Espaillat. Irregardless of whether he was in a category 
that is not a riot-responding category?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, I agree. We have ordered helmets 
for the entire department. And going forward, we know that our 
officers need additional equipment. So I agree, they do need 
that equipment, and it is reflected in this budget request.
    Mr. Espaillat. I just saw him with the nightstick, and I 
felt that he was overpowered, and he was--he is an American 
hero. He was smart enough to steer this racist mob away from 
Members. But I felt he was severely exposed and, as such, I 
believe that you ought to reassess the kind of equipment that 
Capitol Police, irregardless of what unit they are assigned to, 
wear on a regular basis, including bulletproof vests, helmets, 
other kind of protective equipment that can save their lives.
    I think that he was exposed and felt somewhat, I believe, 
overpowered by this angry mob, not that perhaps he could have 
been in a better position had he wore other equipment, but I 
think he could have been better protected.
    Do you agree with that, that he could have been better 
protected?
    Acting Chief Pittman. I agree that we need to do an overall 
assessment of our equipment and capabilities. That is reflected 
currently in this fiscal year 2022 budget. We know that we want 
to stop the threat before it ever reaches the building. We want 
to make sure that January 6 never happens again. We want to 
make sure that all of those officers that fought so heroically, 
to include Eugene, but there were many others that are our 
heroes, have the necessary tools and equipment that they need 
so that we can prevent an incident like that ever again on the 
campus.
    Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask one final 
question, I know my time is up, please?
    Mr. Ryan. Sure. Take your time.
    Mr. Espaillat. Yes. Thank you.
    I see the Capitol Police today, when I went down to vote, 
pretty much with the same gear that they wore that day on 
January 6. Are they currently wearing helmets? Have you 
upgraded their equipment to be better protected in case there 
is another attack?
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. So we have already issued 
helmets to the majority of our workforce. We have additional 
helmets that are coming, and we also have ordered additional 
equipment that will be forthcoming as well, yes, sir.
    Mr. Espaillat. Well, Mr. Chairman, just for the record, it 
seems to me that they are still wearing the same equipment that 
they wore on the 6th. I haven't seen any officers wear helmets. 
I am not sure if they are wearing bulletproof vests, but I 
think they should be upgraded.
    Thank you. And I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
    Chief, we are going to go over everything that--the changes 
that you have implemented and all of that, but I hope you 
understand our level of frustration when we are having a 
conversation right now about the Capitol Police not having some 
basic level of equipment and how did we get to that point where 
it was, you know, with the intelligence reports stopped at a 
sergeant, the equipment wasn't where it needed to be, training. 
I mean, this is all very troubling. And I am glad you are 
making the changes that you have made since you have been in, 
but you were also there, you know, in a high-ranking position 
as well when this was going on. And as you heard from all the 
questions here, you know, because it is--our colleagues come to 
us and they say, you know, we, this committee, has a 
responsibility to make sure that you have what you need, and we 
need to know what you need.
    And, you know, we don't need another--you know, especially 
with the threats for tomorrow and all the other threats we are 
getting. I am not going to beat a dead horse. You know how I 
feel. But we appreciate you making the reforms that you have 
made and, again, we want to try to support you to, you know, 
fix these problems, whether they are budgetary, or as Mr. 
Newhouse brought up, they are about process and structure and 
information flows and all of that.
    So, anyway, we appreciate your time.
    Just for the committee, we have a 12:30 Library of Congress 
hearing. There are votes at 12:15. So if we can run over and 
vote and then come back. Ms. Herrera Beutler and I will go vote 
and try to get back here and be here to kick off the 12:30.
    And then we would like to, Chief, if you could accommodate 
us at some point this afternoon to make sure we get this brief 
on March 4.
    Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. Again, we thank you for 
your support. We hear all of your concerns, and we are looking 
forward to leading this agency forward with the requests in 
this fiscal year 2022 budget. I will reach out this afternoon 
to schedule that meeting and provide that brief.
    Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Ryan. Great. Thank you.
    Thanks, everybody. The committee is adjourned.
    [Questions, answers, and additional material submitted for 
the record follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

                                          Wednesday, March 3, 2021.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                               WITNESSES

CARLA HAYDEN, LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
MARK SWEENEY, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY OF 
    CONGRESS
KAREN KENINGER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE FOR THE BLIND AND 
    DISABLED, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
BUD BARTON, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
MARY B. MAZANEC, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
SHIRA PERLMUTTER, DIRECTOR U.S. REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, U.S. COPYRIGHT 
    OFFICE
    Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
    This hearing is fully virtual, so we need to address a few 
housekeeping matters.
    For members, members are responsible for muting and 
unmuting themselves. For purposes of eliminating inadvertent 
background noise, the chair or staff designated by the chair 
may mute participants' microphones when they are not under 
recognition. If I notice when you are recognized that you have 
not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the 
staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff 
will unmute your microphone.
    We will begin with the chair and ranking member. Then 
members present at the time the hearing is called to order will 
be recognized in order of seniority.
    We are using the 5-minute clock, which you will notice on 
your screen. It will show how much time is remaining. If there 
is some technology issue, we will move to the next member until 
the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of your 
time.
    Finally, regarding adding extraneous or additional material 
to the record, per House rules, we have set up an email address 
where members can send anything they wish to submit for the 
record after seeking recognition for its inclusion. That email 
address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    I would like to welcome the Librarian of Congress, Dr. 
Carla Hayden, to present the fiscal year 2022 budget request 
for the Library of Congress.
    Dr. Hayden, it is always a pleasure to be with you. Thank 
you for being here. At the beginning of your testimony, please 
introduce your colleagues who will be joining you today, many 
familiar faces.
    The mission of the Library is to engage, inspire, and 
inform. Even amid a pandemic, this has not changed. Over the 
past few years, the Library has made significant strides in the 
areas of modernizing essential technology and optimizing 
operations to facilitate easier and robust access for Congress 
and the public.
    Considering the continuing restrictions of the COVID-19 
pandemic, the strategic plan to expand access, enhance 
services, and optimize resources is more important now than 
ever.
    Currently, resources for the Library of Congress are a 
little over 14 percent of the entire legislative branch budget, 
totaling $757.4 million in appropriated funds in fiscal year 
2021. For fiscal year 2022, the Library has requested $801 
million, which is a 5.8 percent increase, or $43.7 million, 
over the fiscal year 2021 enacted level.
    I hope you can expand on the budget justification, 
descriptions, requests for programmatic increases in LCAP and 
the Integrated Electronic Security System and how these 
initiatives will position the Library to better adapt to 
rapidly changing needs, ensure the safety of all the 
collections and the Library workforce.
    I hope you can also address security operations in the 
cloud and the necessary upgrade to cellular connectivity in the 
Library.
    The Library of Congress is a treasure of the United States, 
and it is our duty to protect the valuable collections and 
preserve the Library's ability to chronicle this great Nation 
and provide access to our history for generations to come.
    I look forward to your testimony today, Dr. Hayden.
    And at this point, I would like to yield to my colleague 
and friend from Washington State, a State that produces more 
potatoes than Idaho, the ranking member, Jaime Herrera Beutler, 
for any opening comments she would like to make.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that kind 
introduction.
    I would like to welcome Dr. Hayden and Director Mazanec, if 
I am saying that right--good--and Acting Director Strong here 
today.
    As the largest library in the world, the Library of 
Congress boasts a remarkable collection of literature as well 
as truly unique items in its collections. These collections 
range anywhere from the contents of Abraham Lincoln's pocket 
the fateful night of his assassination to a book smaller than 
the size of a penny.
    An important task for the Library is to make your 
collection of historical documents and human knowledge 
accessible to every corner of our country, even Hawaii for 
Representative Case--although I am sure you won't mind making 
it accessible to folks in Hawaii, Dr. Hayden.
    This is especially important for folks who may not have the 
opportunity to travel to D.C. to see firsthand the breadth of 
the Library's collections and resources. And I want to make 
sure that my constituents back home in southwest Washington and 
citizens across this Nation have these resources that the 
Library provides at their fingertips.
    From the digitization of historical documents to providing 
rich resources for students and teachers to access online, I 
like that the Library is taking active steps to ensure that 
those who seek the Library's resources have access to them. I 
look forward to working with you to continue this important 
mission.
    The Library is also continuing progress on its Visitor 
Experience initiative to transform the Thomas Jefferson 
Building to further engage visitors, young and old alike. I am 
pleased to see the third installment of the initiative in the 
budget request and am interested to hear an update on the 
project.
    And despite the challenges presented with the COVID-19 
pandemic, the Library has continued its excellent service to 
Congress, while providing educators and students valuable 
learning resources, as thousands of schools across the country 
are forced to transition to online learning.
    I think I can speak for all of us when I say I look forward 
to the day when the Library does physically reopen its doors to 
welcome the public.
    Dr. Hayden, your total budget request for the Library is 
$845.9 million for the fiscal year 2022, a 5.5 percent increase 
from the fiscal year 2021 enacted. Included in that is $129.6 
million for the Congressional Research Service and $98 million 
for the Copyright Office.
    The budget includes several IT modernization projects, 
including updates to legacy systems that manage the entire 
physical and digital collection, provide fundamental security 
protection, and connect throughout the entire Library's 
footprint. I am interested to hear how these initiatives are 
prioritized.
    So I appreciate all the work that you and your team do, Dr. 
Hayden, and I look forward to meeting again in person, 
hopefully in the near future, and hearing from your testimony 
today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Dr. Hayden, you have the floor.
    Dr. Hayden. Thank you, Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member 
Herrera Beutler, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for 
the opportunity to provide testimony in support of the 
Library's fiscal 2022 budget.
    And joining me today, the Principal Deputy Librarian, Mr. 
Mark Sweeney; the head of the CRS, Mary Mazanec; the new 
Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter; Karen Keninger, the 
head of NLS; and Mr. Bud Barton, our Chief Information Officer.
    One year ago, when we had to close the Library's doors as 
the pandemic began, we had to open other avenues that allowed 
us to serve Congress and the American people in new and 
innovative ways. And thanks to your support for our investments 
in IT infrastructure, the Library's network was able to handle 
an 800 percent increase in remote workforce, and essential 
services, including CRS and the United States Copyright Office, 
were able to maintain full productivity while working remotely.
    In light of the challenges presented by COVID-19, the 
Library has transformed our public outreach by pivoting to 
virtual events and has developed new audiences for the Library 
beyond those who could have visited us in person. And with 
congressional support and private philanthropy, we remained on 
schedule to unveil the Library's new Visitor Experience in 
phases, beginning in late calendar 2022.
    Worthy of special note is the National Library for the 
Blind and Disabled, NLS, which utilized its network of State 
and local libraries to circulate more than 20 million copies of 
braille, audio, and large-print items to patrons.
    I would like to recognize NLS Director Karen Keninger, who 
joined the Library in 2012 and will retire at the end of May. 
At the outset, her priorities for NLS leveraged advancing 
technology and expanded content for all print-disabled persons. 
Karen accomplished all of her goals and so much more for the 
NLS.
    I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your 
support in the fiscal 2021 funding bill for high-priority 
needs, such as cybersecurity enhancements, state-of-the-art 
shelving for the law library, and enhanced science and 
technology research capacity in CRS.
    Thank you, as well, for your continued support for the 
Library's new preservation strategy and collection storage 
modules at Fort Meade as part of the Architect of the Capitol's 
budget.
    I come before you today to discuss the Library of 
Congress's fiscal 2022 appropriations request for approximately 
$846 million, a 5.5 percent increase over the Library's 2021 
enacted appropriation.
    This request includes $24.2 million in mandatory pay and 
price level increases. The balance of the increase represents 
critical program investments necessary to fulfill the Library's 
role, continue modernization efforts, and ensure the safety and 
security of the Library's collections and workforce.
    The budget request seeks to modernize and replace the 
legacy Integrated Library System that was installed in 1999 in 
preparation for Y2K and is now at the end of its life. Just as 
smartphones of that era are now obsolete in our current mobile 
world, ILS no longer meets the Library's needs for collections 
management.
    The replacement will be a modern Library Collections Access 
Platform that will be the heart of the Library's collections 
management, physical and digital, for the next generation.
    We are requesting funding to take the next step in 
modernizing and optimizing financial management and planning in 
the Library. We seek to stabilize our current accounting 
activities and establish a new enterprise planning and 
management program.
    Our pandemic operations as well as heightened physical 
security threats have focused attention on the safety and 
security of our workforce and collections. We are requesting 
funding to modernize the Library's nearly 20-year-old 
Integrated Electronic Security System, used by both the Library 
and the U.S. Capitol Police for physical security monitoring of 
Library facilities and collections.
    We are asking for funding to replace the Library's end-of-
life 3G cellular system that provides connectivity for only 
about 50 percent of the Library and presents security issues. 
We are also requesting funding to allow the Library to 
implement the same advanced level of IT security across both 
its data centers and cloud-hosting environments.
    I would like to note that these two requests are important 
life safety and security improvements for Library facilities 
and would be good candidates for any additional fiscal 2021 
funding the committee might consider as well.
    In addition, to support Library employees with ``work 
anywhere, anytime'' functionality and advance virtual 
collaboration tools, we are requesting funding to speed the 
transition to Microsoft 365, in alignment with congressional 
adoption of the same.
    And, finally, I am delighted to have with us today Shira 
Perlmutter, the new Register of Copyrights. This budget 
requests funding to fully implement the Copyright Alternative 
and Small-Claims Enforcement, or CASE Act, with the creation of 
a small claims court within the Copyright Office.
    In closing, the Library's 2022 congressional budget 
justification continues a sequence of strategically planned 
modernization efforts across the enterprise, supports the 
security of our vast collections, and enhances the safety of 
our workforce and visitors.
    Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and members 
of the subcommittee, thank you again for supporting the Library 
of Congress and for your consideration of our fiscal 2022 
request. And I am happy to take your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Dr. Hayden. Appreciate that.
    We are going to start the questioning with the gentlelady 
from Washington State, Ms. Herrera Beutler.

   Ensuring Safety and Security of Library Collections and Workforce

    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was holding 
my breath on that one.
    Dr. Hayden, in your budget justification, the Library 
introduces three new requests for fiscal year 2022 that all 
involve critical modernization into its legacy systems, with 
associated costs of over $15 million.
    The question is, did the COVID pandemic or the January 6 
assault on the Capitol play a role in identifying the need to 
upgrade these legacy systems? And, if appropriated the funds to 
upgrade these systems, what is the timeframe that you foresee 
each of them being completed?
    Dr. Hayden. The request for the two security systems were 
actually already very important to the Library's security in 
general and were especially important with recent events. For 
instance, the security cameras that need to be replaced, that 
legacy Integrated Electronic Security System (IESS), the 36 
cellular system that is no longer supported--all of these items 
were already part of what the Library needed to have.
    And, with consultation with the Capitol Police and during 
recent events, we were assured that our efforts and what we had 
proposed for security in these two systems would greatly aid in 
the general security of the Capitol and would be very much 
supported by the Capitol Police.
    And so, in looking at when we would be able to--and I am 
going to put on my glasses to make sure that I give you the 
correct information.
    The Integrated Electronic Security System, the IESS, were, 
as I mentioned, already involved with our security update. And 
so, with the IESS, we will be able to have two physical 
security specialists. And the work to replace the obsolete 
hardware is scheduled to be completed during fiscal 2022. The 
enhanced cellular network, the implementation will take place 
over 2 years and will be implemented over more than fiscal 
2023.
    I just want to also add that the LCAP, the Library system 
that is also going to be included with our modernization, will 
be complete after 2 years.

               Library's Legislative Information Services

    Ms. Herrera Beutler. All right. Thank you.
    And I wanted to ask if--sorry, I was trying to check my 
time.
    At the committee's encouragement, the Library, you convened 
your first public meeting to discuss public input into the 
Library's legislative information services. And I was just 
curious if you have submitted that report evaluating the 
requests made by the public at that meeting. And when is your 
next meeting scheduled? Or are you planning to keep having 
these?
    Dr. Hayden. We are planning to have meetings. The report 
was submitted this past January, and we have several 
recommendations that are being considered. And we also hosted a 
series of other smaller forums.
    And so we plan to continue those types of public input. We 
received a lot of good information, and we have groups that are 
working on looking at how we could implement some of the 
suggestions.
    We had about 300 people participating in the forum that was 
held in September of 2020. And the feedback has been--I have a 
report with me. There are several things that we think we will 
be able--the ideas and suggestions that are in development--for 
instance, things like helping the public, more documentation to 
help the public with the legislative information, consolidated 
digests of email alerts.
    All of these types of things are suggestions that the group 
is working on, and we hope to be able to put some of the 
suggestions into action.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. All right. Thank you.
    And, with that, I will yield back to the gentleman from 
Ohio, the State where Jerry Springer was actually a mayor 
before he went on TV. With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Very good. Judge Jerry.
    Ms. Wexton.

              Congressional Research Service Productivity

    Ms. Wexton. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. And that is a 
good reminder; I had forgotten that Jerry Springer was actually 
a mayor in Ohio. Shots fired. So I don't know what you are 
going to come up with to deal with that.
    But thank you guys so much for joining us today, Dr. Hayden 
and all the witnesses.
    I want to direct my questions to you, Ms. Mazanec, because 
I love CRS so much. Not a week goes by that I don't use some of 
your resources. I was appointed to the State and Foreign Ops 
Subcommittee, and I understand that there is something called 
the International Development Finance Corporation which was 
created under the BUILD Act. I didn't know anything about it, 
but, thankfully, CRS had a memo. So I just got this yesterday.
    So it is so wonderful. I love you guys. The work you do is 
fantastic. And I am delighted to hear that, although everybody 
has been on full-time telework since basically March of 2020, 
you have been even more productive during that time and you 
have enhanced your relationships and engagement with Congress 
and productivity has increased.
    So I think some of that is probably that, in this remote 
environment, congressional staff are more able to reach out to 
and attend some of the programs, but I know a lot of it has 
just been the really heroic efforts of your workforce. So I 
want to commend you on that.
    Now, do you have a long-term plan to enable CRS employees 
to continue working remotely, given how productive they are?
    Dr. Mazanec. Thank you very much for your very kind 
comments.
    We have not made any decisions at this point because we are 
in the middle of the pandemic, which is still evolving. So I 
can't really say with certainty where we will end up with our 
telework. It is currently the side article to our CBA. Our 
bargaining agreement has been opened by our union, and we are 
in discussions on telework.
    While we have been very productive during the pandemic in a 
virtual environment, there have been some things that we 
haven't been able to do, such as in-person briefings, in-person 
seminars, and confidential consultations. So I don't know 
exactly where the balance will be when we get through this 
situation.
    Ms. Wexton. Hopefully you will find a happy medium in there 
somewhere.
    Dr. Mazanec. And it also depends on the expectations that 
Congress has for us----
    Ms. Wexton. Okay.
    Dr. Mazanec [continuing]. And the availability they expect 
from us.
    Ms. Wexton. Great.
    Now, what additional supports are you providing to the 
employees who are working at home remotely? Are you giving them 
extra things like dual monitors or other equipment? Or what 
kind of supports are you providing?
    Dr. Mazanec. So we haven't been able to do that, because 
that definitely requires additional resources to equip home 
offices with dual monitors, et cetera. We are working with Bud 
Barton and our OCIO to really see how best we can facilitate 
telework.

                Congressional Research Service Diversity

    Ms. Wexton. Very good.
    Now, I was also pleased to see that your Diversity and 
Inclusion Working Group met throughout 2020 and discussed 
outreach strategies and improving the diversity of the 
applicant pool. Is this working group a permanent one?
    Dr. Mazanec. Well, right now, it is permanent in the sense 
that, as long as we have challenges on the diversity and 
inclusion front or as long as there is work to be done there, I 
would like to have the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group 
stay in existence. We are working with the Library of Congress; 
they also have a Diversity and Inclusion Working Group that we 
actively participate in.
    Having a diverse professional workforce and an inclusive 
environment is a top priority for me, and we have taken 
measures to try to increase diversity in our applicant pools. 
And you have already mentioned one. We have expanded our 
outreach to professional societies and colleges and 
universities that represent underrepresented populations in our 
workforce.
    Ms. Wexton. HBCUs and places like that, I would imagine, 
right? So that is great.
    Now, I would like to touch base to talk a little bit about 
some data that was shared with me by your employees association 
about the demographic makeup of employees at CRS.
    And I was alarmed to see that, while women make up a 
greater share of the CRS workforce, they tend to be hired at 
lower grades than men. And that leaves them at a lower step 
level and everything as they proceed throughout their careers.
    Do you have any insights on why that might be?
    Dr. Mazanec. I don't have anything specific, but I can tell 
you, at the most senior grade, at the senior level, women make 
up roughly about 43, 45 percent of senior-level staff. And that 
percentage actually has been increasing.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Well, I am glad to hear that, but I think 
that you might need to look at those disparities when they are 
at the hiring stage. Because that is something that is going to 
follow them throughout their careers and leave them with less 
earnings and less retirement and everything.
    Dr. Mazanec. Absolutely.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. Thank you very much.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
    Mr. Amodei, I believe, is next, but he may have stepped 
out.
    All right. Mr. Newhouse.

                      COVID Relief-Funding Impacts

    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just so you know, 
you are likely to invoke the wrath of the Idaho delegation onto 
this committee, but I will accept that risk, because you are 
absolutely right.
    Dr. Hayden, welcome to the committee. Thank you very much 
for sharing some time with us today. And, also, I just want to 
thank you for reaching out--I am assuming you reached out to 
all members, unless it was just me specially; I appreciate 
that, but--last week to prepare for this hearing today so that 
we had time to visit, and I appreciate that a lot.
    I also want to thank all of your colleagues that are with 
you today. Just like Congresswoman Wexton, I really do 
appreciate the work of the CRS. Invaluable to Members of 
Congress as a resource.
    As far as your budget request, Dr. Hayden, I think I read 
that you welcomed something over half a million visitors last 
year prior to closing mid-March. And I just wanted to ask, what 
is typical for the Library? How many people do you see over a 
typical year?
    And with that in mind, kind of along the lines that we were 
talking about last week, were you able to realize any cost 
savings because of the decrease in the number of visitors last 
year? And show me where that would be reflected in your budget 
request for 2021.
    And then related to that--and I should know the answer to 
this question, but I will expose my ignorance and ask you--was 
the Library the recipient of any relief funds, coronavirus 
relief funds?
    Dr. Hayden. Yes, indirectly the Library received funds for 
daycare operations.
    And, in the last full year in fiscal 2019, the Library 
welcomed--it was a banner year, actually--almost 2 million 
visitors. And that included people who were coming from the 
Capitol Visitor Center. There were quite a----
    Mr. Newhouse. Last year.
    Dr. Hayden [continuing]. Few groups. Yeah. Quite a few tour 
groups and things like that. That was before the pandemic. The 
Library closed its doors to the public in mid-March----
    Mr. Newhouse. Right.
    Dr. Hayden [continuing]. Almost a year ago this week.
    And so, when the closures happened, the Library also had to 
pivot quite a bit. And we have absorbed about $18.8 million in 
COVID-related costs. We executed the enacted budget with no 
furloughs of staff. And 65 percent of the Library's budget is 
pay, and for CRS, for instance, 90 percent of the budget is 
pay.
    And we worked in a fully telework high posture. And major 
projects were able to be continued, public events. Even though 
they were closed in person, we did a lot of virtual 
programming.
    And so there were things like travel accounts that were 
under executed but were realigned to contribute to the COVID-
related costs. And those costs included deployment of 
technology and also additional sanitation and other related 
things, like supplies for staff members.
    So, as some staff members came back on site--we are in 
phases of operation. We had a three-phase plan before the 
recent security closure that restricted even more of our on-
site activities. That aspect of still being responsible for the 
safety of staff members and contractors who were allowed to 
come in contributed to additional maintenance costs.

                            Library Visitors

    Mr. Newhouse. So you said over 2 million visitors last 
year?
    Dr. Hayden. 1.89.
    Mr. Newhouse. Really.
    Dr. Hayden. Almost 2. Yes. And that----
    Mr. Newhouse. That is virtual visitors maybe. I don't 
know----
    Dr. Hayden. No, I am talking about the in-person.
    Mr. Newhouse. Really.
    Dr. Hayden. What I was trying to clarify, is what you were 
saying, that about 500,000 people physically came into the 
Library's facilities before March when the doors closed to the 
public.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
    Dr. Hayden. The time period before that, if we were 
looking, we were on track, actually, to at least have the same 
number of in-person visitors if the year had been completed.
    Mr. Newhouse. I see. You were anticipating that many. Okay. 
So there is----
    Dr. Hayden. We were looking forward to it. We had special 
exhibits that had opened--the Rosa Parks exhibit, women's 
suffrage. We had a number of concerts. There were a lot of 
activities that were going----
    Mr. Newhouse. Sure. Sure.
    Dr. Hayden [continuing]. And they were actually bringing in 
people physically.
    Mr. Newhouse. So that tells me, I guess, that, other than 
travel and some other things--and I hate to be nitpicky, but--
the visitors themselves are not really a cost center or a----
    Dr. Hayden. Well----
    Mr. Newhouse [continuing]. Big part of the expense of the 
Library. I am just trying to understand.
    Dr. Hayden. They are.
    Mr. Newhouse. Oh.
    Dr. Hayden. Well, when you say ``big,'' the number--I 
mentioned, for instance, we did not furlough any staff members. 
So that expense, that appropriation and being fully executed, 
still happened. That is 65 percent of the budget right there.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
    Dr. Hayden. So that didn't go away. In fact, we were able 
to reduce the number of staff members as time went on. We, like 
everyone else, didn't know how long we would be in this 
posture. So at first there were some administrative leave 
costs, and then over time we were able to reduce those.

                          COVID Relief Funding

    Mr. Newhouse. And then you did receive some relief funds, 
coronavirus relief funds?
    Dr. Hayden. Yes. And those went into recouping and trying 
to make sure----
    Mr. Newhouse. How much was that, approximately?
    Dr. Hayden. In terms of what we received?
    Mr. Newhouse. Yeah.
    Dr. Hayden. I would have to get back to you on the exact 
number of all of the CARES Act funding.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay. I appreciate that. And, again, just 
trying to understand the full impact of the closing and where 
the costs are as it relates to the budget request.
    So I appreciate very much the information you provided. 
And, like I said, I did appreciate your coming and meeting, or 
virtually meeting, with me last week too. That helped me 
understand much better.
    Dr. Hayden. And I just turned to some of the additional 
costs. For instance, our vendors. We were able to pay some of 
the vendors under appropriated funding, because of some of the 
work that had to cease when vendors and contractors couldn't 
get on site. So we used some of the funding for that.
    Mr. Newhouse. I see. Okay. Thank you very much.
    I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Amodei.
    Mark.
    I want to, like, tap him on the shoulder.
    Can the staff text him, or his staff, and----
    Mr. Newhouse. I will text him. Sure.
    Mr. Ryan. Sorry for the delay here, Dr. Hayden.
    Mr. Amodei. Hey, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Sorry to inconvenience you, Mark. It is your 
turn, buddy.
    Mr. Amodei. As always, you are a gentleman, and I 
appreciate you worrying about me.
    Mr. Ryan. Dr. Hayden said in her testimony she can't wait 
until Congressman Amodei asks questions, so we wanted to get 
right to you.

                         Mass De-Acidification

    Mr. Amodei. Well, we had worked with her on making sure she 
had that down, so I am glad that all went smoothly except for 
the part where I was supposed to say something.
    Hey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Dr. Hayden, I appreciate it.
    I have one area that we had talked about briefly, which was 
the de-acidification thing. And I would like to circle back 
with you offline, but my question revolves around: I get there 
is expense to put part of your collection through the de-
acidification process. I think I understand that that process, 
once done, takes care of the issue, at least based on present 
technology, for about a half a millennium or more and that, if 
we do the refrigeration thing, that basically takes care of the 
issue.
    But I am looking for, Doctor, to have a little bigger 
discussion with you in terms of, okay, so does that mean we 
refrigerate--and, listen, if ``refrigerate'' isn't the right 
word, then obviously I won't blame that on the chairman; that 
is my fault.
    But, anyhow, I am just kind of looking for cost-benefit in 
terms of refrigeration in perpetuity. Or we can even shorten 
that up to half a millennium or whatever.
    And then, also, I am curious too, if we are doing 
refrigeration, if there is personnel associated with that, is 
that refrigeration personnel? Or do we still have to devote 
resources to staffing the refrigeration process?
    So I know there are two or three things in there, and I am 
mindful of the committee's time and the clock, which is 
running. So I am just going to say, I am going to circle back 
with you here maybe sometime next week. We can do it on the 
phone or something. But I want a better understanding of 
exactly what the cost-benefit specifics are in those two areas.
    Dr. Hayden. Well, I am really pleased that you asked about 
the Library's preservation strategies. And it is critical that 
we have flexibility to meet current needs and future needs that 
will undoubtedly include digital preservation and conservation. 
So this opportunity to rebalance our preservation strategy has 
been very important, and we appreciate the committee's support.
    The specific program, mass de-acidification, was initiated 
about 20 years ago. And 10 years ago, our Principal Deputy 
Librarian, Mark Sweeney, was involved in the preservation 
strategy rebalancing at that point, looking to the future. And 
he can give you even more specifics about that particular 
aspect, cold storage.
    Mark.
    Mr. Sweeney. Thank you for the question.
    You know, we look at the brittle or acidic problem in our 
collections as really a late-20th-century problem. And now here 
we are in the 21st century, and one of our biggest collection 
strategy challenges is dealing with growing digital 
collections. So we look for efficiencies in how we can deal 
with the 20th-century problem while we rebalance and we use 
resources, you know, to deal with the digital collections that 
are growing exponentially right now.
    Cold storage slows down a chemical process, just as de-
acidification can slow down a chemical process. The thing you 
need to understand about the storage is that the Library's 
storage capacity needs to grow, just as its collections grow. 
But when we construct that additional storage, meeting certain 
environmental qualities, it alleviates the reason to make the 
investment in the de-acidification treatment in the first 
place.
    So, as an example, it costs about $30 a volume to de-
acidify a book. So if you have 2.5 million items in your 
collection and you want to de-acidify all of them, that will 
cost you about $75 million in chemical treatment.
    For more or less that same cost, we can build an 
environmental storage module at Fort Meade that provides an 
environment that will secure the material for about the same 
length of time for $32 million but it can house 4 million 
items. So we get a 3.2 percent increase in the amount of 
material that we can address by controlling the environment 
over doing a chemical process.
    And, yes, these facilities that we will build are necessary 
for the growth of our collections, but if we do it in a smart 
way with the Architect of the Capitol, we actually lower our 
treatment costs.
    Mr. Amodei. And I appreciate that. So I will look forward 
to our conversation which takes us down a little bit more--
since I am out of time, but that takes us down a little bit 
more in what are the assumptions, is it powered by electricity, 
you know, blah, blah, blah. Because when you are talking 500 to 
1,000 years in the future, you are talking 500 to 1,000 years 
in the future, and I will just kind of let that lay. We will 
look forward to talking with you next week.
    Thank you guys very much.
    Mr. Sweeney. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Amodei. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.

                          Visitors Experience

    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Amodei.
    Dr. Hayden, I have only got a couple minutes here, because 
they have votes and I am down to the wire, but I did want you 
to talk a little bit more about the Visitor Experience. I know 
we talked a little bit about it on the phone, but I would love 
for the American people and this committee to hear where we are 
with that and the support you are getting and the private 
support that you are getting for it.
    If you could talk for a couple minutes about that, that 
would be tremendous.
    Dr. Hayden. I really appreciate the support in this unique 
public-private partnership to create in the iconic Thomas 
Jefferson Building for the first time an orientation center and 
space for people to learn about what the Library of Congress 
is, how it has served Congress and the American people, and 
also what it can do for them now; a treasures gallery for the 
first time that can have rotating treasures from the world's 
largest library and to engage people in different ways; and, in 
terms of engagement, a learning lab, a youth center for the 
young and the young at heart.
    And so the project has remained on track and on budget, 
even with the pandemic. And with the combined efforts, 
everything is on track to start with fabrication of exhibits 
and areas.
    We will have more private support coming in, and we have 
submitted proposals to new donors totaling about $15 million. 
And that is in excess of the $20 million that we have pledged 
to have from the private sector to support the effort. And Mr. 
David Rubenstein is leading that effort.
    And we also have been able to increase our efforts with 
fundraising in general. We just received a groundbreaking grant 
to reach out to underserved communities from the Mellon 
Foundation and also $10 million from the Kislak Foundation for 
a revamping of their exhibit area on early American history.
    And so the project is really taking shape, and we hope to 
be able to present to this subcommittee drawings and renderings 
of the different spaces within the next few months.

                             Gershwin Award

    Mr. Ryan. That is great. That is great. I love the idea of 
the treasures gallery. I think that is going to be a really 
neat component.
    And mention the Gershwin Awards. What is the plan for the 
Gershwin? That is always one of the great nights in Washington.
    Dr. Hayden. And one of----
    Mr. Ryan. Garth Brooks last year.
    Dr. Hayden. Garth Brooks----
    Mr. Ryan. Yeah. It was tremendous. So what is the plan for 
that for the coming year?
    Dr. Hayden. Actually, a year ago tomorrow would have been 
the Garth Brooks concert.
    We are working with our broadcast partners for the virtual 
aspect of a Gershwin Award greatest hits. We have had everyone 
from Paul McCartney to Stevie Wonder to Tony Bennett in the 
past. So there is going to be a way that we can let people know 
about the Gershwin Award.
    And we are working with potential honorees to see if 
possibly within another year that we could have some component 
of a live concert.
    Mr. Ryan. That would be very exciting.
    Dr. Hayden. Very.

                       Veteran's History Project

    Mr. Ryan. Real quick, before I run out of time and I have 
to run, Dr. Hayden, mention the efforts with the Veterans 
History Project, which is one of my favorites that you run. 
Through COVID-19, how have you been able to navigate the 
complexities of COVID with the Veterans History Project?
    Dr. Hayden. The Veterans History Project, we were able to--
and that is one of our signature outreach programs. Over 
100,000 oral histories to date from veterans and different 
engagements.
    And so the Veterans History staff were able to have, for 
instance, virtual panel discussions on how to cope with--
featuring veterans, and also veterans as small-business 
entrepreneurs.
    They had a special music program for the 20th anniversary 
this year. And, also, they had a special program--and this one, 
in particular, was very significant--the role of veterans in 
farming in urban and more rural settings and how it relates to 
PTSD. Because, as we know, veterans know a few things about 
overcoming adversity. And so, to be able capture their 
experiences and to have them talk about them virtually, that 
was wonderful.
    And they also were able--the staff of the Veterans History 
Project were able to give workshops to local communities on how 
to do virtual programming with veterans.
    And so about 65 Members have already taken advantage of the 
Veterans History Project. And, as you know, we reach out to all 
the offices, and we want to make sure that each State has a 
significant number of veterans who contribute.
    Mr. Ryan. Yeah. Love it. Love it, love it.
    Well, Dr. Hayden, thank you so much. You are the best. We 
appreciate your team. Thank you so much for all that you are 
doing.
    And we look forward to supporting you in your efforts here 
in the coming budget. We are going to do the best we can for 
you, but you have some really exciting projects going. And, you 
know, as you mentioned about the telework and the investments 
that we make into you have paid off.
    Dr. Hayden. Yes.
    Mr. Ryan. And, you know, we just can't wait to get the 
Visitor's--the treasures gallery and the other projects that we 
have going for you that are going to be super-exciting for 
everybody.
    And I think, you know, in the coming years, people are 
going to appreciate more getting out of their homes and being 
able to travel, and the Visitor Experience will be here for 
them when they get here, hopefully.
    So we appreciate all you are doing.
    And I thank the committee.
    And, with that, we are going to end this committee and we 
will adjourn. Thank you.
    Dr. Hayden. Thank you.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        

                                         Wednesday, March 10, 2021.

                    GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

                                WITNESS

GENE L. DODARO, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
    Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
    This hearing is fully virtual so we need to address a few 
housekeeping matters. Members are responsible for muting and 
unmuting themselves. For the purposes of eliminating 
inadvertent background noise, the chair or staff designated by 
the chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition.
    If I notice when you are recognized that you have not 
unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to 
unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will 
unmute your microphone.
    We will begin with the chair and ranking member. Then 
members present at the time the hearing is called to order will 
be recognized in order of seniority. We are using the 5-minute 
clock, which you will notice on your screen. It will show how 
much time is remaining. If there is a technology issue, we will 
move to the next member until the issue is resolved, and you 
will retain the balance of your time.
    In regard to adding extraneous or additional material to 
the record, per House rules, we have set up an email address 
where members can send anything they wish to submit for the 
record after seeking recognition for its inclusion. That email 
address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    Finally, we are doing two panels today: first, the 
Government Accountability Office and then House Officers. We 
will take approximately a 10-minute recess between the panels, 
but we will remain on this video feed so members do not have to 
log off. So just stick around after the first one and take a 
comfort break or whatever, and we will be right back.
    For our first panel, I would like to welcome the 
Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office, 
Mr. Gene Dodaro, to present the fiscal year 2022 budget 
request.
    And I will admit, Mr. Dodaro, this is one of my favorite 
hearings every year because, as I have said before, there are a 
lot of people in D.C. who know a little bit about a lot and 
there are just a handful of people who know a lot about a lot, 
and you fall into that latter category, which makes this 
committee hearing always so much fun for us. We want to welcome 
you back. 2021 is a significant year for the GAO, as you are 
celebrating 100 years of service.
    This subcommittee has great admiration for GAO's work in 
ferreting out misconduct and finding ways to save billions of 
dollars with timely, public, fact-based nonpartisan 
recommendations to improve Federal agency operations and save 
taxpayers billions of dollars. We especially appreciate your 
neutral independence in facing difficult budget questions.
    Most recently, GAO has been evaluating the $2.6 trillion in 
COVID-19 funding and making recommendations about how to 
improve its effectiveness in dealing with public health issues 
and the economy.
    I understand that GAO estimates that it will initiate 175 
to 200 COVID-19 actions over the next 5 years, and that the 
benefits resulting from your work leads to program and 
operational governmental improvements. Your work is invaluable 
to getting the taxpayer the most from their tax dollars.
    This year, GAO is requesting an increase of $83.2 million 
in appropriated funds and 220 full-time equivalents, or FTEs, 
over what was provided last year. While we understand that your 
workload is increasing, I am afraid that the subcommittee 
allocation may not be increasing at a reciprocal rate. As you 
know, budgeting is, unfortunately, a zero-sum game, and it will 
be hard to accommodate your healthy request, but I can assure 
you we will do our absolute best for you.
    I look forward to your testimony today.
    And at this point, I would like to yield to my colleague 
and friend, the ranking member, Jaime Herrera Beutler, for any 
opening comments that she would like to make.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Mr. Dodaro, welcome back. It is really good to see you 
again, even if it is virtually in this weird space. 
Congratulations on the Government Accountability Office's 100th 
year. That is remarkable.
    As you know and as was mentioned, GAO has an incredibly 
vital role in Congress' oversight of Federal spending, 
providing evaluations on performance of Federal programs, 
financial and management audits, policy analysis and many other 
services that are ensuring that the American taxpayer dollars 
are spent efficiently.
    This past year has been busy for all of us, especially for 
GAO. You and your staff have issued numerous reports on the 
Federal Government's response to COVID-19, touching on hot 
button issues like vaccine distribution, the effect of distance 
learning on our kids, and the performance of financial 
assistance programs for American businesses, all really 
critical.
    You have been doing this as we have been trying to roll out 
these policies. So the information you have released has been 
incredibly helpful, and it has been timely. In the midst of 
your increased workload, GAO has continued to regularly issue 
reports and provide testimony on a wide range of issues.
    I am pleased to see that GAO is also working to implement 
its new Science, Technology, Assessment and Analytics unit. 
This unit will provide Congress with valuable insight into 
emerging technologies and policy recommendations to harness the 
benefits and mitigate the negatives that come with those 
technologies.
    Your fiscal 2022 budget request seeks to increase staff 
capacity, build audit resources, modernize IT systems, which is 
a theme we hear quite consistently, and address outdated 
building infrastructure. We look forward to hearing how you 
plan to implement these changes and how they will further 
improve GAO's work.
    Thank you and your office for working with us here in 
Congress to ensure that the American taxpayer is protected and 
their dollars are spent carefully, and I look forward to 
hearing your testimony.
    Thanks, and I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. We will move to the question-and-answer period. 
You may please begin. The floor is yours.
    Mr. Dodaro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning to you, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and 
all members of the subcommittee.
    I first want to thank you for your continued support to 
GAO. It has been absolutely instrumental to GAO's continued 
success. Even under the pandemic, which we have been able to 
navigate, we have successfully had a good strong performance 
this past year.
    Our recommendations led to over $77 billion in financial 
benefits. That keeps our average return on the investment for 
you and the taxpayers at $165 back for every dollar invested in 
GAO. We also had over 1,300 of our recommendations implemented 
to enhance public safety and security, to help protect 
vulnerable populations, and a wide range of programmatic and 
operational improvements throughout the Federal Government.
    As both of you have mentioned in your opening statements, 
we were able to do real-time auditing and step up and meet our 
responsibilities under the coronavirus legislation. We have 
been giving monthly briefings to a range of congressional 
committees, and issuing bimonthly public reports.
    We have made over 40 recommendations for midterm course 
corrections. Ms. Herrera Beutler mentioned the vaccine 
distribution and communications plan, which we recommended last 
fall, how to protect and fill gaps in the medical supply chain, 
to get more complete information on testing, have a national 
testing strategy, and a wide range of recommendations to focus 
on transparency and accountability issues over the largest 
Federal rescue in American history.
    This year we also released our biennial report, which we 
issue at the beginning of each new Congress on high-risk areas 
across the Federal Government. There are 36 areas on the list. 
We took one area off this year because it made improvements, 
which is in the defense support infrastructure area. We added 
two new areas: One is Federal efforts to prevent, respond to, 
and recover from drug misuse. From 2002 to 2019, over 800,000 
Americans died from a drug overdose. The period from May 2019 
to May 2020 had the largest recorded annual increase in 
American history of 80,000 people. We need a better national 
strategy. We need better coordination. We need a wide range of 
efforts in order to deal with this national crisis.
    We also added the emergency loan program under the 
pandemic. While it has been a lifeline and effective for many 
small businesses throughout the community, it has been 
incredibly poorly managed. And we didn't meet the transparency 
and accountability goals over either the paycheck protection 
program or the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, as well.
    The efforts to increase our staff with our budget request 
would help us in dealing with enhancing our science and 
technology work, our cybersecurity work, as well as the 
important work that we are doing in healthcare programs.
    If we are going to get the Federal deficit and debt under 
control, as a nation, we need to make sure that we control 
healthcare spending. That is one of the critical drivers GAO 
also needs to increase our General Counsel capabilities to 
continue to provide advice to the Congress on exercising fully 
its power of the purse and to make sure that we safeguard 
Congress' prerogatives.
    So I thank you for your attention this morning, I know you 
will give careful consideration to our request, and I look 
forward to answering your questions. Thank you very much.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
    
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, sir, appreciate it.
    We are going to proceed to the question and answers, and I 
am going to begin with the ranking member, the distinguished 
gentlelady from Washington State, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Dodaro, every time when you go through that whole list, 
my mind just goes into several different places, you know, cost 
of controlling, how we control healthcare spending and get the 
debt under control, and there are so many different things that 
are critical.
    I actually wanted to ask you about both intelligence 
oversight by the GAO and how that is going because I know there 
have been challenges; it is not as easy for you to get that 
information. And then making sure that audits are being filled 
or the recommendations are being taken up in a timely manner. 
GAO reports its 4-year implementation rate of recommendations 
by Federal agencies was 77 percent in 2020, but the 
implementation rate after 2 years was just 51 percent. So 
increasing responsiveness of agency implementation is 
absolutely critical, and so I would like you to speak to that.
    Let me also ask in that question about a GAO report from 
about 4 years ago that has to do with the Police Board. And it 
wasn't a super--it didn't seem like a super indepth report. I 
guess I should say it didn't seem to be unearthing new 
information, but it was really just trying to apply best 
practices and incorporate transparency and accountability.
    In light of kind of the uptake of recommendations by 
agencies, is it possible for you to--I know this is kind of--
you weren't prepared for this. Is it possible to speak to 
whether that has had any implementation or any of the things 
have been done?
    Mr. Dodaro. First, with regard to the intelligence 
community, our work there continues. We have not had a lot of 
classified work during the pandemic, and we are not yet able to 
keep apace of our pre-pandemic workload in that area. So it has 
really not been a good year to test whether we are getting 
increasing cooperation.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. So it is going the wrong direction 
during the pandemic.
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, it was just a consequence of the 
pandemic. It wasn't because of a lack of cooperation. GAO 
couldn't put our people in harm's way until we could figure out 
how to do classified work in a safe environment.
    We have figured that out now. We are starting back up. We 
expect cooperation. I have already reached out to the new 
Director of DNI, Ms. Avril Haines, and I plan to talk to her to 
elicit her cooperation. So far, it is going well. I will report 
back if we are having any problems. I expect cooperation, and I 
expect we will be able to continue to do our work in that area.
    Now, with regard to getting our recommendations 
implemented, I send priority letters to the head of all major 
departments and agencies every year outlining open GAO 
recommendations. I will be following up with all of our new 
leaders as they are confirmed by the Senate.
    I have already had a discussion with Secretary Mayorkas at 
Homeland Security. And as people get confirmed and in place, I 
will have conversations with them. Those letters are made 
publicly available, and the Congress gets copies of those 
letters as well so they can follow up.
    The Congress also passed legislation that now requires 
every agency as they put forward their budget submissions each 
year, to include all GAO open recommendations and what they are 
planning to do to implement them. So that is transparent to the 
Congress. That has only just occurred--last year was the first 
year that it started. The budget submission this year will be 
the second year. We are hopeful. Congress intended that the new 
legislation would give more attention to the fast 
implementation of GAO recommendations.
    Now, with regard to the Capitol Police Board, I will ask 
our Chief Operating Officer, Kate Siggerud, to respond to our 
prior work and recommendations. I am recused from the current 
work we are doing right now. One of my sons-in-law is a Capitol 
Hill policeman. And so Kate Siggerud has been handling that 
work.
    Kate.
    Ms. Siggerud. Thank you, Gene.
    I will start out, Ms. Herrera Beutler, by replying to your 
question about the 2017 report. That report focused on the 
structure of the Board. It did have recommendations about 
updating the manual for the Capitol Police Board. And those 
recommendations, to our knowledge, have not been implemented.
    In fact, the Police Board has not responded to our efforts 
to understand whether the recommendations have been 
implemented. So that is not something we have information on, 
and it is unfortunate that they haven't been responsive.
    That report also outlined a number of options for the 
Congress to consider if it wanted to make some changes to the 
decision-making and transparency of the Capitol Police Board, 
including some that could be made under current authorities and 
others where the statutes might have to be changed in order to 
accomplish that. Thank you.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Ms. Kate.
    Thank you, Chairman Ryan. I really appreciate it.
    Ms. Siggerud. Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan. You got it.
    Ms. Clark. Also, Ms. Clark, before you go, evidently my 
microphone was off and I need to say, without objection, your 
written testimony will be part of the record, Mr. Dodaro. So a 
little housekeeping.
    Ms. Clark, you have the floor.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Comptroller Dodaro, for being with us today. 
We really appreciate it, and we appreciate your work and your 
celebration of 100 years of fact-based work, which is music to 
all of our ears.
    I would like to take a minute to ask about your capacity to 
fulfill report requests made by Congress. In your budget 
request, you state that you were able to fill 90 percent of the 
requests you get from standing committees--I am sorry. You 
state that GAO received requests for work from 90 percent of 
the standing committees, and you were able to fulfill 586 
reports.
    Can you give me a sense of how many Member requests you 
were not able to respond to and what might be some of the 
primary reasons, especially is it one of capacity?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. We have worked out with the Congress a set 
of protocols that outline the priorities in which we address 
requests from the Congress.
    Priority one are mandates. These are statutory requirements 
for our work or conference or committee reports that outline 
requirements from GAO, requests for us to do our work.
    Second are priority requests from chairs and ranking 
members of the committees of jurisdiction. We treat both 
parties the same as part of our nonpartisan status. So they 
have equal access to our work.
    Priority three are recommendations from individual Members 
of Congress for our work.
    We have not been able to fulfill requests from individual 
Members for probably 15 years now because of a lack of 
resources. So, right now, in order to get access to our 
resources, individual members have to get a committee to 
sponsor a request or get it into a statutory requirement in law 
or in a conference or committee report.
    Now, we are able to get to all the requests that we accept. 
We may not be able to get to them as fast as the committees 
would like. So what I have been doing for many years now is 
meeting with the committee chairs and ranking members, as many 
as I can, and we have worked to prioritize their requests to 
make sure that we get to their highest priorities as soon as 
possible.
    One of the reasons I asked for additional resources is so 
we can get to more requests, and we can get to many of them 
faster if we have additional resources available at GAO. That 
would help us be more responsive. But we get to everything that 
is a priority from all the committees across the Congress as 
soon as possible.
    Ms. Clark. And maybe you can submit it later, but it would 
be helpful that if you had another number of the requests that 
are unfulfilled, you just can't get to, that would be great, 
just to give us an idea of the scope.
    Mr. Dodaro. We would be happy to submit that for the 
record. We can. We get to all of them, but it takes longer than 
I know people would like. Additional information provided for 
the Record: As of April 23, 2021, GAO's queue of unstaffed 
requests is 72. This number changes daily as new requests are 
added and others are removed as we staff them.
    Ms. Clark. Right. Okay.
    I wanted to follow up a little bit on the intelligence 
agency cooperation that the ranking member was asking you 
about. And I understand your testimony is that, with the 
pandemic, you really haven't had a chance to assess this, but 
you seemed optimistic that better cooperation from when you 
testified back in 2019 that you needed better cooperation.
    Do you feel confident that will be coming? And are there 
any other changes you need in law or in report language 
requiring the expansion or edit of the Intelligence Community 
Directive 114?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, we have been getting better cooperation 
since 2011, when the Congress required the intelligence 
community, the Director of DNI, to establish a directive to 
resume cooperation with GAO. Prior to that time, we didn't have 
good cooperation at all.
    So it has been gradually building. We are getting feedback 
from the defense and the intelligence community that our work 
is useful to them, which is helpful. The Intelligence 
Committees are providing more support. That is the one area 
where we can always use help is from the Intel Committees to 
provide support and back us up.
    The only problem we have run into recently was one area 
where we couldn't get the budget request fully from the 
intelligence communities, and so we had to scope that work a 
little differently, but we were able to respond to the request.
    I have met with every DNI Director since Director Clapper. 
I have met most recently with Director Ratcliffe, and he 
promised cooperation, and we are getting cooperation. Our teams 
are meeting with the intel community, and it seems like we are 
getting cooperation with the new administration. As I 
mentioned, I am going to meet with the Director of DNI, Ms. 
Haines, in the coming weeks.
    So I am hopeful. I don't think we need any other help right 
now other than the support of the intelligence committees. So 
we are continuing to meet with them. And, as long as they are 
supportive, that sends the right signal to the intelligence 
community to cooperate with GAO.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you very much.
    I see I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning, Mr. Dodaro, a pleasure to see you again.
    Mr. Dodaro. Good morning, nice to see you.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony. You 
brought up the PPE and the EIDL loans, the programs that we 
have done many things to try to help businesses continue to 
survive during the pandemic. We have also done a lot of things 
in response to the working folks in the country as well.
    So I wanted to ask, since you brought up the topic of our 
appropriated funds to help prop up the economy, we did send a 
lot of Federal dollars to States to help bolster their 
unemployment programs and benefits for those people that were 
put out of work because of government restrictions on small 
businesses.
    Several States, including my own home State of Washington, 
unfortunately, those programs were defrauded of hundreds of 
millions of dollars by foreign thieves. And those moneys were 
meant to help those people most in need.
    So my question, as the Government Accountability Office, 
your title would indicate, first of all, do you have a role in 
ensuring that these dollars are spent as Congress intended? And 
if that is the case, can you tell me if you will be 
investigating these instances, such as happened in Washington, 
I believe California and Massachusetts; at least those are the 
States that I am aware of.
    Can you tell me what will be taking place, or maybe if you 
have already done some work in this area, can you update me as 
far as what that looks like as well?
    Mr. Dodaro. Sure, I will be happy to. First of all, I am 
very concerned about the situation with unemployment insurance. 
One of the things that we have done since Congress gave 
additional resources to the inspectors general as well as GAO 
is to work to coordinate with the inspectors general across the 
government.
    And so, with the Department of Labor, we tried to avoid 
duplication of efforts. Labor IG was investigating fraud and 
program integrity aspects of the unemployment insurance area.
    Thus, GAO decided to focus on what kind of challenges the 
States are having targeting funds properly. We are looking more 
at the programmatic aspects of whether the government achieved 
its objectives of helping the people who needed the help. So 
the IG at the Labor Department is focused more on the fraud 
aspect.
    Now, most of the criminal investigators in the government 
in the accountability area are in the inspectors general 
offices. We don't have or do criminal investigations in GAO. 
The IG criminal investigators work for the Justice Department, 
the FBI, and others. I will be coordinating with the individual 
State auditors and with the Justice IG as we go forward.
    One of the questions I got along this line last week when I 
testified before the House and Senate on our high-risk list was 
why wasn't this area on the high-risk list. So I am going back, 
and I am taking another look at it. It didn't actually come up 
to us because the IG is doing the fraud and abuse area, and we 
are focused on another area. But I want to take a broader look 
at it, including all the work done by State auditors and by 
Federal auditors.
    Now, the problems here this is a little different because 
it is all administered at the State level. And a lot of the 
States have antiquated systems, and they are responsible for 
program integrity. We don't normally make recommendations to 
States. We mostly focus at the Federal level.
    So I want to figure out what is appropriate for us to 
recommend to the Labor Department. We have already made several 
recommendations to them about getting overpayments back and 
also reporting better data. The data reported on initial 
unemployment claims was misleading because there was a backlog 
of claims. I could talk about that later if you are interested. 
But that is the extent of it.
    So I am focused on it. We are going to follow up and do 
more work on it. And I think we need to work with the States to 
transform the unemployment insurance program so that it can 
accommodate future situations, where we have economic downturns 
or a need to scale up, in a much better fashion than they have 
been able to handle this current situation.
    Mr. Newhouse. So--and I know I am out of time, Mr. 
Chairman, but just curious if we send money to----
    Mr. Ryan. Mr. Newhouse, take your time.
    Mr. Newhouse. Oh, thank you.
    You know, this is not an uncommon thing that we send money 
to States in lots of different forms. And if it is not up to 
the Government Accountability Office to make recommendations as 
to how those programs at least have some input on how that 
money is utilized, then whose responsibility is that? Are we 
leaving it totally up to the States then at that point?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, in this particular program, the way it 
has worked historically is the States tax employers within the 
States, and the States decide what the rules are for 
unemployment.
    Mr. Newhouse. But this was Federal. These are Federal 
dollars.
    Mr. Dodaro. In this case, we added Federal money, but it 
normally doesn't work that way unless there is some kind of an 
emergency. It is a unique situation in this particular case.
    I will be looking to make recommendations to the Labor 
Department to work with the States to reform these things 
because Labor has a role in making sure the States execute the 
programs properly. So we will be looking at it----
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. And to get recommendations in 
place to make sure that the States are better prepared.
    The States have had to borrow over $40 billion that they 
are going to have to pay back to the Federal Government later 
in order to pay for the benefits that they are responsible for 
in addition to the Federal benefits. The States have a lot of 
vested interest----
    Mr. Newhouse. Sure.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. In making sure they have better 
systems too. And I think it is a matter of how to get a good 
intergovernmental partnership in place----
    Mr. Newhouse. Yes.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. In order to produce a better 
result. I don't think anybody is happy with the outcome under 
the current situation, Federal or State.
    Mr. Newhouse. And I am not advocating the Federal 
Government always to be telling the States how to run their 
businesses, but in this kind of an instance, we certainly want 
to make sure that the aid is getting to the people that we 
intended it to. And it seems like we have a responsibility at 
least to have some input, and so I am glad you are looking at 
what our options might be.
    Mr. Dodaro. There are also legislative options for Congress 
to mandate some things. And I think in the interest of getting 
money out earlier, the signal that was sent was to move quickly 
to get the money out and to not put a lot of barriers in place. 
Sometimes you need some speed bumps in order to make sure these 
things don't happen. And we will be looking at that as well, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Newhouse. Good. Well, I think that is something we all 
are interested in.
    I appreciate very much your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thanks for the good questions, Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Case.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Good morning, Mr. Dodaro. Good to see you again. Thank you 
very much for your team's incredible service throughout a very 
difficult time.
    We have had discussions in past years about assuring that 
the components of GAO that are focused on highly specialized, 
highly technical areas, for example, science and technology and 
cybersecurity, are adequately resourced within GAO so that GAO 
can provide not only, you know, world-class, objective views to 
Congress, but also so that it is not reliant on external 
sources for that expertise.
    And we have discussed in past Congresses how there was some 
concern that we were relying too much on the administration, 
the executive branch, for that expertise and/or external 
sources.
    And so, along these lines, are you comfortable that you 
have the resources to recruit and retain the highest quality 
folks to provide us independent, objective advice, especially 
in these really highly specialized areas?
    Your past testimony has been yes, that folks do want to 
work for the GAO. And that is great news, but, you know, 
sometimes people want to work for an organization, but they 
simply can't for whatever reason, financial or otherwise.
    Are you comfortable that you have access to that level of 
expertise?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. We have continued to build our capacity in 
that area, Congressman Case. Last year, when we started out 
2019, we had 70 people in that area. We now have 104 people, 
and we are recruiting additional people. We are hoping to get 
to 120 people this year.
    We have been able to bring on new hires who have expertise 
in a wide range of fields, like microbiology, quantum 
mechanics, public health, chemical engineering, aerospace 
engineering. I am very pleased with our progress, even during 
the pandemic, and we have continued to hire and build the 
capacity in that area.
    The request for next year would get us to 140 people in 
that specialized Science, Technology and Analytics Team, which 
was the original plan I submitted to the Congress in 2019. I am 
hopeful that we will get enough additional support to make that 
target.
    But we are proving that we can hire. We hired our first 
chief data scientist, and we have established an Innovation 
Lab. So I am very pleased. We have had the ability to hire a 
lot of people. In the cybersecurity area, we hired 30 experts 
too.
    About 90 percent of all these people we are hiring are 
staying with GAO. We are able to retain them. So I feel 
confident that we are able to build that capacity. And with 
additional support from the Congress, we will achieve the goals 
necessary to fully support the Congress. We have never had a 
situation where we haven't responded to a request from the 
Congress in the science, technology and analytics area.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you.
    And then, you know, in your opening statement, you cited 
$78 billion, I think it was, worth of financial benefits 
resulting from your reviews and assessments. I mean, can you 
generalize as to whether there are kind of common areas where 
you have identified areas for improvement and for, you know, 
financial savings? What are some of the thematic areas that you 
tend to see results a little bit more?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, not surprisingly, it is where the biggest 
amount of money is, which is in the healthcare area and the 
Defense Department area.
    In weapon systems, there is often a lot of problems with 
cost growth and schedule delays, and we end up getting less 
capabilities than we planned for. So we try to target those 
things early to alert the Congress to where maybe technology is 
not mature; it is not ready to go into production yet.
    In the healthcare area, I think there is a wide range of 
options in that area. But it is really across government.
    Now, the other area, Congressman Case, is the revenue side 
of government. We have made recommendations to the Congress. 
Most recently, we suggested to the Congress that they move up 
the dates of when the W-2s are sent to IRS. Previously, they 
weren't sent till April and sometimes later by the employers, 
so they weren't available to IRS in processing returns in the 
January-February timeframe. That led to a lot of identity 
theft. Now they are able to match it with the filed returns, 
and so billions of dollars of potential theft has been stopped, 
and we are collecting more money in the revenue side of things 
too.
    Those are the critical areas. I would ask my colleague, 
Kate Siggerud, if she has any other recommendations, but I want 
to emphasize our savings go across the board. I mean they are 
all aspects of the Federal Government. Those are the ones that 
have the highest dollars, so they are going to have a tendency 
to have more opportunities for savings.
    Kate.
    Ms. Siggerud. Well, Gene, I think you got the main points 
that I would have made.
    With regard to savings, I do want to point out that we do 
also receive a fair number of requests that are focused a 
little bit differently than just on efficiency and savings, 
things like consumer protection and safety and issues like 
that, where we need to focus our resources in areas that are 
important to the Congress and important to the American people, 
but may not produce a savings to the taxpayer. Thank you.
    Mr. Case. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
    Mr. Espaillat.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Yes, thank you to the presenters. My question is to 
Comptroller Dodaro. In the past, the GAO has had a backlog of 
study requests from Congress, meaning some requests have often 
been put off or put on the back burner. Do you know what your 
current backlog is?
    Mr. Dodaro. I would ask Ms. Siggerud to respond to that. I 
don't really know what the number is offhand.
    Kate.
    Ms. Siggerud. I am sorry, Gene. I was trying to respond to 
a question from the hearing administrator to improve your 
video, which is stuck. So, if you could repeat the question for 
me, I would appreciate it.
    Mr. Dodaro. It was what the number of backlog requests are.
    Ms. Siggerud. I don't have a good number for that, but I 
would like to get that to you for the record. Our approach 
overall is to prioritize requests that we receive in law or 
from ranking members and chairs of committees of jurisdiction.
    So those tend to get the highest priority and get resources 
first among our teams. There are teams that are a bit 
oversubscribed in GAO, and I would mention in particular our 
healthcare team, given the COVID-19 work that we have been 
asked to do.
    What I would like to do is get you a more precise answer 
for the record on that issue. Thank you. Additional information 
provided for the Record: As of April 23, 2021, GAO's queue of 
unstaffed requests is 72. This number changes daily as new 
requests are added and others are removed as we staff them.
    Mr. Espaillat. Is your budget request seeking to address 
the backlog?
    Ms. Siggerud. Yes, it is, absolutely.
    Mr. Dodaro. Absolutely, yes.
    Mr. Espaillat. During the 116th Congress, the Committee on 
Modernization provided an array of recommendations. Could you 
tell me how your budget reflects modernization efforts 
recommended by the committee?
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, the committee request, from my 
understanding, would go to the inner workings of the Congress. 
So that wouldn't involve GAO. We are an independent 
organization.
    Mr. Espaillat. Oh, okay.
    Mr. Dodaro. We worked with that committee, actually at 
Congressman Newhouse's request. So we have lent our technical 
expertise to the Modernization Committee.
    Mr. Espaillat. I got you.
    Mr. Dodaro. But their recommendations are not okay.
    Ms. Siggerud. Gene, this is Kate. I might just add that 
that committee did focus on trying to improve overall IT 
services within the Congress, and we have occasionally also 
been asked within GAO to consult on that topic.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat.
    Mr. Amodei here? I want to give him an opportunity. All 
right. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat.
    Mr. Dodaro, several of these issues are very interesting to 
me. You talked about the unemployment insurance. Boy, we had a 
hell of a time in Ohio with unemployment insurance, people 
getting their checks. I know you touched on a little bit of the 
backlog and transforming unemployment insurance throughout the 
State.
    Some of us are pushing a proposal to have almost like, you 
know, as unemployment goes up, almost have an automatic UI, you 
know, push money out into the economy. And, you know, you think 
about ideas like that. Without the proper technology or process 
in place, it would be nearly impossible.
    So can you talk, you know, with what you know, I know you 
talked about coordinating with the IG and the fraud piece, but 
can you dive a little deeper into the backlog and 
inefficiencies in some of the State UI systems?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes, I would be happy to.
    I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that we have an open 
matter recommendation for the Congress to put a system in place 
that would provide additional assistance in a more timely way 
for Medicaid during times of high unemployment that would 
target it earlier, phase it in and phase it out selectively 
rather than nationally. It was similar to the concept that you 
mentioned on unemployment insurance. That is why I bring that 
up.
    On the unemployment insurance area, from my understanding, 
a number of these systems that the States have are decades old. 
They are antiquated, and they need to be modernized. And this 
was an issue.
    At least one Senator called me before the original CARES 
Act and asked about how they could target better to make sure 
that people wouldn't get more money on their unemployment than 
they would have gotten before. But we looked into this a little 
bit informally, and the State systems weren't able to do that. 
So we ended up having to just give the flat amount to everybody 
because targeting would have thrown everything into turmoil.
    Now, in another case we made a recommendation. In some of 
the areas they gave everybody the minimum amount with so much 
additional Federal assistance, and they were supposed to go 
back later and then give them the amount that they were 
supposed to, and in some cases, they haven't done that yet.
    While we have talked a lot about the fraud part of it, 
there are some people that didn't get the full benefits that 
they were legitimately entitled to. We made recommendations 
that it be addressed. That has been one of the focuses from the 
GAO standpoint.
    So this is a big technology issue. It is also a question of 
what the balance will be between the Federal Government and the 
States of who designs how unemployment is provided within the 
States. I mean, there is a wide range of State decisions now 
about who gets unemployment and who doesn't on a regular basis 
and how much they receive.
    But, clearly, if the Federal Government wants to use them 
on a more regular basis during economic downturns or other 
emergencies, we need to have a better system in place, and I am 
happy to work on that.
    Ms. Siggerud. Gene, if I could just add--this is Kate 
Siggerud speaking.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Ms. Siggerud. There are grants that are made to States to 
try to improve their IT and replace legacy systems. Part of our 
work going forward is to look at the use of those grants and 
whether there is something that could be done to improve that 
program.
    Mr. Ryan. I mean, that just was, you know, the frustrating 
part because a lot of constituents call our congressional 
office even though, you know, it was a Federal benefit but the 
State was administering the program.
    And I think, like many issues that are facing the country, 
the pandemic, you know, exposed them in a very, very big way, 
whether it is the digital divide or access to healthcare or 
public health issues, you know, kind of the off-shoring of all 
of our PPE, those kind of things. But the most heartbreaking 
one of the whole thing really was that people who weren't able 
to get their unemployment insurance in the middle of a 
pandemic.
    So part of what we have to do, as the leaders of Congress, 
is to make sure that we are better prepared in the institutions 
and, you know, areas of government are ready to be modernized 
so that, next time this happens, we are in a much, much better 
place.
    Mr. Dodaro, we have had this conversation before. And every 
time we talk, the issue of healthcare costs come up as a 
significant part of the budget that kind of squeeze out a lot 
of other investments that we need to make. And we have had the 
conversation too around prevention and using food as medicine 
and those kind of things.
    Can you give us a little bit of information on some of the 
information that you may have on the modernizing of our 
healthcare system and our food system to help point us in the 
right direction.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. As you point out, the pandemic has 
stressed a lot of different systems and laid bare their 
frailties. And it is certainly very true in the public 
healthcare system, both in terms of the decentralized nature of 
it, and the lack of investment over time.
    Now, in the nutrition area, we are doing additional work to 
make sure that we are focused on that. We did one report on 
nutrition education to have USDA take actions to assess the 
effectiveness and coordination of programs and the leverage of 
those programs. But now we are taking a deeper dive into the 
relationship between people's diets and chronic diseases.
    And, preliminarily it is showing that the chronic diseases 
remain very prevalent, very costly, and among the leading cause 
of death. And there are more than 170 diet-related efforts 
across 21 Federal agencies and departments to deal with this 
problem, to deal with people at risk of chronic diseases, but 
there is not an effective strategy in place, a national 
strategy.
    This reminds me of the reason why we put the drug misuse 
area on there. There are a lot of activities going on underway, 
but there is not a national strategy that deals both across the 
Federal Government but with State and local governments, public 
health officials, and others that are relevant to that area. So 
there is clearly a role for more prevention that can deal with 
these issues.
    You have also seen during the pandemic the racial 
inequality and the disparity in the underlying healthcare 
conditions of people of color and low-income people. And they 
have been disproportionately affected, but it is largely 
because of the underlying conditions that haven't been dealt 
with effectively over time.
    We have got a lot of inequality. There are opportunities 
for a greater role for prevention and education and earlier 
treatment, Congressman. And this needs to be done because the 
costs are going up in healthcare, not just because we are aging 
as a population. They are going up because the cost per person 
every year keeps going up in addition to that.
    And while people are living longer lives, that is not true 
for everybody. And so there are a lot of issues that need to be 
dealt with here to make sure that the money that we are putting 
in, it is not for lack of funding, but we are not getting the 
high-quality results we need out of the system.
    Mr. Ryan. Have you looked at all--and my time is coming to 
an end here. Have you looked at all at--one of the dynamics in 
the country that drives me crazy is that how our system is set 
up with our schools, our K-12 schools, and how much money we 
spend on feeding our kids breakfast and lunch, sometimes a 
snack after school, which is entirely appropriate that we would 
want to make sure our kids have food, but I question the food 
that they are being fed. Very highly processed, lots of sugar, 
additive sugar.
    And when you look at a lot of the schools have 60, 70, 80, 
90 percent of the kids in the school are Medicaid, and so we 
cover them on the Medicaid healthcare plan. And over time, one 
of the diseases, chronic diseases you mention was type 2 
diabetes.
    So, I mean, and you wonder why the taxpayer is insane about 
how the government spends money. So we buy a bunch of bad food, 
feed it to our kids, cover them with healthcare. They get 
diabetes. We make sure they have access to healthcare, and then 
the taxpayer pays for that too, as opposed to creating a system 
where we actually feed them the kind of food that would prevent 
that from happening, prevent chronic disease, reverse chronic 
disease potentially with some people, and start trying to bend 
that cost curve a little bit.
    Have you looked into anything like that at all? And, if 
not, I may have another assignment for you.
    Mr. Dodaro. In the past, we have looked at some of the 
nutrition standards for the school lunch program in place. I 
know there were some changes during the Obama administration to 
move in the direction that you are talking about, and there 
have been some recent changes.
    We will go back and look at what we have already done. But 
I would be happy to take on another assignment in this area. 
When you talk about your children, I see Ms. Herrera Beutler 
has her small child with her today. Today, I am waiting for my 
eighth grandchild to be born, so that is going to happen.
    I am very interested in making sure that our children are 
properly taken care of. And, in fact, I did a special study a 
few years ago. There is no advocacy for children across the 
board. There are a lot of these different programs in place, 
but there is no national strategy to look at children 
holistically at the Federal Government level.
    I made a recommendation to the administration to put that 
under a cross-cutting priority initiative, but they never have. 
So I think it is a shame, and we ought to be focused more on 
that. But I would be happy to look at the nutrition issue in 
schools that you talk about.
    Mr. Ryan. Yeah, I would appreciate that. So we will circle 
back with it with the staff to get moving on that. I know we 
already have a healthcare research project that you guys are 
working on for us with the Tufts University and Dr. Hyman and 
others who are interested in that.
    So that is the whole thing. There is a whole move afoot in 
the country that has not made its way out into broader society 
around using food as medicine and, you know, really using and 
seeing diet as prevention and that kind of thing.
    So, anyway, I am going to open it up for one last question, 
if anybody has something for the good of the order.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler?
    Ms. Clark? I see you are still here.
    Anyone else?
    All right. We are good. Good? Kat?
    Ms. Clark. Can I ask one quick question, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Ryan. Yes, absolutely.
    Ms. Clark. I just wanted to comment. I recently saw the 
issue of deepfakes has been in the news, posing safety and 
security risks. And on the GAO's website is a report on science 
and technology spotlight on deepfakes.
    I wasn't aware you produced these kinds of reports, and is 
this part of your effort to enhance your science and tech 
portfolio?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes, it is. Those are our Science and 
Technology Spotlights. GAO has produced 12 of them in the past 
year out of the Science, Technology Assessment and Analytics 
team. Topics have included deepfakes and CRISPR gene editing 
technology. We did several on coronavirus, both in testing, and 
in infectious disease modeling. We have done deep works on 
that. So, yes, it is part of our effort. In the nuclear area, 
we have done them too, and we will continue to do those.
    Those are to meet a specific need that was identified in 
the Congress for quick explainers about the technology. They 
are two pages. They are meant to be produced quickly. They 
outline what the technology is, what some of the benefits of 
the technology are, what is the status of the development of 
the technology, and what are some of the challenges and policy 
implications of the technology.
    And then we do more deep analysis, like on 5G. We have done 
two reports on artificial intelligence and how it could be used 
to more rapidly get drug developments done and also in medical 
diagnostics. We are looking at the forensic algorithms for law 
enforcement, the DNA, and other testing.
    And we are also going to be coming up with a framework for 
evaluating artificial intelligence algorithms because you have 
to make sure there is no bias in artificial intelligence and 
that the data that goes into it is high quality and produces a 
good result. We are doing all these things in this new team.
    This is one of my highest priorities. It has been that way 
during my entire tenure. I have been building the capacity 
here. With Congress' support recently, we are expanding it. And 
that is why I am asking for more support. For instance, we need 
to look at decarbonization technologies. It is important to the 
environment, medicine, weapon systems development, and the 
nuclear area as well. We are prepared to deal with these issues 
now, but we will even be better prepared with additional 
support from the Congress.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you for that. They are terrific resources. 
We appreciate it.
    Mr. Dodaro. Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan. So I have got one last question, Gene. You are 
talking about the issues around carbon, carbon capture and 
that. What is the latest that you are seeing technology-wise 
with carbon capture?
    Mr. Dodaro. We have done an earlier piece on that subject, 
which I will provide to your staff, Congressman, that basically 
talked about it being in a rather incipient stage, and that it 
wasn't commercially viable yet to produce on a wide scale.
    But that is something we did maybe 2, 3 years ago. So we 
are going to take another look at the technologies now. That is 
in our plans.
    [The information follows:]

    Correction: The prior study (GAO-0091080) was issued in 2008.

    Mr. Ryan. Okay. Great. Well, I can't thank you enough. Mr. 
Dodaro and Kate, thank you for your time today. And, like I 
said, I always love this. I wish we could just have a nice long 
dinner, like, every couple of weeks and we can just ask you 
questions. So we may have to do that off the record with the 
committee.
    But best of luck with the new grandbaby and your family and 
everything. It is great to have another Italian-American baby 
in the world. So God bless you.
    Thanks for all your great work, and please let your team 
know how much we appreciate them and how much we rely on them. 
And we look forward to staying in close contact and interfacing 
with your office.
    So, with that, we want to say thank you. This hearing will 
be in recess for 10 minutes as we switch panels. So I want to 
just make sure to advise the members to say logged on, and we 
will be back here in a few minutes.
    This particular hearing is adjourned.
    [Questions, answers, and additional material submitted for 
the record follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 



                                         Wednesday, March 10, 2021.

                             HOUSE OFFICERS

                               WITNESSES

E. WADE BALLOU, JR., LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, U.S. HOUSE OF 
    REPRESENTATIVES, ON BEHALF OF OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
HON. TIM BLODGETT, ACTING SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S. HOUSE OF 
    REPRESENTATIVES
KEMBA HENDRIX, DIRECTOR, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON BEHALF OF 
    OFFICE OF DIVERSITY & INCLUSION
HON. CHERYL L. JOHNSON, CLERK, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DOUGLAS N. LETTER, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON 
    BEHALF OF OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
MICHAEL T. PTASIENSKI, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. HOUSE OF 
    REPRESENTATIVES, ON BEHALF OF OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
RALPH V. SEEP, LAW REVISION COUNSEL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON 
    BEHALF OF OFFICE OF THE LAW REVISION COUNSEL
HON. CATHERINE L. SZPINDOR, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, U.S. HOUSE OF 
    REPRESENTATIVES
    Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
    For our second panel, I would like to welcome the officers 
and officials of the House of Representatives to present the 
fiscal year 2022 budget request. Testifying before us today we 
have the Honorable Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk of the House; the 
Honorable Tim Blodgett, Acting Sergeant at Arms; the Honorable 
Catherine Szpindor, Chief Administrative Officer; Mr. Wade 
Ballou, Chief Legislative Counsel; Mr. Douglas Letter, General 
Counsel; Mr. Michael T. Ptasienski, Inspector General; Mr. 
Ralph V. Seep, Law Revision Counsel; Ms. Kemba Hendrix, 
Director of Office of Diversity and Inclusion. Thank you all 
for joining us today. We welcome you back to our subcommittee.
    Before we begin with the testimonies, I would like to thank 
all the officers, officials, and their staff for the 
extraordinary work over the past year. Through the pandemic, a 
violent mob of domestic terrorists, and just life on Capitol 
Hill, you continue to serve this body and ensure the Members of 
Congress can continue to work. Your work is invaluable to 
getting the taxpayer the most from their tax dollars, and we 
hold you and your staffs in very high regard.
    The request for the House of Representatives is $1.737 
billion, an increase of $260 million over what was provided 
last year. While this is a healthy request and would provide 
Members and committees the resources necessary for us to 
represent our constituents, I am afraid that the subcommittee 
allocation may not be increasing at a reciprocal rate. As you 
know, budgeting is unfortunately a zero-sum game, and it will 
be hard to accommodate the full request, but we will do our 
best. I look forward to your testimony today.
    And at this point, I would like to yield to the ranking 
member, my friend and colleague from Washington State, home of 
the largest dam in the United States, Jaime Herrera Beutler, 
for any opening comments that she may like to make.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, welcome back to Ms. Johnson, our Clerk of 
the House, and welcome to our Acting Sergeant at Arms, Mr. 
Blodgett, and our new Chief Administrative Officer, Catherine 
Szpindor. Congratulations on your new positions and your first 
budget testimony before this subcommittee.
    The House of Representatives has been challenged by the 
COVID-19 pandemic and, more recently, with the assault on the 
Capitol on January 6. Collectively, our House officers are 
working around the clock to ensure that the legislative process 
can continue to function and our staff have the resources they 
need to work from home or safely from the office.
    Your offices have shown ingenuity and flexibility to ensure 
the people's House continues its work throughout this past 
year, and I thank each of you for your hard work under very 
tough circumstances. As the committee reviews your budget 
request for fiscal year 2022, I look forward to hearing more 
about the challenges you have overcome as well as how you will 
continue to grow and adapt as we move forward. Thank you for 
that.
    And I will yield my time back to the gentleman whose home 
State has the world's largest basket. It is seven stories tall 
and used to be an office building. We think it is vacant now.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
    So, without objection, all of the written testimonies will 
be made part of the record. As we have a large panel, I ask 
that the Clerk of the House, the Acting Sergeant at Arms, and 
Chief Administrative Officer summarize their statements for the 
members of the committee.
    Ms. Johnson, we will begin with you, then Mr. Blodgett, 
and, finally, Ms. Szpindor. Please begin.
    Ms. Johnson. Good morning. Chairperson Ryan and Ranking 
Member Herrera Beutler, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you 
for your support and for the opportunity to testify about our 
operations and fiscal year 2022 budget request.
    Since our previous Appropriations hearing on March 3, 2020, 
we have witnessed an unprecedented challenge to the continuity 
of business in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Office of 
the Clerk has been deeply immersed in efforts to ensure that 
the critical functions of the House continue uninterrupted 
throughout an unfolding global pandemic. Because of the high 
level of professionalism in the Clerk's Office and the 
longstanding culture of preparedness and nimbleness, we were 
able to seamlessly adjust to these disruptions.
    Regarding the pandemic, in just a few weeks, the Clerk's 
Office developed new systems to permit the electronic 
submission of legislation, additional cosponsors, and 
Congressional Record inserts. At the risk of falling ill with 
the coronavirus, Clerk staff worked daily to process more than 
4,500 bills in the last year.
    Under the eHopper system, there has been a 157-percent 
increase in bills introduced during pro forma sessions. As a 
result, staff spend hours processing bills long after the House 
concludes its daily business. For example, the January 28 pro 
forma session yielded 155 introduced bills, of which all but 
four were introduced through the eHopper. Clerk staff worked 
more than 12 hours to process those bills.
    In addition, we have processed 7,909 proxy votes and made 
all proxy letters available on the Office of the Clerk's 
website.
    In addition to its myriad of responsibilities in support of 
daily legislative operations, the Clerk's Office has nearly 200 
duties related to the biennial transition from one Congress to 
the next. Those duties include everything from updating the 
Electronic Voting System to working with State election 
officials to collect and review certificates of election for 
every Member, Delegate, and Resident Commissioner.
    The ongoing pandemic made this year's preparedness 
especially challenging, but in the end, the Office of the Clerk 
ensured that, on opening day, January 3, 2021, a new Congress 
could begin carrying out its constitutional mandate. On January 
6, the Clerk's Office and the Parliamentarian worked with 
Senate officials on the official counting of electoral votes, 
which was completed despite the terrible challenges of that 
day.
    We appreciate the subcommittee's ongoing support for the 
operations of the Office of the Clerk. For fiscal year 2022, we 
respectfully request $35,857,000 to carry out our existing and 
new responsibilities to the House, of which 90 percent supports 
personnel salaries, training, and technology. The request is a 
net increase of roughly $4 million, or 12 percent, above the 
fiscal year 2021 enacted funding level.
    A major component of that increase would support 
nonpersonnel items, primarily mandatory maintenance of the 
Electronic Voting System, the Comparative Print Project, 
further development of the eHopper, and continued modernization 
of the Legislative Information Management System. These 
projects are all critical to the flow of legislative 
operations.
    Working closely with our partners in the House, from quite 
literally living rooms and dining room tables, Clerk staff have 
successfully supported the House through a remarkable time in 
history. They have done so while shouldering the personal 
impact of this pandemic by serving unexpectedly as school 
teachers and family caretakers. I am honored to work with such 
dedicated staff.
    Thank you again for your continued support, and I look 
forward to any questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
    
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
    Mr. Blodgett.
    Mr. Blodgett. Good morning, Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member 
Herrera Beutler, and members of the committee. I appreciate the 
opportunity to present the Office of the Sergeant at Arms' 
budget request for fiscal year 2022. It is an honor and a 
privilege to serve this institution, and I look forward to 
continuing to partner with the committee as this year 
progresses.
    I first want to thank the employees of the Office of the 
Sergeant at Arms. I have been serving as Acting Sergeant at 
Arms for 2 months. During that time, I have learned that my 
success depends on the success of my employees. I can fail on 
my own, but success requires the commitment and skills of 
multiple employees working together to fulfill the mission. My 
success is dependent on them, and I thank them. Their support 
means more to me than I can express.
    These hearings serve as a useful time to both look back and 
look forward. Since the Office of the Sergeant at Arms' last 
budget hearing, the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically altered 
how my office and Congress has done its business. Longstanding 
processes have had to change in order to keep us safe. My staff 
have had to shift their mission in all areas, from Chamber 
operations to coordinating personal protective equipment 
distribution.
    In addition, the needs of the Office of the Sergeant at 
Arms has changed considerably since January 6. We are focusing 
on realigning our workforce to better serve Members, staff, and 
visitors. This includes structuring ourselves in a way that 
allows us to hold both our organization and our law enforcement 
partners more accountable for the security services we provide 
you, your fellow Members, your staff, and our visitors.
    Unfortunately, because of the budget submission cycle, the 
identified needs for the Sergeant at Arms, including more needs 
identified by the report produced by General Honore this past 
week, will grow from what was originally submitted. My staff 
and I will continue to work with the subcommittee on 
investments that the subcommittee can make that would help 
better secure Members, staff, and visitors.
    With that background in mind, I would like to present the 
Sergeant at Arms' fiscal year 2022 request. For fiscal year 
2022, I am requesting further funding for the Joint Audible 
Warning System, or JAWS, project. This is a shared effort with 
the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Architect of the Capitol, and 
Capitol Police to replace the aging wireless emergency 
enunciator system.
    One of the items I have testified to this subcommittee 
about is how communications in times of crisis needs to 
improve. The existing wireless enunciator system was introduced 
as a temporary measure following the events of 9/11. The system 
components are beyond their end-of-life dates. The requested 
funding will help procure a new joint system with encrypted 
transmission capabilities and new devices for all offices in 
the House. The JAWS effort, in conjunction with other existing 
notification capabilities, will provide notification 
resiliency.
    I am also requesting funding to continue providing security 
services to Member district offices through the Sergeant at 
Arms' District Office Security Program. Today we are only 
responsible for providing a security system for one district 
office per Member. I believe the District Office Security 
Program should be expanded to allow security systems to be 
provided by the Sergeant at Arms' program to all appropriate 
district offices.
    To date, with the support of this committee and the 
Committee on House Administration, we have more than 450 active 
systems, with new systems coming online each month. While this 
is a measurable improvement from the beginning and is a 
positive sign, our work isn't done, and I believe that we can 
provide more for the district staff, who play a critical role 
in the functioning of Congress. Therefore, I view the District 
Office Security Program as a necessary and basic investment in 
ensuring security.
    Employees of the Sergeant at Arms' Office are our strongest 
asset. Fiscal year 2022, I am requesting funding for two new 
FTEs. Within the Division of Police Services and Law 
Enforcement, an additional FTE would work on coordinating 
security installations and providing administrative support for 
the District Office Security Center. Also, within the Division 
of Police Services and Law Enforcement, an additional FTE will 
provide the staffing needed for the increasing requirements to 
coordinate and support event planning efforts with our law 
enforcement partners. This includes working with our partners 
to develop written plans for large events, like the national 
special security events, and smaller scale events, like 
committee field hearings.
    While this FTE request was provided in late fall, January 6 
demonstrated a clear need for this role to both assist our 
office and to hold our law enforcement partners accountable for 
meaningful documented planning efforts.
    Nonpersonnel expenses for fiscal year 2022 will continue to 
support, among other items, travel, including Sergeant at Arms-
approved Capitol Police travel in advance and support of 
overseas leadership codels and other large-scale off-campus 
events attended by Members, and the biennial purchase of Member 
and spouse identification pins, plates, parking permits, and 
safes.
    Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before 
the committee. I am so appreciative for the committee's support 
and partnership, and I am happy to answer any questions you may 
have.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
    Ms. Szpindor.
    Ms. Szpindor. Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera 
Beutler, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to present the fiscal year 2022 priorities and 
subsequent budget request for the Office of the Chief 
Administrative Officer.
    The CAO remains committed to its 5-year strategic plan and 
its goals to, one, align Member needs; two, modernize and 
transform; three, protect the House; and, four, foster and 
engage. In meeting these goals, the CAO is guided by its 
organizational motto: Member focused, service driven. The CAO 
strives to improve communications with Members and staff, 
institute rigorous execution and delivery of promised 
initiatives, enhance our support for the well-being of the 
House employees, and promote and foster an inclusive and 
diverse workplace within the CAO.
    The fiscal year 2022 budget request for the CAO is $191.3 
million, an increase of $14.1 million, or approximately 8 
percent, above the fiscal year 2021-enacted funding level. The 
increase includes $5.3 million for new initiatives, including 
the design and upgrade of House office websites to ensure they 
are accessible to all Americans, including those with 
disabilities; upgrades and designs to make CAO services easily 
accessible through modernized and streamlined technology; 
contract support for committee broadcast operations; Member and 
staff training and course development; and software upgrades 
for financial and IT systems.
    Additionally, $4.5 million of this request increase 
supports ongoing critical activities, including our technology 
support to Members and staff, the continued strengthening of 
the House's cybersecurity posture, additional licensing for 
audio and videoconferencing tools, and cloud software for daily 
operations and telework, support for the Member- and staff-
specific services, and the migration of House websites to a 
more secure and resilient cloud platform.
    An increase of $862,000 allows our Logistics and Support 
staff to refurbish existing furniture and implement new 
furniture and acquire software enhancements to streamline the 
House inventory processes, eliminating the need for Member 
offices to conduct self-inventories, and reducing paperwork and 
the amount of time Logistics and Support staff spend in Member 
offices.
    Cybersecurity remains a critical priority, as an average of 
6,000 House employees log in to the House network remotely each 
day. In 2020 alone, the Office of Cybersecurity blocked 40.1 
billion unauthorized scans, probes, and connections aimed at 
the House. To ensure and maintain a strong cybersecurity 
posture, our request includes funding for remote network 
surveillance and monitoring and related support.
    Our Employee Assistance team supports the health and well-
being of Members and staff and continues to be crucial as we 
navigate the COVID-19 pandemic and cope with trauma-related 
issues. The fiscal year 2022 request also includes $280,000 for 
our House Wellness Center to fund in-person and online wellness 
courses on topics like mindfulness, nutrition, fitness, and 
stress management.
    The CAO continues to manage the delivery of workforce 
rights and responsibility education, cybersecurity, financial 
systems training, and support for mandatory ethics training. 
Our House-wide training program develops and delivers courses 
designed specifically for job roles within the Member and 
committee offices. Our request includes $350,000 for expansion 
of this custom curriculum development.
    The personnel component of our fiscal year 2022 budget 
includes $3.5 million, or a 4-percent increase, in current 
funding for staff longevities and projected 2.6-percent cost-
of-living adjustment.
    Before closing, I would like to highlight the CAO's 
stewardship with the resources that we have opportunity to use. 
We decreased our budget request by a total of $5.8 million by 
eliminating obsolete equipment, software, and contracts.
    Thank you for your support, for the opportunity to present 
our fiscal year 2022 budget request, which directly supports 
each Member of the people's House and the staff who support it. 
I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank 
you.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you for all of your remarks. We appreciate 
you, and we are going to go to the question and answer.
    I don't know if Chairwoman DeLauro is on?
    The Clerk. She is not.
    Mr. Ryan. She is not, okay.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Hi. Thank you so much for that.
    I would like to start with Acting Sergeant Blodgett.
    I know you referenced in your remarks that the task force 
review was made public this week and had a number of 
recommendations in it that I found really interesting and 
really helpful, honestly.
    Specifically with regard to the Capitol Police Board 
decisionmaking during emergencies, they said that the CPB's 
deliberate decisionmaking process proved too slow and 
cumbersome to respond to the crisis in January, delaying 
request for critical supplemental resources. We recommend to 
give the USCP chief the authority to request external law 
enforcement and National Guard support without CPB preapproval 
in extraordinary emergency circumstances.
    Do you support--I would just--do you support that 
recommendation? You are on mute.
    Mr. Blodgett. Nothing like doing that right out of the 
gate. I apologize.
    I think General Honore's report to start is a--can be the 
starting point for constructive dialogue on how to provide the 
chief, who is the day-to-day operational commander of the 
Capitol Police, the ability to utilize extra resources 
available, whether it is through mutual aid agreements or 
National Guard----
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. I am going to just step in really 
quick because I don't have a lot of time.
    Mr. Blodgett. Sure.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. So, just specifically, on that 
recommendation, do you support that recommendation?
    Mr. Blodgett. Yes, I support that we can find a mechanism 
to get the chief that authority, yes.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. To get him the ability to make 
immediate requests for law enforcement, National Guard support 
[inaudible] In an emergency----
    Mr. Blodgett. I think there is a mechanism to do that, to 
provide enough of oversight to do that to allow the chief to 
have that flexibility and capability.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Well, obviously, I am asking in large 
part because one of the things that we have been challenged to 
figure out is who did what and said what before, you know, with 
regards to National Guard, and then, as the emergency was 
happening, who had the authority. And I think it has been 
very--it has been widely observed that the Board really seemed 
to slow down the process and/or the former Sergeant at Arms. I 
mean, it is hard to understand who did what.
    And we just had the GAO in the hearing before us, and I 
asked about a report done a few years ago with regard to 
bringing accountability and transparency and more effectiveness 
to the Police Board, and the GAO just informed us that the 
Board has not adopted almost any of those recommendations.
    And I know you are somewhat new to the role, but you have 
been there. Are you aware of this report, the GAO report, and 
is that something that you can assure us as we give you this 
new budget that you are going to be implementing their 
recommendations or at least asking for their assistance in 
getting to that goal?
    Mr. Blodgett. Ma'am, I am aware of that report. As you are 
aware, the dynamics on the Board, you know, the House, Senate, 
and the Architect have--you know, play a role in how things 
were implemented. I know that Mr. Irving had been pushing to do 
that, and I will continue to push those that are----
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. To get their recommendations adopted 
by the Board?
    Mr. Blodgett. To get it considered and those that we can 
get consensus to to be adopted, yes.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. So would you say the challenge has 
been that other--maybe other voting members on the Board don't 
share the GAO's recommendations?
    Mr. Blodgett. I think----
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Unmute. There you go.
    Mr. Blodgett. I think that there were, in the past, I can't 
speak for the present Sergeant at Arms, that there was a 
reluctance on the Senate and other members to, you know, to not 
engage.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Can I ask, and this is a little bit 
different tack because I am trying to follow what is being said 
in the Senate and what is happening here, and just, honestly, I 
am trying to piece together who was in charge so that we can 
make changes so that we never go through what we went through 
again. And I don't mean me personally; I mean the U.S. Capitol 
and the seat of our democracy.
    Was anybody on your staff, either the previous Sergeant at 
Arms or yourself or any of your staff, in direct communication 
with anyone on the leadership staff with regard to the request 
to have National Guard come before the 6th, so anytime January 
6 or in the week before? Had anybody on your staff either 
requested that or had communicated a need for that to the 
Speaker's Office, and did you guys connect with anybody in the 
Speaker's Office about that prior to or on January 6?
    Mr. Blodgett. I can say I did not. As to what Mr. Irving 
may or may not have done, that would be a question best 
directed towards him. You know, I can't--you know, that is 
outside my personal knowledge on what was discussed.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Oh, so you think there was a 
discussion?
    Mr. Blodgett. I don't know. I don't know one way or the 
other. That would be a question best directed at Mr. Irving.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. But no one on your current staff that 
you are now responsible for has relayed to you----
    Mr. Blodgett. Not to my knowledge. Not to my knowledge.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Great. Thank you so much. I appreciate 
your time.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Mr. Case.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Blodgett, going to the security of Members back in 
their district, we have had discussions over the last couple of 
years about the obvious need to consider security for Members 
from a nonphysical office perspective because, basically, 
Members' security is required. Wherever they are, that is where 
their office is, and we have got Members that are way out there 
in the public. And it may not be as acute during COVID-19, but 
as COVID-19 recedes, we will be back into that environment. And 
as Members go back to their districts, we don't hang out in our 
offices.
    And so the question has been, how do we provide for a 
greater level of Member security when we are not on Capitol 
grounds or not in our district offices? As I understand it, the 
practice has been that the Sergeant at Arms correctly asks 
local law enforcement to cooperate on that but does not 
compensate local law enforcement for that.
    As I recall correctly, the Honore report had a provision in 
it, to the extent that we needed to, as I recall, increase 
Member security on a risk basis, which I suppose means that 
some Members are at higher risk than others, which I accept. 
But the basic question here is, do you believe that the U.S. 
Congress should undertake a greater level of funding of the 
security of Members back in their districts out of their 
offices, in other words, to compensate local law enforcement?
    The answer from the Sergeant at Arms in the past has been 
no, as I recall, at least generally. And, you know, local law 
enforcement is very cooperative in providing that service, but 
at some point, it becomes just unfair to ask them to do that in 
addition to their other duties. Have you given further thought 
to that?
    Mr. Blodgett. Thank you, sir. That is, you know, a very 
good question. Right now, I believe that we have had good 
cooperation in getting local assistance as needed and when 
needed, and it is easier for other jurisdictions to be able to 
support those requests as compared to other jurisdictions. So I 
do think it is something that we probably should examine. But 
finding what the right sweet spot is in terms of that 
reimbursement, I would have to work with the--we would have to 
work with the Capitol Police and go through that process with 
the committee to request the proper funding for that.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Well, we have been considering it for at 
least the time I have been on the committee and probably 
longer, and I think it is getting more acute. And I don't want 
to have a tragedy out there where we look back and said--you 
know, sometimes when I go home and I am going out into my 
district, I actually consciously think about whether I should 
actually ask my local law enforcement to come out and help me 
out in a situation where I don't think there is any real risk, 
but I don't want to take a chance. But I don't want to ask them 
if they are not compensated.
    And so I get into a tricky situation myself where I may be 
putting myself at risk because the burden that I feel I am 
placing on them. Now, they always have done it when I have 
asked and so--and, you know, I have asked--I have asked on 
occasion, but I don't ask all the time. And I wonder--and I am 
a pretty low-key Member here. I am not in the high-risk 
category, knock on wood. But, you know, some of my Members are 
high risk when they go out there. So I would suggest that that 
is an area that we should probably accelerate our 
consideration. But I appreciate your appreciation of the 
concern.
    Hey, Mr. Letter, just quickly, you had a very, very busy 
last couple of years, and what is left of all of that? What is 
on your plate now in terms of externally representing the 
House? And how does that, you know--I think you had a much 
higher activity level on a budget need in the last couple of 
years, but has that started to dry up, or is it still kind of 
continuing with the residuals?
    Mr. Letter. Mr. Case, thank you for that question. We do 
still have a batch of cases leftover involving--that are in 
litigation involving the Trump administration. We have been 
working with the Department of Justice and various, you know, 
the House committees to see what can be settled.
    In some of the cases, for example, the Department of 
Justice has withdrawn positions that were taken by the Trump 
administration. You might have noticed that just recently that 
happened yesterday with regard to the public charge case. So we 
have some cases that have gone away. We still have some that 
are pending on court dockets, and I am very actively discussing 
those with the Speaker's Office and the White House and the 
Justice Department.
    I also still continue to have a considerable amount of 
litigation that, as I am sure you are aware, is totally 
nonpartisan, you know, people who are bringing suit against, 
for instance, Members of Congress for issues such as their 
activities and policies concerning their social media accounts, 
et cetera. So the office is still quite busy, but you are 
right; the amount of litigation has already lessened, and I am 
expecting it to continue to lessen. I hope that answers your 
question.
    Mr. Case. It does. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Letter. You are welcome.
    Mr. Ryan. Great. Thanks, Mr. Case.
    The chair of the full Appropriations Committee, Ms. 
DeLauro.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    One point before I ask my question, if that is all right, I 
want to just make a comment with regard to the Police Board. I 
would very, very much like to arrange some time where we can 
have an opportunity to discuss the Police Board, what we 
believe its structural makeup should be, and, I mean, 
recommendations for the future of the Capitol Police Board.
    And maybe we can even have a conversation with General 
Honore and get some advice about how we can look at--and I say 
this to Congresswoman Herrera Beutler as well--a structure 
which meets the need and the time rather than a group of people 
where there has been a lack of coordination and a lack of what 
I call central command. So I would like to move in that 
direction.
    In the meantime, Mr. Ballou, I read your testimony with 
great interest. As I am sure my colleagues have been told, like 
I have been by my own staff, that bill text is not going to be 
ready in time for when we want to introduce our legislation for 
a bunch of reasons. One that I have already encountered is that 
the large pieces of legislation, you know, like the Rescue 
Plan, puts virtually all other legislation drafting on hold.
    I understand that these rules were laid out in 1970, but I 
think I can speak for others that this is incredibly 
frustrating. So these are a couple of questions that I wanted 
to ask: What changes can be implemented to avert, to prevent 
the standstill of legislative drafting, for those working on 
legislation while it is not moving is equally as important? You 
talk about two full-time new hires. Is that enough to address 
the workload that the office has coming in, has clearly 
increased over the last several years? And what are your long-
term plans for the office to increase recruitment and retention 
of attorneys, particularly in light of the 5-to-7-year training 
period? Mr. Ballou.
    Mr. Ballou. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Let me first 
address changes. We do respond as rapidly as possible, and the 
House schedule and committee schedules are what we focus on 
with matters that are coming to the floor, matters that are 
coming to committee. With the available staff we have then when 
we are not responding to the floor of the committee, then we 
are responding to requests for introduction for bills.
    So, when the schedule remains packed for the floor with 
large bills, then that is where our resources go. 
Unfortunately, that means that those bills that are being 
prepared for introduction end up in a backlog and having to 
wait. So looking at matters of scheduling and coordinating may 
be something that will help.
    For numbers of staff, we currently have on staff 78 full-
time employees. We are, as we speak actually, onboarding a new 
attorney. We hope to onboard four or five before the end of 
this fiscal year or at the very beginning of the next fiscal 
year.
    Our challenge over the last few years has been that we have 
had a number of retirements. And while we have hired a number 
of people for 3 years in a row, we had a net gain of zero, and 
our hires have not ended up balancing out the number of 
retirements. And the length of service of our attorneys 5 years 
ago was approximately 15 years on average. Today, it has 
dropped to about 11 years. So it can take a little bit longer 
for a newer attorney who is not as familiar with the subject 
matter to turn something around compared to somebody who has a 
longer tenure in the office.
    The third part of your question addressed long-term plans. 
We are attacking that on multiple fronts. We are currently 
looking at our own processes and for ways that we can expedite 
what we are doing and working in the most efficient manner 
possible. We are doing what we can to provide educational 
opportunities for committee staff and Member staff so that we 
can help them help us as much as possible, and we are on course 
to hire more attorneys.
    The Chairwoman. Let me, if I can, just interrupt for a 
second, and I apologize, but how many people do you need? I 
mean, really? What do you need, and what is the size--I mean, 
what is the backlog here?
    Mr. Ballou. The backlog varies by our subject area teams, 
and it varies with respect to whatever is happening with the 
schedule.
    The Chairwoman. I understand, but what is it now? What is 
your backlog now? Maybe you are up to date with everything now.
    Mr. Ballou. We are not because we have had a lot of focus 
on the current reconciliation effort. I will need to get back 
to you with the particular backlog.
    The Chairwoman. Okay. I am essentially just saying, what do 
you need to keep, you know, to keep pace in terms of staffing? 
And I understand the training piece, which is, you know, 
substantial, and, you know, I recognize that, and that is 
necessary and needed. But this is something that we need to 
know and to understand and so forth so that we can have the--
you know, we can have legislation moving.
    You know, I understand you get a big piece like the Rescue 
Plan, well, you have got to throw everything else on hold. But 
there ought to be a way in which we can accommodate these big 
pieces and, you know, and other pieces of legislation that need 
to be moving.
    You know, the process is oftentimes--I don't have to tell 
you--slow enough, you know, to get all the pieces in line to 
get something done. And then when you are--you know, rather 
than, you know, to continue--well, you get my point, but I wish 
you----
    Mr. Ballou. Yes, ma'am.
    The Chairwoman [continuing]. Could get back and let us know 
what that backlog is, what you might need in order to be able 
to, you know, not come out with a net loss or unevenness with 
people retiring and people that you are putting on so that you 
don't make gains.
    And my time has run out, but many thanks, and I yield back 
the balance of my time. Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. DeLauro.
    Wade, I think probably all of us want to associate 
ourselves with the comments of the full committee chair with 
regard to that issue.
    Mr. Amodei.
    Mr. Amodei. Hey, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Mr. Espaillat.
    The Clerk. He is not on, sir. Oh, wait. I think he is 
actually popping on.
    Mr. Ryan. Mr. Espaillat?
    Mr. Newhouse?
    Mr. Espaillat. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Yep. Mr. Espaillat, you have the floor.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    General Honore, the general's long-awaited release of the 
report gives recommendations. Many recommendations have to do 
with Capitol Police, where there are a number of them 
suggesting that will touch on all other offices. One in 
particular relates to the IT security and continuity of 
operations, something that I previously asked about to the 
Library of Congress.
    I am wondering if you can all speak to how the report's 
recommendation may impact your budget request, whether relating 
to data security or other aspects of the report's 
recommendation?
    Ms. Szpindor. This is Catherine Szpindor. I could speak to 
that if you would like. We do have some information in the 
response from General Honore regarding cybersecurity and 
regarding a possibility of centralized authority over the 
cybersecurity within the House. And I can speak to the entire 
aspect of it, or if there is a specific question you would like 
for me to answer, I will be glad to.
    Mr. Espaillat. How IT security could impact your operation 
and whether you are ready to have a secure operation regarding 
data security.
    Ms. Szpindor. Uh-huh. I will tell you that right now we 
feel that our systems are secure from an infrastructure 
standpoint and also within our data centers. We have done a lot 
of work in the past to bring our data centers up to a tier 
three level, which is a high level from a security and support 
standpoint.
    The issue comes, with what I know of General Honore's 
statement, it is really about blocking and tackling, okay. We 
need to everyday ensure our servers and our mobile devices and 
our accounts are set up correctly. And one of the biggest risks 
to us is the decentralized model that we all operate under 
means that I really cannot guarantee to you that this basic 
blocking and tackling is done correctly.
    I can't guarantee that because the people that do much of 
the work don't necessarily report up to the Chief 
Administrative Officer or to our CIO. We have limited authority 
to be able to make sure that the technical expertise required 
to validate whether all policies and processes around 
cybersecurity and cybersecurity itself is followed universally.
    And it is a significant risk, if we are talking about risk 
and blocking and tackling, to the Members and to the House by 
not being able to ensure that every single thing that we are 
trying to accomplish from a cybersecurity standpoint is 
actually done. We don't believe that we should take significant 
risk, but we need to identify the risks that we do have and 
ensure that we are taking steps to reduce it.
    Mr. Espaillat. So what is your recommendation then to avert 
those risks?
    Ms. Szpindor. My recommendation is to look at how we can 
better have accountability and authority to ensure that the 
cybersecurity practices and policies are followed correctly.
    Mr. Espaillat. Okay.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think that we ought to follow up 
on this issue a little bit more as we move forward. I think it 
is an important one for all of us. Thank you so much. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Ryan. I thank the gentleman for bringing that to the 
committee's attention.
    Ms. Wexton, you have the floor.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is great to be here with all these folks from the House, 
and I want to thank all of you for everything that you have 
done to help keep the House running so smoothly during this 
pandemic. You know, I saw a statistic from the House Admin 
Committee that the House Members and staff conducted about 
almost 350,000 virtual meetings during 2020, and that is pretty 
remarkable because I am guessing that is a whole lot more than 
there have ever been in the past, and that is really--you guys 
deserve a great pat on the back for that.
    But I do have some questions. Ms. Szpindor, following up on 
those questions from Mr. Espaillat, for the data security, part 
of what has been recommended is that we move the data center 
operations out of the national capital region to some place 
outside of this general area. Is that correct?
    Ms. Szpindor. That is certainly something that we have been 
working toward in the CAO for a while. And for the most part, 
for all of the data centers, center equipment, servers, data 
that we support that is 100 percent within the CAO, we are 
accomplishing that with two things. We are accomplishing it by 
having fully redundant data centers in two disparate locations: 
One is a remote distance; the other one is a little bit closer. 
But we are putting all of our information and our network and 
our servers and all of the data into two tier three data 
centers that are very secure.
    And so for--I can't speak to what is done outside of the 
CAO and the other leg branch agencies, but for us, that is the 
path that we are on to ensure that there is nothing here on the 
Hill that could be damaged if there was a major disaster, and 
that has been our posture for a number of years now.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. And is that process proceeding at the 
pace that you would like it to be?
    Ms. Szpindor. Yes, it is. We have a team right now that is 
finishing the move from the alternate computing facility that 
we had been in for a number of years to a tier three data 
center. The moves are happening as we speak, and we expect all 
of that activity to be finished around the mid to end of May. 
And once it is finished, I can sleep better at night.
    Ms. Wexton. Very good. Thanks.
    Now, Mr. Blodgett, I understand that there have been some 
other questions about the Capitol Police Board and the 
decisionmaking authority and everything, but a question I would 
have for you is, does the Capitol Police Board have its own 
dedicated staff just for the Police Board?
    Mr. Blodgett. The Capitol Police Board has an executive 
assistant who is housed within the Capitol Police Department, 
as well as, technically, the IG reports up to the Capitol 
Police Board.
    Ms. Wexton. So then who would respond to inquiries and 
things like that that are directed to the Police Board? If the 
GAO had inquiries about the implementation of recommendations, 
who would actually respond to that? Because it is my 
understanding that the Police Board has not been very 
responsive to the GAO.
    Mr. Blodgett. Usually that would come in to the chair of 
the Board, any official requests.
    Ms. Wexton. And do you know if this [inaudible] What has 
been happening with the implementation of their 
recommendations?
    Mr. Blodgett. Ma'am, there were attempts from the House to 
implement some of those recommendations, as you are aware, that 
the Capitol Police Board works on consensus. There is also a 
Senate Sergeant at Arms and the Architect of the Capitol 
involved.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. But there is no centralized response 
system for the Police Board----
    Mr. Blodgett. If there is an official response, it would be 
addressed to chair of the Capitol Police Board, at the time 
which is currently the Senate Sergeant at Arms office.
    Ms. Wexton. Got it.
    Mr. Blodgett. I apologize.
    Ms. Wexton. Is it the same among the members of the Police 
Board, or is it just who the chair is?
    Mr. Blodgett. Can you repeat the question?
    Ms. Wexton. Does who the chair is rotate among the members 
of the Board? Do they select one every year or what?
    Mr. Blodgett. It alternates between the House and Senate 
Sergeant at Arms.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay.
    Mr. Blodgett. Now, I did have discussions with GAO in the 
past on those reports as well, that and then my counterpart at 
the time when I was, you know, on the Senate and the Architect. 
So we have had dialogues back and forth with the GAO 
individuals doing the review.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay.
    Ms. Hendrix, I understand that the Office of Diversity and 
Inclusion is new--kind of new--within the--the Office of 
Diversity and Inclusion is fairly new, but you did this work in 
the House of Representatives for several years. So what are the 
challenges that you are currently having in ensuring that 
offices are aware of the ODI and use its services?
    Ms. Hendrix. The challenges are reminding people that we 
exist. I think people tend to think about it immediately when 
they have a new hire because that is a service that was 
provided when--in the Democratic initiative and with the 
Republican initiative in that format. But as we are moving to 
where we are staffing and we are continuing to work with the 
CAO on the reporting, it is a reminder to people that we exist.
    So we are working with outreach, using social media, 
engaging with chiefs and at the staff level in multiple 
different levels. But it is a constant reminder and in 
collaboration with speaking to similar offices, like the 
ombudsman or the Office of the Employee Advocate. They are 
similar--they are working through that similar process, having 
to make sure people understand what their services are and when 
a person would use that resource as opposed to another one. So 
we have been working in concert with those other offices to 
think of ways that we can collaborate to make sure employees 
know what resources are available to them and how to utilize 
them.
    Ms. Wexton. Great. Thank you so much.
    I see that my time has expired, and I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Wexton.
    So I have got a few questions here for the panel. I want to 
start with Ms. Hendrix. Ms. Hendrix, I appreciate your being 
here. This is obviously an issue, the Office of Diversity and 
Inclusion, and it is an issue that has been very important to 
this committee over the past couple of years. And I know you 
requested four additional full-time employees but then also 
additional funds to develop and execute the compensation 
diversity study. This is something that we feel very, very 
strongly about. The barrier analysis, we feel very, very 
strongly about, really, you know, trying to identify what some 
of these barriers are.
    And you said that the--and mentioned at some point that the 
reports can be completed by an outside vendor or from the new 
team in-house. If you can just talk to us for a minute or two 
about this request, and where are you in the process of 
developing these surveys? Would the four additional full-time 
employees, is this where they would be? Would they be 
associated with this analysis that we need to happen and those 
kind of things? So I would love to hear where you are at on 
that.
    Ms. Hendrix. Yes. Up until this point, the House has always 
worked with an outside independent contractor who completes 
those services. And so, when we completed the 2019 compensation 
and diversity study, that was an outside contractor, when we 
did the barrier analysis in 2020. With additional employees, we 
could hopefully bring some of that work and complete it 
internally rather than working at a discrete period of time and 
working in concert with--or in collaboration with an external 
contractor.
    If we could have a team that was focused and familiar with 
the House and how it works, I believe that we could get more 
robust reporting and be a little more agile and adaptive, 
rather than having to begin with that idea and then extend the 
RFPs and have people compete for all of the--going through all 
of those processes when we have to compete the process and then 
finding the initial--I think we could tailor our process and 
procedures to the House because even as we are bringing in 
these outside workers, they are familiar with the Federal 
Government or they are familiar with the private sector, which 
is very different and unique. And how our employees are 
employed are unique. How our individual offices and each Member 
office is structured is unique. So we spend a lot of time 
bringing the outside contractor up to speed, and even sometimes 
the general processes of how we do business don't necessarily 
align with what our needs are. We are adapting those processes 
and procedures as they would be done within the Federal 
Government or within the private sector, but our processes and 
procedures are different. We don't have the original mandate to 
report to the EEOC or to the White House or to other individual 
sectors. We are just reporting to the body. So they are 
adapting their reporting model to those entities to try and 
make it work for us.
    And with the partnership that we have been doing, I think 
we have built a good enough relationship with those 
contractors, but it is still always a good amount of work to 
get them to understand how we are employed here and how our 
processes and procedures work.
    I think we would serve the demands that we have better if 
we had a team that was specifically dedicated to that who 
understood our structure, our hierarchy, our procedures, and we 
were utilizing the dollars that we were spending on a team that 
was just focused on us.
    Mr. Ryan. Do you need all four of the FTEs in your request, 
or could you do it with a couple of full-time employees?
    Ms. Hendrix. I would be remiss to say that we don't need 
all four. I think that would be untrue. Will we make it work if 
we don't get all four? We will. Would we be more agile and more 
adept and be able to do something more robust? I believe we 
would.
    We have multiple different streams of reporting, and so 
having two people focused on generating larger--of course, I 
think the Compensation and Diversity Study was a report that 
was 400-and-some-30-odd pages, and the team that completed it 
from the outside contractor was about 30 people. They had 
industrial psychologists. They had tech people. They had their 
industry people. We can't replicate that with two people.
    And so, ideally, we could over a longer stretch of time 
through the course of the year do that with a smaller team, but 
I do not know that we could replicate the scale of the products 
that we have done before working with an outside contractor 
with one or two people.
    Mr. Ryan. Kemba, how many do you have now working there? 
How many full-time employees?
    Ms. Hendrix. Full-time employees, we have seven, but they 
are not all dedicated to the research work. Currently, we have 
one research analyst whose responsibility is kind of project 
managing the work that we do with the outside contractors.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. Well, we want to engage on this. Obviously, 
the survey and the analysis is very important to us. We want to 
get it done. We want to get it done as quickly as possible. And 
we want to make sure we sit down and talk with you as we are 
crafting the appropriations number here for you, figure out the 
best way to do that. So let's make sure we stay in close 
contact on that. So I appreciate your answer.
    Wade, I have got a question for you real quick. I missed a 
little bit of Ms. DeLauro's conversation with you, so I don't 
know if you covered it. Did you guys cover the comparative tool 
that your office and the--where did you go, Wade? There you 
are. That the Office of the Clerk and your office are 
developing a legislation comparison tool that would allow 
Congress to compare two versions of legislation. Can you talk 
to us about where you are in the development of that tool?
    Mr. Ballou. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
    We are working very closely with the Clerk of the House on 
that tool. We currently have roughly 100 users in the House and 
an early alpha pilot project for them to be working out the 
tool and to be providing feedback that we can incorporate and 
move toward improving that tool so it is usable for all staff 
and Members in the House.
    We very much hope to be able to roll that out later this 
year. Relating to that, we are working with the Congressional 
Academy in developing a course to provide training on how to 
use that tool.
    And we are actually quite excited about the possibilities 
and the ways that we think it will help all Member and 
committee staff to be more efficient in their work and thereby 
helping the Members in their duties in the legislative process.
    Mr. Ryan. Is this the same system that is used in the 
Senate now?
    Mr. Ballou. No, this is very different from the Senate. My 
understanding is that the Senate has a tool that is a legacy 
tool called CompareRite that provides a bill-to-bill comparison 
to see the changes that had been made in a later draft.
    The tool that we are working on will do that. We are 
working on building into it a little bit more intelligence, so 
that, as provisions move around in a later draft, that they 
will show up as moved but not new text, or if, you know, 
something is dropped, there will be more notifications as to 
what was deleted in the next text.
    In addition, we will be providing a changes in law, very 
similar to what is now provided for the committees in the 
Ramseyer part of the committee report, and that will be able to 
be run on demand by staff so that it makes it easier to 
understand how a bill would change a current law.
    We are adding in a bill viewer to make it easier for staff 
to analyze a bill and to begin to work through a bill smartly, 
looking for items of particular interest, you know, such as the 
definitions or dollar amounts, effective dates.
    Mr. Ryan. I appreciate it. Well, that can help us move 
significantly quicker. So I appreciate it. And it will be much 
better for our staffs. Thanks.
    I have got one final thing for you, Tim. You know, one of 
the conversations we are having that comes out of the Honore 
report and that I have had several of these conversations with 
Chairman DeLauro and Speaker Pelosi and others around the 
decisionmaking, and I know we touched upon it a little bit with 
the Capitol Police Board, but I would love to have your opinion 
on. You know, given the dynamic sometimes between the House 
Sergeant at Arms and the Senate Sergeant at Arms and then 
throwing in the Capitol Police and all that, what is your 
opinion on developing some kind of system where there is maybe 
one decisionmaker that is in charge, which is always important 
but especially important in times of grave danger, times of 
emergency? What is your opinion on that, as we look to, you 
know, potentially restructure how the law enforcement is done 
here on the Capitol?
    Mr. Blodgett. That is a very interesting question, sir.
    Mr. Ryan. I try my best.
    Mr. Blodgett. It depends, I guess, on where you want to put 
the unitary authority. If it is, say, a streamlined version 
where you have maybe the chair of the Capitol Police Board able 
to say, ``Emergency, go for it,'' that could work. If it is in 
the chief of police, that could work.
    But sometimes you could get a chief of police who may be 
overaggressive or necessarily underaggressive. So there is a 
layer of accountability as every police department reports up 
to some entity, whether it is a commission or a board or a city 
council.
    So I think that would be one way to streamline a lot of the 
issues surrounding the nimbleness and the quickness of making a 
decision. It is just how you want to--you know, where you want 
to place that in the chain. But I definitely think it is 
something that is worth talking about, especially in 
emergencies.
    Mr. Ryan. Yeah, no question. We also want to further the 
conversation. We have got to wrap things up now, but further 
the conversation with you around one of the other topics that 
came up here around security--Mr. Case talked about it--around 
security in districts and district offices and residence, you 
know, to make sure that the level of security that Members have 
here, while it probably could never be matched, they do have an 
opportunity to feel safe and their families feel safe back at 
home.
    That is something that is very important to us here, given 
what a lot of Members have been through and are continuing to 
still go through and having the resources available there for 
details, if needed, but certainly the upgrades that are going 
to be needed back in their home district. So we want to 
continue to work with you on that.
    And I want to thank you, Tim, too. I mean, you have been 
terrific. You have been transparent. You have been open. You 
have been really a partner through all of this. So I want to 
personally say thanks to you because it has been, you know, 
such a tough go here. And, Catherine, to you guys as well. You 
guys have been really terrific, and we appreciate everything 
that you have done.
    I want to thank everybody here.
    Ms. Johnson, I still want to hear about your stress 
reduction sessions that you are having. And in this trying 
time, I think me and Ms. Herrera Beutler may want to come join 
a couple of them to sit and get a little quiet time with you.
    But thank you, everyone, for an amazing and difficult year, 
and we are going to look at this budget very, very closely. As 
you know, there are so many different moving parts here this 
year. It is always tough decisions for us to make, but 
especially this year.
    So I want to just say thanks for all of your service, and 
we will see you again very, very soon, and we will be sure we 
are in contact.
    And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
    [Questions, answers, and additional material submitted for 
the record follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 



                                          Thursday, March 11, 2021.

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                                WITNESS

J. BRETT BLANTON, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
    Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
    This hearing is fully virtual, so we need to address a few 
housekeeping matters.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves 
for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise. 
The chair or staff designated by the chair may mute 
participants' microphones when they are not under recognition.
    If I notice when you are recognized that you have not 
unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to 
unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will 
unmute your microphone.
    We will begin with the chair and ranking member. Then 
members present at the time the hearing is called to order will 
be recognized in order of seniority.
    We are using the 5-minute clock, which you will notice on 
the screen. It will show how much time is remaining. If there 
is a technology issue, we will move to the next member until 
the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of your 
time.
    Regarding adding extraneous or additional material to the 
record, per House rules, we have set up an email address where 
members can send anything they wish to submit for the record 
after seeking recognition for its inclusion. That email address 
has been provided in advance to your staff.
    Finally, we are doing two panels today: the first, the 
Architect of the Capitol, then the Government Publishing 
Office. We will take approximately a 10-minute recess between 
the panels, but we will remain on this video feed, so members 
do not have to log off. For our first panel, we will also be 
juggling votes as well.
    For our first panel, I would like to welcome the Architect 
of the Capitol, the Honorable Brett Blanton, to present the 
fiscal year 2022 budget request.
    Mr. Blanton, this is the second time you have testified 
before the subcommittee in 3 weeks. We welcome you back.
    For fiscal year 2022, the AOC is requesting an increase of 
$181.4 million in appropriated funds and 94 new full-time-
equivalent employees over what was provided last year. While we 
understand that your workload is increasing, I am afraid that 
the subcommittee allocation may not be increasing at a 
reciprocal rate.
    Additionally, I understand that the fiscal year 2022 budget 
request does not include requirements to address the necessary 
physical security and landscape architecture changes that are 
as a result of the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol. I 
hope you can touch on those needs in your testimony today.
    I also would like to expand on your, quote/unquote, ``big 
rocks initiatives'' during our hearing today. Specifically, I 
hope you will address the Capitol Complex Master Plan and how 
this strategic plan has changed in response to the January 6 
attack on the Capitol.
    I look forward to your testimony. We appreciate your work 
very much. You have shed a lot of light on a lot of the 
different scenarios that we have had to deal with over the past 
few weeks, Mr. Blanton, and I want to personally thank you for 
being very accessible to us here at this committee.
    At this point, I would like to yield to my colleague and 
friend from the Evergreen State, the Nation's leading producer 
of apples, and is the home of the coffee chain Starbucks, the 
ranking member, Jaime Herrera Beutler, for any opening comments 
she may have.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you. And I should add, Mr. 
Chairman, that my specific district is home to Sasquatch. So 
don't forget that.
    Mr. Ryan. Excellent. Good to know.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. And Fabio. And the filming of 
``Twilight.'' But anyway.
    Mr. Blanton, January was a difficult month for the Cannon 
House Office Building construction crew. Shutdowns from January 
6, the inauguration, COVID-19 all resulted in significant 
delays. And these factors collectively place--whoops, I am 
jumping into questions. That was one of the things I want to 
ask you about.
    All--not just Cannon, but Rayburn, and everything in terms 
of the master plan that has been being worked on for a number 
of years now. I am in the very far corner of Rayburn, and our 
quadrant has been--I feel like every week it is in a new place. 
And after January 6, it all changed.
    I am very anxious to hear about the master plan, about 
coordination with the task force recommendations from General 
Honore and what we see coming out of the Senate in terms of 
recommendations.
    Obviously, you know, you have been with us now, I think, a 
little over a year, and you had a big job before. With 
everything that has come full circle in the last couple of 
months, I think everything has been a little bit more 
complicated.
    So I am really interested in hearing about how your budget 
request incorporates some of these challenges. I know we had 
talked about making whole some other budgets under your 
purview, that you had to move money around to pay for things 
like the fence and some of the ongoing security costs. But I am 
really interested to hear from you about these things and 
probably will have some questions along that line as well.
    So it is a pleasure to have you. We are grateful for the 
job you and your team do.
    And, with that, I yield back to the gentleman from Ohio.
    Mr. Ryan. I thank the gentlelady.
    Is Chairwoman DeLauro on the call?
    Staff. She is not.
    Mr. Ryan. She is not? Okay. Thank you.
    So, Mr. Blanton, without objection, your written testimony 
will be made part of the record. Please summarize your 
statement for the members of the committee. Once you have 
finished your statement, we will move to the question-and-
answers.
    You have the floor, sir.
    Mr. Blanton. Thank you, Chairman Ryan. Thank you, Ranking 
Member and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the 
opportunity to present the Architect of the Capitol's fiscal 
year 2022 budget request for $865 million.
    It has been a whirlwind year since I last sat before you, 
only a few weeks into my tenure as the 12th Architect of the 
Capitol. In that time, I have been amazed by the level of 
commitment and professionalism displayed by my staff. We have 
been in pandemic operations for nearly a year. We supported 
three lying-in-state or honor ceremonies, we survived a 
building breach on January 6, and we successfully prepared and 
supported the Presidential inauguration.
    Last year when I testified before the committee, I 
committed to conducting a top-down assessment of the agency to 
identify the most urgent needs and address critical issues. The 
agency's fiscal year 2022 budget request is a result of that 
review and serves as the beginning of the transformation of the 
Architect of the Capitol into a world-class service agency.
    Additionally, this budget serves as the foundation for the 
future of the Capitol campus. This request introduces several 
new initiatives that will address many of the most critical 
needs of the AOC and the Capitol community, including 
committing ourselves to long-term planning and developing 
strategies that will prepare the Capitol campus for the next 
century.
    This budget also reinforces my commitment to AOC's 
employees by developing a human-capital strategy that will 
bolster our efforts to acquire, develop, train, and retain a 
talented, diverse, and highly skilled workforce that is 
prepared for the future. We aim to transform the AOC's human-
capital landscape by ensuring workforce readiness, closing 
skill gaps, maximizing employees' talents, and deliberate 
succession planning.
    As I mentioned in our hearing last month, our commitment 
towards ensuring adequate measures are taken to mitigate the 
threat of COVID across the campus has not been met with the 
required funding and financial support. Other than our initial 
installment of funds, which is fully obligated, AOC has been 
forced to use critical infrastructure and security projects 
funding to support Congress at service levels required for 
enhanced cleaning and to acquire necessary personal protective 
equipment.
    Maintaining vigilant and strict adherence to COVID-19 
protocols, the AOC has successfully continued to facilitate 
operations and deliver quality projects to Congress and our 
legislative- and judicial-branch partners.
    The agency's fiscal year 2022 budget request seeks to 
continue this progress by addressing over $78 million in 
deferred maintenance needs across campus. It also invests 
nearly $90 million in projects that renew or improve aging 
infrastructure, such as fire alarms, campus intrusion, ADA 
compliance, environmental systems, and electrical distribution.
    AOC's risk-based project prioritization process identified 
$171.5 million for capital projects. Of this, $92.7 million, or 
54 percent, are projects that did not receive funding in fiscal 
year 2021.
    These projects include the failed waterproofing system for 
the Cannon-Capitol tunnel. Water infiltration has caused 
staining on the walls and unsafe conditions for pedestrians. If 
not funded, the tunnel conditions will continue to deteriorate, 
require additional water management intervention, and be more 
expensive and more disruptive during construction.
    The agency is also requesting funding for critical utility 
distribution projects at the Capitol Power Plant and off-site 
facilities. Funding is required for phase 5 of the 
Refrigeration Plant Revitalization Program, which will replace 
40-year-old piping and provide other additions to bring the 
older West Refrigeration Plant equipment up to date.
    Earlier this year, a chilled water pipe broke and spilled 
over 200,000 gallons of water a day and impacted servers in 
Congressional Recording Studio spaces. Phase 5 of this project 
is imperative to prevent a complete shutdown of various 
congressional operations if another pipe breaks.
    Off campus, we need to replace aging HVAC units with dual-
use, energy-efficient units within the data centers to reduce 
risk of interruption to daily operations, reduce energy 
consumption, and reduce our carbon footprint.
    We are seeking to address critical upgrades to life-safety 
systems across campus. Fire alarm and sprinkler system upgrades 
at the U.S. Capitol, Botanic Gardens, and the James Madison 
Memorial Building will address code deficiencies, reduce the 
risk of system failure, and improve facility safety for 
building occupants.
    Finally, as we continue to assess the Capitol's future 
facilities needs in the aftermath of the January 6 breach, I am 
also asking for the subcommittee's support for a campus-wide 
facilities assessment.
    During my selection and confirmation process, I promised to 
transform the agency. This budget request is the first step in 
that transformation. Additionally, last year, I promised to 
emphasize deferred maintenance and emergent needs required for 
our facilities.
    I am confident that this request, coupled with the changes 
that we are actively incorporating throughout our agency, 
represents a major step forward in the beginning of the future 
AOC and the Capitol campus.
    I appreciate your thoughtful consideration for our fiscal 
year 2022 budget request. Thank you for your time, and I am 
happy to answer your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Mr. Ryan. Appreciate it.
    We are going to start with the question-and-answer period, 
and I will yield to my ranking member, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Mr. Blanton.
    I think that, you know, the immediate thing that jumps to 
mind is, obviously you have things that have to be addressed--
broken pipes destroying buildings, you know, and creating 
further havoc, those immediate kind of maintenance needs, which 
I want to support, absolutely.
    I think the next piece for me that has been a focus has 
been the fact that we have all these different layers of people 
looking to harden our infrastructure against any future 
attacks, quite frankly, and the security piece.
    So I am curious if you found General Honore's report 
helpful, especially with regard to the physical infrastructure 
and their recommendations; what you think won't work.
    You know, you and I talked about you doing your assessment. 
And this is one of the things I asked General Honore, was: So 
you are looking at the House side, kind of, and the Senate is 
looking at the Senate side; you know, the AOC wants to look at 
a campus-wide plan. Who is coordinating that? Who is taking the 
lead? Or are we just looking at General Honore's stuff as just 
a recommendation?
    I would love to hear your thoughts on that.
    Mr. Blanton. Well, thank you. I appreciate that question.
    My staff have worked very closely with General Honore in 
his assessment. In fact, many of the areas that we are 
concerned with he addressed specifically.
    Because of the short nature and timeframe that he had to do 
his study, he couldn't delve into the real details and perform 
the real engineering work that is required to actually execute 
these projects.
    So I think his recommendations were great; however, we need 
to look at those across the entire campus, take what his 
recommendations were, perform our due diligence from an 
engineering standpoint so that we can actually give you budget-
level detail so I can execute these projects and perform the 
proper projects to enhance our campus.
    Also, we need to look at additional projects from a risk 
perspective--not just what the threat is, but what the 
consequence and likelihood of that risk is--so we can do short-
term mitigations to that risk and also develop a long-term 
implementation for what we can to secure the campus and still 
keep it in the way that we all want, which is to be as open as 
possible to the American public.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. I appreciate that.
    Is there a way that you could keep us updated as you move 
forward on that? Like, it has been a once-a-year thing, but, 
like, the committee could get updates as you are looking at 
recommendations and what seems feasible, what you can do, what 
you can't do.
    I mean, I recognize you are not going to be able to replace 
every single--nor will you need to replace every single window 
in the building, right? But some should be. And, as you are 
adopting these things, is there a way for you to keep us 
updated?
    Mr. Blanton. Absolutely. So I view this as really--as 
synergizing all the stakeholder requirements, including all the 
security elements on the Capitol complex, as well as the 
Supreme Court, Library of Congress, and Members, and bringing 
those into one--so you have one entity that looks at all of 
this as a whole. So there would be stakeholder engagement 
throughout the entire process.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. It really seems like you are the 
appropriate agency for this because of that exact point. There 
needs to be one person or one entity looking at the whole 
scope, not just individual pieces.
    To that end, I did want to draw your attention to and 
wanted to ask you if you guys have been able to fix--I wasn't 
aware that things like--like, the garage doors in Rayburn 
didn't close. They, like--I assume that has been addressed.
    I am grateful that the mob didn't know that there are these 
major areas of entrance that just--we just--it was kind of 
shocking to me that, security-wise, we didn't know that.
    I didn't know that the West Front door doesn't lock and 
that those are just simple, plain glass. Like, that is shocking 
to me.
    Were you aware of those type--I mean, that is not high-
level stuff. That is pretty basic stuff. Were you aware of 
those things? And have we just failed to provide funding to 
bring those up to date, or----
    Mr. Blanton. So the garage, in specific, is something that 
we actually did know about, and it was deliberately put into 
the phase 4 of the Rayburn Garage project that was briefed and 
approved a couple years ago.
    That is a great example of where I talk about deferred 
maintenance, where it is something that was a known issue, it 
was deferred maintenance, but, without having the appropriate 
dollars that year, we lumped it into a larger project so we can 
get the work done. Unfortunately, this event happened before 
the work on those garage doors actually started.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Yeah, I do understand that, like, 
updating the doors. But I don't know that I was ever briefed 
and told that the doors physically won't close. I have never 
heard of--like, not being able to close your door, to me, when 
there are literally three sides that a Mack truck can drive 
through? That is different than--I mean, I get that we didn't 
update them because of deferred maintenance, but not being able 
to close them is a different situation. I don't think anybody 
told us that.
    Mr. Blanton. Well, I will apologize if that--if that is 
true----
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Well, I mean, it may have been your 
predecessor.
    The other piece about the West Front doors, do they lock 
now? Do the doors all in the Capitol lock?
    Mr. Blanton. Yes.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Okay.
    With that, Mr. Chairman----
    Mr. Blanton [continuing]. At various levels of protection, 
just to want to make sure you know that they are not all 
intrusion-proof.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Perfect. Yeah, I agree.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Blanton.
    Mr. Ryan. So, Mr. Blanton, all the doors will be--what are 
the strongest doors we have in the Capitol? Like, the doors 
going into the House Chamber from the steps, those first set of 
doors?
    Mr. Blanton. Yeah, so those are built to a stronger 
standard. And we are getting into information that I would be 
welcome to talk to you about in a classified setting so that we 
don't----
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. Okay. Fair enough.
    Mr. Blanton [continuing]. Provide the public----
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. Fair enough. Fair enough.
    Ms. Clark.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And welcome back, Mr. Blanton. Thank you for joining us 
again today.
    I am so glad that the AOC has implemented and tracked 
performance measures such as the energy and sustainability 
targets. But in the past few years, you have been short of 
hitting the target of building occupant waste. I wondered if 
you could tell me a little bit about why that is such a 
persistent challenge and how we can help you make progress in 
that area.
    Mr. Blanton. Well, thank you. I do appreciate that 
question, because recycling is something that is important to 
me.
    Our goal last year was 44 percent capture of recycling 
products, and we got to 38 percent. A lot of that last year had 
to do specifically with the reduced staffing and the amount of 
paper waste that was not included in our normal calculations 
for what we expected for recycling.
    As a whole, recycling itself, we do pretty well. In fact, 
we generated a net revenue of $120,000 last year, even with the 
reduced numbers.
    Some of the challenges that we have, since we try to make 
it as easy as possible for the staff and Members, when we go to 
single-stream recycling, if somebody throws a coffee cup in the 
recycling bin, all that paper is now not able to be recycled.
    Ms. Clark. Yeah. Yeah.
    Mr. Blanton. And, quite often, it will happen that somebody 
thinks they are doing a great job in recycling their food 
container. They throw it in, and that contaminates the entire 
bin. And so we end up losing that, and we have to transfer that 
to a waste-to-energy company so they can burn down and capture 
the waste out of there.
    A lot of it is education, and I think we need to do a 
better job helping the congressional community on the education 
of that. And I think, with that, we can then reach our goals.
    Ms. Clark. Yep. And there are still persistent rumors that 
actually none of it gets recycled and that, you know, it all 
goes into one bin. So I know that is sort of--it is part of the 
education process, that this is actually a recycling program.
    I wonder if you could also share with me a little bit about 
fire suppression. It is my understanding the Capitol Building 
doesn't have a complete sprinkler system. There are certainly 
many complexities in doing that. So how are you managing the 
risk of fire in the Capitol?
    Mr. Blanton. So, again, that is another really good 
question, and, in fact, is one of our budget requests this 
year, is to perform a design for the first three floors for a 
fire-suppression system.
    Our current fire suppression in the Capitol itself is 
really a hodgepodge of systems that were put together 
incrementally over about a 50-year period. And that is why we 
really need to look at the entire Capitol and put it on one 
system.
    The events of the 6th really put that into a scary reality 
for me----
    Ms. Clark. Yeah. Right.
    Mr. Blanton [continuing]. And probably should be for 
everybody. If there was a fire in there, that would have been a 
terrible situation, because we would not have had the resources 
nor the suppression system to suppress the fire.
    And, to me, that was one of the scariest things, once the 
breach happened, is, if somebody decided that they were going 
to light something on fire, what would we be able to do to get 
the people out as well as prevent the facilities from burning 
down?
    I also want to emphasize that----
    Ms. Clark. So----
    Mr. Blanton. I am sorry. Go ahead.
    Ms. Clark. The $6.8 million you have requested in your 
budget, is that--that, you said, is for the first three floors. 
It wouldn't be enough for a full system in the Capitol?
    Mr. Blanton. The basement right now has about 98 percent 
coverage, so that 2 percent would be included in that, but it 
is very minor.
    The fourth floor is going to be done using our internal 
minor construction budget this coming year.
    So this design is going to take into account integrating 
the basement system, the fourth-floor system, and doing the 
first three floors so that we will have the entire Capitol 
Building.
    Ms. Clark. Great.
    And thank you. Thank you for joining us again and for all 
your work.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Ms. Clark.
    Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And if I could take the liberty of pointing out that Ohio 
is the home of the largest cuckoo clock in the world. It is 
located in Sugarcreek, which I don't think is your district. 
But it is the ``Little Switzerland of Ohio.'' Thought you might 
want to know that.
    Mr. Ryan. Mr. Newhouse, of all the firsts and special 
things about Ohio, you bring up the cuckoo clock. I mean, I 
find that ironic.
    Mr. Newhouse. Yeah. Well, it is a fun fact.
    Well, thank you, Mr. Blanton, for being here with us today. 
You have a very important job, a lot of responsibilities, and 
we appreciate that.
    I have three areas of questions, and we have a short amount 
of time, so I will try to talk fast.
    I want to ask you about the Cannon Renewal Project. About, 
I think, 2 years ago or a year and a half ago, the GAO 
testified in front of House Admin that they were expecting a 
total cost between $828 million and $866 million.
    Recently, that cost is now expected to reach to $890 
million. And I just wondered if you could enlighten us as to 
some of the reasons for the additional costs that would cause 
that overrun.
    Mr. Blanton. Thank you.
    So, when we did the GAO integrated schedule cost-risk 
analysis, our work with them estimated that, for a 90 percent 
confidence to complete the project on budget, that the actual 
cost would be $890 million. And in 2019 is when we submitted 
that to CHA and first notified the Appropriations Committee of 
such.
    I do want to stress, you will notice in this budget, we 
have somewhat of a spike in our budget request for Cannon, and 
that is actually pulling money from the 2023 and 2024 budgets 
forward so we can do the award of phase 4. Without that money 
in 2022, we won't be able to award phase 4 on time.
    And I want to stress that the total cost of the project has 
not increased over that $890 million number from that 
integrated assessment with GAO. But the year that we had to 
pull it--we had to pull it forward this year. And it was 
foreshadowed last year in my testimony as well.
    Mr. Newhouse. I see. I appreciate that. Okay. Thank you. So 
we are still on schedule to complete at the anticipated date?
    Mr. Blanton. Programmatically, yes. Now, we, admittedly, as 
the ranking member mentioned, we have had a very challenging 
January and a beginning of February. We effectively in phase 3 
were at a stop-work from right before--from January 6 through 
mid-February.
    Now, the good news on that is, yes, we were 44 days behind 
the schedule but we have 2 years to make that up. This is not 
like it was last year during COVID, when we had----
    Mr. Newhouse. Yeah.
    Mr. Blanton [continuing]. The hotspot occur and we lost 
1,800 worker days and we had only 8 months to make it up. So 
the good news is we have 2 years to make this up. I am 
confident we can remain on schedule.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Okay.
    The other thing I wanted to ask you about is the fencing 
around the Capitol complex, a couple questions there.
    I have been told that the Pentagon is calling the shots on 
the fence. If you could enlighten us as to actually whose 
decision it is to keep it in place. Certainly a lot of us, as 
you probably have heard, and a lot of the community too--I have 
been seeing signs all over Capitol Hill, ``Take down the 
fence.''
    So talk a little bit about the plans, how long it is going 
to be in place, and actually whose decision that is.
    And, also, clear up some of the rumors about the cost of 
the fencing. I have heard a million dollars a day. Is that 
true?
    Mr. Blanton. I will address that one first. The original 
cost is $1.9 million a week.
    Mr. Newhouse. A week. A week.
    Mr. Blanton. Yeah. We have since been negotiating with them 
and brought that cost down.
    As you may have noticed now, we are reconfiguring the fence 
line to allow more access on Third Street, Louisiana, and 
Washington Avenue so that people have some of their corridors 
available.
    I will say, without a doubt, DOD is not the one calling the 
shots on this. The fence line came from a request from the 
chief of police, and it was approved by the police board.
    We are actually working with DOD now based off of the 
Capitol Police's National Guard request of how much fence line 
we can remove with their force posture that would remain on 
campus, with the goal of shrinking it as much as possible and 
allowing as much access as possible, while providing security, 
of course.
    Mr. Newhouse. The view of our Nation's Capitol through 
concertina wire is not something that we are very proud of. So 
is there an anticipated date of removal?
    Mr. Blanton. So, in small increments, it has started 
already.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
    Mr. Blanton. We did Third Street--we did Third Street on 
Monday. As I said, Louisiana and Washington Avenues, those are 
being done--well, Louisiana is right now. Washington Avenue 
will start tonight.
    And then we are going to look weekly at the threat 
scenarios and the risk and start bringing the fence line back 
as much as possible.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
    Mr. Blanton. It will be incremental, though.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay. All right.
    Well, thank you for being with us today.
    And, Mr. Chairman, appreciate it, and I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Mr. Case.
    Mr. Case. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Blanton, I guess I kind of want to go here for a second 
just to kind of--some big-picture, long-term trends here.
    The chair started out by saying that your budget here does 
not reflect any specific changes from the perspective of the 
attacks on the Capitol, and the ranking member asked what has 
changed in your budget in terms of the overall master plan as a 
result as well.
    I am looking at your actual budget request, and I am trying 
to sort through kind of where the real increases really are. 
And it looks to me like the great majority of the increases are 
in multiyear projects. You have 90 out of--well, about half of 
it in multiyear projects.
    I think you said earlier that you were trying to catch up 
on $78 million of deferred maintenance, which I assume is what 
you are talking about there in terms of multiyear projects. I 
think you also said that you needed to defer moneys to COVID-
19-specific items.
    And so I am trying to make sense of all of that and ask 
myself: What is the real, kind of, combined budget here going 
forward?
    And I guess we could leave aside any specific changes that 
arise from January 6 that would really be single-year changes 
and ask, in the big picture, is the bottom-line challenge that 
you are facing the fact that we are, in fact, deferring a lot 
of maintenance on a year-to-year basis, where we are perhaps 
falling behind on maintenance in terms of just maintaining 
operating, you know, budgets?
    And do you anticipate, at least from what you know right 
now, that any changes to your overall master plan from the 
attack would--or, for that matter, COVID-19, reconfiguration of 
committee hearing rooms, et cetera--that this budget would 
change over time? Is this kind of, you know, the big-picture, 
wish-list budget? What is your assessment of the validity of 
this budget as kind of a long-term guide?
    Mr. Blanton. Thank you.
    As I mentioned, so--and in concert with what the chairman 
mentioned of our increase is $181 million over what was enacted 
last year--our last year's budget request was $150 million more 
than what was enacted. So we pulled forward almost $93 million 
of projects, which are mostly infrastructure-related projects--
a lot of stuff you don't see every day--into this budget so 
that we can execute that.
    My maintenance backlog is actually--deferred maintenance--
is actually $1.8 billion. And that is an astronomical amount of 
money. And, frankly, it won't be solved in one budget year. And 
it is going to be solved by more intelligent ways of how we 
manage our budget, which is why we have the ``big rock 
initiative,'' which is called enterprise asset management. This 
will allow us to actually develop projects that will be able to 
look at the maintenance backlog as the return on investment and 
prioritize those so I can start buying that down.
    The initial phases of that have started with our assessment 
of it. And we plan in 2022 where we are asking for resources to 
fully implement it.
    I want to stress that organizations that have implemented 
enterprise asset management, that follow the ISO 55000, which 
we are going to do, those investments have an ROI of under 5 
years, and so--based off of what we are doing.
    So the other aspect of our current budget, as I mentioned, 
that spike in the Cannon, where we are pulling forward--when 
you pull forward funds from the 2024 and 2025, that is $31 
million right there additional that was not in the normal 
profile for Cannon funding.
    So, when you add that up, that is effectively where the big 
change in our budget is between what was enacted last year and 
what we have this year.
    Mr. Case. Okay.
    And to the ranking member's question of what more 
significant changes are necessary or may be necessary in the 
long term as a result of, you know, January 6 and whatever 
implementations we make from the various recommendations, what 
is your response on that question? I am not sure I kind of 
understood a response there.
    Mr. Blanton. Okay.
    So what I would say is, first, the thing that is needed is 
the comprehensive security assessment. Without looking at that 
from the entire campus, what we are really doing is just taking 
a bunch of good ideas and implementing them, not putting the 
rigor in there and saying, what is going to produce the best 
bang for the buck?
    And, as I alluded to last month, I don't want to spend 
money to spend money. I want to spend money that produces the 
best result possible.
    And so, start with that assessment, pick up the low-hanging 
fruit out of there, then the intermediate projects, and have 
that be integrated into what is our Capitol Complex Master Plan 
that we are asking for this year, for a broad look at how we 
take all of these other disparate studies that were done from 
many things that are even unrelated, like the Capitol South 
Metro Entrance Project, to transportation studies, to other 
security studies, to lighting studies, and put that into one 
package that will be able to be broken up into 5-year strategic 
plans and allow us to give you guys, give the Budget Committees 
and the Appropriations Committees, the ability to see, over the 
next 5 years, this is what we need to execute to meet the goals 
of the master plan.
    Mr. Case. Okay. And that is fair enough. I don't think 
anybody wants to rush projects and do it on a piecemeal basis. 
But, while we get to the bottom of that, do you think that that 
would impact this particular budget? In other words, are there 
projects within the budget that you have submitted, which is 
kind of a more normal-course budget, that would change or be 
amplified or, for that matter, be materially changed or even 
irrelevant as a result of that master plan?
    So, in other words, you know, kind of, what should we wait 
for before committing, and what should we just go with now?
    Mr. Blanton. So I wouldn't say any project would be 
irrelevant. What I would say is that there may be scope 
changes, probably around the edges where there are integrating 
security concerns, much like we do with ADA. We know that the 
Capitol complex itself is not the most accessible complex 
because it was built for so long. We take a lot of our long-
term projects and we put a lot of the fixes for ADA in there. 
And we see the same thing with security.
    And what we would target with those is not the things that 
would be the immediate execution to give us the best bang for 
the buck, but it would be the stuff that would give us our 
long-term solutions. And----
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank----
    Mr. Blanton [continuing]. The budget provides a flexibility 
for doing that. But I would see where we need a supplemental to 
get the immediate-action items for----
    Mr. Case. Yeah, no. Understood. But I am talking about, 
kind of, why the long term. Understood on the supplemental. So 
I am trying to distinguish between what is supplemental and 
what is more long-term and how does that work back into your 
current budget request.
    Anyway, my time is up, so I defer back. Thank you very 
much.
    Mr. Ryan. I thank the gentleman.
    The distinguished gentlelady, Ms. Wexton----
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan [continuing]. You have the floor.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Blanton, for joining us today 
again.
    Since I am kind of batting cleanup here--well, ahead of the 
chairman--I do want to follow up on some of the questions that 
my colleagues have already put out there. I want to follow up 
on the fence, first of all, the fencing.
    You said it had been $1.9 million a week but you were able 
to renegotiate that and now it is less. How much is it costing 
us now?
    Mr. Blanton. So it is $1.2 million per week now. And that 
will depend on how long the fencing is up. As we shrink, it is 
going to, obviously--the total cost will decrease as it 
shrinks. But, also, the longer we keep it, the unit costs for 
the fencing will also decrease.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay.
    And I do want to put in a plug to minimizing that fence as 
much as we possibly can and making it safer for pedestrians 
where we do have it. Because that stretch of Second Street, you 
know, in front of the Library of Congress and the--or behind 
the Library of Congress and the Supreme Court, I mean, it is 
absolutely treacherous. You have pedestrians walking in the 
street trying to make that crossover over from one side of the 
Capitol to the other. So I think there are some improvements 
that can be made even if you don't want to shrink the perimeter 
too much, which I hope that you will do. So, anyway.
    So you testified that you wanted a comprehensive security 
assessment. How do you envision that taking place? Like, would 
it be performed in house, or would you get a third party to do 
it?
    Mr. Blanton. So we have already been working with the Army 
Corps of Engineers, and they have a physical security specialty 
center that was actually used in the General Honore study. So 
bridging off of what they did--and we currently have a 
relationship with them, so we would use them as our facilities 
experts.
    And they do this for the entire executive branch, so this 
is not, like, something that is just DOD. They do it across the 
entire executive branch. And so we would utilize them and their 
expertise that they can bring in from around the world to look 
at this study.
    And I want to emphasize that the study is not meant to look 
at everything from brand-new, but it is meant to really take 
all the other studies that are out there and make sure that we 
can build it into one cohesive, executable strategy so that we 
have something that has the level of detail that I could come 
to Congress and say, this is what it would take to implement X, 
Y, and Z.
    Ms. Wexton. And so that would include not only the physical 
structures within the building but also things like the 
interoperability of security cameras and upgrades to those, 
would it not?
    Mr. Blanton. So that is under the purview of the Capitol 
Police. And the short answer is, yes, the study would do that. 
But when it comes to the funding of the projects, it would be 
under their budget that they would come to you, about the 
interoperability and total coverage of the cameras, which we 
don't have now.
    Ms. Wexton. So for things like--and I understand from 
General Honore's report that you already had some of these 
recommendations in process, things like security vestibules and 
things like that that you had on order. Could you explain how 
those would be integrated with any kind of security that you 
would come up with?
    Mr. Blanton. Yes. And so what we are doing now is we are 
looking at two security vestibules, at the north and the south 
entrances to the Capitol Building. This would get the screening 
of individuals from within the Capitol Building itself outside 
of the building, so the first time that we have the opportunity 
to see if somebody is bringing in something that we don't 
allow, that they are not inside the physical confines of the 
Capitol Building themselves.
    The design for these facilities is starting next month. 
And, to be honest, the design is really agnostic of the 
security study, because they are going to be designed such 
that, if it in the security studies, for example, recommends 
that we have a centralized screening in between House office 
buildings, for example--and this is just a concept--the design 
would still be the same; it would just be where is it 
relocated, if that makes sense.
    Ms. Wexton. Yes, it does.
    And for things like the security--with the physical 
infrastructure and security within the Capitol itself, there 
are going to be times when the historic nature of it has to 
yield to the security concerns, so things like the windows and 
things like that that are going to be, you know, on the block 
for this.
    Who ultimately is going to make that decision about where 
security begins and where historic nature ends?
    Mr. Blanton. So the historic preservation aspect is clearly 
within my realm. My view of this is, we wanted to have 
deference for the historical aspects, but you can't sacrifice 
security for, for example, having 250-year-old windows there 
that can be broken with the lightest touch.
    And so we would still take the efforts to have it be 
designed in a way that it looks like it is clean with the 
fabric of the original building, but it would still provide its 
intent for being secure.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you.
    I see my time is up, so I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. I thank the gentlelady from Virginia.
    Mr. Blanton, I have a couple questions here.
    You were talking about the big rock--big rocks project. And 
you talked about enterprise--what did you call that? 
Enterprise----
    Mr. Blanton. Enterprise asset management.
    Mr. Ryan. Enterprise asset--talk to me about that.
    Mr. Blanton. Yes. So that is where we look at all of our 
facilities, and we actually start doing things that are more 
into the predictive nature of the facilities maintenance. So, 
based off of known lifecycles, we will be able to, with our 
annual inspections that we currently do, determine how the 
facilities have been aging based off of what their life 
expectancy would be.
    And then you would take the actual maintenance that has 
been done by our blue-collar workforce in the jurisdictions, 
the initial design aspects of it that would be done in our 
centralized, and we would be able to use services that do 
predictive projects, so such that we will say we are going to 
replace the HVAC in the Rayburn Building in these quads because 
these certain areas are closest to the end of lifecycle so that 
we don't end up having a catastrophic event.
    The greatest part about this is, I can target my deferred 
maintenance and then also be able to have the ability to 
articulate to Congress that, should we not choose to fund this 
project in budget year X and delay it to Y, the cost of that 
would be a certain amount of dollars. And that would give you 
the full visibility on what the implications are for projects 
within our budget.
    This goes into more of what I want to do, as being much 
more transparent and show you multiyears of what we were 
thinking in our projects, as opposed to just one budget at a 
time, hoping that you guys could predict the future based off 
of projects we have.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay.
    I am trying to--I have been trying to do this for a while 
and try to think through this. You know, you said we had $1.8 
billion in repairs that we need or----
    Mr. Blanton. Maintenance backlog.
    Mr. Ryan. Backlog. I mean, we have--and I don't know how we 
do this, because we are the Federal Government, and a lot of 
this stuff needs done. And just looking at it, the longer we 
defer it, the more expensive everything gets. So how can we 
figure out how to, in some way, finance these projects?
    I mean, am I out of my mind here? I am just like, there has 
to be a creative way we can move these projects up, start 
getting them done, and get creative with how we can, you know, 
save the taxpayer a lot of money and get some of this off the 
deck.
    Mr. Blanton. That is a wonderful question. We have two 
legislative proposals, one that allows us to enter into public-
private partnerships. And that is a great tool when capital is 
limited and you need to get significant amount of work done, 
especially now that the cost of money is so low.
    Another tool is the use of enhanced-use leases. And these 
are things that are done in the executive branch already. In 
fact, we just hope to mirror the same exact language they have.
    And, as I talked about an off-site facility, where in the 
past we have had electrical issues that would deal with server 
farms, we could have the ability through enhanced-use lease to 
use underutilized space, put a solar farm there, provide 
battery backup, at almost no cost to the Federal Government and 
have them maintained by the contractor.
    So this is an authority that is quite commonly used in the 
executive branch in underutilized space. And that would then 
give us ability to have 24-7 backup that we don't have at this 
particular time.
    Mr. Ryan. Uh-huh. So the public-private partnership, what 
is that? Is that like an infrastructure bank or something like 
that?
    Mr. Blanton. So a public-private partnership would be that 
you would have a third-party entity who would actually finance 
it at a fixed--finance the project and based off of a fixed 
agreement.
    Probably the one that is most resident here is, the 
Thurgood Marshall Building was built as a one-time authority 
for a public-private partnership, where the contractor invested 
all the capital and then we leased it back from them at a rate 
that would pay back the building itself.
    Mr. Ryan. And you have legislation that is----
    Mr. Blanton. We have legislative proposals for both of 
those.
    Mr. Ryan. I am sorry? I couldn't hear you.
    Mr. Blanton. We have legislative proposals for both of 
those.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. Well, I want to take a close look at that. 
I think those are the kinds of things that we need to do now, 
and we could maybe start making some serious headway on some of 
this.
    We are talking a little bit, too, about the supplemental 
here. How long will it take us to get some idea of what a fence 
would cost? Like, how much time do we need to figure that out?
    Mr. Blanton. So I hate to sound wishy-washy on this. A lot 
of it depends on where the fence is going to be. If it is just 
on the Capitol square, there are previous estimates for a 
relocatable fence on Capitol square.
    However, those estimates--it looks like they have a very 
low up-front cost but has a large tail. Where are you going to 
store this fence? Who is going to maintain the fence? How is it 
going to be transported? How are you going to get it up and 
down? Those are all things that we want to look at.
    When I look at these projects, I look at the total 
ownership cost for this. So we will look at it over a span of 
time so we can say, yes, this project may cost 20 percent more 
for the initial investment, but over a 10-year period it is 
actually going to cost a certain percentage less.
    So I hate to be wishy-washy, but if we look at a fencing 
around the entire perimeter like we have now, that is going to 
be very, very, very expensive. If we look at just targeted 
fencing in areas that we can bring in fencing later, which is 
what I am more proposing, that would have less of an up-front 
cost, and we will have to articulate what the long-term cost is 
for those so that you have that agreement.
    I would prioritize that as something early on in our 
security assessment so we could start getting this information 
to Congress earlier than waiting for the whole thing to be done 
and say, here are things that we can do right now.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. Well, we are going to be asking for some 
help in figuring out what the costs are and the different kinds 
of technology with the fences and the movable ones and all the 
rest. So we are going to be leaning on you for some help with 
trying to figure that out.
    Mr. Blanton, I can't thank you enough. We are going to 
adjourn this hearing now because we have to go vote and I have 
to go vote, and then we will reconvene.
    But, once again, Brett, honestly, thank you so much. You 
have been terrific, and we look forward to working with you. 
And I personally feel like we are in good hands with you as you 
have continued to try to guide us through this.
    So we appreciate your service. And please let your team 
know how much we appreciate it. And we will be talking to you 
again real soon. Appreciate it.
    Mr. Blanton. Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan. This committee is in recess.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
    

                                          Thursday, March 11, 2021.

                      GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

                                WITNESS

HUGH HALPERN, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
    For our second panel, I would like to welcome the Director 
of the Government Publishing Office, Mr. Hugh Halpern, to 
present the fiscal year 2022 budget request.
    Thank you all for joining us today. We welcome you back to 
our subcommittee.
    Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge the staff of 
GPO for the extraordinary work over the past year. We know that 
COVID has dramatically affected GPO's workload. Through the 
pandemic and a very active congressional schedule, you and your 
team has continued to serve this body and ensure the Members of 
Congress have the documents to continue our work.
    Mr. Halpern, the work you are providing is invaluable, and 
we thank you.
    The request is $125.6 million, an increase of $8.6 million, 
or 7.3 percent, over what was provided last year.
    I understand that your appropriation has remained flat 
since fiscal year 2016. I also read in your testimony that your 
budget has declined by 21 percent from a high point of $147.6 
million in fiscal year 2010. I hope you might shed some light 
on this matter for the benefit of the committee, as none of us 
were on the Leg. Branch Subcommittee in 2010.
    While you have a reasonable request, I cannot guarantee 
that the subcommittee allocation will be increasing at an equal 
rate, and it may be hard to accommodate the full request, but 
we will do our best.
    I look forward to your testimony.
    At this point, I would like to yield to my colleague and 
friend from the 42nd State to join the Union, the ranking 
member, Jaime Herrera Beutler, for any opening comments she 
would like to make.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And welcome back, Mr. Halpern. It is really good to see 
you. I miss seeing you on the House floor--although you may not 
miss us. I don't know.
    Congratulations to the Government Publishing Office for 
achieving its 160th year in operation. That is amazing.
    Since its creation, GPO has taken advantage of the 
technological advances of the time to provide an array of 
printing services to support the needs of Congress, Federal 
agencies, and the public. The agency's willingness to adapt to 
the latest technologies plays a large part in its effectiveness 
today.
    GPO's funding priorities center on creating access to 
congressional publications in digital formats as well as in 
hard-copy formats. And coming from a State where we have lots 
of trees that produce quality timber, we are not afraid of 
hard-copy.
    Specifically, you have worked over the last 2 years with 
the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate on 
initiatives to convert legacy files into a format that promotes 
interoperability among documents. And I appreciate that your 
office continues to work with the Library of Congress to 
prepare summaries and status information for House and Senate 
bills in a more widely accessible format.
    For the previous 6 fiscal years, GPO has maintained a flat 
funding, as the chairman mentioned, and for fiscal 2020 you are 
requesting a 7.3 percent increase.
    I look forward to hearing more about how your office plans 
to continue its transformation from print-centric to a content-
focused publishing organization.
    And, with that, I will yield back to the gentleman from 
Ohio, the State that is the top Swiss-cheese-producing in the 
Union. I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Very good.
    Without objection, your written testimonies will be made 
part of the record.
    Mr. Halpern, please summarize your statement for the 
members of the committee. Once you have finished your 
statement, we will move to the question-and-answers.
    Please begin. The floor is yours, sir.
    Mr. Halpern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and members 
of the subcommittee, I am honored to appear again before this 
subcommittee to present GPO's fiscal year 2022 appropriations 
request.
    At the outset, I want to thank you for your past support of 
GPO, and I look forward to continuing our partnership during my 
time as Director.
    For the coming fiscal year, I am requesting appropriations 
in the amount of $125.549 million, which is a 7.3 percent 
increase over the last year. This reflects our increased costs 
in labor and materials as well as specific funding for 
initiatives of importance to Congress and the rest of the 
legislative branch.
    When we met on this very day a year ago, I was in my third 
month as Director and looking forward to accelerating GPO's 
transformation into a dynamic, digital-first publisher. 2020 
kept us from making nearly as much progress toward that goal as 
I had hoped.
    Last week marked the 160th anniversary of GPO's founding 
during the Civil War, and this week marks the anniversary of 
one of our most challenging years ever.
    Like other Federal employers, we rapidly moved our 
telework-capable staff to work remotely while examining our 
other operations to figure out how we could operate safely. We 
had to shut down our passport line for an extended period, and 
our plant was operating at a fraction of its normal capacity.
    The pandemic had an immediate detrimental effect on GPO's 
bottom line. Put simply, the pandemic reduced our revenue and 
increased our costs. We began running monthly deficits in March 
of 2020 and have lost more than $30 million through this past 
January. Our revenue from passport production alone dropped by 
$92 million in fiscal year 2019 to fiscal year 2020.
    The good news is, things are beginning to look up. We are 
safely ramping up our operations, and our monthly financials 
are almost in the black. We have also been able to rely on our 
cash reserves to carry us through the pandemic without any 
furloughs or layoffs.
    As a result of having to use those reserves to meet our 
regular payroll, we will need to delay some planned 
investments, prioritizing those projects critical to safety or 
current production needs.
    We have also been able to largely operate safely during the 
pandemic. We have had only two known incidents of virus 
transmission inside our facilities, with the other cases coming 
from community spread.
    We are encouraging our teammates to get vaccinated as 
quickly as possible, and we appreciate the limited number of 
vaccinations that Congress has shared with our GPO detailees up 
on the Hill. We hope that we can continue that partnership as 
more vaccine doses become available.
    This would be GPO's first major increase since 2014, and it 
is two-thirds of our fiscal year 2010 appropriations when 
adjusted for inflation. We were able to keep our request flat 
for the last several years by improving our efficiency, 
naturally reducing our headcount, and keeping our overhead 
costs low.
    However, as I foreshadowed in my testimony last year, we 
are losing another tool we use to manage our requests: 
repurposing prior-year unobligated balances. This is forcing us 
to request additional funds if we want to continue our current 
pace of development and innovation.
    As part of our request, we are asking for increases to fund 
several specific initiatives.
    For our public information programs, we hope to add five 
FTEs to conduct enhanced outreach to our more than 1,100 FDLP 
libraries.
    We are asking for $3.37 million for continued development 
of xPub, our next-generation composition engine. Beyond merely 
replacing our aging composition software, xPub is a platform 
that will enable new applications and allow Congress to focus 
on the content of its documents, while GPO can produce them in 
ways that will look great online and in print. [Inaudible] Some 
of the power that xPub promises to deliver.
    We are also asking for direct funding for the world's only 
ISO-certified secure digital repository, GovInfo. This year's 
request of $6.8 million for GovInfo is a slight increase over 
what the subcommittee provided last year and would fund both 
infrastructure and development.
    We are also asking for $150,000 to support GPO's broad and 
ongoing efforts to defend against cyber attacks on its systems.
    Lastly, we are requesting $1 million to support GPO's 
implementation of the Treasury Department's G-Invoicing system 
for interagency payments. Because GPO collects over 80 percent 
of its operating funds through these transactions, this project 
is of paramount importance.
    Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and members 
of the subcommittee, thank you so much for the opportunity to 
present our fiscal year 2022 appropriations request and for all 
the support you and your staff have extended to us during this 
most challenging year.
    That completes my statement. I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Mr. Ryan. Great. Thank you, Hugh. We appreciate it.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler for questions.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you.
    And my question is actually kind of specific to the Pacific 
Northwest and contracting.
    So, when it comes to Federal contracting opportunities, 
domestic manufacturing should always be supported when and 
where it makes sense.
    I understand that a Tribe from the Pacific Northwest has 
reached out to GPO regarding some novel, environmentally 
sustainable production processes that could enhance the 
performance characteristics of domestic groundwood pulp paper 
products and possibly increase opportunities for the use of 
such products in Federal paper contracts.
    Obviously, I am very interested in this. Is this something 
that GPO would be able and willing to look into?
    Mr. Halpern. Absolutely. And we have talked with the Tribe 
as well, and we are looking forward to evaluating the products.
    The problem we have right at the moment is, our materials 
science team is not actually in the building, except for those 
things that are really critical to some of the other ongoing 
projects we have. So, once everybody can get back in and 
operate safely, we look forward to evaluating their product.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Awesome. Thank you so much. I 
appreciate it.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
    Ms. Clark.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you for joining us today, Mr. Halpern.
    I am interested, as you have managed to overcome so much of 
the challenges presented in the last year. I was impressed to 
learn that the Federal Depository Libraries were able to 
smoothly transition into remote work and develop new and very 
creative ways of operating.
    Can you share some of those innovations? And do you expect 
them to continue past the pandemic?
    Mr. Halpern. Thank you. That is a great question.
    So the great thing about our partnership with these 
libraries is that we learn from them as much as they learn from 
us. And through our Depository Library Council and other very 
active online fora that we have set up, there is a lot of good 
information exchanged between GPO and our partner libraries and 
the libraries themselves. So that has been fantastic.
    One of the things that we are planning on doing in the 
coming year is really extending our outreach to those libraries 
where they are. I think it is really important for GPO to meet 
those customers where they are.
    So the five FTEs we have actually requested are for folks 
that we very much envision being out in the country. So, for 
instance, we can have folks who may have a little bit more 
expertise in some of the collections that Tribal libraries or 
libraries in the Southwest have, and, actually, they are going 
to be based in that part of the country.
    So we want to take some of the innovation that folks have 
had so far and really build on that.
    And I don't know about you; the last time I was in a 
library was at American University and I was preparing for my 
confirmation. And the library today looks very different than 
the library I left 30 years ago when I graduated from AU.
    So our librarians are getting more versed in our digital 
products. And we are really trying to support that, both by 
training them up on how to use GovInfo as a resource but also, 
on the document production end, trying to give them more data, 
more digital formats that they can use and they can do some 
really amazing stuff with.
    Ms. Clark. Well, as the daughter of a public school 
librarian, I am always eager to support our libraries.
    But you also mentioned xPub. And I know, when you came 
before us last year, this was something you were excited about 
implementing.
    I know, you know, this has been a tough year, but how 
successful do you think it was in the last year in helping meet 
your responsibilities? And can you tell us about your plans to 
further implement?
    Mr. Halpern. Absolutely. I really, actually, like talking 
about xPub. I think that is going to be the platform that is 
going to support GPO well into the future.
    So the last project that we were able to successfully do 
was the main edition of the U.S. Code, and we were able to trim 
7 months off of that project. This year, we hope to roll out 
xPub to both the House and the Senate as the composition engine 
for printing amendments, bills, and resolutions. And that work 
is ongoing, and we hope probably within the next quarter or two 
to have that deployed. And that is going to be a huge step 
forward, replacing our way-out-of-date Microcomp tool.
    But you saw with some of the--I showed the cover of the 
Modernization Committee's report, which looks very, very 
different than any other committee report we have done. And the 
thing is, if you take xPub and you marry it up with our new 
digital inkjet presses, if Congress is willing, we can move 
away from some of these formats that have been around for time 
immemorial.
    To give you an idea, the average committee report, the 
committee report that the Appropriations Committee, this 
subcommittee, will put out for this bill, that format has been 
around since GPO's inception during the Civil War.
    Ms. Clark. Hmm.
    Mr. Halpern. My point to the Joint Committee on Printing 
and the Committee on House Administration has been, these 
technologies give us all an opportunity to take another look at 
how you do that. And, hopefully, working together, we can make 
those documents more readable and more accessible for 
everybody.
    Ms. Clark. That is great. Thank you so much for joining us.
    And I happen to see that I have the red timer and that, 
since the first stoplight in the country was in Ohio, I will 
yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Oh, Ms. Clark, you get the award for being most 
creative in presenting the fun facts. So congratulations.
    The gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Try to top that one now.
    Mr. Newhouse. No, I am not even going to try. But I do 
appreciate you bringing a little levity into the committee. It 
does help things a lot.
    Good to see you, Hugh.
    Mr. Halpern. You too, Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Newhouse. Yes.
    And let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I have total confidence 
in Mr. Halpern's ability. You know, I have gotten to know Hugh 
in his work when he worked over here in the Capitol. And if he 
brought the same work ethic with him to the Printing Office, we 
have nothing to worry about, that everything is going to be 
managed as well as it possibly could be.
    So it is great to have you here, and I appreciate your 
presentation very much.
    Mr. Halpern. Thank you.
    Mr. Newhouse. You probably have a distinction that not many 
agencies in the government can claim, that you haven't really 
asked for a significant increase in your appropriation since, I 
believe, 2014, which says a lot about the management of the 
agency--until this year, which, you know, obviously, some 
extenuating circumstances that have turned everything upside-
down. And I appreciate that.
    But, Hugh, in your estimation, as things get back to 
normal, as we return to a new normal, do you anticipate going 
back to the status quo of being able to pretty much be a self-
sustaining agency with, you know, the services you provide, 
obviously you charge your customers for, and all of the 
benefits that come with that? I just wanted you to reflect on 
that for us, if you could.
    Mr. Halpern. Absolutely. And it is a great question.
    So, as I think I mentioned, over 80 percent of our revenue 
comes from what we charge our customers. And most of the 
requests that we are making this year are for specific projects 
to get us over the hump, to get us into a position where our 
rates that we charge folks are more accurately tied to the 
services that we are providing.
    So, for instance, funding the development of xPub 
ultimately will benefit Congress, but it will also help us move 
that to a more sustainable model in the future.
    So the way the predecessor product was funded was they 
built that into the page rate. So, when we charge Congress 
several hundred dollars a page for the Congressional Record, 
they tried to build development costs for that product into 
that rate. But that didn't provide a steady stream of income to 
keep that product going.
    So what we want to do is, after the initial development 
phase of xPub, move that to more of a software as a service. 
So, just like Office 365 or the Adobe Suite or whatever, we are 
charging our customers, through the congressional printing 
fund, you know, a fee for using that software that we can then 
use to keep that updated into the future so we don't run into 
these problems down the road. And we want to do that with a lot 
of our projects.
    So we think that most of the funding that we have asked for 
has been designed in a way so that, hopefully, over time, it 
will go away.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you very much, Hugh. I appreciate that 
response. And, again, I have a lot of confidence in your 
ability, and appreciate your presentation today.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of Mr. 
Halpern. I just hope that at some point in the near future, Mr. 
Chairman, you can explain to us and the rest of the country why 
Ohio finds it necessary to have a nonrectangular flag. Being 
one of 50, you have to be different.
    But, other than that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. It is a cry for attention.
    The distinguished gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Case.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    In answer to that last question, Ohio considers itself a 
noncontiguous part of our country.
    And to Ms. Clark's comment, I am going to brag, too, 
because I am the son of an elementary school librarian. So we 
have something in common there.
    Mr. Halpern, you started out by saying that you are in this 
situation because your revenues had declined and your costs had 
increased. And in your, you know, written report, you say--I am 
focusing on the cost side, because I am not sure I understand 
why your costs went up during COVID-19 specifically. I mean, a 
lot of, you know, businesses or quasi-businesses, they saw 
their revenues plummet and their costs go down also.
    And I see that you talked about emergency leave as being 
one major consequence of that, and you talked about some 
obvious things, like having to, kind of, COVID-19-proof your 
facilities and your operations. But why did your costs go up so 
significantly? And I suppose the question is, was most of that 
on the labor side? Was that operating side? What percentage? 
Like, 90 percent of the cost escalation was----
    Mr. Halpern. I can get back to you on the exact breakdown.
    But, to give you an idea, because of our labor agreements--
we have 11 union bargaining units here at GPO, everything from 
our police officers to our bookbinders to our typesetters. But 
as part of our labor agreements, we pay everybody who has come 
into the building during a declared emergency essentially 
double-time. So that cost us more than $7 million over a period 
of just a few months.
    When you combine that with our difficulty sometimes getting 
materials and having to stockpile materials--you know, have a 
greater stockpile of those materials than we would otherwise, 
we had to expend a lot of capital to make sure that we were 
able to continue operating.
    That is particularly true with our passport operations. As 
we ramp those back up--because of supply-chain constraints, we 
suddenly had to change suppliers for a key component of our 
next-generation passports. You know, all of those things sort 
of came together to increase our costs.
    We are out of that emergency period, so we are back to a 
more normal labor stance and more normal payroll. Our payroll 
runs about $850,000 a day normally.
    So we are working through that. We think we have costs back 
under control. But you combine those increased costs and our 
substantially reduced revenue, and that led us to, sort of, the 
deficit situation we have been in at least through January. I 
am keeping my fingers crossed that February's numbers start to 
turn back.
    Mr. Case. Okay. And the requirement that you pay 
essentially double for people on the job during an emergency, 
that is a function of collective bargaining agreements?
    Mr. Halpern. That is part of our collective bargaining 
agreements and longstanding GPO directives that came out of 
that. Yes.
    Mr. Case. And is that separate from any kind of--what is 
there--hazard pay or, you know, comparable pay classifications, 
accelerated pay classifications over and above that?
    Mr. Halpern. No. That was largely--that particular 
provision, frankly, was intended for snowstorms or hurricanes 
or those more traditional situations where the rest of the 
government closes but our folks still need to come in to make 
sure that the Congressional Record gets out to you all.
    So, in those circumstances, it was eminently reasonable and 
manageable and that--it is much like snow days for a school 
district. You build in a little bit, and you can work with 
that. What we weren't prepared for is having 3 or 4 months 
where we had to be in that status all the time.
    And once we got our plan together to start our reopening 
process this past July, that enabled us to end that emergency 
period and reduce those costs and get back to something more 
normal.
    Mr. Case. Okay. So you talked about $7 million in the 
emergency pay. What percentage of the overall cost decline was 
that? Was that 50 percent? Seventy-five percent?
    Mr. Halpern. I would have to get back to you on the exact 
portion.
    The other thing to keep in mind is that our productivity 
went down as well. So, in order to socially distance, we had to 
divide the number of people we had working in the plant at any 
one time in half.
    So the key thing to keep in mind about GPO is, in the past, 
the way we solved problems is we throw people at them. So, for 
instance, the reconciliation bill, the American Recovery Act 
that you guys just sent us, we often--and we did in this case--
assist the Clerk with proofreading that to make sure that it is 
true and correct and accurate. Well, the way we do that is we 
divide that, you know, 700-page bill into really small chunks 
and parcel that out to our proofreaders. Well, we only had half 
of our proofreaders working at any one time, because that is a 
manual-based, paper-based process in a fairly small area. So, 
in order to do that safely, we had to cut our number of people 
in half.
    So it is not just increased cost; it is also lowered 
productivity and, as a result, lowered revenue.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Ryan. Appreciate it, Mr. Case.
    Mr. Amodei.
    Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Hey, it is good to see you.
    Mr. Halpern. You too, sir.
    Mr. Amodei. I just want to, for the record, since we want 
to make sure that--I didn't realize this was on the agenda, but 
I will go ahead and adapt. We don't allow stoplights in 
Nevada's Second Congressional District. So we will learn from 
the mistakes people made in Ohio and other places before we 
allow them.
    But, anyhow, listen, I have been in that office before, and 
you look good there in that----
    Mr. Halpern. Thank you.
    Mr. Amodei [continuing]. Older building with that old-
school office. That is neat stuff. That is real wood, unlike a 
lot of the other ones, so good for you.
    Listen, it has been about 6 years, I think, since I walked 
through the place, which I found phenomenally educational and 
just very interesting. So what I think we are going to do, if 
it is all right with you, is we will get on your calendar to 
come over and spend about an hour and sort of walk through and 
get tuned up on some of your technology, in terms of, you know, 
the whole deal downstairs there with passports and all that 
secure stuff, and get updated on your other stuff. And so we 
will just do that offline.
    And, Mr. Chairman, we will make sure that, when we get that 
set up, if there are any other committee members, we will let 
you guys know, if somebody has the time or ability to tag 
along, if that is all right.
    Mr. Halpern. We would love that.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay. Then we will do that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Appreciate it, Mr. Amodei.
    Hugh, I am going to just kind of open it up to you, because 
the couple of the questions that I was going to ask have 
already been asked and answered--the xPub, the GovInfo, 
interoperability. We have a few minutes left here. Is there 
anything in or around those issues that you would like to 
expand upon that maybe you couldn't with the other questions?
    Mr. Halpern. Thank you for that opportunity.
    You know, for better or for worse, I have probably written 
more House committee reports than almost anybody over my 30-odd 
years working up there. And one of the things that I really 
learned was, that process stinks. It is not a good process for 
the people who have to create the content.
    And what I am trying to do here, through xPub, is create a 
system where you guys, the content creators, can focus on 
creating that content, not about how all the pieces fit 
together.
    So what we want to do over the next several years is build 
out a system where your staff can write their report in Word 
and do your numbers in Excel, give us those files, and we can 
easily get that into our system, spit that out either in print 
or online and in machine-readable format, so that it is not 
just us who can use it or you guys who can use it; there are a 
lot of other folks in academia or other groups who can take 
that data and do things you and I haven't even imagined yet. 
And I think those are all good uses of what we can do. And we 
just have to make this whole process easier.
    The good news is, we have a great team here at GPO. GPO 
does three things, basically: One is we produce stuff--
Congressional Record, the Federal Register, bills, reports, all 
of that stuff. Two is we make that available through GovInfo 
and through our Federal Depository Libraries. And lastly is we 
build the tools that enable you all to produce the documents 
you need.
    And we are continuing to work with the Clerk, House Leg. 
Counsel, other folks, to try and figure out are there things 
that we can do, services we can provide, that make your 
processes easier.
    And we have a great team here, and they have been very 
supportive of me as Director and trying to get the job done for 
you all. So I really appreciate the opportunity.
    The other thing I would say--and let me just say, as 
somebody who spent 30 years up there, 15 of them on the floor, 
I understand the pressures that you all are under for this 
allocation, and we will manage one way or the other. But just 
keep in mind that, if we can't fund these things now, we will 
have to figure out creative ways to do it, and that may delay 
some of the projects that, frankly, you all want us to be 
doing.
    Mr. Ryan. Well, we appreciate it. We all love and respect 
you, Hugh. We appreciate your service. And to have you in this 
position, we feel very lucky, so we know we are in good hands. 
So we appreciate it.
    I want to thank the committee. We have had a busy, hectic 
week with a lot of hearings, and I think they have all been 
very productive. And we will see you all back here next week.
    So, Hugh, thanks again for your service.
    Mr. Halpern. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Ryan. Please thank your team.
    This committee is adjourned.

                                          Thursday, March 18, 2021.

    FY 2022 BUDGET HEARING--OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE RIGHTS

                                WITNESS

SUSAN TSUI GRUNDMANN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
    WORKPLACE RIGHTS
    Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
    This hearing is fully virtual, so we need to address a few 
housekeeping matters. Members are responsible for muting and 
unmuting themselves. For the purposes of eliminating 
inadvertent background noise, the chair or staff designated by 
the chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition.
    If I notice when you are recognized that you have not 
unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to 
unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will 
unmute your microphone. We will begin with the chair and 
ranking member, then members present at the time the hearing is 
called. The order will be recognized in order of seniority.
    We are using the 5-minute clock, which you will notice on 
your screen. It will show how much time is remaining. If there 
is a technology issue, we will move to the next member until 
the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of your 
time.
    Finally, in regard to adding extraneous or additional 
material to the record, under House rules, we have set up an 
email address where members can send anything they wish to 
submit for the record after seeking recognition for its 
inclusion. That email address has been provided in advance to 
your staff.
    I would like to welcome the executive director of the 
Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Ms. Susan Grundmann, 
to present the fiscal year 2022 budget request. It is always a 
pleasure to be with you. The Office of Congressional Workplace 
Rights is responsible for administering the Congressional 
Accountability Act for the approximately 30,000 employees in 
the legislative branch. The mission of the office is to 
continue assisting the legislative branch community in creating 
and maintaining a workplace that is safe, accessible, and free 
from discrimination, and other unlawful employment practices.
    You are not requesting an increase over the seven and a 
half million and 31 full-time employees provided last year. 
While your budget is not increasing, I understand that you plan 
to make cybersecurity improvements, along with necessary IT 
system and network upgrades in line with governmentwide 
security standards.
    These costs have been projected at $500,000. Since your 
budget is a zero-sum game, I hope you can explain where the 
savings are going to come from. I look forward to your 
testimony today.
    At this point, I would like to yield to my colleague and 
friend from the Pacific Northwest, the Ranking Member Jaime 
Herrera Beutler, for any opening comments she would like to 
make.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And welcome, back Mrs. Grundmann. It is a pleasure to have 
you. The Office of Congressional Workplace Rights 2022 fiscal 
year request of $7.5 million, the same as fiscal year 2021 
enacted level. After receiving funding increases over the last 
2 years, we really appreciate the flat funding request. We are 
now approaching 2 years since the implementation of the CAA 
Reform Act, which greatly expanded your office's duties, and 
your office's biennial report to Congress advocates for 
legislative action on 11 items, ranging from strengthening 
whistleblower protections to providing subpoena authority to 
extending protections to employees who serve on jury duty.
    So I look forward to hearing from you more about your 
progress on those initiatives and the budgetary impact of any 
legislative proposals, including your semi-annual report. I 
appreciate the work of you and your team to protect the rights 
of employees, assuring access for persons with disabilities, 
and educating our constituency on CAA's mandate.
    So I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Excellent. Thank you.
    Without objection, your written testimony, Ms. Grundmann, 
will be made part of the record. Please summarize your 
statements for the members of the committee. Once you have 
finished your statement, we will move to the question and 
answer part of the hearing.
    You now have the floor.
    Ms. Grundmann. Thank you.
    Good morning, Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera 
Beutler, and other distinguished members of this committee. It 
is good to be back. It is great to see you and it is good to be 
seen. On behalf of the Office of Congressional Workplace 
Rights, thank you for this opportunity to address your 
questions on our 2022 budget justification.
    When last we met, we were just barely 6 months into a new 
process, the administrative dispute process that fully 
implemented on June 19, 2019. And today we continue under the 
Reform Act, but we do so while working remotely as a result of 
the pandemic. And like our sister offices, we make it work.
    Mediations and hearings continue in a virtual environment. 
Training and education continues via Zoom for government, our 
new friend. And that particular aspect of our function has 
taken on increased significance because some employing offices 
have designated us for the purpose of their mandatory training. 
Safety and health and public accessibility meetings move 
forward, and when there are physical inspections required, our 
inspectors maintain social distancing, follow the guidelines of 
the CDC, and the Office of Attending Physician. It is not 
business as usual, but it is business in our new norm.
    And in addition to our day-to-day mission, we also 
successfully launched and delivered the results for the first 
ever legislative-wide climate survey. The results we delivered 
were for the House and Senate, and this includes questions 
about respondent's attitudes towards sexual harassment. This 
was somewhat of a monumental undertaking for our office 
because, as you know, we are very small. It took four people on 
staff plus a contractor, the contractor, five people, supported 
by the employing offices. We were able to reach 30,000 people 
in the legislative branch, both online and on paper.
    We issued proposed substantive regulations on paid parental 
leave, which provides for 12 weeks of paid leave in connection 
with the birth or a placement of a child. Following full public 
notice and comment, we are now working towards those final 
regulations that will be sent to you and the Senate later this 
year for congressional approval.
    We held our annual mediators and hearing officers summit to 
update them on trends that we have seen and take their feedback 
on issues that have arisen. We completed our biennial 
occupational safety and health report, which will be published 
once the security review is completed. Our public accessibility 
report is also completed and will be ready to deliver to you 
shortly, and as the ranking member mentioned, we have completed 
our recommendations to you which laws that you have passed 
should also be made applicable to the legislative branch. We 
call this our 102(b) report, and that is the section that is 
referenced in the CAA. It has been published in the 
Congressional Record and is available online to us on our 
website. And with our 2-year anniversary approaching, we do 
make recommendations to changes in the Reform Act process. We 
took stock of all the events that have occurred during the last 
18 months and overhauled our strategic plan. What we created, 
we think, is a much more transparent, much more outward-facing 
plan that will give you a roadmap of where we plan to go in the 
next 5 years.
    In terms of appropriations, let me spot a couple trends for 
you. As we predicted last year, costs for hearing officers have 
dramatically increased. In fact, they have more than tripled 
over the last year, and that is due to, as we predicted, more 
employing offices coming within our jurisdiction, more 
categories of employees, and due to changes in our process.
    And, while our process has changed and while we continue to 
work remotely, some things that haven't changed is the volume 
of work that we still have. We are seeing that our spending is 
not tied to a fiscal year. Certainly, cases can span more than 
a fiscal year, and inspections that involve specialized 
expertise can span several years.
    So, without asking for more money, we are asking for more 
time to spend it. As always, we credit the men and women who 
work tirelessly to meet our mission while striving towards our 
vision, which is a respectful, safe, healthy, and accessible 
congressional workplace with equal opportunity and treatment 
for all.
    Thanks to this committee's constant support, we achieved 
our funding request for fiscal year 2021, and we are not asking 
for more money in 2022 or additional FTE.
    I thank you for the privilege of your time, and I look 
forward to answering your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
        
    Mr. Ryan. Great. Thank you for your testimony. We are going 
to move to the question and answer, and we will begin with the 
distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Washington, Ms. 
Herrera Beutler.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The first thing I want to ask about, Ms. Grundmann, is last 
year's hearing we were discussing the role of your office in 
the implementation of the new 12-week paid parental leave that 
is available to legislative employees, which went into effect 
last year in October.
    Could you fill us in on efforts on the implementation of 
the rules associated with that policy and what is your office 
doing to inform House offices and employees about the new 
policy?
    Ms. Grundmann. Absolutely. There is tons of information on 
our website. We have gone through that public notice and 
comment period receipt, and we generally when we do this, we 
receive a lot of intelligent guidance from the employing 
offices. Some of the opinions that have been received are 
diametrically opposed, so we are working towards reconciling 
them currently with our board.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. What do you mean? Like someone saying, 
``Hey, we don't like this''?
    Ms. Grundmann. Well, it is more than--it is a really 
complicated piece of legislation that you passed. And in terms 
of how the 12 weeks is tracked, that depends on, you know, how 
much annual leave, whether you can assert that annual leave, 
how many kids. So there are a lot of different scenarios, and 
we have tried to play out those scenarios in some guidance on 
our website.
    The comment period has closed. We are working towards file 
regulations. We hope to have them out soon. Once they are 
completed, they will be sent to you. You will have to pass them 
into law for your congressional approval because they are 
substantive regulations as opposed to the procedural 
regulations that we have the authority to promulgate.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. So help me understand because I 
thought we passed it last October?
    Ms. Grundmann. You did.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. It is not effective yet; is that what 
you are saying?
    Ms. Grundmann. It is effective. It is effective, but in 
order for us to create the framework in the congressional 
community, we have to pass substantive regulations, bring them 
to you for your passage. So the law is effective, but how it is 
going to be implemented is in these substantive regulations.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. There are offices pushing back saying 
they are not providing this, correct?
    Ms. Grundmann. They should be. They should be.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. It is just providing--I am a little 
unclear about providing--obviously, it is not as cut and dry as 
you have a baby, adopt a baby, or get a baby placed, and then 
you take your 12 weeks.
    Ms. Grundmann. Right.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Is that because of the different--not 
necessarily congressional offices, but the different types of 
offices across--you know, because Federal employees? Is that 
part of this, or you are just looking at Federal employees and 
some employing offices are, I don't know, questioning it?
    Ms. Grundmann. They shouldn't be questioning--this 
particular piece of legislation is just for the legislative 
branch. So it is unique. Actually, it is landmark. It is huge. 
You have gone over and above what is happening in the executive 
branch, and it is just reconciling the different kinds of 
comments. When you see the final document as you have seen with 
our procedure regulations in the past, we do explain every move 
that we make.
    We talk about the comments and why we have accepted them or 
why we have tried to reconcile them with other comments. And, 
generally, all the employing offices, your counsel sends us 
something. I believe OHEC also sent us something as well.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Okay. Okay. Thank you. With my time 
left, I wanted to prioritize here. Oh, the workplace rights 
training. So we are spending--CAO spends millions of dollars to 
contract out for the workplace rights training for Members and 
staff, and your staff also does workplace rights training.
    Would it be beneficial for the House to explore working 
with your agency to have OCWR lead the required trainings? If 
conversations like that are already taking place, I would like 
to know about it. But it just seems like that might be an 
efficiency or simplification that we could benefit from.
    Ms. Grundmann. We would love to do it. And I think we talk 
about this every year. This is something we do have a great 
deal of interest in. With the funding in the FTE that you gave 
us last year, we were able to retain two full-time educators on 
our staff. Those educators not only have training in the CAA, 
but it is over and above. They carry certificates with respect 
to unconscious bias, which is our number one module in demand. 
Those certificates actually come from Cornell University. They 
will work with all employing offices in terms of developing 
strategies, scenarios that fit your--that fit the environment 
that you work in.
    So the shorthand answer is yes. We are very interested.
    Ms. Herrera Beutler. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
    Up next is the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts, Ms. Clark.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Director Grundmann, for being with us here today.
    As we have discussed in past hearings, I am very interested 
and concerned about the instances of sexual harassment and 
discrimination in our congressional workplace, and I appreciate 
all your efforts to implement the provisions of the Reform Act 
to address this problem.
    I know this has been a tumultuous year, to put it lightly, 
but I am hoping that you can update me in progress that has 
been made. And also if you can specifically address the climate 
survey? Were you able to get the response rate up, and are 
there any weaknesses in the handling of sexual assault that you 
feel you have been able to address and make improvements on?
    So sorry for the triple question in one question.
    Ms. Grundmann. All right. Let me see if I can break it 
apart. In terms of the climate survey, the statute requires 
that we deliver the results to three particular committees, and 
that is CHA, Senate Rules, and Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs. The actual survey itself, keep in mind, 
that it is a baseline. It is a snapshot in time, so there 
really isn't anything to compare it to at this point in time. 
The comparison will come when we re-administer the survey next 
year.
    In terms of results for the legislative community, we are 
completing reports for the other employing offices. The House 
and the Senate have been completed. The House did very well. 
You set the baseline very high.
    In terms of the next step in training, we are looking at 
training over and above the baseline of law. Because if you 
just train on the letter of the law itself, you really haven't 
gotten to the underlying behaviors that can cause 
discrimination, that can cause--lead to a hostile work 
environment.
    So, for that reason, you know, we have branched out. We 
have done the implicit bias module, which is available to you 
right now. And, in fact, we have had discussions with the CAO 
in terms of loading our materials on to your website so that 
you can have access to them directly and that they can be 
tracked through your through the CAO as well. So that is the 
first step.
    The second step is, you know, we want to work directly with 
your offices in terms of tailoring training specifically to 
your needs. And a good example of this is let's talk about last 
summer and the death of George Floyd. In the wake of his 
passing, in the wake of his death, we were asked to develop and 
deliver modules on racial equity, on civility, and on 
inclusion, and those requests are still coming in to this day.
    So I would encourage you to reach out to our office and, 
you know, set something up. Training is our cornerstone. It is 
preventive in nature, and it is the way to go.
    Ms. Clark. Thank you so much for that.
    And can you tell me a little bit about the response rate 
and how that went? Did you see improvements?
    Ms. Grundmann. It is not--because this is a baseline, there 
is nothing to compare it to, but in terms of the House's 
response rate, it was very good. You were well within the 
margin of error.
    Ms. Clark. Okay. Excellent.
    I also wonder if you can update me on the alternative 
dispute resolution program. Last time we spoke, it was just 6 
months into taking effect, and I am hoping you can give me a 
better sense a year and a half in about how things are 
progressing? Have you noticed significant number of cases 
increased, or has the pandemic just--you know, not seen the 
progress you might have hoped for?
    Ms. Grundmann. Again, let me parse that out. In terms of 
changes, there are some trends that we have seen. One, 
mediation is down, but we expected that because mediation is 
now voluntary. Two, there are more requests for administrative 
hearings because with mediation being voluntary, the only 
option is adjudication, and there is a much shorter timeframe 
for employees to request that hearing. They only have 10 days. 
Three, case processing times are also shorter now because the 
employee is pretty much in adjudication on day one.
    In terms of the types of issues we are seeing, they are the 
same types of issues that we have seen before: Discrimination 
mostly based on race and color. Retaliation as well. In terms 
of caseload that is a difficult question to answer. Let me see 
if I can get to it succinctly. We don't count cases the same 
way as we did under the old system. So, if you saw in our 
statement--I think we gave you this--under the old system, we 
counted cases before they reached adjudication. So, if you look 
at our past, we had, you know, a number of cases coming in 
through, quote, counseling, and then a steep drop off to the 
filing of a complaint before a hearing officer.
    Now the system reversed. So employee comes in. They are 
before a preliminary review hearing officer pretty much on day 
one, which is the rise in cost in terms of hearing officers. So 
we can't count cases the same way anymore because there are 
really no two equivalence. In terms of the workload, it is 
still the same.
    One more thing to note: The Reform Act created a 
confidential adviser, and she is at the beginning of our 
process. She is receiving calls directly from employees in the 
legislative branch with questions, with concerns at the same 
rate as she was receiving before the pandemic. So, in terms of 
workload, it really hasn't changed for us, despite working 
remotely.
    Ms. Clark. Great. Thank you. I see my time has expired. 
Thanks for being with us today.
    Ms. Grundmann. Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Clark.
    Next is the distinguished gentleman from Nevada, Mr. 
Amodei.
    Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. You guys have done a 
pretty good job of covering my stuff. So I will yield back. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Amodei.
    Next is the distinguished gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Case.
    Mr. Case. Good morning, Ms. Grundmann. We shared a common 
experience: law school. One of my professors taught me that 
lawyers that don't read footnotes starve. So I did read your 
footnote in your submission that says here--I am just reading 
it: Approximately $800,000, or 12 percent, of your general 
expenses budget remained unexpended at the end of fiscal year 
2020. Okay. That was fiscal year 2020, right?
    So what happened to that? Was that carried over and do you 
have the same issue this year?
    Ms. Grundmann. That is precisely why we are asking for an 
increase in the carryovers. We don't want more money; we just 
need more time to spend it. We are starting to see that our 
spendingis really not tied to the fiscal year. We don't control 
the number of cases that come in. We don't control the number 
of requests for investigations or inspections that come into 
our OSHA program and our public accessibility program. So that 
is the key.
    And so you are actually seeing hard evidence of why we are 
looking for a larger carryover.
    Mr. Case. Okay. And then you say here that this is 
attributable, at least in part, to a closure of the workplace. 
The reason I am asking this question is because some of the 
other folks that have testified to us have actually seen 
general expenses go up during COVID-19. And so, I mean, they 
have reasons for why that happened.
    Why generally did yours go down? I mean, you still have a 
physical presence. You still had personnel. Was that because 
the cases themselves went down as a result of the closure of 
the workplace?
    Ms. Grundmann. Not necessarily that, but the publication 
expenses that we generally have--we usually hard copy things. 
We don't do that anymore. Our board consists of attorneys 
around the country, and they travel in for board meetings. 
Their travel was canceled this year, so that is a partial 
attribution. But we talk about those costs going down. At the 
same time, we have costs going up. And we are talking about 
specifically the hearing officers. That is three times more 
than we spent last year.
    So one hand goes up; the other hand goes down.
    Mr. Case. Okay. And that was kind of my next question. When 
you talk about hearing officers, why did they go up three 
times? That wasn't like their rate went up three times? That 
was just the utilization went up that much?
    Ms. Grundmann. Exactly. It is all attributable to three 
things: The first is more employing offices within our 
jurisdiction, as we predicted last year. The second is more 
categories of employees. And the third really is that change in 
our process.
    If you recall, under the old process, the hearing officer 
didn't enter the picture until the very end of the process, and 
we only had maybe three to five cases involving a hearing 
officer in any year under the old system.
    In the new system, the hearing officer is there pretty much 
on day one undergoing a preliminary review of the employee's 
claim within the first 30 days of the filing of that claim. So 
it is very intense. The hearing officer also shows up at the 
end of the case for a merits review. So it is not surprising 
that this has happened.
    Mr. Case. Okay. And then I wanted to pick up on a comment 
that the chair made in his opening remarks to the effect of 
cybersecurity. Because that was one of the major 
recommendations out of the GAO was that you increase your 
cybersecurity capacity, and you have responded to the GAO on 
that, but it is unfinished business.
    And so I am just curious whether the complete response on 
cybersecurity does or doesn't require more resources? It looks 
like, from your perspective at least this fiscal year, no, but, 
you know, we have all got to up our cybersecurity game.
    Ms. Grundmann. Yes. So, as you know, we work very closely 
with the Library of Congress for cybersecurity. In fact, we are 
heavily dependent on them. We have satisfied all their 
concerns. The system is undergoing continuous monitoring. So 
the costs are steady. They are really, basically, expenses that 
we owe the Library. And so we can predict where they are 
coming.
    In terms of upgrading, that is where we are. It is one day 
at a time. The next phase we are looking for--and that is 
certainly in our budget justification--is we are talking about 
migrating our Occupational Safety and Health and public 
accessibility findings into the system also covered by the 
Library.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Great. Thank you.
    Ms. Grundmann. Sure. Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Case.
    Next is the distinguished gentleman from Washington State, 
Mr. Newhouse.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning, everybody.
    Thank you, Ms. Grundmann, for testifying today.
    Like many of the offices that this committee oversees, the 
work of the Office of Workplace Rights is--probably an 
understatement--but has changed significantly over the past 
year. Not only the definition of workplace has changed, but 
also how folks communicate and, unfortunately, instances where 
your office gets involved I am assuming has also changed and 
evolved.
    So I am just curious how some of your training maybe has 
changed to reflect some of these new realities that I hope are 
not permanent, but certainly we are dealing with them today?
    Ms. Grundmann. Absolutely. And you hit it right--the hammer 
right on the nail. Excuse my analogy.
    Mr. Newhouse. I know what you mean.
    Ms. Grundmann. Again, the environment has changed. We are 
seeing more modules, the development from in-person training to 
online training. In addition to that, we are training scenarios 
also include scenarios that are based on virtual environments, 
working remotely. And then, again, we talk about what happened 
last summer.
    The nature of our work has changed. We are talking more 
about preventive measures. We are talking about bystander 
intervention. We are talking about implicit bias. We are 
talking about addressing, you know, the tension in terms of the 
workplace of racial equity, civility, inclusion.
    Those are the types of issues that employing offices are 
bringing to us now. And, again, back to our two educators, they 
are fabulous. They are certified in this stuff. And they can 
tailor a training to address a specific situation in your 
office or generalized situation. And we know this from 
experience that employing offices have all different dynamics, 
and so the dynamic that we train in one office may not work for 
the other.
    So there is a lot of work that goes in on the front end, 
kind of working with this office. What do you want to hear? 
What do you need to hear? And what situations do you need 
addressed? It is very, very personalized to each particular 
group of people.
    Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate 
that and look forward to continuing to work with you. And I 
know you have got a difficult road, and I appreciate your 
dedication to making things as workable as possible. So thank 
you very much for being with us today.
    I will yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
    Next is the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia, Ms. 
Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And it is great to meet you, Director Grundmann, albeit 
virtually.
    Thank you for joining us here today. I want to follow up a 
little bit more on some of my questions that my colleagues have 
had about this climate survey. Because the statute indicates 
that it needs to be performed every 2 years, and that it will 
include a module on or questions on sexual harassment and 
sexual assault type questions, but that is a minimum.
    And so I am just curious whether you had any plans to ask 
other questions about other things. You are talking about 
racial equity and things of that nature, maybe the impacts of 
January 6 or working remotely on people because, you know, I 
think that it is great that some offices are coming to you 
proactively and asking for help with modules on those topics, 
but not all offices are going to do that and not all staff are 
going to be that forthcoming maybe to their Member or to their 
chief.
    So do you have any plans to expand the scope of those 
surveys?
    Ms. Grundmann. So the statute requires that we consult with 
CHA, Senate Rules, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
in the Senate with regards to methodologies and procedures. And 
in that context, it is also the content as well. So what we 
will do for the next cycle of surveys is we will propose 
changes. We will add questions. I can reasonably see adding a 
series of questions on how the pandemic was handled. Did 
offices do well? Were people prepared?
    In terms of what we saw last summer, definitely, that area 
can be beefed up, but this, again, is a baseline. So we are 
asking about employees' knowledge about what they personally 
experienced, what they saw. If they saw it or they experienced 
it, do they know what to do next? Those are the types of 
questions in the baseline.
    So, from thereon, we have to keep some of the same 
questions to continue to monitor the growth in the baseline, 
but we can add additional questions next go round. And the 
timing of your question is impeccable because as we are 
wrapping up this first round of surveys, we are actually 
starting on the second survey now to be delivered next year.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay. So what does it entail for your office to 
come up with those new questions, in addition to consulting 
with those committees that you mentioned that are in the 
statute? What else does it entail for you guys to come up with 
these questions and decide, you know, what methodology are you 
going to use for those questions?
    Ms. Grundmann. So, in terms of methodology, we are talking 
about the delivery of the survey itself because the statute 
requires that the survey be anonymous and confidential, which 
are two difficult things, which is how the survey was issued 
last time.
    In terms of the content, we are watching. We are learning. 
We are thinking of the things that people have said, people 
have told us in terms of our confidential advising, the themes 
that we are seeing, and we can reach out into those themes. And 
you have seen these surveys before. You ask a question, 
strongly agree, agree, neither, strongly--but that is the type 
of questions. They are not open-ended questions.
    The areas that we covered during the last survey are the 
same across the legislative branch: discrimination, sexual 
harassment, retaliation. We talk about reasonable accommodation 
as well. Those are areas of interest to these particular 
committee members. And, again, the pandemic has really changed 
the dynamic of the workforce, not only in our community but 
throughout the country, throughout the world.
    So those types of questions will actually be included this 
time, and we will see if the committees agree with us.
    Ms. Wexton. Great. I understand that you are still just 
getting started on this process and you have the one survey 
under your belt and you are working on the next one. Do you 
have any thoughts on whether this could become an annual thing?
    Ms. Grundmann. Under the statute, it is a biennial. If you 
want to make it an annual survey, then we would have to change 
the statute.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay.
    Ms. Grundmann. Really, it is tied to the Congress. It is 
tied to each Congress. It is a monumental undertaking, that 
much I can tell you, but we have learned some good lessons, and 
I think it is going to be a lot tighter sounder next time.
    Ms. Wexton. Great. Well, I hope it will be a little less 
monumental every time you do one. So thank you very much for 
your responses and everything you are doing.
    And, with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Wexton.
    I appreciate this. The committee has covered a lot of the 
main areas. I have one final question I would like to ask. In 
December of 2019, as you know, the GAO conducted a study of the 
OCWR management practices to fully implement the statutory 
requirements of the CAA Reform Act. They are finalizing their 
strategic plan for 2021 to 2026.
    Has COVID-19 and January 6 changed the strategic plan at 
all?
    Ms. Grundmann. We started working on the strategic plan 
last summer. So it was all pretty much done remotely. What you 
will see in the strategic plan are particular action items that 
are really related to working remotely.
    In terms of post-January 6, there are a number of things 
that we are doing that are outside the strategic plan, and that 
is we are going to be looking at emergency action plans. We are 
going to be looking at escape hoods. And we are also going to 
be looking in terms of keeping the police officers safe in 
public demonstrations, and safe includes their mental well-
being as well.
    Also, in addition to outside the strategic plan because it 
is still a very dynamic environment that we are living in, we 
are putting on a brown bag in about 2 weeks. You are invited, 
and we are going to talk about the mental health issues about 
working through a pandemic and now returning to work gradually.
    Mr. Ryan. That is great.
    With that, are you interfacing with the House office of 
well-being that we started, the wellness office here? We should 
at least get you connected so you know about each other and you 
know of some of the work they are doing.
    Ms. Grundmann. That is great. And we have communicated with 
the CAO. They have been very supportive of our work, and we 
will continue to do so. That will be wonderful. Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. Our staff will make sure you get connected 
to Bryan over there. I think that would be important 
relationship for you guys to cultivate.
    Ms. Grundmann. Okay.
    Mr. Ryan. With that, if anybody has a final question for 
the good of the order?
    All right. Well, thank you, Ms. Grundmann. We appreciate 
all your great work and look forward to, you know, watching 
what transpires here over the next year. So thank you so much.
    Ms. Grundmann. Great. Thank you.
    Mr. Ryan. This hearing is adjourned.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]