[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                  OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. CAPITOL POLICE
                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

                                 OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON HOUSE  

                            ADMINISTRATION

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                              __________

                             JULY 19, 2023
                              __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration 





              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      





                            www.govinfo.gov
                           www.cha.house.gov 


                           
                                ______

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

54-734                    WASHINGTON : 2024 














                   COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia            JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia               Ranking Member
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina          TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma             NORMA TORRES, California
MIKE CAREY, Ohio                     DEREK KILMER, Washington
ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, New York
LAUREL LEE, Florida

                      Tim Monahan, Staff Director
                  Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director

                                 ------                                

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

                    BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia, Chair

MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia            NORMA TORRES, California
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina             Ranking Member
ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, New York         DEREK KILMER, Washington














                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                           Opening Statements

Chairman Barry Loudermilk, Representative from the State of 
  Georgia........................................................     1
    Prepared statement of Chairman Barry Loudermilk..............     2
Ranking Member Norma Torres, Representative from the State of 
  California.....................................................     3
    Prepared statement of Ranking Member Norma Torres............     4

                                Witness

Ron Russo, Inspector General, United States Capitol Police.......     6
    Prepared statement of Ron Russo..............................     7

 
                  OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. CAPITOL POLICE
                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                              ----------                              

                             July 19, 2023

                 Subcommittee on Oversight,
                 Committee on House Administration,
                                  House of Representatives,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in 
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Barry 
Loudermilk [chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Loudermilk, Steil, Griffith, 
Murphy, D'Esposito, and Torres.
    Staff present: Tim Monahan, Staff Director; Elliott 
Tomlinson, Deputy General Counsel; Hillary Lassiter, Clerk; 
Jordan Wilson, Director of Member Services; Elliot Smith, 
Deputy Director of Oversight; Logan Langemeier, Professional 
Staff Member; Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff Director, 
Chief Counsel; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; and 
Matthew Schlesinger, Minority Oversight Counsel.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARRY LOUDERMILK, CHAIRMAN OF
     THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 
     FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

    Chairman Loudermilk. The Subcommittee on Oversight will 
come to order.
    We note that a quorum is present.
    Without objection, the chair may declare a recess at any 
time.
    Also, without objection, the meeting record will remain 
open for 5 legislative days so Members may submit any materials 
they wish to be included therein.
    Thank you, Ranking Member Torres, Members of the 
Subcommittee, and our witness, Mr. Ron Russo, for joining us 
for today's oversight hearing.
    The United States Capitol Police Office of Inspector 
General is responsible for evaluating the efficiency and the 
effectiveness of the U.S. Capitol Police's programs and 
operations. This includes supervising and conducting audits, 
inspections, and investigations to prevent fraud, waste, and 
abuse.
    The OIG is responsible for both making recommendations to 
the Capitol Police Board and also ensuring that those 
recommendations are completed.
    On January 6th, 2021, the U.S. Capitol experienced one of 
the biggest security failures in this institution's history. 
Following the attack on the Capitol, the OIG published six 
flash reports. In those flash reports, the OIG detailed 
specific failures related to operations, intelligence, 
training, and other specialized units. To correct these 
failures, the OIG made specific recommendations to the Capitol 
Police.
    During today's hearing, we will review those findings and 
evaluate the department's completion of the recommendations 
made in those flash reports.
    Since being hired, Mr. Russo has closed numerous previous 
inspector general recommendations. I look forward to learning 
more about specifically what actions Capitol Police 
implemented.
    Given that Mr. Russo is new to the role, today's hearing is 
also an opportunity to ensure that the OIG is fulfilling its 
purpose to provide independent and relevant analysis of the 
department.
    An independent inspector general is essential to ensuring 
transparency. We have made progress to increase transparency by 
finally taking steps to publicly publish OIG reports, which is 
consistent with other Federal inspectors general. However, to 
date, there are only two available on the OIG's website.
    Finally, since announcing today's hearing, numerous 
whistleblowers have come forward with claims of retaliation and 
abuse after speaking with the Office of Inspector General. 
While we have concerns about the conduct of both the inspector 
general and the--Inspector General's Office and the department 
on these matters, the Committee does not believe it is in a 
position yet to publicly address these allegations.
    While we review these allegations, we take all 
whistleblower reports seriously and appreciate their 
willingness to come forward.
    Before Mr. Russo was hired as inspector general, there were 
serious allegations of retaliation within the Capitol Police 
against whistleblowers who had spoken confidentially to a 
previous U.S. Capitol Police inspector general. Let me be 
clear: Any retaliation is unacceptable. I think I speak for 
both Democrats and Republicans when I say this Committee will 
aggressively protect whistleblowers from any internal 
retaliation.
    Ensuring the U.S. Capitol Police is best positioned to 
defend against threats to the Capitol, including all the 
Members, staff, and visitors, is a priority for this 
Subcommittee. To accomplish this, Congress must continue to 
exercise our oversight responsibilities.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Loudermilk follows:]

           PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE  
        SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT BARRY LOUDERMILK 

    The United States Capitol Police Office of Inspector 
General is responsible for evaluating the efficiency and the 
effectiveness of the U.S. Capitol Police's programs and 
operations. This includes supervising and conducting audits, 
inspections, and investigations to prevent fraud, waste, and 
abuse.
    The OIG is responsible for both making recommendations to 
the Capitol Police Board and also ensuring that those 
recommendations are completed.
    On January 6th, 2021, the U.S. Capitol experienced one of 
the biggest security failures in this institution's history. 
Following the attack on the Capitol, the OIG published six 
flash reports. In those flash reports, the OIG detailed 
specific failures related to operations, intelligence, 
training, and other specialized units. To correct these 
failures, the OIG made specific recommendations to the Capitol 
Police.
    During today's hearing, we will review those findings and 
evaluate the department's completion of the recommendations 
made in those flash reports.
    Since being hired, Mr. Russo has closed numerous previous 
inspector general recommendations. I look forward to learning 
more about specifically what actions Capitol Police 
implemented.
    Given that Mr. Russo is new to the role, today's hearing is 
also an opportunity to ensure that the OIG is fulfilling its 
purpose to provide independent and relevant analysis of the 
department.
    An independent inspector general is essential to ensuring 
transparency. We have made progress to increase transparency by 
finally taking steps to publicly publish OIG reports, which is 
consistent with other Federal inspectors general. However, to 
date, there are only two available on the OIG's website.
    Finally, since announcing today's hearing, numerous 
whistleblowers have come forward with claims of retaliation and 
abuse after speaking with the Office of Inspector General. 
While we have concerns about the conduct of both the inspector 
general and the--Inspector General's Office and the department 
on these matters, the Committee does not believe it is in a 
position yet to publicly address these allegations.
    While we review these allegations, we take all 
whistleblower reports seriously and appreciate their 
willingness to come forward.
    Before Mr. Russo was hired as inspector general, there were 
serious allegations of retaliation within the Capitol Police 
against whistleblowers who had spoken confidentially to a 
previous U.S. Capitol Police inspector general. Let me be 
clear: Any retaliation is unacceptable. I think I speak for 
both Democrats and Republicans when I say this Committee will 
aggressively protect whistleblowers from any internal 
retaliation.
    Ensuring the U.S. Capitol Police is best positioned to 
defend against threats to the Capitol, including all the 
Members, staff, and visitors, is a priority for this 
Subcommittee. To accomplish this, Congress must continue to 
exercise our oversight responsibilities.

    I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mrs. Torres, for 5 
minutes for the purpose of providing an opening statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NORMA TORRES, RANKING 
       MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, A U.S. 
       REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Chairman.
    Welcome, Mr. Russo. I also want to thank you for meeting 
with me earlier this week to discuss some of my concerns about 
security at the Capitol, and I look forward to working with you 
in conducting oversight of the United States Capitol Police.
    Oversight of the police, including the Office of Inspector 
General, should be a bipartisan issue. And, while my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle and I disagree on some issues, I 
am hopeful that we can approach oversight of the Office of 
Inspector General with the seriousness and bipartisanship that 
it deserves.
    The U.S. Capitol Police Office of Inspector General is one 
of the most essential offices in the entire legislative branch. 
The inspector general's audits, investigations, and other 
oversight activities related to Capitol Police operations are 
vital to the Committee, the Congress, and, as a result, our 
Nation.
    Tragically, on January 6, 2021, we saw firsthand the 
importance of the inspector general's work in making 
recommendations to the department and ensuring that those 
recommendations are implemented.
    Last Congress, on the morning of January 7, 2021, then 
chair of this Committee, Zoe Lofgren, asked the prior Capitol 
Police inspector general to drop all of their pending work and 
evaluate the department's preparation for the January 6th 
attack on the Capitol. This resulted in a series of seven flash 
reports and corresponding series of hearings. The inspector 
general spent nearly 7 hours in front of this Committee 
explaining his findings and answering tough questions.
    Today I am particularly interested in implementation and 
the status of those recommendations. And, as I mentioned to you 
when we met privately, I spent 17-and-a-half years as a 911 
dispatcher with the LAPD. I was also in the House gallery when 
the Capitol was breached on January 6th. Needless to say, I 
take my security and the security of the people that visit here 
and that work here very seriously.
    Inspector General Russo and his team are subject-matter 
experts. You know, you are a vital partner to the Committee as 
we conduct our oversight. I am eager to hear Inspector General 
Russo's assessment of the current state of the department. What 
steps has the department taken to improve its intelligence-
sharing capabilities with both partner agencies and internally? 
What are the offices at the top of the department's 
organizational chart doing to ensure the rank-and-file officers 
are appropriately read into relevant intelligence assessments, 
and has officer morale improved? How has the department changed 
the way it trains both new recruits and veteran officers? Will 
the department be ready if and when an event like the January 
6th attack happens again?
    These are just a few of the questions that I hope to have 
answered today.
    In addition to the Committee prepared for today's 
proceedings, it heard from several individuals expressing 
concerns about the operations of the Inspector General's 
Office.
    I hope that anyone, any one of our Federal employees, who 
has experienced workplace misconduct can feel comfortable 
coming forward and has the appropriate tools and resources to 
do so.
    I look forward to continuing conversations with the 
inspector general to ensure that the office is held to its 
highest possible standard. And, while this is not the forum to 
address those concerns, I do expect the Committee to do so 
thoroughly.
    Thank you, Chairman.
    Thank you again, Mr. Russo, for being here with us today.
    I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Torres follows:]

          PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE  
            SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT NORMA TORRES

    Oversight of the police, including the Office of Inspector 
General, should be a bipartisan issue. And, while my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle and I disagree on some issues, I 
am hopeful that we can approach oversight of the Office of 
Inspector General with the seriousness and bipartisanship that 
it deserves.
    The U.S. Capitol Police Office of Inspector General is one 
of the most essential offices in the entire legislative branch. 
The inspector general's audits, investigations, and other 
oversight activities related to Capitol Police operations are 
vital to the Committee, the Congress, and, as a result, our 
Nation.
    Tragically, on January 6, 2021, we saw firsthand the 
importance of the inspector general's work in making 
recommendations to the department and ensuring that those 
recommendations are implemented.
    Last Congress, on the morning of January 7, 2021, then 
chair of this Committee, Zoe Lofgren, asked the prior Capitol 
Police inspector general to drop all of their pending work and 
evaluate the department's preparation for the January 6th 
attack on the Capitol. This resulted in a series of seven flash 
reports and corresponding series of hearings. The inspector 
general spent nearly 7 hours in front of this Committee 
explaining his findings and answering tough questions.
    Today I am particularly interested in implementation and 
the status of those recommendations. And, as I mentioned to you 
when we met privately, I spent 17-and-a-half years as a 911 
dispatcher with the LAPD. I was also in the House gallery when 
the Capitol was breached on January 6th. Needless to say, I 
take my security and the security of the people that visit here 
and that work here very seriously.
    Inspector General Russo and his team are subject-matter 
experts. You know, you are a vital partner to the Committee as 
we conduct our oversight. I am eager to hear Inspector General 
Russo's assessment of the current state of the department. What 
steps has the department taken to improve its intelligence-
sharing capabilities with both partner agencies and internally? 
What are the offices at the top of the department's 
organizational chart doing to ensure the rank-and-file officers 
are appropriately read into relevant intelligence assessments, 
and has officer morale improved? How has the department changed 
the way it trains both new recruits and veteran officers? Will 
the department be ready if and when an event like the January 
6th attack happens again?
    These are just a few of the questions that I hope to have 
answered today.
    In addition to the Committee prepared for today's 
proceedings, it heard from several individuals expressing 
concerns about the operations of the Inspector General's 
Office.
    I hope that anyone, any one of our Federal employees, who 
has experienced workplace misconduct can feel comfortable 
coming forward and has the appropriate tools and resources to 
do so.
    I look forward to continuing conversations with the 
inspector general to ensure that the office is held to its 
highest possible standard. And, while this is not the forum to 
address those concerns, I do expect the Committee to do so 
thoroughly.

    Chairman Loudermilk. The gentlelady yields.
    Thank you, Ms. Torres.
    Without objection, all other Members' opening statements 
will be made part of the hearing report if they are submitted 
to the Committee clerk by 5 p.m. today.
    Pursuant to paragraph (b), Committee rule 6, the witness 
will please stand and raise your right hand.
    [Witness sworn.]
    Chairman Loudermilk. Let the record show that the witness 
answered in the affirmative and may be seated.
    I will now introduce our witness, Mr. Ron Russo.
    The United States Capitol Police Board hired Mr. Russo to 
be the United States Police inspector general on January 29th, 
2023.
    As the United States Capitol Police inspector general, Mr. 
Russo reports directly to the Capitol Police Board and leads 
the Office of Inspector General, where he supervises and 
conducts audits, inspections, investigations involving U.S. 
Capitol Police programs, functions, systems, and operations.
    We appreciate Mr. Russo being here with us today, and I 
look forward to your testimony.
    As a reminder, we have read your written statement, and it 
will appear in the full hearing record. Under Committee rule 9, 
you are to limit your oral presentation to a brief summary of 
your written statement, unless I extend this time period in 
consultation with Ranking Member Torres.
    Please remember to press the button on the microphone in 
front of you so that it is on and the Members can hear you.
    When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will 
turn green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When 
the red light comes on, your 5 minutes have expired. You do not 
have to stop at that moment, but we would ask that you do wrap 
up your statements at that time.
    And, Mr. Russo, I now recognize you for 5 minutes for your 
opening statement.

       STATEMENT OF RON RUSSO, INSPECTOR GENERAL, UNITED  
                     STATES CAPITOL POLICE 

    Mr. Russo. Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon.
    My name is Ron Russo, and I was appointed inspector general 
of the United States Capitol Police in January 2023.
    I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today 
to discuss the status of recommendations made by the Office of 
Inspector General concerning the events of January 6th, 2021.
    In accordance with our statutory authority, the Office of 
Inspector General began a review of the operations and programs 
in place prior to and during the events of January 6th. Our 
objectives were to determine if the department established 
adequate measures for ensuring the safety and security of 
Members of Congress, their staff, and the Capitol complex.
    Over a 10-month period ending October 2021, our reviews 
resulted in seven specific flash reports containing 103 
recommendations. The areas reviewed included Operational 
Planning and Intelligence, resulting in eight recommendations; 
the Civil Disturbance Unit and Intelligence, 26 
recommendations; Countersurveillance and Threat Assessment, 10 
recommendations; the Containment Emergency Response Team and 
First Responders Unit, 21 recommendations; Command and 
Coordination Bureau, resulting in 12 recommendations; Hazardous 
Incident Response Division and K-9 Unit, 15 recommendations; 
and, finally, the Dignitary Protection Division and Human 
Capital, resulting in 11 recommendations.
    Overall, of the 103 recommendations, the department has 
remediated 86 percent, closing 89 of the 103, and is actively 
working toward closing the remaining 14 recommendations. The 
remaining open recommendations include nine related to updating 
or creating policy and procedure, two concerning reorganizing 
units, two regarding compliance with existing policies, and one 
related to training.
    In addition to our oversight efforts concerning the events 
of January 6th, our office has also conducted several other 
department reviews aimed at enhancing operations in areas, such 
as policy and procedure, the USCP field offices, the career 
progression and rotation, the MP7 rifle program, Training 
Services Bureau, and the processes of the Intelligence and 
Interagency Coordination Division.
    Since my appointment, I have also worked closely with the 
Capitol Police Board and the department to increase 
transparency by providing public access to inspector general 
reports for the first time ever. We recently published two 
reports with several under review, pending release.
    Finally, I would like to commend the dedicated officers of 
the USCP for their tireless efforts to protect the U.S. Capitol 
Building, Members of Congress, and visitors. I would also like 
to recognize the Capitol Police Board and the congressional 
committees for their oversight and leadership.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you 
today, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Russo follows:]

                PREPARED STATEMENT OF RON RUSSO

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Russo.
    I now recognize Mr. Murphy for 5 minutes for the purpose of 
asking questions.
    Dr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Mr. Russo, for coming today. Appreciate your--
your service to our Nation.
    I am just going to run through a few questions, if I can.
    It is my understanding--I am not a--I am not a bureaucrat; 
I have just been in Congress for a few years--inspector 
generals are tasked with conducting oversight, providing 
reports to Congress.
    The report--your report--your work rather--I am sorry--
should include audits, evaluations and investigations. The aim 
is to ensure transparency and to boost accountability, 
accountability to Congress and accountability to the American 
people. These reports give us the requisite information to 
better inform Congress and the American people and make changes 
to rules and laws.
    To do this, however, the inspector general must be truly 
independent, independent of the department, independent of the 
agency that it is overseeing so that a fair, balanced analysis 
can be provided.
    Would you--I would like to ask a series of questions 
regarding your independence, your relationship with the Capitol 
Police, as well as its board.
    First of all, can you tell me what role do you play in the 
hiring decisions for personnel broadly at the U.S. Capitol 
Police?
    Mr. Russo. As far as hiring decisions within the U.S. 
Capitol Police, nothing.
    Dr. Murphy. Correct.
    Mr. Russo. Nothing.
    Dr. Murphy. Correct.
    Mr. Russo. I am not involved with that.
    Dr. Murphy. Not involved at all.
    Mr. Russo. No, sir.
    Dr. Murphy. All right. Thank you.
    Recently the Capitol Police hired a new Chief 
Administrative Officer.
    What role did you play, if any, in that hiring?
    Mr. Russo. In that instance, I was asked to participate in 
the initial review team that looked over the first level of 
applicants for the sole purpose of determining if their 
background and accomplishments demonstrated the same as the 
position description for that position.
    Dr. Murphy. All right. Just screening, essentially.
    Mr. Russo. That is all it was, the top screen.
    Dr. Murphy. All right. At the Capitol, the CAO oversees a 
number of offices related to financial management, human 
resource, IT, as well as other functions.
    Can you describe what relationship you have with the CAO?
    Mr. Russo. Only from the standpoint of that position being 
over the administrative functions of the agency, and we would 
interface as it relates to our audit work that might affect 
those areas, as you mentioned, finance, HR, the various 
administrative support functions for the police department.
    Dr. Murphy. OK. During the hiring of the new CAO, who asked 
to you review the resumes when you did that?
    Mr. Russo. The chief of staff for the department.
    Dr. Murphy. OK. In what other ways did you participate in 
the hiring process of the new CAO?
    Mr. Russo. That was the extent of it. After the first----
    Dr. Murphy. Did you speak with the candidate or anything 
like that, or did you review----
    Mr. Russo. No, sir.
    Dr. Murphy. Just review the----
    Mr. Russo. Just the original and there was--well, I did not 
sit on a board. I did not----
    Dr. Murphy. You just made a recommendation that the process 
could move forward. Is that correct or not?
    Mr. Russo. We--we ended up with I think it was five 
candidates that met the position description and passed that 
on. Beyond that, I was not involved.
    Dr. Murphy. OK.
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Murphy. Last, just about the hiring of the new CAO, do 
you believe it is appropriate for the IG to participate in the 
process that you are stating, given the nature of your role and 
the oversight that you should be provided?
    Mr. Russo. I was careful to only be involved at the very 
top level. I certainly did not rank or promote any one 
individual for that position. So----
    Dr. Murphy. How did you--how did it move forward from when 
you reviewed things? How did you----
    Mr. Russo. There was----
    Dr. Murphy [continuing]. check and sign off on the----
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir. There was three Members doing the 
first review. We took a group of names, identified who matched 
the position description, and those, far as I know from there, 
the names were pushed up to the chief or to another hiring 
board. I am not sure the details on what went on.
    Dr. Murphy. That was your extent of it.
    Mr. Russo. That was my extent of it, yes, sir.
    Dr. Murphy. OK. All right. Just changing gears a little 
bit, how often do you meet with the U.S. Capitol Police Board?
    Mr. Russo. Monthly or as needed, if things come up, but I 
would say, on average, monthly and there may have been one 
other two off meetings based on issues that come up.
    Dr. Murphy. Are these oversight meetings? What are they? 
What kind of meetings are they?
    Mr. Russo. The monthly meeting is a standard meeting that 
the board has every quarter. I provide a presentation.
    Dr. Murphy. Is that--is the police chief there?
    Mr. Russo. Generally, he is, yes.
    Dr. Murphy. OK. All right.
    Just a couple other questions. Do you have a legal counsel 
on your staff?
    Mr. Russo. I do.
    Dr. Murphy. You do.
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Murphy. All right. Do you meet with him how often?
    Mr. Russo. As needed.
    Dr. Murphy. On an ad hoc basis. OK.
    Last question of mine. How often do you speak with the 
Capitol Police counsel's office?
    Mr. Russo. Not often.
    Dr. Murphy. Anybody--just--can you describe that just a 
little bit or----
    Mr. Russo. If there is an H.R. issue, I have talked to 
them. You know, if there is an emerging issue within the 
department, there may be some communication for familiarity 
purposes. That--that is about it.
    Dr. Murphy. Only on an incident-specific basis.
    Mr. Russo. I would say.
    Dr. Murphy. Is that correct?
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Dr. Murphy. OK. Thank you for appearing.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Loudermilk. The gentleman yields back.
    The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, 
Mrs. Torres, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Chairman.
    Inspector General Russo, in May of this year, Capitol 
Police Chief Manger testified that, and you testified here 
today, that, of the 103 recommendations related to January 6th, 
89 have been closed. Correct?
    Mr. Russo. That is correct.
    Mrs. Torres. Since the chief testified--it has been 2 
months--before this Committee, why have not any other 
recommendations been closed? Do you have an expectation as to 
how long it will take to close out the remaining 14 
recommendations that you made?
    Mr. Russo. I really do not. The department works fairly 
independent in working through those recommendations. I am 
familiar that they have a recommendation review committee, that 
they have an internal process to evaluate the recommendations 
and put in place measures to correct.
    Mrs. Torres. Is there a timeframe that you have given them 
to close out the remaining 14?
    Mr. Russo. No, ma'am.
    Mrs. Torres. Of the--of the open recommendations that they 
still have, the department must seek approval from the Capitol 
Police Board and its congressional oversight committees to 
elevate and recognize its intelligence resources into a bureau-
level entity.
    Over--you and I talked about my visits with both the Los 
Angeles Police Department and the New York Police Department to 
get feedback from them as their--as to their assessments during 
civil unrest or major demonstrations.
    I heard from them, from both of those departments, and 
others that I talked to, that communication from the top down 
is critical.
    My concern here lies with those who are making decisions at 
the very top, you know, how is--how is information trickling 
down to rank-and-file officers and how intelligence is being 
shared among entities. I am also concerned how Capitol Police 
officers are trained to effectively use their equipment and 
able to adequately gather and share intelligence within a 
centralized interconnected network.
    I understand that the department has submitted a proposed 
reorganization plan to the Capitol Police Board and the 
Committee. How, if at all, does that proposed organization plan 
address your recommendations?
    Mr. Russo. Several of our recommendations dealt with the 
training issue you are talking about, how do we collect, how do 
we--how do we discern the intelligence, make it workable, get 
it to all members of the agency.
    The other portion is centralizing. Whenever you centralize 
that functionality, it helps to prevent miscommunication, 
ensure that intelligence does not fall through the cracks.
    One of our recommendations, of course, was to elevate the 
Intelligence Unit to a bureau level, as you had mentioned.
    Since our flash reports came out, much additional training 
has gone on. Strengthening of the communication, as you said, 
from the top down, from where--from our vantage point has been 
put in place. I think they are in a much better place now to 
both collect, share with our--with our stakeholders out--even 
outside the agency to deal with those intelligence issues.
    Mrs. Torres. If we do not have proper communication now as 
a division and, you know, your proposal is to elevate it to a 
bureau, and that does not seem to be happening, and I hear the 
K-9 Unit is not receiving their 16 monthly hours of training, 
we need to expedite the recommendation to make sure that, if 
the division is not working and we are going to move it into 
the bureau that the bureaucrats, as my colleague stated, move 
in that direction.
    Do you have any idea, you know, any feedback on when that 
will happen?
    Mr. Russo. I do not know when it will happen. I know they 
are working on it. I think the--the--the main issue with 
elevating that to the bureau is to centralize that chain of 
command and that communication, instead of having a disparate 
intel capacity in each unit, centralizing that.
    And, as far as the K-9, yes, 16 hours of training, we 
suggested that they change the training, the 10-hour shifts to 
10 or whatever way they could do it to ensure that training 
occurs.
    Mrs. Torres. My time has expired, but I will follow up with 
your office on this very important issue.
    Mr. Russo. Thank you, ma'am.
    Mrs. Torres. I yield back.
    Chairman Loudermilk. The gentlelady yields.
    It is the chair's intention with consultation, agreement 
with the minority that we may go a second round of questions to 
be able to follow up. I have--I have spoken to Mr. Russo about 
that, as well.
    At this point, I recognize Mr. Griffith for 5 minutes for 
the purpose of questioning the witness.
    Mr. Griffith. Mr. Russo, let me apologize first that I was 
not here earlier and that I will not be here later. I have got 
another markup going on in another Committee across in another 
building.
    Can the U.S. Capitol Police Office of Professional 
Responsibility, OPR, investigate assistant chiefs of police, 
yes or no?
    Mr. Russo. We generally handle anybody. No, I mean, they--
they could if for some reason we referred it to them. 
Generally, we have an essentially an MOU where we would handle 
management positions.
    Mr. Griffith. All right. In practice, how does your office 
handle issues that would otherwise be handled by the Office of 
Professional Responsibility?
    Mr. Russo. We--so, when I got there, I put in place a 
referral system. We have that 360 tracking. We work in--they 
are a dotted line to my office.
    Mr. Griffith. Prior to that, do you know what the policy 
was?
    Mr. Russo. I am not positive.
    Mr. Griffith. OK. That is fair. We may--I may follow up 
with some written questions afterwards.
    Mr. Russo. Sure.
    Mr. Griffith. Are you familiar with the separation 
agreement that former Assistant Chief Pittman entered into with 
the United States Capitol Police when she went on leave without 
pay for 6--5, 6 months in order to be able or to be eligible to 
receive her department retirement?
    Mr. Russo. I have some understanding of it, yes, sir.
    Mr. Griffith. All right. Are you aware that the United 
States Capitol Police Board has a requirement to have a formal 
or standard leave policy in effect?
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Griffith. Leave policies for the department stipulate 
that an officer to be eligible to receive leave without pay 
must indeed have an expectation of returning to full-time duty. 
However, former Assistant Chief Pittman had accepted a job 
located across the country at the time she was placed on leave 
without pay.
    Have you opened an investigation, or have you looked into 
this matter?
    Mr. Russo. We did a cursory review of the matter.
    Mr. Griffith. Did you come up with a conclusion, or do you 
need to do more investigation?
    Mr. Russo. We certainly can.
    If I could, we received information that she was actually 
still getting a paycheck. The information that came to us was 
still on payroll, getting a paycheck. We looked into that. That 
was not the case.
    In the course of our cursory review, we did determine 
that--that she was on leave without pay from February 1st until 
June I feel like it was 17th, that she had also entered into a 
separation agreement with the department.
    We looked at the relevant policies and compared them 
actually with OPM, which does not have the likelihood of 
returning portion, but ours does. It also stipulates that the 
chief has the authority to alter--alter those.
    I conversed with my legal counsel in the office, and it 
was--we came to the conclusion at this point in our cursory 
review that they entered into a legal agreement, that the--it 
became a legal matter at that point. Because the chief had 
the--had the authority, based on the policy changes, that is 
where we ended up.
    If it is a desire for us to look deeper, we can do that.
    Mr. Griffith. All right. I would express that desire on the 
record right now.
    Now that being said, so here becomes the question. If the 
chief has changed the policy, does that mean any rank-and-file 
officer, whether they be an assistant or, you know, relatively 
low-ranking person, could get 5 to 6 months of time off after 
taking another job without any real expectation of coming back?
    Let me be clear: I am not talking about a situation where 
somebody has a disability and maybe, you know, people are 
hopeful they will be able to come back but they may not be able 
to come back and they are within 6 months of being able to 
retire. That is a different animal. I understand that one.
    Taking a job all the way across a country, I am having a 
hard time understanding how this is not some form of abuse of 
the system and maybe even a fraud--not by the chief of police 
but by others--on the U.S. Government and its system.
    My time is out. Can--can you look into that for me, please?
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Griffith. I am very concerned about it.
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Griffith. All right. Thank you.
    Chairman Loudermilk. The gentleman yields back.
    Chair now recognizes Mr. D'Esposito for 5 minutes.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Well, thank you, Chairman.
    And, Mr. Russo, thank you for being here today. I also want 
to thank you for your service to keeping people safe and law 
enforcement.
    I, too, spent a career in the NYPD. Thank you for all that 
you have done.
    Mr. Russo. Thank you.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Are you aware of the law that governs the 
IG's nondisclosure of the identity of an employee or member who 
has come forward with a complaint or information of potential 
Capitol Police misconduct?
    Mr. Russo. I am familiar with it.
    Mr. D'Esposito. OK. I am just going to read it for the 
record.
    U.S. code 2, U.S.C. 1901(3)(B): The inspector general shall 
not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an 
employee or member, disclose the identity of the employee or 
member without the consent of the employee or member, unless 
required by law or the inspector general determines such 
disclosure is otherwise unavoidable during the course of the 
investigation.
    I think I know the answers to these questions, but I am 
going to ask them for the record.
    Do you agree that this is important to protect rank-and-
file officers and employees from receiving retribution from 
coming forward with potential misconduct?
    Mr. Russo. It is of paramount importance.
    Mr. D'Esposito. OK. Do you interpret this section as only 
protecting specific individuals who specifically ask for 
whistleblower protections? Or does it apply to anyone, the rank 
and file, the men and women of the Capitol Police that come 
forward with a complaint or information regarding potential 
misconduct, and speaks to the OIG or someone from your office?
    Mr. Russo. It applies to all.
    Mr. D'Esposito. OK. As inspector general, have you ever 
disclosed--and I know you have only been here since January 
29th and--and we--we thank you for that. During your time as an 
inspector general here or in previous capacities, have you ever 
disclosed the name of an employee or member who had come 
forward with a complaint or any information?
    Mr. Russo. Not that I can recall.
    Mr. D'Esposito. OK. Would you ever disclose this 
information without the individual's permission?
    Mr. Russo. We would protect that information at all costs. 
It is super serious that people feel comfortable to come to us 
without fear of retaliation. It is a priority to make sure we 
handle that with great care.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you.
    Do you know of any prior IGs disclosing the names of 
Capitol Police employees who spoke to the OIG and made 
complaints about USCP leadership?
    Mr. Russo. I do not.
    Mr. D'Esposito. OK. We have heard from multiple individuals 
in different hearings that have spoken to this Committee, 
alleging that the previous OIG received whistleblower 
information about intelligence failures on January 6th under 
former Acting Chief Pittman.
    Subsequently, the individuals were placed on a performance 
improvement plan and eventually forced out of the department.
    Do you, as the IG and in your previous capacities, do you 
consider this retaliation?
    Mr. Russo. I am not familiar with the situation or the 
details. It is hard for me to make a judgment.
    I would--I would submit to the Committee that it is one of 
the most important things we do to be able to protect these--
these complainants and that any disclosure of that information 
is inappropriate. You want to protect them from retaliation.
    Again, I cannot speak to the specifics of that issue. I can 
assure this Committee that is a top priority for us.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Well, thank you. I think--I know I agree.
    Those allegations that I referenced--and I am not sure if 
this has happened since January 29th. Have any of these 
allegations of retaliation been investigated by the OIG?
    Mr. Russo. I believe we have had some investigations 
related to that. It might have been prior to January, but I can 
certainly look into that.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Yes, so I guess the question I really have 
is: Are you committed to conducting full investigation and 
providing a report to this Committee of your findings?
    Mr. Russo. Absolutely.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you.
    I just have a minute left.
    Are there any practices in place in your office that would 
ensure that this statutory prohibition on disclosing a 
whistleblower's information is enforced?
    Mr. Russo. The--the general principles of the Whistleblower 
Act would be the governing principle for us to ensure we keep 
that confidential, that information.
    Mr. D'Esposito. What, if any, do you think the disciplinary 
action should be against an IG who fails to comply with this 
section of the statute?
    Mr. Russo. In Florida, I think we put in a civil penalty. 
It is--it is a very serious issue. I am not sure what the 
penalty is here. Certainly a violation of our administrative 
policies that would have to be dealt with in that arena.
    Mr. D'Esposito. I know I am just a second over time, but I 
think this is an important question.
    In your opinion, should the United States Capitol Police 
adopt specific policy to protect whistleblowers?
    Mr. Russo. Yes, if they--if they do not have a particular 
policy right now that speaks to that specifically, they--there 
should be.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you.
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Mr. D'Esposito. My time has expired.
    Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Loudermilk. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize myself for purpose of questioning our 
witness.
    Mr. Russo, thank you for your forthrightness in the 
questions so far, especially with Mr. D'Esposito.
    I just want to quickly follow up on his line of questioning 
because our goal in this Committee is to work together to make 
sure, as the Ranking Member alluded to, that the horrors of 
January 6th do not happen again. That is the ultimate goal of 
what we are trying to get to, and I think you would agree with 
that.
    To do that, though, we need to be able to get questions 
answered. We need to work with you and, with it, the Capitol 
Police to make sure that we do get the information that we need 
to work with.
    I asked these questions of the chief of police, and he 
agreed to this. The first question for the record is: Will you 
commit to make all members of your staff available for 
questioning by the Committee?
    Mr. Russo. Absolutely.
    Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you.
    The second question: Will you commit this--to this 
Committee that you or anyone on your staff will not take 
retaliatory action against any officer or employee of the 
United States Capitol Police and any employee of the Office of 
Inspector General?
    Mr. Russo. Absolutely.
    Chairman Loudermilk. Well, thank you for that.
    That is what we expected and look forward to working with 
you and your staff as we proceed down this path.
    Your predecessor, Michael Bolton, conducted a sweeping 
review of the Capitol Police following January 6th that many 
observers view as a, let us say, a roadmap for improving 
Capitol Police.
    Have you reexamined Mr. Bolton's recommendations since you 
have been in this post?
    Mr. Russo. I have.
    Chairman Loudermilk. What was your assessment?
    Mr. Russo. I think they touched on all the important areas. 
You know, when you talk about the lack of command and control, 
the communication issues, the stifled intelligence gathering 
and coordination with outside agencies, and then you add in 
the--the equipment failures and lack of training, you know, all 
were contributing factors to the issues of January 6th.
    I think the recommendations, 103 of them that focused 
specifically in those areas, really moved the ball downfield. I 
think they are--I think they are wholeheartedly trying to 
implement these changes and trying to raise the bar.
    Chairman Loudermilk. When you first started as The Capitol 
Police Inspector General, how many outstanding recommendations 
from post-January 6th or, yes, the post-January 6th flash 
report series remained outstanding?
    Mr. Russo. You know, I am not sure of the exact number. I 
think that there was--we have closed somewhere maybe just south 
of 20 since I have gotten here.
    Chairman Loudermilk. How many were open when you came in?
    Mr. Russo. Maybe 30-something.
    Chairman Loudermilk. OK.
    Mr. Russo. I can get back to you with a more exact----
    Chairman Loudermilk. My recollection is maybe 37. I think 
you said out of 103 but if you could--if you could check on 
that----
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Loudermilk [continuing]. we would appreciate it.
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Loudermilk. Did you say 14 are outstanding as of 
today?
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Loudermilk. OK. After going through a long period 
of time without much movement on these recommendations, it 
appears that recommendations were closed out more quickly after 
you arrived. Is this because you are really putting an effort 
into it or--or do you have an explanation for the sudden rush 
to close out recommendations?
    Mr. Russo. I do not. I think that we looked over some of 
these findings. We worked with the department. They would have 
questions about how closely they were to the finish line on 
some of them. And, frankly, there were some of them that we 
could apply compensating controls. They were moving in the 
right direction. They met the spirit of the recommendation.
    You know, we are certainly going to follow up and evaluate 
the thoroughness of their work. I think--I think we are able to 
get a few closed through that.
    Chairman Loudermilk. Briefly explain. Capitol Police, they 
say that they have met a recommendation. How do you evaluate 
whether it has actually been completed or not?
    Mr. Russo. They do furnish us information. Let us say it is 
a policy enhancement. They actually have to provide us that 
policy. In some cases, they show evidence that it was 
disseminated to the rank-and-file, whatever we need to feel 
comfortable that the remedy is in place.
    Chairman Loudermilk. OK. Something you said just a moment 
ago just raises a red flag. You used the term ``in the spirit 
of.''
    Would you--that--that rings to me as maybe it is not 
totally done, or maybe it was done not exactly as the 
recommendation said, but it was in the spirit of it.
    Would you ever close a recommendation because the Capitol 
Police indicated they were taking steps in the spirit of the 
recommendation, even though they have not totally completed it 
or completed it as was recommended?
    Mr. Russo. It is possible they did not fulfill the letter 
of the recommendation, and yet we felt comfortable enough that 
the risk no longer existed and it could be closed.
    Chairman Loudermilk. I guess my question then would lead 
into: If there was recommendations that were there that you 
evaluated from Mr. Bolton that you thought were the right 
things to do, but yet you closed them out in the spirit of, it 
may not be exactly the way it is, is that what I am 
understanding is----
    Mr. Russo. Well----
    Chairman Loudermilk [continuing]. it may not have been done 
exactly the way that it was recommended?
    Mr. Russo. Well, and I will give you an example.
    My predecessor closed one out after he said--after it was 
said every member of the agency needs a top secret clearance. 
After discussions with the department, they acquiesced and 
determined that, as long as the department finds certain high--
key positions that would require that and make it voluntary, 
they closed it out. This can happen from time to time. If the 
department can demonstrate to you that they are meeting that 
spirit, ultimately getting that security background and 
clearance with certain positions, sometimes you can modify your 
approach and get that closed.
    Chairman Loudermilk. This will be my last question this 
round. I will save the others because I think this is important 
here.
    You close out a recommendation, even though it is not 
precisely what the recommendation is. I understand what you are 
saying.
    Mr. Russo. Yes.
    Chairman Loudermilk. Is that a fair way of saying, ``Yes, 
we have actually met this recommendation,'' or do you annotate 
that ``we have modified the recommendation and it is not 
exactly the way it was''? The illustration you gave, I can 
agree with that.
    Are there others that have been done in the spirit of that 
may not have actually been per the letter of the 
recommendation, some closed out in the spirit of the 
recommendation?
    Mr. Russo. Yes, it is hard to come up with a--you know, I 
can--I am thinking of one that is more clerical, you know, 
where they had a batch of policies that were basically ready to 
go but they had the wrong acronym for the division. The 
division name had since changed.
    They ended up sending out a directive to the affected 
parties, up--making sure everybody knew that one administrative 
issue, they need to follow up and cleanup those policies. In 
the short-term, they are able to get the--the bigger part of 
that guidance out to the affected people.
    You know, I--I think there is a few ways to answer that 
question, Chairman.
    Chairman Loudermilk. Well, my----
    Mr. Russo. You know, for the most part, that is why I say 
``spirit of.'' We want to try to get the corrections in place.
    Chairman Loudermilk. OK. Thank you.
    I appreciate the Ranking Member.
    I was going to cut myself off because I had gone over time. 
As the rules say, in consultation, we give you a little more 
time.
    I am going to continue on with that line of questioning 
when we come back to--to round two. I have a little bit more at 
this point.
    I recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Steil, 
for 5 minutes.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Chair Loudermilk. 
Appreciate your holding today's hearing on the oversight of the 
U.S. Capitol Police Office of Inspector General.
    As Chairman, one of my priorities has been to depoliticize 
the Capitol security. I think we have got to increase 
transparency and accountability within the Capitol Police, and 
it requires an independent inspector general.
    I have been concerned that the OIG lacks that independence 
necessary to properly do its job, and I know it is in part due 
to OIG's unique reporting structure.
    The U.S. Capitol Police Board selects and oversees the OIG. 
And, as we continue to review potential reforms to the board, 
OIG independence must be part of that conversation.
    During today's hearing, we must also address how OIG is 
handling whistleblowers who come forward. There has been recent 
allegations made by whistleblowers against the current IG's 
leadership that are highly concerning.
    I want to assure all of those who are tuning in to today's 
hearing that this Committee takes all whistleblower allegations 
seriously, and we are committing--we are committed to 
protecting you.
    Now, Mr. Russo, can I ask. I am going to dive into a series 
of questions here.
    How many U.S. Capitol Police Office of Inspector General 
reports have been made public?
    Mr. Russo. Two, sir.
    Chairman Steil. Out of how many?
    Mr. Russo. I think that we have--you mean the universe of 
all reports? We have--we have--we have completed since 
inception of the office about 650 reports.
    Chairman Steil. Two were made public?
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Steil. Are you obligated to make those reports 
public?
    Mr. Russo. No, sir.
    Chairman Steil. No.
    Mr. Russo. Previous to the newest direction to come up with 
a process to publicize them, there--there was actually a 
directive from the board, I feel like it was 2017, that 
instructed reports not to be published.
    Chairman Steil. In 2017, there is an instruction to not 
make them public. Now there is an instruction to make them 
public. Out of that, only two of a large number have been made 
public.
    What--what is the process for making a U.S. Capitol Police 
OIG Report public?
    Mr. Russo. When I got here, we finalized that process 
which--which includes our office, the IG office, looking over 
the reports to ensure security-sensitive information is not 
disseminated. We then send it to the department for them to go 
through and ensure there was nothing against sensitive 
information. Then, ultimately, it goes to the board counsel, 
board staff to do their evaluation. After that is complete, it 
comes back to my office, and it gets posted on the OIG website.
    Chairman Steil. After a report's completed, is it submitted 
to the Capitol Police Board? Is that the final destination of 
the report? Who do you submit the report to upon a--upon a 
report being completed?
    Mr. Russo. Exactly. It goes to the police chief and his 
team for response. They have an opportunity in so many days to 
respond back to the recommendations in terms of discussion of 
corrective action plans. Then, ultimately and shortly after 
that, we send it off to the board, and then we send it off to 
the committees.
    Chairman Steil. Do you personally support making OIG 
reports public?
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Steil. You do not have a problem with--with the 
transparency that I think is important in contrast to what the 
2017 rule was.
    Mr. Russo. No, sir. I am--you know, in Florida, 
everything's opening. This is a completely different process up 
here.
    Chairman Steil. Do you currently feel that you have the 
full authority to make reports public, or does someone else 
control that decision?
    Mr. Russo. The board makes the decision on a case-by-case 
basis.
    Chairman Steil. The board makes the decision as to whether 
or not an OIG report becomes public, not you.
    Mr. Russo. Correct.
    Chairman Steil. The fact that they are required to be made 
public by Congress, that is a--that is a decision-making 
process, you are saying, by the Capitol Police Board, not a 
decision-making process by you?
    Mr. Russo. Correct.
    Chairman Steil. Have you spoken to the Capitol Police Board 
about making OIG reports public?
    Mr. Russo. Not outside of our process to make them public. 
My sense is that now we have fulfilled the guidance of--of the 
last Congress to get the--get these reports publicized. We 
developed the process. Again, as you pointed out, we have put 
two online. I think there is six or seven in review now. I 
would anticipate those becoming public more rapidly.
    Chairman Steil. Who do you have those conversations with to 
increase the speed at which those are becoming public?
    Mr. Russo. Just--just through my staff who talk to the 
next--the contacts in the department and then--and then they 
converse with the contacts at the board. I have seen some group 
email. I think now that we have all the--the folks around the 
table, so to speak, that need to be part of the review, it 
should be a little bit more rapid.
    Chairman Steil. OK. I will come back and follow up on this 
in the second round of questioning.
    I appreciate you being here today.
    Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Chairman Loudermilk. The gentleman yields.
    I now recognize Ranking Member Torres for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Torres. Thank you.
    Mr. Russo, one of the two reports that your office has 
publicly released is a 2022 review of the department's dispatch 
and call-taking process.
    One of the recommendations from that report is that the 
department should convert dispatcher roles from sworn officers 
to civilian.
    Changing those roles will, you know, relieve some officers 
to handle the field operations, you know, where they are short 
of personnel. It will also ensure that we have specifically 
911-trained dispatchers to handle those 911 calls that come 
into the center and the traffic from the officers' request.
    Can you tell us where that recommendation is?
    Mr. Russo. I believe it is closed. We had discussions with 
the department about the challenges to hire civilian staff in 
the D.C. area, frankly. They, I think, have 28 dispatchers. I 
think 20 of them are--are sworn. We would definitely like to 
see that move more toward the civilian end of things but that--
--
    Mrs. Torres. We have received conflicting information about 
this specific issue.
    Can you respond back to the Committee as to, are there 
sworn officers there? Has this department been converted to a 
civilian department? If not, why not?
    Can you just get back to us on that?
    Mr. Russo. Absolutely.
    Mrs. Torres. Because, again, you know, we want information 
that is accurate. I would also, Mr. Chairman, you know, with 
you want to request that you send us a list of those 
recommendations that were closed based on the spirit of the 
recommendation or spirit of the law.
    Mr. Russo. Sure.
    Mrs. Torres. You know, we want to make sure that what you 
have recommended is taken seriously.
    On another issue, I want to ask you about Member security. 
As you know, our security issues have more than quadrupled over 
the last few years. Capitol Police cannot be present in every 
single congressional district and certainly not while we are, 
you know, working during district work periods.
    Has your office examined the department partnerships with 
our State and local law enforcement? Are there MOUs that have 
been signed? Is there a process that has been created to make--
to write up those MOUs?
    Mr. Russo. Yes, ma'am. We have not looked specifically at 
the process on the MOUs. In other words, how does the chief 
determine the best sheriff's office or city police department 
to coordinate with or both in some cases?
    We are aware of the MOUs. We actually are releasing or have 
released a report that talks about field office reviews that we 
just did in San Francisco and Tampa. That--and, you know, in 
that review we talked about the, you know, the networking they 
are doing with local law enforcement, intelligence community, 
and things of that nature.
    Many of these also come from our flash reports. These 
recommendations are reoccurring themes, whether it is enhancing 
your outreach, your connections, contacts, and the 
dissemination of--of the intelligence.
    You know, we are doing more work in that area to--to be 
able to evaluate the effectiveness. You are right on. As far as 
having to network with the local law enforcement in each of 
your districts is imperative.
    Mrs. Torres. It is--Tampa, it is easier to get to Tampa 
from the Inland Empire than it is to get to San Francisco, for 
example, in my district.
    I want to see a process, a real process on how we reach out 
to, you know, local jurisdictions. For example, my home city is 
about 25-percent underdeployment every single day. They do not 
have the officers that are readily available to respond to any 
incidents, you know, at my home.
    My district office is just the opposite. You know, it is 
located in an area where they are fully deployed, very, very 
quick responses to my staff when they have had to put the 
office on lockdown.
    It is very important for me that, when we are coordinating 
with local law enforcement or State jurisdictions, that we look 
at their deployment needs and we look at it from, you know, a 
perspective: Do they have the manpower to respond? If not, what 
do we need in order for them to help us?
    With that, Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Loudermilk. The gentlelady yields.
    I now recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. 
Steil, for purpose of questioning the witness.
    Chairman Steil. Thank you very much.
    I am going to come back to--to where I was just to make 
sure I fully understand where we are at in your comments.
    Are you aware of the language included in the Fiscal Year 
2022 Appropriations Committee report that instructs the IG to 
make reports publicly available, whenever practical, and begin 
publishing reports on your website?
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir, I have a general understanding of the 
direction.
    Chairman Steil. Do you believe that that gives you the 
authority, or do you believe that that language still requires 
you to obtain the consent of the Capitol Police Board? Just 
making sure I understand that what your view of the chain of 
command, in other words, what I think is congressional intent, 
and figuring out where there might be a break in this so we can 
improve process.
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir. The way the process is set up includes 
those other bodies that I had mentioned.
    Certainly want to engage the department to help review the 
material to make sure we are not missing something----
    Chairman Steil. Understood.
    Mr. Russo [continuing]. or putting something out. From that 
standpoint, I feel comfortable with the collaborative effort 
that we put together as long as we are all moving forward and 
getting these reports out.
    Chairman Steil. You feel--I mean, historically that has not 
been the case. Right? Only two have been made public----
    Mr. Russo. Correct.
    Chairman Steil [continuing]. out of a very large volume of 
total reports----
    Mr. Russo. Sure.
    Chairman Steil [continuing]. that have been done. Is that a 
fair----
    Mr. Russo. That is----
    Chairman Steil [continuing]. assessment of the situation?
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Steil. You think that that is changing, but we 
just have not seen it make it all the way through the pipeline. 
Is that kind of how you--is that a fair characterization of how 
you are presenting this?
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir. I think the approach was, after the 
2022 guidance or directive from Congress, the process was 
finalized. It had started before I got here, but we----
    Chairman Steil. Understood.
    Mr. Russo [continuing]. finalized it when I got here. Got 
those two out. I think there is six, seven or so that are in 
the review period. My hope is that we are going to start seeing 
a steady stream of our reports coming out.
    Chairman Steil. We will definitely be looking forward to 
that. I think that is--that is an important piece of the puzzle 
here.
    The Capitol Police Board, although you have described the 
pipeline a bit, the Capitol Police Board does not have the 
ability to then prevent you from complying with those specific 
instructions from Congress. Is that--is that true or do you 
disagree with that? I mean, there is a process. Right? They are 
invested in this. Ultimately, that authority resides with you. 
No?
    Mr. Russo. They put out a--they put out a directive years 
ago that we do not release anything.
    Chairman Steil. Correct.
    Mr. Russo. The current process, as I understand it, is the 
board, when they get to the final review, the third person, the 
third party in the review process, they then give--they give 
authority for us to then release it on a case-by-case basis.
    Chairman Steil. OK.
    Mr. Russo. Not--not a carte blanche, everything's moving 
forward. It is on a case by case due to the sensitivity of the 
information contained.
    Chairman Steil. I understand the sensitivity but, I mean, 
you are also privy to the sensitivity----
    Mr. Russo. Yes.
    Chairman Steil [continuing]. and could consult with the 
board. Ultimately, in your view, the board has the final says.
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Steil. OK. I have thoughts and comments on that, 
but I understand your position and appreciate you being here.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chairman Loudermilk. The chair yields back and--there we 
go.
    The Chairman of the full Committee yields back, and this 
will be the final questions of the day.
    Kind of want to go back to where we were talking about the 
different recommendations and how they were closed. Before we 
do that, let me ask a couple other questions.
    Is CERT, being the Containment Emergency Response Team, do 
you know what bureau they are currently under? Are they under 
OSB or PSB, the----
    Mr. Russo. They are in the Special Operations. We requested 
or we suggested in a recommendation that they get moved to the 
Protective Operations Unit.
    Chairman Loudermilk. OK. They are--they are still under 
Operation Services Bureau.
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Loudermilk. I assume you are aware that 
recommendation from the June 2021 flash report was that the 
U.S. Capitol Police IG, your predecessor, recommended that they 
be moved from Operation Services Bureau to the Protective 
Services Bureau. Per the QFRs from Chief Manger's hearing, you 
have marked this recommendation as ``complete'' as of April 
18th, 2023.
    We have a copy. I have seen the department's proposed 
reorganizational chart, and it still has that CERT remains 
under OSB. Now this is--it is currently in OSB. It is proposed 
to remain in OSB, but yet that recommendation has been closed 
as if it was--if it was completed.
    The concern that we have is that: Are the goalposts being 
moved to make it easier for the department to appear to be 
completing recommendations than actually ensuring that it is 
being held at a higher standard? Is--are we just seeing maybe 
easing up the recommendations just to be able to close them 
out? I mean----
    Mr. Russo. No, I do not think so. You know, I think in the 
case of the, you know, the CERT team, one of the big 
fundamental issues was communication. When Protective 
Operations needed CERT present, they--or Dignitary Protection, 
they would show up, you know, 12 strong. The only way they were 
rolling--I do not want to get into numbers, but they would roll 
in, in a full team fashion.
    Because they reported to the Special Operations Bureau, 
Protective Ops did not get--did not get a lot of their requests 
fulfilled. It became an ongoing issue.
    I come from the standpoint that communication issues in an 
organization need to be dealt with through the chain of 
command, as opposed to just arbitrarily grabbing the whole unit 
and moving it----
    Chairman Loudermilk. Right.
    Mr. Russo [continuing]. to save yourself some communication 
issues.
    Now, in my conversations with the department, they are 
moving toward more of a response fashion, counter-assault 
fashion for the Protective Ops. They are actually--I do not 
want to get into it here, but some of the things they are doing 
to support Protective Operations.
    Chairman Loudermilk. Understand.
    Mr. Russo. They still have that responsibility of the 
campus--of the campus.
    Chairman Loudermilk. Right.
    Mr. Russo. We want to make sure we do not take away their--
their effectiveness on the campus, as well.
    I think we hit a middle ground. I do not think we moved the 
goalpost. We got a good middle ground to build upon.
    Chairman Loudermilk. The short answer being you did not 
fully agree with the recommendation from--from Mr. Bolton.
    Mr. Russo. That is fair.
    Chairman Loudermilk. It kind of takes me back to our 
previous question. If that recommendation is marked as complete 
but modified, how do we know that, when we, you know, we look 
at it as a Committee, and we are looking at, OK, they have 
completed this, and then we find out it was not completed.
    It really only matters if they are implemented the way that 
it was recommended, if you are going to close that 
recommendation. Otherwise, the recommendation has to be 
modified. Undermining--otherwise, we are undermining this--the 
spirit of the recommendation really, if you want to use that 
term.
    That is one of the things that I think we need to work on 
to improve communication between your office and the Committee 
and the public is, you know: What is really being done? We may 
have to go back and review all the recommendations, as Mrs. 
Torres requested. We would appreciate a list of those 
recommendations that were completed less than a hundred percent 
than the way that the recommendation was made, if that is--if 
that is a fair way of putting it. So----
    Mr. Russo. That is exactly right and we have--we have that. 
We track that information.
    Chairman Loudermilk. OK.
    Mr. Russo. Be happy to provide it.
    Chairman Loudermilk. Since the inception of the U.S. 
Capitol Police OIG in 2007, the OIG has made on an average 36 
recommendations per fiscal year. Of course, in 2021, there was 
104. That is kind of an exception there.
    With only 2 months left in 2023, your tenure has yielded 
only two recommendations. Look, I am not one that we should 
just be making recommendations for making recommendations. I do 
not think that we do that just for the sake of, hey, we are--we 
are outputting product here.
    It does bring to question why such a disparity when on 
average there were 36 recommendations per year and now we have 
only had two.
    Mr. Russo. I want meaningful recommendations. We just did 
103 just for J4. You know, it makes you wonder what are the 
other areas this office looked at all these years before. We 
have touched on everything, as we said, you know, training, you 
know, recruitment, the--you know, training--the equipment, 
communication. We touched almost every facet of the agency.
    We actually have quite a few reports in progress right now. 
Some are coming out with some recommendations. I think that 
number's going to increase a significant amount here in the 
short--short term.
    No, we are--we have got a lot of projects going on and I 
think we are, you know, of course, risk-based. We are looking 
at the highest priority areas.
    Chairman Loudermilk. Well, I appreciate that.
    Just for correction, you said J4. I think you meant J6.
    Mr. Russo. I am sorry. J6.
    Chairman Loudermilk. Yes.
    Mr. Russo. My apologies.
    Chairman Loudermilk. I want to make sure for the record 
that----
    Mr. Russo. My apologies.
    Mr. Loudermilk [continuing]. you know, it was correct.
    As I said, we are not looking for just doing busy work to 
do busy work. Right?
    Mr. Russo. Correct.
    Chairman Loudermilk. We want to make sure that what we do 
is good and proper.
    Who on your team is involved in determining if a 
recommendation has been completed?
    Mr. Russo. Well, ultimately. It will--it would be my 
responsibility but I do that in coordination with my team----
    Chairman Loudermilk. OK.
    Mr. Russo [continuing]. my No. 2.
    Chairman Loudermilk. There is not really a process other 
than just everyone agreeing that, yes, this is--making 
recommendation to you and you----
    Mr. Russo. Well, it is not haphazard. We actually evaluate 
all the aspects or elements of the recommendation, the risk 
associated with it. We determine back and forth with the 
department audit coordinator any materials that we need. Then 
we will sit around and determine if that--a risk has been 
neutralized or, you know, are they putting in place a 
compensating control that will achieve that.
    Chairman Loudermilk. General idea, how many are on this 
team?
    Mr. Russo. How many are on?
    Chairman Loudermilk. That--that you work with about 
closing, how many people? Just--just a ballpark.
    Mr. Russo. Oh, on the team?
    Chairman Loudermilk. Yes.
    Mr. Russo. Well, my audit director and could be the auditor 
that did it, so maybe just two----
    Chairman Loudermilk. OK.
    Mr. Russo [continuing]. maybe three----
    Mr. Loudermilk. So----
    Mr. Russo [continuing]. maybe our coordinator in the 
office, as well.
    Chairman Loudermilk. Let us say you are going to look at 
closing out a recommendation. Is it always unanimous, or do you 
occasionally have dissenters?
    Mr. Russo. Well, I open it up. You know, everybody has 
outstanding backgrounds in audit and, you know, blessed to have 
a very professional team, experienced team. I take--take into 
account what they--the guidance they provide.
    You know, I am--I think we have seven where we, as we say, 
spirit of. You know, some of them are, they are performing a 
function, an intelligence fusion center function. They were 
just waiting for furniture. The function was being done. They 
were waiting for final build-out. As long as they are able to 
furnish--furnish information, that they are actually performing 
the function, I am not overly concerned about what room number 
they sit in to do it.
    Chairman Loudermilk. Right.
    Mr. Russo. That would be--that is an example of one of the 
seven.
    Chairman Loudermilk. There may be times that one of the 
team members dissents, but you still feel that it is enough has 
been done. I mean, and I am not trying to put words in your 
mouth.
    Mr. Russo. Yes, I----
    Mr. Loudermilk. I am just trying to get an understanding.
    Mr. Russo. No, I do not----
    Mr. Loudermilk. It is not always unanimous.
    Mr. Russo. I do not know--I cannot remember a time where we 
had any serious difference in concluding that the controls were 
adequate. I mean, could it happen? Sure.
    Chairman Loudermilk. OK.
    Mr. Russo. You know----
    Mr. Loudermilk. It is not a----
    Mr. Russo [continuing]. perhaps with the CERT team issue.
    Chairman Loudermilk. Yes.
    Mr. Russo. Having 33 years of law enforcement, having dealt 
with counter-assault and CERT and all that, I had a pretty good 
feeling that the homogenized version that they were putting in 
place was sufficient for what they were trying to get at. So--
--
    Chairman Loudermilk. I am just trying to get an idea 
because----
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Loudermilk [continuing]. you know, you are talking 
to a body who normally never has anything we have unanimity on.
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Loudermilk. Just trying to get an idea.
    The moment's come. Last question. Do you--and we talked 
about this in private. We see that the makeup of your office 
and the process is out of the norm of what you would see in 
most inspector generals is that you report to the very people 
that have the power to terminate you. Right? That--that is a 
conflict of interest in our mind and within a lot of inspector 
generals. I am not trying to put you on the spot because I 
understand the situation you are in. You may not be able to 
answer this, and that is fine.
    Let me put it this way. Do you--do you feel that there are 
times, not necessarily in yours, but when an inspector 
general--and being hypothetical, but we all know what I am 
talking about. If an inspector general is responsible for 
investigating the very entity that has the power to hire and 
fire, does that not create some level of conflict?
    Mr. Russo. It is an ongoing challenge. In Florida, I had 
three IG posts. Two of them were secretaries of an agency 
appointed by a Governor. One was an elected official.
    In all three of those occasions, I was reporting to one 
person, who paid my check, who provided me administrative H.R. 
support, training, et cetera.
    That was a lot less independent than how I feel it is now 
where I now report to three people who have to unanimously 
decide to hire or fire rather than just one person. It is an 
ongoing challenge in the IG----
    Chairman Loudermilk. Right.
    Mr. Russo [continuing]. community to achieve that, you 
know, Utopia. I think it is a pretty good--from where I am 
sitting, my relationship with the board is a better, stronger, 
more independent relationship than if I were to have just 
reported to one individual.
    Chairman Loudermilk. OK. I appreciate that.
    It may be better, but I do not think it is best. We will 
be--we will be working with you.
    Appreciate the work you are doing. We appreciate you being 
here. I would like to thank you for joining us.
    Before we adjourn, I also want to mention the good work 
that was done by Mrs. Torres and the minority side relating to 
the psychological evaluation that was recently revealed. We 
really appreciate work that you will put into investigating 
that, as well.
    Again, I would like to thank you for being here and for 
joining us today.
    Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for you, and we ask that you please respond to those 
questions in writing.
    Mr. Russo. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Loudermilk. Without objection, each Member will 
have 5 legislative days to insert additional material into the 
record or to revise and extend their remarks.
    If there is no further business, I thank the Members for 
their participation.
    Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]