    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS
                                     FOR 2017

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                     HEARINGS

                                    BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                  SECOND SESSION

                         _____________________________

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

                          TOM GRAVES, Georgia, Chairman

      MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada                     DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
      E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia                  SAM FARR, California
      EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia             BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
      STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi

      NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
    Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
    Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.

                            Elizabeth C. Dawson, Clerk
               Jennifer Panone  and Tim Monahan, Professional Staff

                              ___________________

                                      PART 2

                       FISCAL YEAR 2017 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

     99-994                    WASHINGTON : 2016

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                       HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman

    RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey  NITA M. LOWEY, New York
    ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama          MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
    KAY GRANGER, Texas                   PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
    MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho            JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
    JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas          ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
    ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida              DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
    JOHN R. CARTER, Texas                LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
    KEN CALVERT, California              SAM FARR, California
    TOM COLE, Oklahoma                   CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
    MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida           SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
    CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania        BARBARA LEE, California
    TOM GRAVES, Georgia                  MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
    KEVIN YODER, Kansas                  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
    STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas               STEVE ISRAEL, New York
    JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska           TIM RYAN, Ohio
    THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida            C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER,
    CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee    Maryland
    JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington    DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
    DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio                 HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
    DAVID G. VALADAO, California         CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
    ANDY HARRIS, Maryland                MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
    MARTHA ROBY, Alabama                 DEREK KILMER, Washington
    MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
    CHRIS STEWART, Utah
    E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
    DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
    DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
    EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
    STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi

                   William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                   Testimony

                                                                       Page
    U.S. Capitol Police..............................................     1

    Architect of the Capitol.........................................    37

    House of Representatives.........................................    63

    Library of Congress..............................................   125

                              Prepared Statements

    Government Publishing Office.....................................   187

    Government Accountability Office.................................   197

    Congressional Budget Office......................................   221

    Office of Compliance.............................................   225

    Open World Leadership Center.....................................   229

    Written Testimony of Other Interested Individuals and
      Organizations..................................................   239

                       LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS

                                    FOR 2017

                                  ----------

                                                Tuesday, March 1, 2016.

                              U.S. CAPITOL POLICE

                                   WITNESSES

    KIM C. DINE, CHIEF OF POLICE
    MATTHEW R. VERDEROSA, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE
    RICHARD L. BRADDOCK, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

                      Opening Statement of Chairman Graves

        Mr. Graves. Welcome, everyone. The subcommittee will come
    to order, and we will begin our hearings on fiscal year 2017's
    budget requests of the various agencies of the legislative
    branch.
        I look forward to continuing our work with all the members
    of the subcommittee, including our ranking member, Debbie
    Wasserman Schultz of Florida, our vice chairman, Mr. Amodei;
    Mr. Rigell of Virginia; Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia; Mr.
    Palazzo of Mississippi, welcome you back; and Mr. Farr of
    California; Ms. McCollum of Minnesota.
        I want to thank each of you for being here and appreciate
    your dedication and attention to the important issues of this
    subcommittee.
        And as everyone of this subcommittee knows, our national
    debt is at the tune of now $19 trillion, and as we all know,
    this is unsustainable and unacceptable. While major reforms to
    the Federal programs outside the jurisdiction of this committee
    are certainly needed, we nonetheless must lead by example, and
    we will.
        The budget that was submitted by the administration for
    this subcommittee to consider, not including the Senate items,
    or under the Architect of the Capitol for the Senate, is $3.6
    billion, which is an increase of 6.8 percent over last year's
    enacted level. So when you include the Senate, the request is
    at $4.7 billion, or an increase of just over 6 percent over
    last year's enacted level.
        Now, our job is going to be to scrutinize the request under
    our jurisdiction, and we will continue to lead by example by
    being efficient, effective, and doing more with less, as we
    have done in the past. I appreciate the hard work done to
    prepare these budget requests, and I look forward to the
    hearings from each of the agencies.
        Now, today, we have with us the United States Capitol
    Police, the Chief of Police--thank you for being here, Mr.
    Dine; Assistant Chief Matthew Verderosa, who will be taking
    over as Chief--we congratulate you--on March 20; and Mr.
    Braddock, the Chief Administrative Officer.
        This will be Chief Dine's last testimony before this
    subcommittee.
        And we are grateful for your service, Chief, in your
    capacity now. I know it is since December 2012, you were
    appointed to serve as the Chief of Police for the United States
    Capitol Police.
        Now, during his tenure with the Capitol Police, he has
    overseen the 57th inaugural event of the President of the
    United States, 4 State of the Union addresses, thousands of
    visits from heads of state, dignitaries, and VIPs, joint
    meetings, summits, events, and demonstrations, over 30 million
    screenings for the Capitol complex in total, and the day-to-day
    operations of running a police department.
        Chief, well done. Thank you. All of us on the subcommittee
    would like to thank you for your hard work and your dedication
    to the safety and the security of the entire Capitol complex,
    and we would also like to thank the officers and the civilians
    of the Capitol Police for their service.
        Their presence has allowed Members and staff to safely
    conduct the people's work and ensure that all visitors can
    safely enjoy this rich history of the Capitol that we all
    endure and love.
        Now, your budget request for fiscal 2017 is $409.6 million.
    This is an increase of just under $35 million, or around 9
    percent, over last year's level. And while we understand your
    critical mission to ensure that our Nation's legislative and
    democratic process of government are conducted without
    disruption, our job, obviously, is to scrutinize this request
    and to make informed funding decisions as we move forward.
        So with that, I would like to conclude my opening remarks
    and ask Ms. Wasserman Schultz, ranking member, if she has
    anything she would like to add, and then certainly recognize
    the ranking member of the full committee afterwards, Mrs.
    Lowey.

             Opening Statement of Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chief Dine, really I want to echo the chairman's sentiment
    and add to it. Your service has been remarkable. To come into
    an agency that you did not grow up in, so to speak, and take
    command the way you did and be able to steer us through the
    myriad of challenges that a police agency faces every single
    day really reflects incredibly well on your management skills,
    and on the respect that your officers had for you. We were very
    fortunate to be able to have you lead the Capitol Police
    through this last 4 years.
        I can tell you that I personally wish you extremely well
    moving forward. I enjoyed the conversations that we have had
    and always appreciated how you were readily available whenever
    we had questions and gave us really thorough and frank
    responses, because we don't always get those in the political
    process. So I just can't thank you enough for your incredible
    service.
        Assistant Chief Verderosa, I'm looking forward to having
    that leadership continue. You have done a remarkable job. Now
    we will switch to an institutionalist, so to speak, to someone
    who did grow up inside the Capitol Police family, I'm looking
    forward to working with you and having the same kind of
    relationship that I have enjoyed with Chief Dine.
        As we are all aware, the Capitol Police was provided with
    the largest budget increase of any other agency in the fiscal
    year 2016 omnibus; $27 million, or 8 percent above fiscal year
    2015. By comparison, the House was provided with a zero percent
    increase, the Library of Congress, a 1.5 percent increase, and
    the Government Accountability Office, a 1.7 percent increase.
    The budget before us today requests an additional $34.6
    million, or 9.2 percent, in addition to the $27 million just
    provided in December.
        Chief Dine, Assistant Chief Verderosa, we want security,
    but we do not want security to the detriment of everything else
    that makes Congress work, including our staffs. Part of the
    difficulty is the inability for this committee to see a force
    that is adequately preparing for current global threats.
        In fiscal year 2016's request, as part of your $27 million
    increase, a $4 million carveout was fenced off until a plan was
    delivered by the Capitol Police Board. Those funds were
    provided was to prepare for threats after the tragedies in
    Paris and San Bernardino. Before receiving the plan, I expected
    initiatives that were focused on preventing and recovering from
    the type of mass casualty events that we have, unfortunately,
    seen play out across the country and the globe.
        Instead, the plan that we received was to hire more police
    officers and place more magnetometers. That is no different
    than the basic Capitol Police budget and far from the forward-
    thinking vision that we need to prepare for our worst-case
    scenarios in an ever-changing world. In addition, 1-year
    infusions are meant to be just that, 1 year. Hiring officers is
    a 30-year financial commitment that grows with inflation each
    and every year.
        Chief Dine, as you prepare to depart, we once again need
    your frank assessment on how the agency is prioritizing its
    resources and if we are being asked to fund a 20th century
    police force as our threats become more 21st century every
    year.
        Just as important as how the decisions are being made
    within the department to prioritize funding, I would like to
    understand the process by which those decisions about preparing
    our force for how forward looking approaches are made. If we
    are having outside forces come in and make decisions for you,
    that is something that I would like to hear about during this
    hearing, and you should expect a healthy exchange from me
    during questioning.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to their testimony.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
        And I am delighted to have us with us the ranking member of
    the full committee, Mrs. Lowey.
        Thank you for joining us.

                   Opening Statement of Ranking Member Lowey

        Mrs. Lowey. I am delighted to be here, and I thank you very
    up much. And I thank the ranking member. It is a pleasure to be
    with you both today. And I am delighted to join you in
    welcoming the witnesses.
        And thank you so much in advance for your testimony.
        I particularly want to join my colleagues in commending
    Chief Dine on your years of hard work and service. You have
    been instrumental in ensuring the safety of this campus. And as
    I mentioned before, it is a real, real challenge. And we are
    very, very grateful. You will be missed.
        And, Chief Verderosa, I want to congratulate you on your
    appointment as Chief of Police, and we look forward to working
    together.
        Each year, my colleagues, between 3 and 5 million people
    from around the world visit the U.S. Capitol and surrounding
    buildings. The Capitol Police are tasked with protecting these
    sacred halls and the visitors, school groups, advocates,
    Members, and staff who come to the Capitol each day. This
    subcommittee has recognized the changing nature of global
    threats, has provided resources for the Capitol Police to
    prevent and respond to a worst-case scenario event.
        For all those who visit the Capitol, it is imperative that
    funding from the Legislative Branch Subcommittee be used wisely
    to reduce our risk or respond capably during and after any
    incident. Addressing these needs, including enhanced security,
    the cost of necessary repairs to aging buildings and
    infrastructure, preservation of the Library of Congress, among
    others, is imperative for Members of Congress to meet the
    expectations of their constituents.
        During these years of austerity, perhaps some of these
    agencies and initiatives could have been better addressed had
    the majority not spent over $6 million on a partisan political
    Benghazi investigation, 2.3 million defending the Defense of
    Marriage Act, and now hundreds of thousands more for legal
    action against the administration on the Affordable Care and
    Guantanamo Bay.
        Since the elections will be over for the majority of fiscal
    year 2017, I hope we can set aside some of those excessively
    partisan endeavors to adequately invest in the legitimate
    security priorities before this committee.
        So in closing, I want to thank you again, Chief Dine, for
    all your hard work, and I look forward to working with you.
        And, Chief Verderosa, good luck to you. We know the
    enormous task ahead, and we look forward to working together.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mrs. Lowey.
        And, Chief Dine, now if you would like to give us a
    presentation of your written statement you have already
    submitted. I know that that is being submitted as part of the
    record, but we look forward to hearing from you as you want to
    describe some of your plans looking ahead and your final
    hearing and testimony.

                         Statement of Chief Kim C. Dine

        Chief Dine. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chairman Graves, Ranking
    Member Wasserman Schultz, and members of the committee. I am
    honored to be here today, and I appreciate the opportunity to
    present the United States Capitol Police budget request for
    fiscal year 2017.
        Before I begin, I would like to note that my full
    testimony, as you mentioned, outlining the Department's request
    has been submitted for the record.
        I am joined here today by Assistant Chief Matthew
    Verderosa, our Chief of Operations and soon to be Chief of
    Police, and Mr. Richard Braddock, our Chief Administrative
    Officer, as well as some members of my executive management
    team and our Inspector General, Fay Ropella.
        First, I would like to thank the committee for its
    sustained and unwavering support for the United States Capitol
    Police. I would specifically like to express our appreciation
    to the committee and to the Congress for providing the
    necessary salaries and general expenses funding for fiscal year
    2016 to support our personnel and operations.
        The women and men of the Capitol Police work tirelessly to
    ensure that the legislative process of our government functions
    without disruption or lapses in security or safety 24 hours a
    day, 365 days a year. But none of this would be possible
    without your support and that of the Capitol Police Board.
        The Department's fiscal year 2017 request totals nearly
    $410 million and represents an overall increase of $35 million,
    or 9 percent, over the fiscal year 2016 enacted funding level
    of $375 million.
        The Department's fiscal year 2017 personnel request
    reflects our continuous efforts at all levels of management to
    effectively and prudently manage our existing resources to
    achieve the best possible balance of staff versus overtime and
    to meet mission requirements. We are constantly analyzing our
    workforce to align job functions, assignments, workload, risk
    management, and organizational readiness, along with the ever-
    changing assessments and mandatory mission requirements within
    a dynamic environment.
        Our fiscal year 2017 request includes base funding for
    1,823 sworn officers and 373 civilian positions. These are the
    staffing levels funded during fiscal year 2016. In addition,
    the request also includes half-a-year funding for an additional
    72 officers and 51 civilians.
        With the rise of ISIL and continued efforts of Al Qaeda and
    other terrorist organizations to attack public venues, as well
    as increased occurrences of homegrown violent extremists and
    lone wolf-type episodes, we have seen a rise in the number of
    mass casualty events around the world and in the continental
    United States.
        Based on this rise in terrorist events and the tactics
    displayed by the assailants, the United States Capitol Police
    have once again reviewed its operational and tactical posture
    to ensure that the department is taking every measure possible
    to maintain the security of the Capitol complex while allowing
    the legislative process to continue to function in an open
    environment.
        In close coordination with the Capitol Police Board, the
    Department believes that the implementation of security
    measures to better secure and screen within House garages, the
    full implementation of additional screening and prescreening at
    various building access points, and the implementation of
    enhanced screening portals is necessary.
        Before requesting additional personnel, the Department
    looked at its current mission load and worked closely with the
    Capitol Police Board to modify or eliminate mission
    requirements in order to offset new mission requirements.
    Additionally, the Department has reviewed duties currently
    performed by officers that could be civilianized in order to
    repurpose current officers to better meet operational
    requirements. Funding for 48 new civilian positions requested
    will be utilized for this civilianization process, and funding
    for 3 new civilian positions will support the increased
    physical security infrastructure.
        The funding request represents an overall increase of
    approximately 8 percent over fiscal year 2016 salaries enacted
    level, which includes funding for the 2017 Presidential
    Inauguration, natural salary increases, additional staffing
    requirements, and increased overtime costs, since the
    department's current sworn staffing levels do not entirely
    provide the necessary resources to meet all of our mission
    requirements.
        The second area I want to cover in some detail is our
    requested general expenses budget, which includes protective
    travel, hiring, outfitting, and training new sworn personnel,
    supplies and equipment, management systems, nonpersonnel
    Presidential Inauguration support, and other nonpersonnel
    needs. We are requesting $76 million for general expenses,
    which is an increase of $10 million over the fiscal year 2016
    enacted level.
        The increase results from normal increases in operating
    costs, inauguration costs, cost to train, recruit, and outfit
    the new employees previously mentioned, the cost of life-cycle
    key items and routine equipment systems, and the restoration of
    annual levels, reduced in previous fiscal years, to meet
    regular department needs. The request also includes an
    additional requirement to equip a fully functional Alternate
    Command Center.
        In closing, I am very grateful for your time today. As you
    know and as you mentioned, this is the last time I will appear
    before you representing this great organization. I have had the
    distinct pleasure of serving as the Chief of Police through one
    Inauguration, four State of the Union addresses, six Joint
    Meetings of Congress, historical events, the African Summit,
    which included over 50 heads of state at the Capitol, and as
    you noted, over 30 million screenings, over 600 demonstrations,
    the rollout of our new strategic plan, the achievement of the
    Gold Standard accreditation from the Commission on
    Accreditation and Law Enforcement, the implementation of our
    new digital encrypted radio system, the creation of a field
    commander program, the implementation a new field training
    program for new officers, the completion of active shooter
    training for the entire department, a new hiring process for
    recruits which has resulted in over 20,000 applications over
    the last 3 years, the hiring of a labor relations specialist to
    maximize labor-management relations, the hiring of a new chief
    information officer, a new diversity officer, and a new
    communications director, and lastly, the implementation of a
    new communication practice to better communicate with you and
    the greater congressional community.
        All of this has been a possibility because of your support
    and the excellent work by the women and men of the United
    States Capitol Police.
        I would like to make special note that all of this was done
    while keeping the congressional community safe. And so I would
    like to thank the women and men of the USCP for their
    commitment to our mission and their unwavering dedication every
    day to ensuring the safety and security of our Members, staff,
    and many visitors who come to the Capitol to see our great
    democracy in action.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today,
    and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have at
    this time.
        [The prepared statement of Chief Dine follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Chief, for your testimony, and also
    you took a moment there to summarize your tenure and experience
    and a lot of the accomplishments you have seen and participated
    in. I really, on the onset, only have one quick question for
    you, and then I will go to Ms. Wasserman Schultz next.

                         FUTURE THREATS AND CHALLENGES

        As you leave and as you are, so to speak, passing the baton
    to your right, what challenges do you foresee that you feel
    comfortable in sharing, that are looking at us in the horizon,
    aside from monetary, budgetary, those kind of things, but more
    just some of the physical threats or challenges you see that we
    should be aware of?
        Chief Dine. Well, thank you, sir. That is a great question.
    I think the challenges we face are somewhat unique to this
    great organization. Police departments across the country face
    all types of challenges in terms of gaining the trust of the
    communities they serve, and that is no different here.
        But as everyone here knows, we are essentially an
    antiterrorist organization. We face asymmetrical threats. We
    face a threat posture now that is much less clear than it has
    been in the past. As is publicly known, a lot of communication
    now is frankly in the dark, so we don't know what we don't
    know. We protect an open campus, it requires people paying
    attention, and it does require a lot of resources.
        We are very much plugged into the intelligence community
    across the country at multiple levels in a number of task
    forces, and every single day we take the temperature of the
    threat posture. We also do that yearly as part of our own
    internal business process to see what type of budget we should
    build around these threats.
        I think the challenges we face center around the fact that
    homegrown violent extremists are on the increase, the number of
    attacks over the years are on the increase. There have been 60
    arrests of United States citizens since March of 2014 and
    August 2015. Since 9/11, there have been 144 terrorist plots;
    85 percent of those have been since 2009.
        Mr. Farr. There are plots on the Capitol?
        Chief Dine. No, across the country. There have been 81
    total arrests, ISIS-related arrests in the United States.
        So we face all of those challenges and the day-to-day
    challenges of keeping everyone here safe in an orderly, open,
    free environment.
        I will say, on a daily basis, and we are very proud of
    this, and this is also something other departments face also,
    we rarely make the news, the fact that every day we protect
    people's rights to be heard when they come here and express
    their first amendment rights. We manage those demonstrations
    with sophistication and communication and through teamwork, so
    you don't hear much about those.
        It does require coordination and sophistication. As you
    know, we work very, very closely with the United States Secret
    Service, the United States Park Police, the FBI, the
    Metropolitan Police Department, pretty much all of the agencies
    in the National Capital Region, as well as departments around
    the country, when we engage in our dignitary protection
    efforts.
        Mr. Graves. Well, thank you. I know that myself and many of
    the members of the subcommittee had the opportunity to visit
    the headquarters and were greatly impressed with the assets,
    the intelligence, the information, all that you are working
    with and coordinating to keep this a safe environment, given
    all the threats you have identified.
        Knowing that we have votes coming up at some point later
    this afternoon, I respect everybody's opportunity to have
    questions here.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz, let's go to you next, and then we
    will go around the room some.

          LONG-TERM IMPACT OF THE SPENDING PLAN FOR ENHANCED SECURITY

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.
        Chief, in my opening statement, I made mention of being
    surprised an additional $4 million was provided in the omnibus.
    Those funds were fenced off specifically to fund approaches to
    keep us safe in the wake of mass casualty attacks in places
    like San Bernadino and Paris, and require committee approval
    before they are used. But, again, as I mentioned, those funds
    are now simply going towards more officers and more
    magnetometers, 48 actually, and those funds are going to be
    used to hire, train, and equip those 48 sworn officers.
        Since the plan came up after your fiscal year 2017 request,
    does your budget need to be adjusted to pay for those officers?
    And much has been made by many Members about the need for us to
    return to regular order in both the appropriations process and
    the process that we are using to move legislation, and that, to
    me, is not representative of regular order by any means,
    especially when we are obligating a lot of money through the
    balance of an officer's career. It is not 1-year money.
        So if you could touch on that. Additionally, I want to ask
    you, as I asked you when we first had a chance to talk at one
    of these hearings, about the Capitol Police Board. Because, if
    you will recall, I asked your opinion of the Capitol Police
    Board and its structure, and you had only been on the job a
    couple of months and had good things to say, including positive
    reviews to the Board, and the direction that they provided.
        So three years later, as you are departing this
    institution, I would like that same assessment. How has the
    governance structure of the Board worked? Has it allowed the
    Chief to function in a way that enables reasonable planning,
    allows the Chief to address appropriate security needs, and be
    held accountable for those decisions?
        Specifically in the fiscal year 2017 request, how much of
    the Capitol Police budget would you estimate is due to
    direction from the Board or the Sergeant versus what your
    department has prioritized?
        Chief Dine. Thank you.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I told you it would be challenging.
        Chief Dine. You did, and you were correct.
        I think the first and third answer go together. It is a
    function of the threats we face, the timing of the threats, the
    timing of things that happened in Paris and San Bernardino, and
    also some longstanding issues within the Capitol complex, such
    as garage security, so that has been sort of----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Have we faced a credible threat
    similar to San Bernardino or any other----
        Chief Dine. Well, the good news is at this time we do not
    have any current credible threat against the United States
    Capitol, although, as you know, there have been some. The
    challenge is we don't know what we don't know. Over the last
    four years we recovered 62 weapons, 60 tasers, 389 knives.
    Those are just some of the day-to-day police activities that
    our officers do either at checkpoints or traffic stops as they
    work to try to keep----

          ROLE OF THE CAPITOL POLICE BOARD IN THE USCP BUDGET PROCESS

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. How much of your request is due to
    your prioritization as the leader of the police force and your
    fellow officers and direction from the Capitol Police Board or
    the Sergeant?
        Chief Dine. We worked with the Capitol Police Board to
    identify three priorities.
        One was prescreeners, which we believe helps keep the
    Capitol safe and within the perfect world would be the best way
    to deploy staff around the Capitol. Without getting into too
    much detail about our security, but people know we staff our
    posts. In the best possible world, we would have multiple
    prescreeners at multiple doors to see a threat coming and
    engage that threat outside. That was the first priority.
        The second priority was garage screening, and the third
    priority was enhanced portal screening for the chambers. Those
    are done in conjunction with the Capitol Police Board and
    ultimately the Board's direction as we formulate those plans
    together.
        We formulated a strategic approach to address all three of
    those priorities, hence the budget as it was crafted, and the
    challenge, as you noted, is those are new tasks which require
    officers.
        We have made a creative attempt to better utilize our
    manpower, to see what functions we can civilianize, which is
    why the 48 civilians are requested to move officers from our
    Communications Division and our Command Center and some sworn
    from the Training Division and reassign them to other posts to
    be efficient and make the best use of our sworn personnel.
        There have been creative efforts to try to do that and to
    take on these additional tasks.

                            STATE OF USCP READINESS

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. What is the readiness state of the
    police? we have given you upwards of 8 to 10 percent increases
    with flatlining the other agencies. How many officers is the
    ideal number? We all want to be safe, and we want to keep the
    visitors that join us here safe, but it does seem that there is
    never an ideal number.
        I remember, Mr. Chairman, when I was the chair of this
    subcommittee, and it is a question that I still ask any agency
    head to respond to: there are the ``got to haves'' and the
    ``nice to haves.''
        I have seen many, many bells and whistles that are
    available to the Capitol Police, and I could see the value in
    each and every one of those. But when we have just come through
    a recession and there are real needs for the rest this bill, we
    need to make sure that we are funding those real needs and not
    the bells and whistles that could maybe wait so that we can
    fund the overall needs of an agency that is an entire branch of
    our Government.
        I know that is not your job to prioritize, but it is a
    question that is in need of an answer because it is hard to
    know when you are ready.
        Chief Dine. It is a brilliant question, and it faces every
    Chief in the country.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. A brilliant question. Thank you very
    much.
        Chief Dine. Well, and I don't think there is a Chief that
    knows, generally speaking, what that perfect number is, and in
    my previous lives, I have had that same conversation. I think
    in some ways it is easier for us because of the functions that
    we face, which are quite often specific.
        We have a number of posts that, for a number of reasons, we
    have to staff. Because of the fact we have so many fixed posts
    and assigned specific duties, it makes, for instance, training
    those officers more of a challenge than it would your
    traditional police department where you literally could take
    maybe half the officers offline and the public might not even
    realize that there are half of the officers working for a 2-
    week period or a tour of duty.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Are you in a posture where you will
    just ask for whatever we will give you and you will take
    whatever we will give you because you could always put it to
    good use?
        Chief Dine. No, the----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Or are you actually crafting a
    budget that is representative of what your actual needs are to
    be able to make sure that we can cover the Capitol complex and
    its security needs?
        Chief Dine. Well, first of all, we will always do the best
    we can with the resources that you give us, and we appreciate
    those resources. We feel that Appropriations takes very good
    care of the department and the congressional community. That
    being said, this budget and the budgets that we craft are
    specifically crafted to meet the very specific and focused
    duties that we are being asked to do by the Capitol Police
    Board and our multiple stakeholders.
        There are literally post-by-post reviews, and we scrub
    every assignment and we analyze every post. We want to have
    sufficient number of relief for those officers. We want to be
    able to have a response capability. In fact, we want to be able
    to have multiple response capabilities as we saw a couple of
    years ago when we had simultaneous disruptions in some
    hearings. We can't be equipped to only respond to one
    disruption. We need to be able to respond to multiple
    disruptions.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I have
    other questions, but I will reserve them.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Chief. And I think from the onset I
    mentioned there would be some scrutiny in questions, and as
    demonstrated with the brilliant questions coming from Ms.
    Wasserman Schultz, with brilliant answers, obviously, from the
    Chief.
        Mr. Amodei has indicated he has no questions at this time,
    but----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My work here is done, Mr. Chairman.

                               USCP RADIO SYSTEM

        Mr. Graves. Mr. Palazzo is next in the queue.
        Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you to our Chief and our Capitol Police. You make
    us feel safe, not just here in D.C. and our staff and our
    families, but also at home, being very responsive to possible
    security situations. I am glad to have you on our side.
        In 2014, I believe you all upgraded to a new interoperable
    radio system after years of delay. Do you care to tell us, is
    it working?
        Chief Dine. Thank you for that question. Yes, sir, I am
    proud to say, because of the work of Mr. Braddock and his
    entire team, that system, the minute we turned it on has worked
    flawlessly. We are extremely proud of the way that system
    works. There is not a day that goes by as I am traveling around
    on the campus or in the city or in the region where I don't
    marvel at the effectiveness of that system.
        Just the other day, we were in a tunnel and there were some
    accidents there. We stopped to deal with that. It works pretty
    much everywhere, but it is built to be continually improved and
    upgraded as necessary, as we need to put things online.
        Thank you for your support for that system. And yes, it is
    working very, very well. We are very proud of it.
        Mr. Graves. Anything else?
        Mr. Palazzo. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do have some questions,
    so if we ever do a more secretive--probably more about the
    operations and the things that we don't see on a daily basis
    that they are probably doing to keep us safe.
        Mr. Graves. Yes. All right.
        Mr. Palazzo. I don't think this will be the setting.
        Mr. Graves. That might be a different setting, yes.
        Mr. Farr.
        Mr. Farr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that after the
    votes we will come back, because this is a half-a-billion-
    dollar budget hearing, and we haven't even talked about the
    Architect of the Capitol.
        Mr. Graves. I appreciate you bringing that up. That is the
    plan. That is probably likely after your question. We will see.
    Maybe Mr. Jenkins will have a question, and then we can go
    vote. We will suspend, recess for a moment, and then return.
        Mr. Farr. Well, I would like to echo, Chief Dine and the
    others, your incredible public service.
        Chief Dine. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Farr. I want to also thank you for allowing the kids to
    sled on the west slope after the Snowmageddon. I think that was
    a great uplift for the Hill, and I appreciate your tolerance in
    that.
        Chief Dine. Thank you.
        Mr. Farr. You just laid out, I mean, to me it seems have
    built an empire since you have been here. And that is a good
    thing. I think people in charge need to build empires. But when
    you talk about an open campus, I would argue that your actions
    make it is less open. The garages are less open because we have
    closed permanent doors in Longworth and Rayburn garages. We
    have closed hallways. We now want to put a magnetometer and
    officers in the garage off of Longworth.
        I am concerned because right now, as we speak, somebody
    just sent me a video--I mean, a picture of the long line
    outside of Longworth. All this week people have been out there,
    and last week in the rain, out to the sidewalk. You haven't
    changed the number of officers in that line, you have two
    magnetometers there, and only one is ever open. The same number
    of officers are on there. And we keep giving you more officers.
        This building is owned by the American public, not by us in
    Congress. They lend us these jobs, and in turn we hire you. But
    our function for all of us here is to make government
    accessible and petitionable and all of those things, and I know
    we have to have all this security. We have to have good
    security. But I am concerned about sort of the mission creep,
    and I want to get into some questions.

                COORDINATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN DC

        One of them is, and I asked this last year, but I don't
    know if I got an answer about how many law enforcement agencies
    are there, including all the Federal agencies, the Park Service
    Police and the White House, both uniform and un-uniform. How
    many law enforcement agencies are there in the District of
    Columbia?
        Chief Dine. There are about 32.
        Mr. Farr. Thirty-two separate law enforcement.
        Chief Dine. I believe so.
        Mr. Farr. And do you have interoperable agreements with
    them, like the fire department does, on backup responding?
        Chief Dine. Yes. We work very closely with many or most of
    them. We have interoperability with our radio system with many
    of them, and we do support each other. I think as time has
    passed, I was actually, as you may recall, with the DC Police
    Department during 9/11. After that, the departments, frankly,
    began to communicate better, and I think each of us also began
    to, it is sort of a double-edge answer, carve out our role and
    responsibilities.
        Mr. Farr. Well, as I understand, last year, when you were
    asking for the increase, it was for overtime, and the overtime
    was being paid because we had to release officers on these new
    special duties. We have a canine team, we have a chemical team,
    we have a SWAT team, we have all kinds of different teams, and
    officers have to be specially trained for that, and we give
    them overtime. We suggested that, perhaps with mutual aid
    agreements, that these 32 departments together could probably
    respond to a lot of these specialty needs without having to
    have our own in, without having everything in-house.
        I mean, this is the kind of problem the Government has
    everywhere, just needing more and more and more. We are coming
    to the end of the line of that. We are really looking for
    building of more cost-effective collaboratives.
        Chief Dine. We do collaborate during our national security
    special events. There is great cooperation and teamwork among
    all the agencies. I think the challenge we face from a day-to-
    day perspective, those functions you just mentioned, those are
    daily tasks that we have to engage in at that time. There are
    layers----
        Mr. Farr. Don't each of those 32 agencies have to do the
    same thing? I mean, doesn't the Metropolitan Police, which
    surrounds us, have all those functions? You have a 4-block
    jurisdiction, they are responsible for everything in that and
    outside.
        Chief Dine. Right. Their role and responsibilities are
    different. Where our role and responsibilities are detecting
    both vehicle-borne explosives and personal-borne explosives,
    the Metropolitan Police Department deals with other issues. The
    challenges we face are separate and distinct in that regard,
    and I know that none of them have the ability to take on those
    functions for us.
        In regard to the Department's overtime, as we often say at
    our budget hearings, we actually have more mission than we have
    people, which is why there is always some----
        Mr. Farr. Well, that is what I am kind of hinting at, that
    maybe some of that mission ought to be more shared and more
    mutually responsive than just stand-alone here.
        Chief Dine. Right.
        Mr. Graves. Mr. Farr, before you go on to your next
    question, I am watching the vote clock behind you.
        And Mr. Jenkins, if he could get in any kind of comment or
    question you have before we recess and come back, the chief and
    his team will still be here, and we will continue if that is OK
    with Mr. Farr.
        Mr. Jenkins.
        Mr. Jenkins. Just like those who are looking forward to
    retirement, they can count the days, the hours, and the
    minutes, we watch as well.
        Chief, thank you for outstanding service. We wish you the
    very best. Thank you for all you have done to keep us safe and
    the public who comes to visit. So thank you for your service.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Graves. OK. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins.
        Well, this committee will stand in recess until we return,
    and we will be back in not too long, I would hope. Maybe 10 or
    15 minutes, Chief.
        Thank you all very much. We stand in recess.
        [Recess.]

                            LONGWORTH MAGNETOMETERS

        Mr. Amodei [presiding]. We are going to call the meeting
    back to order. Thanks, Chief and Assistant Chief and Mr.
    Braddock, for your patience. I understand, Chief, you have
    leave at 2:45.
        So we are going to start with the gentleman from
    California. I think he had some other questions.
        Mr. Farr. Thank you.
        Mr. Amodei. So please proceed.
        Mr. Farr. Thank you very much.
        When you were in the office last Friday, we were talking
    about the new magnetometers that were going to be placed in the
    Longworth Building and the personnel that would be needed for
    that, for passage from the Longworth garage. You indicated that
    you would need no new personnel to staff those magnetometers,
    you would arrange it, it would be budget neutral. Well, I see
    in this budget that you have requested 72 new officers.
        So which is it? Is it budget neutral, no new staff, or 72
    new officers? Is it budget neutral when you are requesting $5.7
    million more? I don't think that those magnetometers and
    officers truly are budget neutral.
        But I am just curious as to where this suggestion
    originated. Was it something that came out of law enforcement
    or was it something that came more out of staff in Congress,
    leadership staff? Who comes and says we need this in light of
    San Bernardino? I am getting a feeling that some of this
    pressure on you is not necessarily originated in law
    enforcement circles.
        Chief Dine. Well, there are probably a couple of answers to
    that. As you know----
        Mr. Farr. You are leaving, so we can say anything.
        Chief Dine. It has been an identified vulnerability for a
    number of years, probably over 10 years. That being said, we
    work very closely with the Board, and as you know, each Board
    member--even though I am a member of the Board, I am a
    nonvoting member--each Board member has their own role and
    responsibilities for their constituents. And that was a
    priority of the House as well.
        We work with the Board as a whole to craft--in addition to
    our own force development process, every year we go through our
    own internal process to identify threats and vulnerabilities to
    build our budget.
        Mr. Farr. Well, I appreciate that. I think what
    Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz was talking about is the
    Board's role.
        I think, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we need to do
    in Congress, and everything we do in government, is to be aware
    of mission creep. We gave no COLA to our employees last year.
    The budget by the Architect of the Capitol, I think requests
    about a--I forget the percentage increase, but it is a
    substantial percentage increase. And the Capitol Police, it is
    a 9, almost 10 percent increase in the budget request.
        We all need to be focused on safety and morale. Poor morale
    could lead to crazy gun shooters. We can secure ourselves
    beyond necessity, at the same time leave ourselves vulnerable
    to disgruntled people. So I do think you always have to balance
    that.
        I just wonder whether these new checkpoints--particularly
    setting up a magnetometer in the Longworth garage access point
    when staff have already been cleared to enter--is necessary.
    Drivers to go in with your their own car, you have to show your
    own ID, nobody can be in that car without an ID, officers look
    in your trunk, you park your car, you get out, then you got to
    do it all over again. That person is our staff.
        In fact, you are going to hear, because I just, being late
    to this, I rushed my staff through the security downstairs
    because people said when you are in a hurry and your chief of
    staff is with you, you can do that. And the officer called me
    out, wanted to know my name, took it down, I gave it to him,
    and he said he was going to talk to you about it. So you can
    say: Well, that Farr, he is just a troublemaker anyway.
        I think that by doing this we are questioning the loyalty
    of our own staff. And, you know, you are only going to put this
    magnetometer in one garage, in one place. It is not going to be
    done in the Rayburn garage. So why not wait until it can be
    done in all garages? Instead you should have officers opening
    up building doors, so when the public is trying to get into
    Longworth, they can get in, and probably Cannon as well, and
    Rayburn.
        If we need more officers for the door, that is fine, but do
    we need more officers to check our staff? I am not with it.

                    CONCEALED WEAPONS IN THE CAPITOL COMPLEX

        Let me just ask you one last question and then I am
    finished. When we were talking, I went back and looked at the
    stated priorities of the department, and your stated priority
    is to provide comprehensive internal assessment, assessment
    capability to identify and validate threats.
        Is it true that there are Members of Congress who carry
    concealed weapons on campus and even in the House Chamber?
        Chief Dine. I don't know that for a fact.
        Mr. Farr. Do they carry concealed weapons, some Members?
        Chief Dine. I believe some Members have concealed carry
    permits.
        Mr. Farr. You don't know about those?
        Chief Dine. But as how they carry them or where they and
    when they carry them, I am not aware of it.
        Mr. Farr. Can they get into their offices with those
    weapons?
        Chief Dine. They are allowed to have them in their offices.
    How they get them there would be a subject of questioning. They
    are allowed to have them in their offices.
        Mr. Farr. Do you know every Member who has one?
        Chief Dine. No, sir.
        Mr. Farr. Isn't that part of your role under your
    responsibility to know?
        Chief Dine. That would be interesting information to have.
        Mr. Farr. Well, interesting? It is essential. Here we are
    trying to create a really secured campus, and we don't even
    know how many Members are essentially violating the rules. the
    law allows them to have a concealed weapon, I guess, but it is
    not necessary to bring that weapon into the House and certainly
    not on the floor.
        Chief Dine. They may in fact be comporting with the rules,
    and this is probably one place where the Sergeant at Arms--the
    role of the Sergeant at Arms does come into play since they are
    the direct liaison to the Members.
        Mr. Farr. Would carrying a weapon onto the House floor be
    committing an illegal act?
        Chief Dine. That would be something that the Sergeant at
    Arms and Capitol Police would not want to have happen.
        Mr. Farr. Maybe with the Sergeant here tomorrow we can get
    to the bottom of this.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        Anything from the gentleman from Mississippi?
        Mr. Palazzo. I have already asked my question.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        Mr. Palazzo. And he answered, so thank you.
        Mr. Amodei. The gentlelady from Florida.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.

                      HOUSE GARAGES AND ENHANCED SECURITY

        Chief, I want to just go more specifically into the issue
    of the House garages and the security screenings that are in
    the process of being implemented, or at least getting ready to
    be implemented.
        Why has a proposed security in the House garages suddenly
    gone through an implementation process that did not go through
    the normal appropriations process, was never discussed by any
    elected Member of Congress, hasn't gone through regular order,
    or allowed us to prioritize how much that would cost compared
    to competing needs? I'm concerned this new proposal is causing
    shifts of officers and causing what I would view as a shoddy,
    disorderly process. This process ultimately will likely not
    result in our being able to make sure that the security goals
    are achieved. We should rather be going through an orderly
    process that allows for people who were elected to make funding
    decisions, and who were selected for this committee to do that;
    to do our jobs.
        So I have several questions in that category. Will the
    screening of staff at garages mean that the screening of staff
    and visitors at the Cannon and Rayburn tunnels are going to be
    eliminated? For example, the Senate screens all the staff, so
    they have closed out the screening in other places because they
    have one sort of central point. I know they screen a lot less
    people than we do.
        Chief Dine. Yes, ma'am. Ultimately, yes. The answer to that
    is long term, yes.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. I thought that would be your
    answer. We are only in the process of trying to do this in
    Longworth. So, how are you going to achieve that if we are not
    doing the same in Rayburn, which has, perhaps 80 doors inside
    the garage? Let me preface this by saying I am absolutely 100
    percent behind necessary security measures. I mean, we
    absolutely should have these in place. But we have a process
    that exists for us to follow as appropriators, and it has not
    been followed.
        Now you have to come up with how many officers you are
    having to shift midstream that you haven't planned for. Are you
    going to leave them wherever they were uncovered, or have those
    slots covered by something else or someone else?
        Why would we partially implement a garage security project?
    It seems to me like you should do it all or you don't do any of
    it until you can do all of it. What is the total startup cost
    to fully implement garage security? How much is it going to
    cost us in staffing each year after it is up and running?
    Because it is not just a cost now. That is the first one, for
    starters.
        Chief Dine. I think the timing is a function of a couple
    things, what has happened recently across the country and as
    well as working with the Board. And as I mentioned----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But what is the urgency? I mean, do
    we have--you mentioned earlier we don't have a credible threat.
    Of course, anything could happen at any time and you always
    have to be ready. But we are 15 years past 9/11, and we have
    been functioning, and it has been a concern the whole time, but
    we have been functioning without that security at the garages.
    What is the ``all-fire emergency'' that it has to be done
    outside the appropriations process, outside regular order? And
    essentially, where did this order, where did this come from?
        Chief Dine. As we work with the Board in terms of our own
    internal force development process and threat assessment, we
    also work with the individual Board members and their desires,
    as really they are stakeholders. This initiative clearly was a
    desire on the part of the House Sergeant at Arms to move this
    forward as----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I just met with the House Sergeant
    at Arms in my office, and without discussing our conversation,
    that is not my understanding. Where did this come from?
        Chief Dine. Well, we work with the Capitol Police Board and
    the various Sergeant at Arms----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I know you are just doing your job
    and you have to follow the direction that you are given.
        But I would like someone, Mr. Chairman--I realize you are
    the acting chairman for the moment--but I absolutely would like
    an explanation as to why we have gone outside regular order. No
    one on the Capitol Police Board is elected to anything. And we
    have an Appropriations Committee for a reason, and we are the
    ones that spend time, over many years, prioritizing what our
    needs are.
        Perhaps we would decide that this is an urgent need that
    has to be done immediately. Then we could prioritize where we
    shift funds, and decide what is going to be at the top of the
    priority list and what we reduce down lower, if this is an all-
    fire emergency. But it has not been an all-fire emergency for
    15 years, so I don't know how it is now.
        I need a more specific explanation, which I am happy to
    further explore with the Sergeant when he is here tomorrow.
        Mr. Chairman, this is no way to run a rodeo, and this might
    prove to be a need that is more urgent than it has been up to
    now. However, that is our responsibility as appropriators to
    make that decision, not for it to be imposed upon us and
    dropped in, in the middle of what we all committed to and that
    I heard the leadership pledge fealty to when the current
    Speaker took his office, which is to return to regular order.
        And this is anything but that, and it is a very significant
    amount of money, millions upon millions of dollars committed
    many years in the future. I mean, I think you have asked for
    something like 57 officers to cover this, and they serve until
    they are 57. That is 57 officers who will serve until 57. That
    is a very large commitment to never actually have gone through
    the planning process that we have here.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I would like you, if you could relay to
    Chairman Graves that I would like to have my questions
    submitted for the record, and whoever is responsible for
    beginning the process of the House garage security project
    outside of the Appropriations Committee should be asked and
    required to answer our questions.
        Mr. Amodei. OK.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My questions.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        Chief, I want to thank you for your response to requests to
    me, which kind of ties into the ranking member's stuff in terms
    of--and I know you are getting a little loose in the saddle or
    whatever. But I do appreciate the fact that having got a C or
    above in civics, I think I understand something about
    oversight.
        So perhaps--we have had some luck with this in the future,
    subject to the chairman's approval--if we ask you to put
    together a briefing, with you and the Sergeant at Arms, we will
    have a chance to ask him tomorrow, to schedule that, as opposed
    to a letter, which in my experience, nobody else's, tends to
    take about a quarter of most congressional Members' terms
    around here. Not your agency specifically, that we can put
    together a briefing perhaps and get the Sergeant at Arms in the
    room, you guys in the room to basically have that discussion.
        If that is appropriate, we will forward that on to the
    chairman and see if we can't get that done before you go join
    the ``older I get the better I was'' club.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Amodei, are you suggesting that
    we come back together so that we can have that conversation? We
    can even do it in closed session.
        Mr. Amodei. Well, my thought is we will just set a meeting,
    and the Members that are interested in it attend the meeting
    and can have the discussion.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right. I think that would be
    extremely helpful.
        Mr. Amodei. Great.
        Chief, we kept you for 3 minutes, but over the course of
    how many years, that is probably about as good as it gets, so
    thank you for your service.
        And thank you, folks.
        Chief Dine. Thank you all for your support.
        Mr. Amodei. As always, members can submit questions in
    writing. We will work on that briefing.
        Mr. Farr. Can you answer that question on the budget
    neutral, whether it is budget neutral or not?
        Chief Dine. Right now it is, but long term, clearly it is
    not because we are taking on new tasks. Right now, in the short
    term, as the ranking member said, we are moving folks around
    and we are trying to make the best use of the resources we have
    to implement this as asked. Long term, obviously--
        Mr. Farr. So you don't need the 72 officers for this.
        Chief Dine. No. We will long term, because we are taking on
    new tasks. We will, absolutely.
        Mr. Amodei. OK. Thank you.
        This session of the meeting is adjourned.
        [Questions submitted for the record follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                                Tuesday, March 1, 2016.

                            ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                                    WITNESS

    HON. STEPHEN T. AYERS, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
        Mr. Amodei [presiding]. We are going to restart this
    section of the meeting devoted to hearing the budget request of
    the Architect of the Capitol.
        Mr. Ayers, welcome.
        Mr. Ayers. Thank you.
        Mr. Amodei. I have got some stuff that talks about your
    statistics here, which is very good, and I will keep that in
    case I ever need to know that. But I don't think I am going
    to--since we are a little bit late, I will go ahead and forego
    that and defer to the ranking member from Florida.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz, your opening remarks, please.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And welcome back to the committee, Mr. Ayers. It is always
    a pleasure to work with you, and I enjoyed the opportunity to
    briefly review your budget request, which is $694.3 million and
    13.3 percent above the enacted.
        I am pleased to see that the budget includes some funds for
    the Historic Buildings Trust Fund, and I appreciate the
    chairman keeping the Historic Buildings Trust Fund alive last
    year while separately funding the Cannon project. Funding
    Cannon's restoration as its own line item was the right thing
    to do, really important for us to use the Historic Preservation
    Trust Fund to bank resources for future restoration and
    renewal. We have got hundreds of millions of dollars in front
    of us, and so one of the things I am concerned about, as I
    mentioned to you, is, while our oversight is important and we
    want to make sure that we can have as much transparency as
    possible--that is why the separation was important--this year's
    budget request for the Historic Buildings Trust Fund is only
    $10 million. I am concerned that we are not banking enough
    funds to save for future large-scale projects. Cannon is $800
    million by itself, and we know Longworth and Rayburn will be
    even more.
        So, in 10 years, if we keep going at this rate, we would
    only save $100 million for future projects. The Cannon House
    Building alone, as I said, will cost close to $800 million. I
    am certain the next building to need major renovations won't be
    any less. So saving $10 million a year for the next big project
    is not enough, in my opinion. And I would ask my colleagues to
    consider that as we go through the process of crafting this
    budget.
        As we consider a budget that reflects our interests, our
    values and our needs, we have to start with responsible
    planning within our own walls.
        In addition to the Cannon project, the Architect is in the
    home stretch of restoring the Capitol dome. Congratulations on
    that. This subcommittee funded the $126 million needed to
    restore the dome and the rotunda to its former glory. I am
    looking forward to seeing it before the inauguration next year,
    and that project is the most visible example around the world
    of our roles as stewards of these great institutions that make
    up Congress.
        And I look forward to your testimony.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        Mr. Ayers, we have your opening statement. If you want to
    summarize that or remove that from the record and start from
    scratch, the option is yours.

               Summary Statement of the Architect of the Capitol

        Mr. Ayers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Wasserman Schultz and members of the subcommittee, I am
    delighted to be here today to present the Architect of the
    Capitol's 2017 budget request.
        2016 promises to be a banner year for the Architect of the
    Capitol as several important projects will be coming to a
    close. Most visibly, before the 2017 Presidential Inauguration,
    restoration work on the Capitol dome and rotunda will be
    complete. On the dome, the installation of cupola windows is
    complete. The reinstallation of large ornaments is in progress
    and, in fact, scheduled to be completed today. The cast iron
    repairs continue through the mid and lower section of the dome.
    Inside the rotunda, coffers have been stripped of old paint,
    and new painting is about to get underway. Here on the House
    side, work is progressing well on the initial phase of the
    Cannon House Office Building renewal.

                       STEWARDSHIP THROUGH PRIORITIZATION

        Updating and improving our facilities through fiscal
    responsibility continues to be the most important priority for
    us. For example, the redesign of the Bartholdi Park project, as
    you see under construction now, resulted in a cost reduction of
    nearly $4 million. Over the course of the past 10 years, the
    installation of over $90 million in energy conservation
    measures in our buildings using energy savings performance
    contracts significantly aided in our ability to achieve the
    legislated 30 percent reduction in our energy intensity in our
    buildings. In fact, we exceeded that with a 30.9 percent
    reduction. This exceeds the target set by the Energy
    Independence and Security Act and is something that we are
    very, very proud of.
        These projects are all success stories but are also
    compelling examples of the need for sustained, significant
    investment in our deteriorating infrastructure. Continuing to
    defer our needs results in critical damage that compounds and
    becomes costlier to repair. Safety and state of good repair
    upgrades are the centerpiece of our 2017 request of $694
    million. We continue to address an enormous backlog today
    estimated at $1.49 billion.

                            FISCAL YEAR 2017 REQUEST

        Our 2017 budget request builds on our successes, seeking
    $165 million for major capital projects deemed urgent or
    immediate. These include replacing obsolete chillers at the
    Capitol Power Plant to ensure safe and efficient air
    distribution throughout 23 buildings across the Capitol campus;
    eliminating water infiltration that has deteriorated facades of
    most of our buildings on Capitol Hill, in particular, the
    Rayburn House Office Building garage is in need of a
    comprehensive project to address concrete delamination and, if
    not funded, will jeopardize the structure of the garage;
    repairing leaks, corrosion, and aging piping systems in the
    Capitol Building threaten to affect the operation of this
    building; improving the life safety of the Library of Congress
    buildings through the second phase of the Thomas Jefferson
    Building North Exit Stair B project, which will increase the
    capacity to quickly evacuate that building in an emergency.
        Failure to address these and several other critical
    projects in the short-term will exacerbate the aging process
    and facilitate new deterioration and failures, ultimately
    increasing the cost of these repairs.
        I believe that working together we can remain a strong and
    healthy symbol for our Nation's growth and prosperity, and I
    thank you for the opportunity today, and I would be happy to
    answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ayers follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                HOUSE PAGE DORM

        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        The gentlelady from Florida.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Ayers, I have a few questions.
        I will try to flip through them, but you might want to
    bounce back and forth to other members, Mr. Chairman.
        I wanted to ask you about the page dorm because if you
    remember, in fiscal year 2014, I included language in our bill
    to make sure the committee is notified before any work is done
    to the page dorm or there is any discussion or proposal to use
    it for a different purpose. Has there been any work done to the
    building since the page program was eliminated, and have there
    been any discussions about the future of that building that you
    are aware of?
        Mr. Ayers. I am not aware that we have done any work to
    that building other than routine maintenance to keep it from
    deteriorating. So we have done no new construction work there.
    However we have received a request from the Speaker's Office to
    begin reviewing that building for potential future uses.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Are there specific future uses? Have
    they been specific?
        Mr. Ayers. Yes.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And what are those?
        Mr. Ayers. They have asked us to look at a potential
    childcare center in that space.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. So the language in the fiscal
    year 2014 bill directed you to make sure that you made the
    committee aware before you made any changes. So I would very
    much appreciate if we make sure that those discussions don't go
    any further without including the subcommittee in those
    discussions.
        Mr. Ayers. Of course.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. There is nothing wrong with child
    care, but the purpose of it was to make sure that we could make
    a decision, as I keep raising, that is ours to make when it
    comes to prioritizing how funds are spent and the appropriate
    use for the facilities that are on the Capitol, that are in the
    Capitol complex.
        Also, just to give Members something to chew on, while that
    is an interesting proposal--and as a mother of young children,
    I certainly understand the need for expanded childcare
    opportunities. But any decision that we make that permanently
    alters the ability for us to maintain that building as a dorm,
    as a dormitory, forever precludes us from reinstituting the
    page program if future House leadership ever chooses to do
    that.
        I, for one, lament that we do not have a House page program
    any longer. There are generations of young people who were
    inspired by their participation in that program to engage in
    public service. I remain convinced that we could go back and
    try to reform that program and make sure that if it were
    reinstituted, we could keep young people engaged.
        Mr. Farr. The Senate still has one.

                        RAYBURN SMALL ARMS FIRING RANGE

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes, they do. They do, and they have
    their own dorm. Ours is closed.
        OK. The Rayburn firing range, as you know, is closed. It is
    a brand-new firing range that the AOC was responsible for
    managing the construction. How long was it open before the
    problems of ricocheting bullets were identified, and what is
    the timeline for reopening it? What happened with the
    contractor that the design of the firing range resulted in
    ricocheting bullets? I mean, it is sort of baffling how this
    could occur.
        Mr. Ayers. The range was open for approximately 2 weeks,
    and we were notified by the police officers' union of a number
    of safety concerns with the range. The Capitol Police, I think
    appropriately, shut it down while we could investigate and
    understand what all of those issues were. We don't know today
    whether it is an operational issue, meaning a usage issue, or
    whether it is a design flaw. We are in the middle of working
    through all of that right now.
        We have a really good team of people from my organization
    and Chief Dine's organization that are working together with
    the designers, the contractor, and the manufacturer of the
    range to understand whether or not there are any design flaws.
    Second, the police are working apace to determine what are the
    operational requirements that they need to have in place, and
    they are bringing the range manufacturer on board as a
    consultant to them to help them design systems and procedures
    to safely and effectively use this range.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. What is the timetable for
    determining why this happened and what the cause was and/or
    reopening the range?
        Mr. Ayers. I think my best guess----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Are there any additional costs that
    we are going to be incurring as a result of the process that
    they have to go through now?
        Mr. Ayers.My best guess is, perhaps 2 months as we work
    through possible causes. There are 15 issues on the table.
    Three or four are closed out already, and as we work through
    all of those, it is going to take a little time to do that.
        We don't know whether there is a design problem which would
    result in us having to reconstruct something, so we don't know
    when the range will reopen or if there will be a future
    expense. There are, I think, expenses that we are incurring
    today and Capitol Police are incurring today. For example,
    bringing in a third-party consultant to help us understand
    whether there is a design issue or not. The police bringing in
    a team to help them write their operation and maintenance
    procedures, the cleaning procedures, and the procedures for
    effectively using this range will cost a small amount of money
    out of their budget.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Is there a provision in the
    contracts that you had with the vendors that designed it, or
    built it for reimbursement of costs incurred from design flaws
    or errors that are determined ultimately to be the fault of the
    contractor, rather than the fault of the Architect of the
    Capitol's personnel?
        Mr. Ayers. There are those provisions in our contracts, and
    we have used them before, not on this contract, obviously, but
    on other contracts, and if we find there are errors, or
    omissions, or negligence, we will take the necessary action to
    recover our costs and protect the government's interest.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. How much would you say you plan to
    spend to address the problems thus far, and what do you
    anticipate it costing going forward?
        Mr. Ayers. I don't think we have actually spent any money
    yet, but if we hire a third-party consultant, we could spend
    $20,000, perhaps, to have someone work with us for a few weeks
    to help us work through all of the design details and determine
    whether they are produced correctly.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But, potentially, we could have to
    have a reconstruction or a redesign that could cost far more
    than that?
        Mr. Ayers. That could be the case. We really don't know,
    but it could be the case.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And the range remains closed. Was
    anyone hurt during the use of the range from the ricocheting
    bullets?
        Mr. Ayers. No, and these, of course, are fragments of
    bullets, and they bounce back off of the end wall and tumble
    across the floor.

                               U.S. CAPITOL DOME

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I mentioned in my testimony the
    Capitol dome project being in the home stretch, and I wanted to
    ask you whether you expect that it is going to come in at the
    full $126 million expenditure, or do you anticipate there being
    any funds that will remain at the end of the project that could
    possibly be used for other projects.
        Mr. Ayers. That is a very distinct possibility. You know,
    the dome is in three phases. On the outer phase, we are 87 or
    88 percent complete. We are really in the home stretch there.
    We will see the top portion of the scaffolding coming down this
    month and then 63 or 64 percent complete on the interstitial
    space and about 50 percent complete with the rotunda work. And,
    given all of that, we still have ample contingency amounts
    available to us should we need them. But we are so far along in
    the job, that it is very unlikely that we will need to use
    those. I think there is a very distinct possibility that we
    will have money left over.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. About how much, do you think?
        Mr. Ayers. I couldn't wage a guess on that.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If you could let us know, that would
    be helpful.
        When the scaffolding is removed, what will people notice?
    What is the biggest differences that people will notice about
    the dome, the most visible change after the restoration?
        Mr. Ayers. It is interesting that, on the outside, as you
    take off 13 layers of lead-based paint, the dome and the detail
    really come alive, and I have been able to see it up close, and
    I am really excited about taking the scaffold down and
    unveiling it for the country, if not the world, to see. I think
    there is going to be a renewed sense of beauty and a renewed
    sense of the incredible detail that went into building this
    dome.
        Similarly, I think, on the inside, you will see a slight
    change in color of the rotunda. The rotunda has been painted
    four times since it was first constructed in the 1860s. And the
    color scheme that we have chosen goes back to the 1906 and 1946
    era. The current colors that you see are from the early 1970s
    and really don't have a historical precedent to them. So there
    will be a slight change in color.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman, just one more
    question, and then I will just be done instead of coming back
    to me, if you don't mind.
        Mr. Amodei. OK.

                              WORKING CAPITAL FUND

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We talked about the working capital
    fund in my office earlier, but can you explain what the
    Architect's personnel believe is wrong with the way that we
    fund your construction division through separate appropriations
    that we provide? And can you address the real issue of reduced
    oversight on our part if we allow you to move some of those
    separate appropriations to a working capital fund?
        Mr. Ayers. Sure, I would be happy to. Thank you. We have a
    200-person construction team that does work throughout the
    Capitol complex on a daily basis. And the way they are paid are
    from our appropriation in the Senate, our appropriation in the
    Library, our appropriation in the House. There are no
    appropriated dollars to pay their salaries. They are reimbursed
    from projects they undertake across the Capitol campus. And so
    it is an accounting nightmare for us to be able to track all of
    that. And a great example of that is: You take a plumber that
    is doing work today in the Senate Office Buildings installing a
    wet pipe sprinkler system, and that employee is earning annual
    leave and benefits and sick leave. And he will take those,
    perhaps, 2 or 3 months from now, while he is working on another
    job. Well, appropriations law will require us to find a way to
    take that leave entitlement and pay it from the job he was
    working on when he earned it. That is an accounting nightmare
    for us to do that, one that is recognized by our inspector
    general. Our inspector general recognized our inability to
    effectively and consistently do that through the long term and
    suggested that a working capital fund would be a much better
    way to run that operation. And we agree.
        And, of course, any controls that are necessary to ensure
    that the Congress has oversight and that we are transparent
    about that and that we are not spending money in any way that
    hasn't been authorized by this committee I think we would
    certainly welcome that.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, it would be important if we
    allow that shift to make sure that we put a mechanism in place
    that ensures that we can maintain the same oversight we have
    been able to under the current way you do it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back and thank you for
    your indulgence.
        Mr. Amodei. Yes, ma'am. The gentleman from California.

                                 ENERGY SAVINGS

        Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        How much money do you save from these energy investments,
    on the bill, on just the, you know, the monthly bill?
        Mr. Ayers. The three energy savings and performance
    contracts that we installed--one in the House, one in the
    Senate, and one in the Capitol--was an investment of about $90
    million of private money, and we pay back those vendors through
    the energy savings. The money that we are saving, we are
    actually paying back to those contractors because of that
    investment. And so today we have saved over the course of these
    projects, $7- or $8 million. The rest of that has been used to
    pay back the vendors for their investment.
        Mr. Farr. Did that investment include changing the light
    fixtures?
        Mr. Ayers. It did include changing the light fixtures.
        Mr. Farr. Are these LED lights? They don't look like it.
        Mr. Ayers. Carlos, do you know if these are LED lights?
        Mr. Elias. Yes, they are.
        Mr. Ayers. They are LED lights.

                             DATA CENTER RELOCATION

        Mr. Farr. I need some. Great. We are moving the House data
    center to southwestern Virginia. Right?
        Mr. Ayers. Correct, yes, we are.
        Mr. Farr. And you are very involved in that.
        Mr. Ayers. Actually, I am involved tangentially in terms of
    my agency has a small data center, and a number of years ago we
    colocated our data center into the House's data center instead
    of running our own. So if the House moves their data center, to
    us, it makes sense that we continue to stick with the House and
    go wherever the House goes.
        Mr. Farr. Yes, I presume that the decision to move sort of
    out of the Washington area was a strategic one, plus probably
    cost-effective for real estate purposes.
        Our leg branch services, the Library of Congress, wants to
    colocate their data center with ours. It makes a lot of sense.
    They are part of this family. Are you involved in that? I mean,
    we ought to be doing this. Who is accountable for--they say
    they have gotten no response from anybody and are suggesting
    they have got a huge cost involved. And it certainly makes
    sense if we are going to build one data center for ourselves,
    that we ought to include our family members in that design.
        Mr. Ayers. So the data center----
        Mr. Farr. Is that your responsibility?
        Mr. Ayers. It is not. It is with the House Chief
    Administrative Officer.
        Mr. Farr. Do we have jurisdiction for that office?
        Ms. Panone. I think so.
        Mr. Farr. So the Chief Administrative Officer is in charge
    of the building for the House itself, for our data center.
    Right? And yours, because you are colocated with them, or you
    are part of that?
        Mr. Ayers. The data center in Virginia, that we are
    speaking of, they are responsible for that.
        Mr. Farr. And they are also responsible then if the Library
    of Congress wants to be there? Are they responsible for that
    capital outlay?
        Mr. Ayers. I think they are negotiating the real estate
    deal and the lease deal, and so they would be the ones that
    would expand those negotiations to include others. I am not
    involved in that.
        Mr. Farr. How about for the design of the center? Wouldn't
    they use your resources? I mean, you are the Architect.
        Mr. Ayers. No. We are not involved in the design of that
    data center.
        Mr. Farr. Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can use--I
    mean, the dream here, the idea is, if we are going to move one,
    let's move all, and let's all be in one place.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, the Library is planning on
    piggybacking on this as well.
        Mr. Farr. They want to piggyback, but they are not
    getting--as I understand it--they are not getting any help or
    invitation to piggyback.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, if I
    might. My understanding is that it is in their budget request,
    and also, in last year's bill, we put language that allowed
    them to review, and study piggybacking onto this data center.
        Mr. Farr. OK. So everybody agrees it makes sense.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I just met with the acting
    Librarian, and he expressed a strong desire for it to happen,
    and they need it.
        Mr. Farr. Yes.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. He didn't suggest to me--you should
    check with them, Mr. Chairman--but he didn't suggest to me that
    there was a challenge.
        Mr. Farr. From what I understood is that they have really
    gotten no feedback, no response from wanting to be a partner in
    this.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. From the House?
        Mr. Farr. Maybe they don't know that it is the Chief
    Administrative Officer, thinking it was your--I have the
    question to be asked of you. So they might think that--they
    have been asking you. And, obviously, you don't have the
    responsibility for it.
        Mr. Ayers. No, I don't.
        Mr. Farr. All right. Well, we will check on it.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes, the information that I got a
    few hours ago from the acting Librarian is that they are
    working with House Administration, the Chief Administrative
    Officer in the House, and----
        Mr. Farr. Well, let's check on that.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. They will be with us tomorrow, so we
    can ask them then.

                           ADVICE AND LESSONS LEARNED

        Mr. Farr. OK. Fine. Thank you. This is probably my last
    question. I am leaving, and I am always asking this of
    everybody because I am always curious as to lessons learned. Is
    there anything in your career that you want to--lessons learned
    or advice you would give to us about the role of the Architect?
    I mean, it is an old role. It has been around for a long time.
        Mr. Ayers. It has been around since 1793, when George
    Washington first laid the cornerstone. And, you know, I think
    one of the challenges that all building managers face is
    managing a massive backlog of work that needs to be done, and
    you can't quite get it funded. I think this committee made such
    an important strategic decision in establishing the House
    Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund that will really
    enable us to make the best, the proper investments in our
    buildings over the course of generations to come. And, so, I
    know, as I look back, that is one of the things that is so
    important for me as the steward of the buildings that you all
    use on a daily basis.
        Mr. Farr. Did that trust fund receive private contributions
    as well?
        Mr. Ayers. I don't believe it can receive private
    contributions. But it can receive contributions from a wide
    variety of efforts, not just appropriated dollars or sweeping
    up unused dollars from the Architect. It has the ability to
    receive other dollars as well, but not private dollars.
        Mr. Farr. Well, like foundation dollars, or no outside--it
    has to be public money?
        Mr. Ayers. Correct.
        Mr. Farr. Why is that?
        Mr. Ayers. As I look back on my nearly 20 years here, we
    have had a number of opportunities to receive public money for
    a variety of projects. And I think it is not something that the
    Congress--I don't want to speak on behalf of the Congress, but
    my personal view of the situation is that it is not something
    that the Congress is eager to enter into agreements like that,
    for fear that there is perhaps some influence or quid pro quo
    of someone donating dollars. And the Congress, in my personal
    experience, has always wanted to fund projects themselves.
        Mr. Farr. I am looking at the Washington Monument right
    now, which was restored with private money.
        Mr. Ayers. It was.
        Mr. Farr. And Members enjoy the President series at the
    Library of Congress, paid for by a private individual. I think
    it is time that we revisit that. Families or foundations may
    want to contribute. I think there has been a call for why the
    private sector doesn't do more to support all of these
    incredible public assets, as they do in the national parks, as
    they do in our communities and libraries and so on, schools.
    Why not also allow them to contribute privately to this fund,
    which is so necessary to preserve the history of the political
    history of America?
        Mr. Ayers. We did accept some very generous donations when
    we constructed the Capitol Visitor Center. And we did accept
    some very limited funds when we constructed the National Garden
    at--west of the United States Botanic Garden. So there has been
    some very limited use of that in the past. And there is perhaps
    opportunity to expand that.
        Mr. Farr. Perhaps that could be some report language just
    to explore it.
        Mr. Amodei. I would imagine that the devil would be in the
    details: Who do you contribute to? How is it insulated from
    your concerns?
        Mr. Farr. Firewalls.

                                 CANNON RENEWAL

        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        Mr. Ayers, just a couple of things. Where are we at--and
    these are just kind of housekeeping. So Cannon costs, is that
    on track? Guaranteed maximum price, all of those fancy things
    that you guys are up on, but there is no warning signs on the
    horizon as far as Cannon costs go.
        Mr. Ayers. That is correct. In fact, just the opposite. We
    have recently completed our third cost and schedule risk
    analysis, and both of those say we have a greater than 80
    percent chance of achieving this project for the cost that we
    have identified and the schedule that we have identified,
    number one.
        Number two, we have also received the guaranteed maximum
    price from our contractor for all four phases coming up. And we
    are comfortable with that number. And it is within our cost
    estimate, and it is our desire to notify you in the coming
    weeks and move out and award that guaranteed maximum price
    contract in the middle of April.
        We have no warning signs, only signs of success at this
    point.
        Mr. Amodei. Good. Congratulations. How about the disruption
    stuff? When are the musical chairs going to start? Is that
    still scheduled based on the original information put out? And
    I know you could go on a long time. Please don't. Although you
    are not in Cannon anymore. Are you?
        Mr. Ayers. She is in Longworth.
        Mr. Amodei. And I know you are not in Cannon. Just supposed
    to be junior Republicans that are in Cannon.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is what you do when you are in
    the know about what is coming.
        Mr. Amodei. Only if you plan to sleep there. So how is that
    going?
        Mr. Ayers. We have moved over 400 people to the O'Neill
    Building already, and as we approach phase 1, it is in December
    that we need to move Members out of the west wing in Cannon and
    move them to Longworth and Rayburn. And we are on track to do
    that.
        Mr. Amodei. OK.
        Mr. Ayers. Prior to December, we will be moving non-Member
    spaces, so late summer, and early fall, we will clean up a few
    other committees that are still in that space, and we don't see
    anything holding us back from emptying out a wing of that
    building and being able to turn it over to our contractor in
    January.
        Mr. Amodei. Does that have anything to do with why you
    decided to leave, Mr. Farr? You are just like: I am not hanging
    around for that program.
        I do want to let the ranking member know that I had some
    questions about future use of the page dorm. Took a tour of it
    a while back, shared those with the Architect's staff and House
    Administration's staff, and they did a phenomenal job of saying
    in a very professional way that those are some of the dumbest
    ideas that they have ever heard. And so I am not going to speak
    for the Architect's Office, but when they get back to you with
    their report, please have your heavy coat on and stuff like
    that, even if it is a warm day for: Well, have you thought
    about this, that, or the other sort of thing? And it has
    basically just kept me minding my own business, even though I
    walk by it every day.
        But I completely agree with you in terms of the oversight
    stuff. It would be nice to know beforehand and have some
    meaningful input into that process.
        I wanted to thank you publicly for the access that we have
    had to your divisions, whatever they are called, in terms of
    going through the various shops. You know, with your folks in
    the paint department, the folks downstairs in the metal stuff,
    the wood shop people and all of that have been absolutely
    great. You have been very responsive, which means that we don't
    have a lot to do in these formal settings.
        I still do want to talk to the yard guys, though, because I
    am a frustrated farmer that lives on a 90-by-110 subdivision
    lot. So don't take that seriously. But anyhow, I want to thank
    you for that in terms the transparency and our requests have
    all been timely.

                              CAPITOL POWER PLANT

        Finally, the last thing I have is just an update on how
    things are going at the Power Plant. We have boiler things. We
    have chiller things. What is the quick and dirty on that?
        Mr. Ayers. So, on the boiler side, obviously, we need to
    replace a boiler now, so we have entered into a contract with
    Washington Gas to provide a cogeneration system that makes
    electricity and steam at the same time. That contract is
    signed, and in the fall of 2018, that will be fully operational
    and part of our inventory.
        Our work on the chilled water side is moving out very, very
    well on the refrigeration plant revitalization project, and we
    have the last of the chillers that we think we are going to
    need in our 2017 budget request.
        Mr. Amodei. OK. Good. Well, we have got to keep those
    pansies in Longworth cool in the summer. So that is good.
        I don't have anything else. Is there anything else of the
    other committee members? Then this meeting is adjourned.
        The committee will get back together tomorrow at 1:30 to
    hear from House Administration and Leadership. Thank you.
        [Questions submitted for the record follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                              Wednesday, March 2, 2016.

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   WITNESSES

    HON. KAREN L. HAAS, CLERK
    HON. PAUL D. IRVING, SERGEANT AT ARMS
    WILL PLASTER, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

                      Opening Statement of Chairman Graves

        Mr. Graves. I will go ahead and call the subcommittee to
    order. Welcome, everyone.
        Today we will begin our hearings on the Fiscal Year 2017
    Budget Request of the House of Representatives. I would like to
    welcome the officers of the House.
        Ms. Haas, thank you for joining us, Clerk of the House.
        Sergeant Paul Irving, Sergeant at Arms, thank you.
        And, our new Chief Administrative Officer, Mr. Plaster.
    Welcome. Congratulations to you on your new assignment. I look
    forward to working with you.
        Also in attendance we have Mr. Kerry Kircher, the General
    Counsel; Ms. Strokoff, who is Legislative Counsel; and Mr.
    Seep, who is Law Revision Counsel. I also understand that we
    have Ms. Theresa Grafenstine, the Inspector General, with us as
    well.
        So thank you, everyone, for joining us.
        This 2017 budget request for the House agencies is just
    under $1.2 billion, which is a little over $6 million more than
    last year's enacted amount. Much of the work that each of you
    and your offices do on a daily basis in an ideal world is
    certainly invisible. And if everything goes well, your work
    stays behind the scenes and generally unnoticed.
        However, we wanted you to know that this committee
    appreciates you and all the work you do for the House; and to
    keep the House secure, virtually and physically, and to ensure
    that we have all the proper tools. So we certainly recognize
    all the work you do for our work environment and keeping the
    environment safe.
        So, I look forward to working with each of you as we have
    certainly some challenges facing us in this fiscal year 2017.
    As we had a discussion yesterday, obviously there will be
    questions, and our job is to review the request and scrutinize
    where possible and save taxpayer dollars where possible. But I
    know that you all have presented something that is responsible,
    that accomplishes the objectives you have in mind. The
    committee will certainly take that into consideration.
        And at this point, I would like to welcome our ranking
    member, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, for any remarks she might have.

             Opening Statement of Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I join the chairman in welcoming our witnesses.
        Mr. Plaster, welcome to your first hearing in
    Appropriations. I know you are new to the job and that you are
    acting in a so-called interim capacity. But you have been of
    service to the House of Representatives for many years. We are
    looking forward to working with you and looking forward to your
    insights.
        The budget before us, unfortunately, provides no increases
    for the Members' Representational Allowance, our office
    budgets, committees, or leadership offices, with some increases
    for the officers of the House and for hearing room renovations.
        Mr. Chairman, I consider the House, as you know, the staff,
    operations, and its buildings, our primary ward. We are
    responsible. As unsexy as our portion of the budget for the
    United States of America is, it is a critical component because
    we are helping to make sure that the greatest democracy the
    world has ever known is able to function.
        It is in both parties' interest to ensure that the House
    functions at the highest levels so that we can attract and
    retain the best and brightest talent. We have heard countless
    discussions here where we lose to other agencies because we
    continue to be less and less competitive when it comes to the
    salaries that we pay, the benefits that we provide, and our
    ability to make sure that we can provide the best and brightest
    with enough attraction and reason to come and work for us
    instead of other competing potential opportunities.
        We have to leave this institution better than we found it,
    and that is our challenge and our responsibility as members of
    this subcommittee. I don't believe that we will accomplish such
    a laudable goal by providing the Capitol Police, for example,
    with an 8 percent budget increase while providing the House
    with a zero percent increase, which we did in the Omnibus that
    we just passed in December 2015. We cannot carry out our
    constitutional duties with those types of priorities.
        Assuming that our allocation remains the same in fiscal
    year 2017, I certainly hope that we can realign our priorities.
        I know I might be starting to sound like a broken record. I
    don't mind that. I am going to continue to advocate for our
    staff and for the institution.
        If you recall last year, Mr. Chairman, I reported that in
    2013, legislative assistants who work for the House of
    Representatives were being paid $6,000 less than they were in
    2009, when adjusted for inflation. And just in case we forgot
    how difficult it is to survive when you are just starting out
    in your career, I will point out that a median-priced one
    bedroom apartment in the DC area costs $2,000 a month. After
    paying for rent and eating in the House cafeterias, we are
    lucky that we can keep anyone on staff.
        Now, let me highlight something in the Fiscal Year 2016
    Omnibus that we were able to accomplish. With the help of the
    Clerk of the House, the committee funded $7 million in the
    Financial Services bill to increase the capacity of the
    National Archives and Records Administration to store archives
    of the House and Senate. The National Archives and Records
    Administration, which is funded in the Financial Services bill,
    is running out of space to store Legislative Branch archives.
    So that is not in our bill. NARA is, though, of great benefit
    to future Congresses, to historians and researchers, who will
    use this information to judge us when we are long gone.
        That was phase one, and I hope we can impress upon our
    colleagues on that subcommittee to keep this project going. And
    I would recommend to any member who has not been over to the
    Archives and been in the Legislative Vault, it is a sight to
    behold. And, you have an opportunity to have that.
        Mr. Chairman, you may even want to bring us on a field
    trip, as you have been wont to do, to the Archives, because the
    things that we will have an opportunity to see will, I think,
    motivate all members of this subcommittee to impress upon our
    Financial Services colleagues how important that is.
        But before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I do want to voice my
    frustration at how our committee continues to be circumvented
    outside of the regular order, which I know is a top priority of
    Speaker Ryan.. Decisions about funding are being decided in
    ways that cannot be brought to light through congressional
    oversight because they are being made outside of our ability to
    oversee them.
        We have spent from Federal appropriations more than $6
    million combined on the Benghazi Select Committee and on the
    Energy and Commerce Committee for the Select Investigative
    Committee on Planned Parenthood. The House budget presented to
    us to consider does not reflect the increased budget
    requirements for these partisan lawsuits, the Benghazi
    Committee, or the additional needs for the Planned Parenthood
    panel under Energy and Commerce.
        To add insult to injury, the Benghazi Committee, unlike
    every other committee of the House, and a committee that has
    existed for years now, does not receive its own appropriation
    and does not even receive funds through the Committee Funding
    Resolution that is voted on by the whole House. In other words,
    we have unelected people deciding how much money that committee
    gets.
        To add insult to injury, unlike every other committee of
    the House, it does not receive its own appropriation and it
    does not receive funds through our Committee Funding
    Resolution.
        We may never agree whether these activities are worthwhile,
    but for the sake of regular order, a refrain I have heard is
    being important to your side of the aisle over and over and
    over again, we must insist that these items be funded through
    the regular appropriations process and authorization processes.
    Not only do we not have oversight of how millions are being
    siphoned for political games, but this is threatening Congress'
    real work.
        These new political committees and panels come at the
    expense of our standing committees that have enacted very
    little authorizing legislation on important issues of our day.
    We can only surmise that if we funded those committees for
    their real policy work, that this Congress could actually begin
    working for the American people again and pass--shudder the
    thought--bipartisan legislation.
        Mr. Chairman, if for no other reason than for transparency
    for the American people, this subcommittee should insist on
    regular order and require the justifications to provide budget
    details on these committees and on the partisan lawsuits that
    we have, unfortunately, been funding at every turn. We know
    that they can provide that. They have gone on long enough.
        I have heard the General Counsel answer questions of mine,
    Mr. Chairman, in the past, where he said, we just don't know
    what the costs might ultimately be. Well, neither does the
    Department of Justice. But they are required to provide us with
    a budget justification and anticipate what their needs are,
    even when it comes to the uncertainty of their lawsuits.
        So within our limited scope, I look forward to hearing the
    testimony of the witnesses that are here today, and I yield
    back.

                         House Officers Opening Remarks

        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
        And now we will take an opportunity to hear from the
    officers. I would love to start with Ms. Haas first, ladies
    first, and then Mr. Irving and then Mr. Plaster. If each of you
    could just go in that order, and then we can have questions
    after that. Members will likely direct questions to one or all
    of you at some point.
        My understanding is our calendar, as long as yours allows
    for it, goes to about 2:30, that is what we were expecting
    here, no later than that, then we will have Library of Congress
    after that. So that sort of gives the Members a lay of the land
    here.
        So, Ms. Haas, thanks for joining us, and look forward to
    your comments. If you can briefly share what you have already
    prepared and know that your written statement will be submitted
    for the record.

                      Opening Remarks--Clerk of the House

        Ms. Haas. Thank you. Chairman Graves, Ranking Member
    Wasserman Schultz, and members of the subcommittee, I
    appreciate the opportunity to testify before you regarding the
    operations of the Office of the Clerk and our fiscal year 2017
    budget request. Thank you for providing the resources and
    guidance to allow us to continue to carry out our duties and
    responsibilities for the legislative and institutional
    operations of the House.
        There is much to report since our last hearing. We have
    made great progress on our Web site redesign and expect a beta
    version to be available in January of 2017. The Web site will
    focus on our legislative responsibilities and have a robust
    search function that will include more advanced vote searches.
        We have completed updates to the docs.house.gov. Web site,
    the financial disclosure electronic filing Web site, and an
    internal requisitions program. The requisitions project will
    streamline internal functions and make it easier to reconcile
    GPO billing.
        We continue our efforts to make legislative information
    more accessible. I am proud to report that, working with our
    partners, the Bulk Data Task Force released bill status
    information in bulk form. This was a significant step forward
    and well received by those that use our data regularly.
        Outreach to Members and committees regarding their records
    continues to be a priority. With the support of this
    subcommittee, we were able to make progress on the storage
    challenges we face for House records.
        Working with the House Historian and his team, we have seen
    tremendous growth in the use of the history.house.gov Web site.
    This unique historical content is available to the public and
    used frequently by teachers and researchers.
        The robust hearing schedules have increased the demands on
    our Official Reporters. I expect that these services and others
    provided by our office will continue to see growing demand.
        With our professional staff and the support of this
    subcommittee, we are ready to meet those challenges.
        Thank you for your time, and I am happy to answer any
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Haas follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Graves. Thank you.
        Mr. Irving, thank you.

                    Opening Remarks--House Sergeant at Arms

        Mr. Irving. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Wasserman
    Schultz, and members of the committee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear before you to present the Sergeant at
    Arms Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2017.
        Before beginning, I would like to say that it is truly an
    honor to have an opportunity to serve this institution, and I
    look forward to continuing to work with you and the other
    members of the committee as the year progresses. My full
    testimony, which I have submitted for the record, has my entire
    fiscal year 2017 budget.
        As you know, the Office of the Sergeant at Arms provides
    security, safety, and protocol services to Members, committees,
    and the staff who serve them. To accomplish our mission, we
    have an extremely dedicated team whose diverse strengths
    provide the highest level of professionalism and expertise.
        Employees of the Sergeant at Arms have supported numerous
    special events over the past year, including the unprecedented
    visit of His Holiness Pope Francis of the Holy See, the annual
    State of the Union address by the President, off-site retreats,
    visits by heads of state, honorary ceremonies, concerts, and
    other events throughout the year. Planning is currently under
    way for the inauguration of the 45th President of the United
    States.
        As Sergeant at Arms, I receive real-time intelligence
    information providing an overview of campus wide, local,
    national, international events which may have an impact on the
    safety and security of the House of Representatives. The
    information is gleaned from a myriad of sources through a
    partnership with Federal, State, and local intelligence and law
    enforcement agencies.
        However, as a point of note, despite our best intelligence
    assessments, prudent security protocols are always our best
    measure to keep Members, staff, and visitors safe. All of these
    resources and efforts in intelligence gathering assist me in
    evaluating security countermeasures in the context of new and
    emerging threats. And, I want to assure this committee that I
    carefully evaluate and balance the security protocols and
    security posture of the House with the effects that any new
    security protocol may have on the business process of the
    institution.
        In partnership with the Capitol Police, my office maintains
    a strong, effective outreach program with Member offices
    regarding district office security. We offer guidance on best
    practices, providing information on how to obtain a thorough
    security review and how to coordinate security surveys when
    requested. We will continue to provide this essential service
    to offices, remaining mindful of the need to provide cost-
    effective recommendations and solutions.
        Two of our most successful initiatives to date have been
    the implementation of mail hoods in the district offices and
    our Law Enforcement Coordinator program.
        In closing, I would like to thank the committee once again
    for the opportunity to appear before you. I want to assure you
    of my deep commitment, and that of my entire office, to
    providing the highest quality services for the House of
    Representatives, while maintaining the safest and most secure
    environment possible. We remain vigilant and focused on
    security preparedness, striving to adhere to the strict level
    of fiscal accountability entrusted to us by the House of
    Representatives.
        As always, I will keep the committee informed of my
    activities, and will be happy to answer any questions you may
    have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Irving follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Irving. Thank you for your
    service too.
        Mr. Irving. Thank you.

                 Opening Remarks--Chief Administrative Officer

        Mr. Graves. Mr. Plaster, welcome. Your first hearing before
    us in your new capacity.
        Mr. Plaster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Graves. And we certainly congratulate you and welcome
    you.
        Mr. Plaster. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Wasserman Schultz, members of the committee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the entire
    team of women and men who serve the House in the Office of the
    Chief Administrative Officer.
        This is the first time I have appeared before the
    committee, and I am quite honored to be here today alongside
    the Clerk and the Sergeant at Arms. While I have only been in
    this position for 2 months, I have served the House for over 25
    years, and I can safely observe that the close working
    relationship that the House officers have fostered in recent
    years, among themselves and with the other service providers in
    the House, has been vital in ensuring that the institution is
    supported effectively and efficiently.
        I look forward to collaborating with the committee on this
    budget request in order to tackle the many issues and
    challenges facing us in fiscal year 2017, particularly our work
    to improve the delivery of services to the House community and
    our comprehensive program to protect House IT systems from a
    persistent and evolving threat.
        The Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request for the Office of the
    Chief Administrative Officer is $117,165,000, which is flat
    with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. This request
    will support the CAO priorities in information technology and
    improving CAO core services, such as financial management,
    acquisitions management, logistics, human resources, and other
    support services.
        Within these core services are activities supporting
    cybersecurity, payroll and benefits, mail delivery, food
    services, broadcasting, human capital, furniture and
    furnishings.
        Although our request is flat, the CAO does anticipate
    increases for fiscal year 2017 in personnel, annual
    maintenance, and licensing, Housewide subscriptions, and key
    projects, such as knowledge management. However, we also
    anticipate savings due to decreases in contractor support,
    modular furniture installations because of the Cannon Renewal
    Project, and project initiatives that will be transitioning
    from implementation to operational status.
        We are confident that by utilizing available funds
    efficiently, and working in concert with our House partners, we
    will be able to meet and exceed the expectations of House
    Members and staff.
        Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and
    look forward to addressing your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Plaster follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Graves. Thank you very much.
        I know each of the members of the committee have done their
    diligence and read through each of your proposals and
    recommendations from the budget requests. I want to start off
    today, I am going to yield my time to Mr. Rigell, who is a
    great advocate of good government and has done an amazing job
    on the Appropriations Committee. We were sad to see him
    announce that he wasn't going to run again this year.
        Mr. Rigell. That is quite an introduction, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Graves. You have been a great member of the committee
    and we appreciate you.
        Mr. Rigell. I appreciate that.

                              Remarks--Mr. Rigell

        Mr. Rigell. First, I am a student of management, and I have
    been so impressed by the House leadership and management on the
    support side since I have gotten here. And, so I appreciate the
    good work that you do for the American people.
        Let me say that there is not a whole lot of common ground
    in this institution, unfortunately, but the comments that the
    ranking member made, I think that she has made a good point
    there. You know, I feel like in some ways at the House we have
    kind of flogged ourselves on the back of cutting our own
    budget, which I think is a principle of leadership by example I
    very much respect and try to integrate into my own life. In the
    administration there wasn't any commensurate sacrifice there.
    That troubled me.
        But as I see the young people who work in our offices, and
    how they do struggle, and the distances some of them are
    driving to get away from the high cost of living here, that I
    think this needs to be looked at again, and it is part of
    maybe, ideally, a comprehensive fiscal solution.

                           ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES

        But there was just one question, Mr. Chairman, I had, that
    I would like to direct to Ms. Haas, Office of the Clerk.
        You had mentioned in your testimony that there are some
    challenges with the voting machines, the cards themselves,
    things like this. And, I had not experienced any trouble
    whatsoever. I am not saying they don't need attention, but what
    are you experiencing that causes you to want to address that?
        Ms. Haas. Sure. Well, the one challenge that we ran across
    this particular Congress was on the voting cards. The cards are
    old technology. They haven't been updated in the last 15 years.
    So it was difficult to get those cards. They no longer make
    those, so we had them specially made.
        Mr. Rigell. I see. I see.
        Ms. Haas. So the voting system itself, we have been going
    through a multiyear upgrade of the system. So the next part of
    that upgrade includes the voting stations, the cards, and then
    the wiring under the floor. All of the wiring needs to be
    upgraded.
        Mr. Rigell. I see.
        Ms. Haas. It has not been done in quite a long time.
        The stations themselves, another thing that we are looking
    towards updating, is in the most recent election we had two
    candidates that ran that were visually impaired. Our current
    system doesn't allow for visually impaired, doesn't assist them
    in any way. So we are looking at adding Braille type to the new
    stations.
        Mr. Rigell. I applaud that.
        Mr. Chairman, my questions are quite simple today, and that
    is it. And, I thank you for the opportunity and yield back.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Rigell.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

                              CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.
        Sergeant, I would like to start with you. Good afternoon. I
    have asked you and the Chief over the years about the
    appropriate layout and management structure for the Capitol
    Police Board, on which you sit.
        For others that are not aware, the Chief, as I mentioned
    yesterday, is not a full member of the Capitol Police Board. He
    or she is only an ex officio member. And that setup really
    cripples our ability to conduct oversight. We can't question
    the Senate Sergeant. The Senate can't question our Sergeant. So
    the Chief is left to answer for decisions that, frankly, were
    set in motion by the Board, yet we don't have consistent
    oversight over those decisions because we can't ask everyone
    making them questions about them.
        Now, I know the Senate appropriators and the authorizers
    have asked GAO to update a review of the Capitol Police Board,
    and that is ongoing. I support that.

                     STRUCTURE OF THE CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

        But I would like to ask you, does the Board in its current
    iteration and management structure remain useful? Should there
    be changes to the way it makes decisions and its oversight
    responsibilities? And how would you address my concern that
    Congress really doesn't have enough ability to conduct
    oversight over the Board's decisions? Because we can't do that
    with the entire Board.
        I have other questions. For example, like, how much of the
    Capitol Police budget would you estimate is due to the
    directions from the Board or from the Sergeant versus what the
    Capitol Police believes are priorities? And then I want to ask
    you also about the garage security initiative.
        So if you could address the management structure first with
    the Board's role?
        Mr. Irving. Of course, Congresswoman. The management
    structure as it currently exists, as you know, as House
    Sergeant at Arms I am very responsive to Members of the House,
    leadership, and my committees of jurisdiction. When there is a
    concern, I raise that, obviously, before the Board, if there is
    a House concern. The Senate Sergeant at Arms does the same.
    When he receives an issue from his leadership or his committees
    of jurisdiction or his Membership, he will raise that to the
    Capitol Police.
        Many times the issues are in synch, we have the same
    issues. Sometimes not. Each Chamber has its own, as you know,
    set of unique circumstances. We work very closely together and
    with the Chief. The Chief, we consider him a full partner.
        Ex officio, there is a historical aspect to that. The
    Capitol Police Board hires the Chief, and I believe that is one
    reason why, for that matter, may be ex officio.

           THE HOUSE SERGEANT AT ARMS VS. THE SENATE SERGEANT AT ARMS

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Let me give you an example of what I
    am talking about.
        Mr. Irving. Yes.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I appreciate that the Sergeants each
    go to one another when there is concern from the other side.
    But we have had conversations outside of this setting when you
    and the Senate Sergeant disagreed on the appropriate response
    to a security concern.
        Mr. Irving. Yes.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. They made a different decision than
    you chose to when it came to an evacuation issue.
        Mr. Irving. It was the lockdown during the Navy Yard.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right, that lockdown issue.
        Mr. Irving. Yes.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So if that was something that this
    subcommittee chose to review, I could only talk to you about
    it, to the Chief, and maybe the Architect of the Capitol, who,
    by the way, also sits on the Police Board, which most people
    don't realize. I don't have the ability, if there was a
    difference of opinion, to hold the Senate Sergeant accountable.
        Mr. Irving. I will say that later this month the Capitol
    Police Board will be meeting with the committees of
    jurisdiction on both sides, House and Senate, authorizers and
    appropriators. This is something, actually, that we have been
    discussing for some time to increase the transparency.

                         CAPITOL POLICE BOARD OVERSIGHT

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So this subcommittee is going to be
    meeting with the Capitol Police Board along with the House
    Administration?
        Mr. Irving. Yes. There is an invitation, I believe for the
    16th of this month, but if not, forthcoming. We have discussed
    this issue of transparency, and we think it is important for
    our oversight committees on both sides to hear what the Capitol
    Police Board has to say, listen to how we make our decisions,
    talk about some of our agenda items.

                       REFORMING THE CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My specific question is, do you
    think there needs to be reform to the way the Capitol Police
    Board functions and makes decisions in order for us to ensure
    that we don't have to rely on you being willing to sit down
    with us in a meeting?
        Mr. Irving. I don't think so. I believe that I, as I report
    to your committee, to the appropriators, to the authorizing
    committees, to leadership, I believe that I receive clear
    direction and oversight, and I carry that to the Board. I also
    make recommendations to you, to leadership, to authorizing
    committees, to Members on my best view on our security posture.
        But at the end of the day, it is a combination of working
    within the business process of the institution and those
    security parameters that I would recommend, and as you know,
    all the other factors that go into it, our fiscal resources and
    what have you.
        There is that same dynamic on the Senate side. And we do
    our best to let the Chief of the Capitol Police be the Chief,
    and run the department. And, as we get together as a Board,
    talk broad policy oversight issues, strategic plan, the future
    of the department, and those sorts of things.
        So, I think the Board's structure is small, it is nimble,
    with both Sergeants at Arms, the Architect, and the Chief. We
    can get together pretty quickly on the fly and make some pretty
    quick decisions. But I am always available to interact,
    obviously, with our committees of jurisdiction and leadership
    if there is anything that is concerning to you that I must
    bring before the Board.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I look forward to the GAO
    recommendations, but I remain concerned.

                           GARAGE SECURITY INITIATIVE

        I want to ask you about the garage security initiative.
        Mr. Irving. OK.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The Chief was clear yesterday in my
    questions of him that he was directed to initiate the garage
    security project by you as the Sergeant at Arms and by the
    Board, and you as a Board member. He did not deny that it is a
    vulnerability that we are only doing it in one part of the
    garage. And he was not able to explain why we needed to bypass
    the appropriations process, as we were able to previously put
    it through prior to this year.
        My question is, Mr. Irving, why wasn't this project
    justified and explained as part of the budget justifications in
    previous years? Why did funding need to be added and moved
    around during the year after we held hearings and allowed all
    Members to vote on the Legislative Branch appropriations bill
    in the House?
        The Chief was clear that the direction to do this project
    in what I see as a potentially shoddy and haphazard manner, was
    outside of the regular order. Again, the strength of our
    security is reliant upon its weakest link. We are not securing
    all the garages. So if I am a terrorist, I am going to go to
    the garage that is not secure.
        Can you explain why this had to be done outside of the
    regular order? The Chief, in answer to my question, said there
    were no specific credible threats that were pending or that we
    were concerned about. So what pressure did you have to do this
    project without full funding and in the middle of the
    appropriations process?
        Mr. Irving. OK. Let me see if I can address your concern.
        Over the last number of years, I have received some degree
    of funding for the initiative from this committee. And, I
    cannot thank you enough for your support in beginning to move
    the process forward, because we have identified the House
    garages as a vulnerability, one of our big vulnerabilities.
        So we did receive funding in fiscal year 2014--to begin to
    implement the initiative, which would start with the
    infrastructure. It was a combination of infrastructure money
    for the Architect of the Capitol to run conduit, wiring, and
    such to our doors so we would be able to control the doors from
    the garages into the House office buildings. And there was also
    some funding provided for security-related equipment for the
    doors, locking mechanisms and such.

                    NEED FOR THE GARAGE SECURITY INITIATIVE

        So as we were at the point in time whereas that phase one
    was nearing completion, we were looking at world events. We had
    a particularly tough year 2015 relative to terrorist hits. We
    have had, based on world events, intelligence, we felt----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Elsewhere in the country.
        Mr. Irving. Elsewhere in the country, correct. We felt it
    was important to move forward on the initiative as quickly as
    possible.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Who is ``we''?
        Mr. Irving. I would say the Capitol Police Board. The
    Capitol Police Board.
        The fact that we had the infrastructure in place and the
    Capitol Police had surplus, had equipment, magnetometers, x
    rays. The missing piece, frankly, was the manpower piece, the
    FTE piece. In working with the Chief, we realized that we could
    rearrange some internal posting and find some efficiencies,
    some short-term efficiencies, to begin to move forward with the
    initiative.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So the Capitol Police Board on its
    own initiated a mid-appropriations cycle addition to this
    project without any credible threat or indication that there
    was anything that required us to move outside the
    appropriations process even though that is how we were
    proceeding prior to this fiscal year?
        Mr. Irving. I will say that I take responsibility for any
    action that is taken, decision that is taken----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I know you take responsibility. I am
    asking if it was your and the Capitol Police Board's initiative
    to take this initiative outside the appropriations process even
    though there is no credible threat, there is no emergency, and
    we were proceeding in an orderly way?
        Mr. Irving. I will say that the fact that we had reached
    the stage in the garage security initiative that allowed us to
    do some initial screening, even though it is not the full
    screening that you alluded to, but it is incremental----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Did you feel that you were not going
    to be able to accomplish what you needed to by going through
    regular order in the appropriations process that we are in the
    middle of right now, which is a matter of a couple of weeks'
    difference?
        Mr. Irving. No, I felt that we could find some efficiencies
    to get the process underway. The garages have been a tremendous
    vulnerability for us. I understand that we did not have
    intelligence that was--any real-time intelligence. But
    nonetheless----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Sergeant who directed you to
    initiate this project in this way?
        Mr. Irving. I have to tell you that I take responsibility.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I know you take responsibility. That
    is not my question.
        Mr. Irving. It was a Board decision.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Only a Board decision? No one else
    was involved?
        Mr. Irving. I work with staff, with leadership, with the
    committees of jurisdiction, both authorizers and appropriators.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Who directed you to initiate this
    project outside of regular order?
        Mr. Irving. I have to take responsibility for that,
    Congresswoman. I can't tell you----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So you initiated it on your own
    because in your analysis you decided, without any outside
    influence or pressure, that this was necessary and so essential
    that we remove it from the regular order process.
        Mr. Irving. I did not view it as outside of the regular
    order process considering the fact that----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Did you decide this on your own, of
    your own initiative, with no outside pressure or direction?
        Mr. Irving. No, I worked very closely with the Committee on
    House Administration on this project. But I would say that
    ultimately the decision was mine to move the process forward.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So no one else but House
    Administration and you?
        Mr. Irving. The leadership staff was also involved. But
    again, I was the one who----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Did the direction come from the
    leadership?
        Mr. Irving. I wouldn't say that I--the relationship is such
    that direction comes from leadership when we are putting a
    security posture in place. The implementation of a security
    posture is my decision. It is a give and take with the staff in
    terms of what our vulnerabilities are, intelligence. And
    ultimately, I have to take the responsibility for----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Was this brought to you?
        Mr. Graves. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, let me hit the pause
    button----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman, I am getting extremely
    frustrated. I don't think I am getting veracity in the
    responses to my question.
        Mr. Graves. I can understand that and sense that and
    understand the Sergeant to say he takes responsibility for the
    decisions that have been made, and he made that clear.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I understand that. That is not my
    question. I will have other questions for the other remaining
    officers, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Graves. And let's all keep in mind that the Sergeant at
    Arms and his team has a responsibility to keep this complex
    safe.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. They also have the responsibility to
    be truthful when they are asked questions.
        Mr. Graves. I wouldn't suggest that he was anything but
    truthful. He took responsibility, is how I understood it to be.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK.

                              Remarks--Mr. Palazzo

        Mr. Graves. Mr. Palazzo.
        Mr. Palazzo. Are we sticking to the 5-minute rule?
        Mr. Graves. We will see how you do.
        Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I will keep it
    short.
        Thank you, Mr. Irving, for what you do to keep us safe
    here. And I think anybody in certain positions, we have to take
    actions to make sure that they are protected and taken care of.
        I appreciate everybody's service. It is sometimes not a
    thankful job, but we thank you.
        I would like to lend some of my remarks to my colleagues
    and the ranking member. I think I was hearing it right, you
    know, some of the cuts that we made to our representational
    accounts have been ridiculous. Over a 3-year period, 20 percent
    in cuts.
        We are all elected to come up here by our constituents and
    do a job. There are several components of our job. One is
    legislatively. But you can be here 20 years and never pass a
    bill. But back home, we have casework, we have interactions
    where constituents come to us. And when they come to their
    Member of Congress, they are desperate, right? They don't come
    to us first. They usually come to us last. They exhaust
    whatever approach they have with whatever Federal agency.
        In my district, we have the Veterans Administration, we are
    heavily military-oriented. So we do a lot of VA work--a lot of
    VA work--and I want to have talented staff that is not afraid
    to work hard and make sure our constituents are taken care of.
        So I just think any restoration to our MRA that we can make
    it is good business, because we want to keep talented people
    around so we can take care of our customers, which are our
    constituents. Twenty percent cuts, I mean, I won't beat it to
    death--I might--but it worked so well for us the first year we
    came back and cut the other wrist. It just makes no sense.
        But we have to lead by example, and I think we have done
    that by freezing our salary increase for, what, 5, 6
    consecutive years.
        Mr. Farr. Ten years.
        Mr. Graves. Ten?
        Mr. Palazzo. It shows that wage increases, we have seen
    that flat in the real world, and we should only be held subject
    to that, unless of course we are performing. But our
    performance hasn't been quite that stellar.

                              HOUSE CYBER SECURITY

        But getting back, can we talk cybersecurity? Mr. Plaster, I
    think that would be you. From time to time we get pop-ups
    warning us about scamming and phishing. And some staff takes
    that as, you know, it is like they lock up for a minute because
    they are maybe doing some research and they go to a site that
    they shouldn't, and they have to do, I guess, control-alt-
    delete and start over.
        I am OK with that. I think we need to have strong IT
    protections in place because cybersecurity is real. There are
    bad actors out there that want to know what we are doing,
    whether we are talking about maybe Armed Services or Homeland
    Security issues, they want access to our servers and our
    communications. We are not always--we think we are safe and
    secure in our office and we can type and say or do anything
    that we want. Might not always be the case.
        Can you tell me what we are doing to try to get into the
    21st century and not lag behind the people that are out there
    trying to steal our secrets, steal our information?
        Mr. Plaster. Yes.
        Mr. Palazzo. And are we investing enough? Because I think
    it is extremely important. But there is a perfect world and
    there is a realistic world, and try to get somewhere in-
    between.
        Mr. Plaster. I will try to cover all of those.
        What we are doing to adjust our cyber defenses against an
    evolving and very sophisticated threat, as you point out, is we
    are evolving our defenses from an older model that came up over
    the last 10, 15 years that was more--it was more focused on
    perimeter security on the House network. We had very
    sophisticated tools that were put in place, in layman's
    language, to stop the bad guys at the front door. And that was,
    I am oversimplifying our model for IT defense.
        Lately, as has been evidenced by events that have been in
    the news, OPM, Target, and others, the nature of the threat has
    changed fairly dramatically and the sophistication of those who
    are trying to infiltrate our network has increased
    dramatically. And they are not knocking at the front door
    anymore, they are finding much more creative ways to get into
    our network and then move within our network once they are
    inside.

                     THREE GENERAL AREAS OF CYBER SECURITY

        So looking forward, we are concentrating, if you will, on
    three general areas. One is the perimeter defense. Those are,
    again, very sophisticated tools run by very, very smart people
    that are monitoring what is coming and going out of our
    network.
        Just to give you an idea of the volume of network traffic,
    we received in 2015 about 200 million emails into the House of
    Representatives. Roughly a third of those could be categorized
    as virus, malware, or spam. So we are stopping, roughly, a
    third of 200 million emails coming into the House--that is just
    emails--using our tools.
        We have in place, and we are putting more into place, tools
    to monitor the traffic within the network because the threat
    now is the very bad guys, if you will. Once they get in they
    move around. So they may come in through one office, but once
    they are on the network what they try to move around within the
    network to get, kind of information you are talking about,
    financial information, communications, and then they want to
    take that and get it out of our network without us knowing.
        So we are putting in place additional tools to monitor for
    that kind of activity so that we can stop it if they try to do
    that. And we are segmenting up, if you will, the network to
    make it harder to move around from one office to another.
        And then the third component really is the users, 12,000
    users on the House network. Every one of them is a potential
    vulnerability. And that is why you see the requirements on
    password changes and information security training.
        The 12,000 users that we have are the subject of threats.
    The very sophisticated threats are coming after the users. They
    are looking for user passwords. They are looking for users
    outdated software and equipment that hasn't been patched, even
    in district offices, because they can get a toehold into our
    network that way.
        So users and the awareness of users about the security
    threats, about the phishing, and how to combat that on the user
    level is important. And we are going to have to do more to make
    sure that Members and staff are aware of the scope of the
    threat and the role that they play in combating that.

                     ADEQUATE RESOURCES FOR CYBER SECURITY

        Mr. Palazzo. Do you believe that we are giving you the
    resources to make sure we are safe? And again, I think we have
    talked about this is a must-have versus if-we-could-afford-it-
    have. Are we doing that?
        Because cyber warriors or people involved in the IT, it is
    such a huge demand. Are we paying them to keep them in or do
    you see a turnover? Because if you hire good staff, you train
    them up, and they become very proficient with the system, you
    don't want to lose them to a private contractor or public
    company, because they are having their own issues and threats
    to deal with, like our military and homeland security.
        Because something as simple as your itinerary, we could
    very easily become a soft target if someone wants to do
    something with your calendar. Of course, I am not near as
    important as many of the other Members or people in leadership,
    but travel in the district or going on a codel, that
    information in the wrong hands could be dangerous.
        Mr. Plaster. It could. And, I can tell you that it is not a
    hypothetical threat, There are people who are pursuing that
    kind of information for whatever reason, whether or not it is
    for a physical threat or not. But there are plenty of attacks
    on our network, and they are looking for all of that
    information, all of your information. So it is not
    hypothetical, it is happening.

                     RECRUITING AND RETAINING QUALITY STAFF

        In terms of recruiting and retaining the quality staff so
    that the folks on our team are better than the folks on the
    other team, that is a struggle. A lot of these guys probably
    could command multiple times, not just more in the private
    sector, but multiple times what they can here. So we have to
    provide them with other reasons that aren't financial for
    working for the House and for staying here, and we have to work
    very hard to give them those sorts of rewards.
        But we have very good people, and I am very content with
    the quality and the dedication of the staff that we have. We
    have a new CISO, relatively new CISO, who, again, I am glad is
    on our team.
        So in terms of are we spending enough? I think a lot. I can
    answer that question in the same way you could answer, are we
    spending enough on physical security? You could spend more. You
    could always spend more and be more safe. So where is the sweet
    spot? We are spending a lot. We are not uncomfortable with our
    current budget request. We could probably spend more and be
    marginally more secure. We probably could not spend a lot more
    and do so in any justifiable way. You want to give me a lot
    more, I will spend it, but I would have a hard time----
        Mr. Palazzo. Might not be the most efficient.
        Mr. Plaster. Right. I would have a hard time defending it.
        Mr. Graves. It comes out of your MRA, by the way.
        Mr. Palazzo. I can't afford anymore.
        Mr. Graves. Another thought-provoking questioner of our
    committee, Mr. Farr, who has served well for many, many years.
        this is your last term as well. We appreciate your work on
    the committee.

                               Remarks--Mr. Farr

        Mr. Farr. I am getting congratulated by everybody. Half of
    them are friends and the other half of them are congratulations
    and good riddance.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, I just want to make a comment. The spam
    screening, they are pretty good. They pick out my wife's emails
    and send them to spam and then I can clear them. But the Arabic
    messages in Arabic get all the way through, right to me. I
    don't know how those escape the spam filter.
        I want to go back to this issue that Congresswoman Debbie
    Wasserman Schultz talked about. What triggered it is this
    magnetometer, putting it in the Longworth Building, in the
    garage. And it just seemed, in looking at it, is why here, why
    now, why this place?
        You said you initiated this from what happened in Riverside
    and so on, in San Bernardino County, as an intel sort of
    problem. Yesterday, the Chief told us we have 32 police
    departments in this town. If it is an intel issue, it ought to
    be shared with all them and they ought to be involved in
    perimeter security, because I always learned what you want to
    do is perimeter security.
        I know you have plans for installing an underground alarm
    around the perimeter of the Capitol, providing full camera
    coverage of the Capitol Grounds, to bolster the physical
    structure of the outer planters and Olmstead wall, to upgrade
    the lighting on the Capitol plaza. I hope that is not going to
    create light pollution. All of these would be enhancements to
    counter outside threats. Why don't we do that before we install
    just a magnetometer in Longworth when we are not going to do
    anything about Rayburn, which has 80 doors?
        We always thank all of you for your leadership role. I
    would like to thank everybody in this room. We all work for the
    same government. This is what I love about this committee: It
    is the only time that everybody in here is part of this family.
    These discussions on our budget essentially are our household
    finance. It is about how do we pay these people and do the
    things that we have hired them to do.
        And when I asked about this in my office it was: Well,
    don't worry, it is not going to cost us anything. But it is not
    in your budget. It is in the Chief's budget. And here they
    asked for 72 new officers, 48 civilian positions, and more.

                   MAGNETOMETERS THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE CAMPUS

        So I pointed out to him yesterday, as we were speaking,
    there was a line to enter Longworth, as I see all the time. My
    office is on the first floor of Longworth and I go through the
    front door. Often that door, you have two magnetometers in
    there, one of them is just totally there, never manned.
        We had people last week, when it was raining, standing in
    the rain all the way to the curb. When I go in there and ask
    the officers, I say, ``Can you call and see if you can get some
    more up here to help you?'' because I am out there telling
    people to go around to the sides or whatever, the officers on
    duty just kind of shrug their shoulders and say, ``We can't get
    any help.''

                          ACCESS TO THE CAPITOL CAMPUS

        So why don't we prioritize where our problems are right now
    rather than building that magnetometer at the Longworth garage?
    You are not going to have the manpower to do it. And it hasn't,
    as Debbie pointed out, it hasn't been discussed and budgeted.
        But I think the most thing that it does, it is just an
    affront to staff So much since 9/11 has happened. The whole
    West Front of the Capitol is shut off, this incredible space
    and beauty of this spot where you really see the Mall. But the
    public can't go there. I don't know why not.
        Then, we close the garages. And so what we are doing is
    shutting it down so the people who work here have a harder time
    getting in. I do my town hall, electronic town hall meetings at
    night. It starts at 9 o'clock or 9:30 Washington time. That is
    6:30 California time. So my staff isn't out of the building
    until 11 o'clock at night, and the garage is closed, or they
    can't get in at 9 o'clock to come back and do the town hall
    meeting because we don't have enough people to man the garages.
        So why don't we create the priority that really allows us
    to do our work rather than distrusting our staff?
        And lastly, I would just like to ask you as part of this
    question, how many Members carry weapons?

                      GARAGE SECURITY INITIATIVE CONTINUED

        Mr. Irving. OK. First, Congressman, I appreciate very much
    your thoughts on the garage security issue, because, believe
    me, these decisions weigh heavily on me.
        The vulnerability of our House garages has been something
    that has been in the background for a long time. We feel that
    proper security protocol would be to include the House garages
    or the House office buildings in our secure perimeter. So
    similar to the Senate and the Capitol, once you enter, you are
    in the secure perimeter, and then you, for example, would not
    need to get, let's say, rescreened going from the House office
    buildings to the Capitol.
        Mr. Farr. So you have put one in Longworth now. When are
    you going to put them in Rayburn?
        Mr. Irving. Well, it would be incremental. That would be
    something, obviously, working very closely with the committee
    to eventually work toward.
        Mr. Farr. So you get screened coming in from Longworth
    garage, but you can drive in the Rayburn garage, get out of
    your car, no screening, take the underground, and go right in
    the Longworth Building. You will make those Rayburn parking
    places a premier place for the Longworth employees.
        Mr. Irving. It is such a large project getting all our
    House garages secure that we felt an incremental approach,
    little by little. To do it all at once would be----

                   ORDER OF THE LONGWORTH SECURITY INITIATIVE

        Mr. Farr. Why pick on Longworth then? I mean, what is the
    impact on the morale of staff? You know, this isn't fair.
        Mr. Irving. Well, the Longworth, Cannon, the east and west
    underground were certainly the easiest, along with the Ford
    Building. The Rayburn, as you have said, is quite a bit more of
    a challenge.
        Mr. Farr. Why not do it all at once?
        Mr. Irving. We could do that, but we would rather get
    some----
        Mr. Farr. Is it such a high priority you have to do that
    right now? I mean, we are going to solve the San Bernardino
    threat by putting up one magnetometer in Longworth?
        Mr. Irving. It is a judgment call, but I think those of us
    in the security field would like to put as much security in
    place as possible.
        Mr. Farr. Sure you would love it. That is mission creep. I
    think mission creep is, one of the criticisms I have of your
    team. You even suggested that we could do a lot more through
    interoperability of all our other law enforcement agencies. You
    are building an empire on the Hill. Your budget is bigger than
    my town of 200,000 people that has a gang killing almost once a
    week.
        I would love to have this budget for my town, where we
    really do have threats. And those are drive-bys, innocent
    people getting killed, kids walking home from school, mistaken
    identity, and boom, you are dead.
        I don't talk about this budget back in my hometown because
    people would be angry as heck. They would think that weYou are
    sort of taking care of ourselves first and not taking care of
    them.
        I think that we have to set priorities. I think the
    Longworth magnetometer just doesn't seem to have gone through a
    normal process of thinking this out. I think you ought to be
    more involved with working with all these other law enforcement
    agencies. Why do we have to have our own SWAT team, our own dog
    team, our own bomb squad, our own chemical squad just among the
    Capitol Police?

                         CAPITOL POLICE BOARD CONTINUED

        And as I understand it, the Board sets all of those
    mandates, then they come in here and need all this money for
    overtime. I mean, the budget is just expanding. At the same
    time, our Member budgets don't expand. The airfare to
    California has just doubled. GSA just negotiated a wonderful
    Government rate with United, and it is double what it was. Do
    you think our MRA gets bigger? So what does staff do? I let
    off, so I can fly home.
        If we are going to take care of the family, let's take care
    of everybody, not just say that law enforcement gets it and
    everybody else has to wait their turn.

                               SCREENING MEMBERS

        So, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that if we don't do this
    right, we create an internal dissension. Staff is not getting
    COLAs, but seeing others getting it. And finally I would like
    to know if, with all this security, how many Members of
    Congress carry weapons?
        Mr. Irving. We don't know that number, considering that
    Members don't get screened. We don't know that number.
        Mr. Farr. But they do?
        Mr. Irving. I am sorry?
        Mr. Farr. Members do have weapons and they can bring them
    into the Capitol?
        Mr. Irving. They are permitted by statute to----
        Mr. Farr. Statute? I thought it was against the law to
    bring a weapon into the Capitol.
        Mr. Irving. There is statutory authority within the
    Capitol. For example, they can bring firearms to their office.
    I can provide you with all that information. And because of
    that, we don't, as you know, we don't screen Members, so we
    just have no----
        Mr. Farr. You have no idea?
        Mr. Irving. No.
        Mr. Farr. So here we are going to take all our staff, and
    you have got to go through double, triple inspection, but
    Members can walk in here with a weapon and you don't even know
    if they have it, to get away with it.
        Mr. Irving. That is the statute.
        Mr. Farr. That is a statute.
        Mr. Graves. Mr. Farr, you have done a great job of taking
    us exactly to 2:30.
        Mr. Farr. I have another question.
        Mr. Graves. And I appreciate that.
        Mr. Farr. One more.
        Mr. Graves. I know Ms. Wasserman Schultz does as well. And
    as I think about this, and I know we do have the Library of
    Congress next, there is probably more to discuss, I would
    suspect, and I am open to that. And if the Sergeant at Arms is
    open to that, I would suggest that we meet together again at
    another time and.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. In an open hearing?
        Mr. Graves. We can have that--why don't you and I have that
    discussion together, because I think you bring up some fair
    points, Mr. Farr does, and there might be other members on our
    side that would have some other questions as well. But as we
    end the committee.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman, I did have other
    questions for the remaining officers. And I would think there
    would be more questions for this group than there is going to
    be for the Library and for the Copyright Office.
        Mr. Graves. You think so?
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Just a guess.
        Mr. Farr. I have a question of the Administrative Officer.
    I don't know how you are going to do this.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I would just request, respectfully,
    that if we could lengthen this meeting, because I don't think
    the next meeting is going to be quite as long.
        Mr. Graves. If we can----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Even though I am asking the most
    questions, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Graves. I would suspect to lengthen this meeting a
    little we would have to shorten the questions a lot, because
    our questions tend to be very long.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I will do the best I can. But we
    have an abbreviated hearing schedule, so we are having to cram
    a lot in, in just a few minutes.
        Mr. Graves. I understand.
        Let me say for the Sergeant at Arms real quick, just
    hearing the discourse here a second, I don't in any way want
    you to sense that there is disrespect for what you or your team
    does. We are grateful for the security you provide. And, I
    don't personally believe it is the role of this committee to
    micromanage each and every activity you do. It is, obviously,
    our role to take heed to the requests you have made, the
    spending, and then to make our recommendation back as we pass
    the bill through.
        But I suspect there is an opportunity for each of us to get
    back together to maybe resolve some of the questions that are
    still outstanding.
        Mr. Irving. I would look forward to that. I really would.
        Congresswoman, I do want to address some of your points as
    well, because I don't want there to be a question, a veracity
    question in your mind. If we have more time we can chat a
    little further about this. I just want you to know that I do
    make ultimately--many Members coming to me day in and day out--
    I don't really make those. But I would like to engage in a
    little more conversation with you on this.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. As would I.
        Mr. Graves. You have a very challenging role, but a great
    track record with this complex. We are grateful for that.
        So one question each? Is that what I understand?
        Mr. Palazzo, you have a question for anyone else on the
    panel?
        Mr. Palazzo. Was Mr. Farr trying to make a point to let our
    staff carry weapons? I think it is only fair, if Members are
    carrying weapons and if you go through enhanced security, maybe
    we should let our staff carry as well?
        Mr. Farr. Well, I think I was agreeing with your suggestion
    that we ought to lead by example. If we are going to not allow
    anybody else to have weapons in this Capitol, you certainly
    shouldn't allow Members to have them.
        Mr. Palazzo. I apologize. Like my wife says, I only hear
    what I want to hear. I am just exercising my second amendment.

                  AMOUNT OF DOLLARS REPROGRAMMED FOR LAWSUITS

        Mr. Graves. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two
    questions for the CAO. So I would ask your indulgence in asking
    both of them.
        Mr. Graves. You asking them together, jointly?
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. They are completely different
    questions, but I am happy to ask them together. And I can
    assure you that the CAO knows they are coming.
        Mr. Graves. OK.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Briefly, last year Mr. Kircher and I
    went round and round over his inability to budget for the
    partisan lawsuits that appear to be cropping up against the
    administration over the Affordable Care Act. Guantanamo Bay now
    is being prepared, as is Planned Parenthood and the Planned
    Parenthood Select Committee. We recently learned that Mr.
    Kircher has hired another law firm to eventually enter into
    legal action against the Obama administration to prevent their
    efforts at Guantanamo Bay.
        We might disagree on the merits of the cases, Mr. Chairman,
    that is not my issue. But again, you can sense the running
    thread through everything I have asked in our last two hearings
    is that we are doing things that we absolutely could anticipate
    and have the right to exercise oversight for here outside of
    the regular order process. As a result, unelected--no
    disrespect to Mr. Kircher, but he was never elected to
    anything, and neither was the CAO--unelcted people are making
    these decisions. So the decisions about millions upon millions
    of dollars made outside our regular order process aren't
    responsible.
        There is no agency that knows exactly what litigation they
    are going to enter into, but there is a possibility of, as the
    Department of Justice does, anticipating what their needs are
    going to be. But we are doing a disservice to the House if we
    continue to fund lawsuits through reprogrammings, because those
    are not public documents, no one sees that. And I know, Mr.
    Chairman, you are committed to regular order, and so many of
    your members are.
        So since we don't get an estimate of the lawsuits, I do
    want to enter this article into the record, if I might, because
    we do need to know what the House majority has spent thus far
    on taking this administration to court.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I would like Mr. Plaster to give us
    an estimate of the total cost that has been reprogrammed from
    other House offices since 2011 until now to the Office of the
    General Counsel. And I would like Mr. Kircher to provide
    details of his budget, including how much has been spent or
    budgeted for each litigation that he has entered into from 2011
    until now. If they can get me that information outside the
    meeting, I would appreciate it, because it is important.

                       SODEXO--HOUSE FOOD SERVICE VENDOR

         Mr. Plaster, the other question I have is regarding
    Sodexo, the new vendor that has taken over the cafeterias, as
    well as our convenience store and dining room. I don't have to
    tell you that there has been an explosion of complaints about
    both the quality of the food and the cost of the food. Again,
    we have hard-working young people here who are not earning very
    much money, and it costing them an arm and a leg to eat is
    really unfair. I mean, when you have The New York Times write
    an article about how bad and expensive the food is in the House
    cafeteria, you know you have a problem.
        So I would like you to answer, when the contract is up for
    review? We are putting up a lot of money for infrastructure to
    redesign the House cafeteria, and I want to make sure they
    succeed. But what are we going to do to turn this problem
    around in the confines of the contract?

                     FEMININE HYGIENE PRODUCTS AVAILABILITY

        The other thing I want to raise here is the Longworth
    convenience store. We seem to have forgotten that there are
    women who work in the Capitol complex. It has come to my
    attention that the convenience store has stopped stocking
    feminine hygiene products. I know that some might be concerned
    about my going there. But if you are not a woman, it is tough
    to understand that when you need a feminine hygiene product you
    need one immediately. So for the convenience store to stop
    stocking products like that is really inconvenient, the
    opposite of the purpose of a convenience store.
        The other thing, which I know may have more to do with the
    Architect, but if you could take it as your responsibility to
    communicate with the Architect, every woman has faced the
    frustration, whether it is a staff person, a visitor, a Member,
    of going into one of the women's bathrooms anywhere in the
    Capitol complex and finding a completely broken feminine
    hygiene products machine. I had my staff text me today a
    machine that has an out of order sign on it, and I will show it
    to you. It is right here. Out of order. Just today.
        These are essential items that are just as essential as
    toilet paper is, and it is absolutely a necessity to remedy
    this situation. I would like to ask you what we can do about
    making sure that the convenience store is stocked fully with
    the range of feminine hygiene products that women need, and
    also to make sure that we have functioning machines--which,
    quite frankly--my colleague, Grace Meng has raised this as
    well--should be free. It is like charging for toilet paper. And
    we certainly wouldn't want to do that. So if you could respond
    to that concern.

                CAO RESPONSE FOR LAWSUIT REPROGRAMMING QUESTION

        Mr. Graves. Mr. Plaster, real quick. The question on the
    dollars from 2011 forward. If you happen to have that, feel
    free to share that figure. I imagine that is a pretty simple
    number.
        Mr. Plaster. $2.891 million since 2011.

                        CAO RESPONSE FOR SODEXO QUESTION

        Mr. Graves. And then I know the cafeteria question is
    something you are probably prepared to give a bit of response
    to. And then the other questions, I don't know if you are ready
    for a response today.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. He is ready.
        Mr. Graves. And welcome to your first hearing.
        Mr. Plaster. Obviously, food service, to no one's surprise,
    has been often brought up and brought to my attention since my
    first day on the job, and with a variety of complaints. It is a
    daily occurrence where I am engaged with our contract
    management folks and the Sodexo management in an effort to help
    Sodexo better adjust to the environment that they are now
    working in here at the House.
        I believe they are committed to making those adjustments.
    They may not be happening as fast as all of us would like them
    to. But I think they are sincere in their efforts to effect the
    changes and the improvements that have been asked of them. So
    we are working on that every day.

            TERMINIATION TIMELINE FOR SODEXO FOOD SERVICES CONTRACT

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And we have the ability to terminate
    their contract for cause?
        Mr. Plaster. For cause we would, as in any contract.
        The specific answer to your question is, when is their
    contract up for review? It would be 2019. The contract started
    last year. So their base period ends in 2019.
        As for the other issue, I found out this morning that
    complaints similar to yours had already been registered, and
    the vendor has responded already with some additional stock. I
    was in contact with the Superintendent of the House office
    buildings this morning and made sure they understood your
    concerns.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
        Mr. Plaster. As we speak, I believe, making sure that those
    are addressed.

                   FEMININE HYGIENE AVAILABILITY (CONTINUED)

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I mean, not to go into
    too much detail, but I saw what was added to the inventory in
    the convenience store today, and that is insufficient.
        Mr. Plaster. We will continue to review it.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So if we could expand the
    availability, that would be great.

                   COMMITTEE AND CAPITOL POLICE BOARD MEETING

        And, Sergeant, the meeting you referenced is a staff
    meeting, it is not a meeting with Members. So that is not the
    same thing. Related to the Capitol Police Board and House
    Administration, that is a staff-level meeting.
        Mr. Irving. Yes, that is staff, but we can certainly,
    absolutely, do Members as well. So I will address that with my
    counterpart, with the Senate Sergeant at Arms.
        Mr. Graves. Mr. Farr, you had an additional question.

             INCREASING MEMBERS' REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCE BUDGET

        Mr. Farr. Just a suggestion on the Sodexo issue. My staff
    gave me this note that Francisco Fimbres, who is supposed to be
    the liaison with Sodexo, never responds to emails and has no
    on-site phone. There is not even a suggestion box in the
    cafeteria anymore. You have got to give some way to get
    complaints. They are all going to come--the main issues are all
    going to end up in your office.
        But I have a bigger question, and I think it has been a
    theme all around here, is that, why doesn't your office ask for
    a bigger budget for Members' offices? I mean, this budget that
    we are dealing with, the appropriations bill deals with, is
    Library of Congress, Capitol Police, the Architect of the
    Capitol, the GPO, Congressional Budget Office, Library of
    Congress, CRS, and that is just to name a few. All those
    budgets request funds to cover natural salary increase, merit
    awards, and COLAs. For fiscal year 2017, the COLAs for these
    agencies is 2.6 percent, which is exactly what the President
    asked for in the pay raise request, plus locality pay.
        Last year, this committee was forced to return $33 million
    to the Treasury because the House had hit its authorized cap
    and could not use these funds to increase allocations to House
    offices. These could have been used for our COLAs. Staff hasn't
    had a COLA increase in 5 years Members in 10 years. That is our
    fault because we don't vote for it.
        But not our staffs. Haven't had a COLA increase in 5 years.
    But in the interim, the inflation costs have risen 7.7 percent.
    That means our offices had to do the same or better jobs with
    less money, and that stretch is really causing problems in our
    office now.
        So my question to you is, why don't you ask for an increase
    in our Members' offices? And what is keeping you from bumping
    up the budget number?

        DETERMINING THE MEMBERS' REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCES BOTTOMLINE

        And I want add to that, as I said, GSA just came out and
    negotiated the new Government rates which Members fly by, and
    from Washington to San Francisco it is double what it was. And
    so we have to just eat that. And what happens is you end up,
    frankly, having to let people go who thought they had a career
    here, or at least whatever career you have in politics.
        You ought to be the champion for our own offices.
        Mr. Plaster. Remember, I have only been on the job for 2
    months. Hopefully, I can have a little bit of leeway in not
    having to relate exactly what the deliberations were prior to
    my being in the office between the budget office and the
    various stakeholders that weigh in on the budget formulation
    numbers before the CAO's office is submitted.
        It is a discussion between our budget office and this
    committee and the House Administration Committee and others
    that leads to a consensus about what the submission is. If the
    committee----
        Mr. Farr. Well, why did $33 million have to be returned?
        Mr. Plaster. I can't speak to that. I am not familiar with
    the circumstances around that. We can find out and we certainly
    get back to you on that.
        Mr. Plaster. From last year you are talking about?
        Mr. Farr. Yes.
        Mr. Plaster. But in terms of the request for fiscal year
    2017, if the committee feels that it is important to add money
    to the budget request for the MRA, that is certainly within
    your prerogative.
        Mr. Farr. Do you take into considerations like this GAO? We
    all have to travel with that rate. Maybe in some areas it has
    gone down. But transcontinental traffic has really gone up.
        Mr. Plaster. I believe the travel costs are somewhat
    factored into the formulation of the MRA allocation by the
    committee. But I don't want to speak for the House
    Administration Committee.
        Mr. Farr. Say that again?
        Mr. Plaster. Not all MRAs are the same. Not every Member
    gets the same MRA.
        Mr. Farr. I know the California delegation wrote a letter,
    presumably to you, asking that we get--or I guess to the
    committee, asking them to increase the MRA for travel, long
    distance travel.
        Mr. Plaster. That would have been probably to the Committee
    on House Administration.
        Mr. Farr. There was no response.
        Mr. Graves. That it, Mr. Farr?
        Mr. Farr. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Graves. I would recommend also, and we can do this from
    our office, is just reach out to the House Administration
    Committee as well. They are heavily involved in formulating
    what MRAs are comprised of for each and every Member based on
    some formulary calculation that is adjusted based on cost of
    living and other things. That is my understanding.
        Mr. Farr. We don't go over the Senate's budget, but the
    rumor was that the Senate gave their staff COLAs.
        Mr. Graves. That is quite possible. As you will recall, the
    Senate has not cut any spending in the Senate or Senate offices
    or any of their funds or COLAs since, I guess, since 2010.
    While we have taken the 21 percent cuts, they, in fact, were
    increasing their office budget.
        Mr. Farr. It is a good thing we are leading by example.
        Mr. Graves. The Senate doesn't often follow our great
    example, trust me.

                          Closing Remarks--Mr. Graves

        To each of you, thank you for joining us today and for the
    extended time you gave us.
        Ms. Haas, you had the easiest question of the day
    apparently.
        Mr. Irving, we will look forward to following up.
        And, congratulations on your successful completion of the
    hearing today, Mr. Plaster.
        And I guess we will hang around a few minutes then for
    Library of Congress.
        [Questions submitted for the record follow:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                              Wednesday, March 2, 2016.

                              LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                                   WITNESSES

    DAVID S. MAO, ACTING LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
    ROBERT R. NEWLEN, CHIEF OF STAFF

                      Opening Statement of Chairman Graves

        Mr. Graves. If everyone is ready, we will start our next
    hearing. Thank you for joining us today.
        We would like to welcome acting Librarian of Congress David
    Mao and the Library's Chief of Staff, Robert Newlen. Thank you
    all for being with us today and for your patience as we were
    getting through the last hearing.
        We will start this panel concerning the Library's 2017
    budget request, and then we will have an additional panel after
    we go through some of the questions with the Library itself,
    and that is to discuss bringing the Copyright Office into the
    digital age.
        I am personally pleased to see that the Library is
    positioning itself for the future through a lot of the critical
    improvements to its information technology. It is something I
    know we discussed a lot last year. Additionally, the Library
    continues to make available its collections in digital as well
    as physical form, all while transitioning to the new
    leadership.
        The Library is requesting $667 million, which is an
    increase of over $73 million from 2016's appropriation. That is
    just over a 11 percent increase that they are requesting. And
    as we have shared with all the panels before us, obviously that
    is your request. Our role, and as you have seen and heard, is
    to question, scrutinize, and see if there are areas of savings
    that we can achieve for the taxpayers, but also respecting that
    your request was put forward in good faith in order to carry
    out the acts and the duties that you see fit.
        And next, I would like to welcome Ms. Wasserman Schultz for
    any opening remarks she might have.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.

             Opening Statement of Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz

        Thank you, and welcome back to the subcommittee, Mr. Mao.
    There have been many changes at the Library since you were in
    front of the subcommittee last year as the Deputy Librarian. We
    continue to honor the service of 28 years of our retired
    beloved librarian, Dr. Billington, who now has moved to his new
    role as Librarian of Congress Emeritus, which I know we were
    really thrilled to be able to bestow upon him. It was well
    deserved.
        We also have a new nominee for this esteemed position. The
    President just nominated Dr. Carla D. Hayden, who I am looking
    forward to meeting, who has admirably served in a variety of
    roles in libraries across the Nation, and she will bring a
    wealth of experience and knowledge. She would be the first
    woman and the first African American to become the Librarian of
    Congress if the Senate moves forward with her confirmation, and
    I hope they will do so in a timely fashion.
        I would be remiss, though, if I did not thank Mr. Mao and
    the Library of Congress Chief of Staff, Robert Newlen, for
    their extraordinary leadership during what has been a
    significant time of transition. Mr. Mao and Mr. Newlen have not
    missed a beat, and they have not waited to make necessary
    improvements, notably regarding governance issues and the
    Office of Copyright. You both stepped up to the task and
    provided leadership and service, and we thank you all for your
    efforts.
        The Library, as I have said many times, is the jewel of
    this bill and of our jurisdiction, and the return on investment
    that we get from your work is immeasurable. The Library has
    always had a robust campaign to leverage private sector dollars
    for important programming, and Congress, researchers, and eager
    learners everywhere immensely benefit from it.
        One fantastic example of this collaborative nature of the
    Library is the Rosa Parks Collection. The collection, on loan
    for the Library for 10 years from the Howard G. Buffett
    Foundation, has made approximately 7,500 manuscripts and 2,500
    photographs available to researchers and the public.
        Looking more closely at this budget writ large, the Library
    has appropriately put forth a request that prioritizes IT
    needs, information technology needs, storage deficits, and data
    management. Our Library must keep pace with rapidly changing
    technology and have the right staff to do so.
        Two of the Library's components are seeking increases that
    deserve serious consideration, Mr. Chairman, if for no other
    reason than their importance of their mission to Congress and
    the Nation.
        CRS' budget has remained virtually flat since fiscal year
    2014. For reference, CRS was funded at $112.5 million in fiscal
    year 2010, and their current appropriation is only $106.9
    million, $5.6 million less than levels provided 6 years ago. So
    not adjusted according to inflation, actually less.
        As our own staff budgets remain flat, Members and
    committees continue to rely on CRS experts to provide critical
    analysis of legislation and quick turnaround of information
    that are used by Members and committees. I mean, I would argue
    that our need to rely on CRS is even more critical given the
    flat funding that we have had in our MRA budgets.
        Although this subcommittee oversees the smallest bill, the
    Library is an example of why we must fund agencies that have
    high returns on our investment. GAO and CRS both fall into that
    category by helping Congress analyze the vast executive branch,
    its many programs, and other critical information that benefit
    the American people.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you having a second panel with
    Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights. We put a lot of
    requirements in the bill last year to put Copyright on a path
    to modernization. We just received a 5-year plan that we asked
    for in the omnibus on Friday. I am looking forward to reviewing
    it.
        Finally, as a result of our bill, the public will provide
    comments on ideas for funding strategies to accomplish this
    critical modernization. Ultimately, it will require some
    combination of Federal appropriations and increases in user
    fees. We should have those comments back before we mark up a
    bill. So we have a lot of ground to cover today with the
    Register, and I look forward to hearing from both panels of
    witnesses.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you.
        We will invite Ms. Pallante to join Mr. Mao in a few
    minutes, after we go through this panel, but feel free to
    summarize your statement and know that your statement will be
    submitted for the record as well as your statement for the
    Register of Copyrights and the Director of CRS.

             Opening Statement of the Acting Librarian of Congress

        Mr. Mao. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz, members
    of the subcommittee, good afternoon. Thank you very much for
    the opportunity to provide testimony in support of the Library
    of Congress fiscal year 2017 budget request. We are very
    grateful for the continued support that you and the Congress
    give to the Library. And in particular, I want to express deep
    gratitude for your help last year with some of our urgent
    fiscal collection management needs.
        The Congress has sustained its Library for more than 215
    years. It is the largest collection of the world's recorded
    knowledge ever assembled by one institution. And now, with over
    162 million items, the Library includes the world's largest
    collection of legal materials, films, recordings and maps.
        Library staff have provided research and analysis to the
    Congress for more than 100 years through the Congressional
    Research Service and almost 200 years through the Law Library.
    And the Library has supported and protected U.S. creativity and
    innovation since it became the national home of the copyright
    function in 1870.
        But the Congress has been and remains the Library's primary
    focus. Our highest priority as an institution is to support the
    legislative, oversight, and representational work of the
    Congress.
        I appear before you today during a time of significant
    change and opportunity for the Library of Congress. As we
    prepare for new leadership for the first time in almost three
    decades, our goal is to position the Library to serve the
    Congress and the American people in a future where
    technological advancement drives change at an accelerating
    pace. The Library must adapt to this rapidly changing
    environment.
        Over the last year, we reconfigured the Library's
    organizational structure to meet increasing demand. We also
    released a new strategic plan for 2016 through 2020 that
    provides a path forward and is deliberately flexible to
    accommodate needs as they evolve.
        As part of the realignment and to support the new
    organizational structure, the Library made critical leadership
    appointments of a Chief Information Officer and a Chief
    Operating Officer, which centralize oversight of the Library's
    information technology and operational infrastructure
    functions.
        Additionally, we appointed a director of the newly created
    National and International Outreach unit to lead consolidated
    outreach activities, including collaborative efforts with other
    institutions.
        The Library of Congress fiscal 2017 budget request is for
    approximately $667 million. It is a 11 percent increase over
    the Library's fiscal year 2016 budget. And of this, 3.5 percent
    covers mandatory pay and price level increases, or
    approximately $23 million.
        The balance of the increase represents critical investment
    in information technology and related infrastructure, the care
    of and access to our digital and physical collections, and
    human capital with new expertise.
        As the important work of the Library continues, demand for
    our services grows. We therefore seek to achieve much-needed
    transitional improvements, particularly in response to the
    Government Accountability Office findings on the Library's
    management of information technology.
        We are dedicated to strengthening our information
    technology and physical infrastructure that will significantly
    leverage the Library's capabilities and capacities. Because
    complete transition cannot be accomplished in one year,
    however, we must first address the most urgent shortfalls in
    key infrastructure areas: information technology, care of and
    access to our collections, developing and maintaining human
    skills.
        Through several years of declining budgets, we compromised
    and took risks in these areas, often making difficult choices
    to cover mandatory cost that ensured current operations while
    sacrificing investment for the future. Continually funding
    near-term operational demands at the expense of long-term
    investment has allowed some mission critical areas, such as the
    data center/primary computing facility, to reach the point
    where they represent serious risks.
        Much has changed since the Library put key infrastructure
    into place in the 1990s and early 2000s. Technology has
    advanced, congressional and public demands have changed, and
    some infrastructure has become outdated. The Library's budget
    request, which represents transition and transformation, aims
    to position the Library to move forward.
        To avoid mortgaging the future by continuing to support
    infrastructure that cannot handle current and future demands,
    we must make long-term investments that move us in the most
    economical way and bring in new expertise. Our future service
    to the Congress and the American people depends on having a
    modernized infrastructure and one that is efficient, proper,
    and lasting.
        Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz, and
    members of the subcommittee, the Library is both America's
    first cultural institution and part of the innovative
    infrastructure of America. So I thank you again for supporting
    the Library of Congress and for your consideration of our
    fiscal year 2017 request.
        [The prepared statements of Mr. Mao, Dr. Mazanec, and Ms.
    Pallante follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              CONGRESSIONAL DIALOG

        Mr. Graves. Great. Thank you. Thank you for your statement
    there.
        And I was just thinking back as you were giving your
    comments there, I know in the past you have generally sat in
    that seat and with Dr. Billington sitting where you are. So it
    is big shoes you are filling, I know a big void, but tremendous
    history and heritage that he has provided, and we are grateful
    for that. And appreciate you stepping in during this interim
    period and look forward to continuing working with you.
        Quick question from my end and then I will go to Mr.
    Palazzo, I will yield the rest of my time to Mr. Palazzo, if
    you have a question.

                       PRESERVATION--MASS DEACIDIFICATION

        Last year, a lot of focus was spent on protection of books
    and manuscripts and such through the deacidification process.
    What is the plan for fiscal year 2017? Is it maintaining the
    200,000-book level of protection?
        Mr. Mao. Mass deacidification is one of the preservation
    tools that we have in our toolkit for preserving all of our
    materials. It is one of the ways that we will continue to
    preserve our materials going forward.
        Mr. Graves. And you suspect you will stay on the goal? I
    know that you have a lot to get to over the years.
        Mr. Mao. Yes.
        Mr. Graves. Are there objectives, number of books or
    manuscripts over time?
        Mr. Mao. Exactly, and we will tweak those as we see fit.
    Certainly, we have done a large amount of mass deacidification,
    and we see less material as a whole coming in that may need
    mass deacidification. And we try to balance all of our
    preservation needs. Certainly if we do one type, it comes at
    the expense of another, as with any budget. And so we are
    looking at all of our preservation needs, and certainly mass
    deacidification is something that we plan to continue.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you.
        Mr. Palazzo, I yield the rest of my time to you.

                          MASS DEACIDIFICATION PROGRAM

        Mr. Palazzo. To kind of follow up on the chairman's
    question, I know we budgeted $5.5 million and we got 200,000
    books--I think that was part of that fiscal year 2015 budget--
    and a million manuscripts, and then the same amount of money
    for fiscal year 2016. Have we done the same amount of books?
    Can you give me a number? Are we projected to do again another
    200,000?
        Mr. Mao. We are projected to continue on with the plan that
    we have moved forward, yes. It depends. The quantity will be
    tweaked depending on how many books actually come in and how
    many actually need the treatment, and the increase in unit
    costs.
        Approximately 190,000 books and 1 million manuscript sheets
    will be treated.
        Mr. Palazzo. And so it leads me to ask, there seems to be a
    slight uptick in fiscal year 2017 of 121,000. Is that because
    you are going to do more books, or is that covering something
    different? Or do you expect more books because it is a budget
    request increase.
        Mr. Mao. Exactly. And there is additional cost for that. We
    are moving forward, and we anticipate that there might be some
    more books. It really is a little hard to tell the exact
    numbers, but I can certainly get back to you with some firm
    numbers, if you would like.
        Mr. Palazzo. And I could have done some more digging of my
    own, but the $5.5 million, is that personnel? Is it process? Is
    it materials? Chemicals?
        Mr. Mao. It is a combination of all of that. Part of it is,
    of course, we have a contract on mass deacidification, so
    certainly there are costs associated with that, and there are
    costs associated with the different pieces of the project.
        Mr. Palazzo. Is this off-site?
        Mr. Mao. Yes, some of it is.
        Mr. Palazzo. Is there a way a Member can walk over to the
    Library and get you all to show us how you actually----
        Mr. Mao. Sure, certainly. Come over, and we would be happy
    to show you what we do.
        Mr. Palazzo. All right. That was my primary question. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Graves. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

                         CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        If I can ask Dr. Mazanec to come to the table, please.
        Thank you very much. Thank you for the work that you do
    to--and all of the folks that work at CRS--to support Members
    of Congress who really need the information that you provide to
    be able to represent our constituents effectively.
        Your request is $114.4 million. That is a 7 percent
    increase over last year, which I don't find excessive, given
    the reference I made to how flat your funding has been. Not
    only flat, it has been concave over the last 4 years. You are
    currently funded, as I mentioned, at $5.6 million less than in
    your fiscal year 2010 level.
        Can you outline for us, one, if the subcommittee continues
    to deny your budget request increases, what are the
    consequences? What is the impact? Second, what has been the
    effect of absorbing inflationary increases and mandatory pay
    increases with additional appropriations as you have gone
    through that process?
        I have another series of questions for you as well.
        Dr. Mazanec. OK. Our FTE ceiling is 651. But in reality,
    last year, in fiscal year 2015, our budget was able to support
    an FTE count of 609. We have a flat budget in 2016. That will
    require us to reduce our FTE count to approximately 599 in
    order to absorb the increase in personnel costs and
    inflationary costs.

                                 CRS PERSONNNEL

        Ninety percent of the CRS budget is personnel cost. During
    my tenure at CRS, we have taken measures to increase our
    operational efficiencies. As an expert left, we would look at
    their portfolio and divvy it up and assign issue areas to other
    analysts. But there is only a finite capacity there, and CRS
    analysts are now spread exceedingly thin. In many areas, we are
    one deep.
        So what would be the consequences of a flat budget? If CRS
    capacities are not maintained, gap areas will intensify. Right
    now we have a gap due to an unanticipated departure in Russian
    and Ukrainian foreign policy. In these areas, as gaps develop,
    we cannot always immediately backfill, which means it becomes a
    challenge for us to produce the highly analytical, nuanced work
    that you expect of us.
        I can almost state with 100 percent assurance that
    timelines will increase, especially in the areas that are high
    volume: education, health care, defense, appropriations, and
    budget. Analysts will be challenged to update and maintain the
    currency of their reports.
        And finally, one more thing. I don't think we will be able
    to effectively leverage the vast amount of data that is
    currently being collected to better inform the work that you
    expect of us.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
        And that is my concern as well, is we need CRS to be
    responsive. I know when I have asked for CRS reports, Mr.
    Chairman, you want to know what you want to know when you want
    to know it, and it often is time sensitive. And so this
    constant flat funding or even reduced funding will continue to
    cause us problems.

                          PUBLIC ACCESS TO CRS REPORTS

        Dr. Mazanec, I am anticipating that we are going to have
    another debate about the release and public posting of your
    reports.
        And, Mr. Newlen, I would like to also ask your opinion on
    this since you were there at CRS for a very long time.
        My concern with basically making CRS like GAO, where you
    post your reports on a Web site, is that it would basically
    bring all the work that you are doing to a screeching halt. I
    mean, GAO, we have great respect for the work that they do.
    They have a completely different function. They provide
    comprehensive analysis on complex topics. They make
    recommendations to Congress.
        And what they are not billed to do though is act quickly
    and responsibly and privately. And my concern is that CRS, if
    you have a new interface that is public, in other words, your
    interface is with the public not with Congress, that we are
    going to create another GAO.
        So could you share with the subcommittee your insights,
    both of your insights, on CRS' culture and how any change to
    those policies related to releasing reports could change that
    culture. And I know supporters of releasing reports to the
    public on the CRS Web site point to language in the
    appropriations bills as the reasons that reports are not
    listed. So if this language was removed, would that then allow
    CRS to release their reports?
        And lastly, so I am mindful of the time, is there a middle
    ground on this issue that we could release certain
    informational reports through the House Clerk and the Secretary
    of the Senate so that the House itself is controlling what gets
    released as opposed to turning you into an agency that
    basically directly serves the public instead of serving as a
    service for the Congress?
        Because there are times when, as I have said before, Mr.
    Chairman, you and I might have an idea that we may never decide
    to explore. But if we change the way CRS works and suddenly
    everything, every idea we ever explore is immediately posted on
    a Web site, then a lot of things that you begin to explore as a
    Member of Congress, as a legislator with the speech and debate
    clause being in the Constitution, wouldn't be ripe or ready or
    even appropriate at the incubator stage of preparation.
        So I just would love to have both of your thoughts.
        Dr. Mazanec. Do you want to start?
        Mr. Newlen. Go ahead.
        Dr. Mazanec. As you know, CRS--and I think I can speak for
    the Library--does not take a formal position on this. It is a
    complex situation, but there are potential impacts and
    unintended consequences. And let me just run through three, one
    of which you already mentioned, which is that as we release our
    reports and our products more broadly, it may alter the way we
    conceptualize and perform our work for Congress.
        Right now, we work for a congressional audience. We write
    for a congressional audience. We meet your timelines. And we
    are high volume. As we take on more of a public presence, that
    may shift. Analysts may feel they have to vet their work more
    carefully. They may feel that only certain topics should be
    written about; realizing that their reports will be released
    into the public domain.
        Another potential or unintended consequence could be the
    erosion of the speech or debate protection that CRS has for the
    confidential work it does for Congress. As we take on more of a
    public persona, so to speak, the Service may be viewed
    differently by the courts. Previous decisions that have upheld
    the speech or debate protection for CRS, have been predicated
    on the fact that we work exclusively for the Congress.
        The other thing is there are going to be tangible costs to
    publish our reports. We have to put them in a format for public
    release. We would also have to manage the expectations from the
    public for us to be responsive to them.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.

                                 IMPACT ON CRS

        Mr. Newlen. I think Dr. Mazanec covered the concerns that
    Congress needs to think about. You hit the nail on the head in
    terms of options. That is making the least impact on CRS
    analysts and any kind of outside pressure that they might
    experience. You suggested that the House would work with CRS.
        I think these are all options worth exploring, we should
    outline those options that are most cost efficient, have the
    least impact on CRS, and provide you with the kind of
    information and analysis that you need.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Seems to me that that, Mr. Chairman,
    is a way that we could provide transparency. I am from the
    Sunshine State. That is not being funny--we have the most
    stringent sunshine law in the country. So I am from that
    culture.
        But I also know that there are things that we all do as
    legislators that are the dumbest ideas on the face of the
    Earth, and when you consult an expert at CRS, they help shut
    you down right away. You may not want to expose that dumb idea
    or it is not the direction that you ultimately choose to go.
        So there are unintended consequences. There are fully baked
    reports that we could share. I just think to protect the speech
    and debate requirements that we have here, that that is
    something that should be initiated and controlled by the House
    of Representatives and the Senate rather than it forced on the
    people who are providing a service to us to be able to do our
    jobs effectively.
        So thank you. I yield back.

                              CONGRESSIONAL DIALOG

        Mr. Graves. Thank you. Yes, well said.
        In addition to, I think it is not the intent of this
    committee to put any additional duties or responsibilities or
    CRS whatsoever. You are doing a great job with limited
    resources, and we are grateful for that. And I have read your
    testimonies. Remarkable work.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Let's get them more money, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Graves. We are very limited here.
        Mr. Farr.

                                   USE OF CRS

        Mr. Farr. Thank you very much.
        I have to confess something here: I am an addict. I have
    been told that our office is one of the 10 top users of CRS. So
    I am really addicted to it. I think that the worst thing in the
    world would be to allow CRS opened up. It will become the
    biggest recipient of homework assignments in the United States.
        We don't allow our lawyers to draft bills for the outside
    world. That is done inside. I think that the reference research
    service is ours and we ought to use it as such. I say that
    because I just learned from CRS that as a retired Member, you
    still get to get access to it.
        David Mao, I just want to tell you, I have so enjoyed your
    leadership and your spirit. I wish you weren't the acting
    Librarian. I wish you were the permanent one.

                            USE OF PRIVATE DONATIONS

        But I just thought of something. We were discussing whether
    private donations can be used for restoring the Capitol and the
    Grounds, and it seems to me the Library of Congress, don't you
    have the ability to receive private gifts from foundations and
    individuals and things like that?
        Mr. Mao. Are you talking about money or books?
        Mr. Farr. Money.
        Mr. Mao. Yes, we can certainly receive donations, and we do
    receive donations.
        Mr. Farr. Have there been any problems with people sort of
    saying, well, you know, if you get a private donation, like
    from the Ford Foundation or something, is there a concern that
    it is going to be used for commercial purposes?
        Mr. Mao. No, not at all. And we have lots of donations and
    gift agreements with people, individuals, companies, and
    corporations, that may have a particular interest in a
    particular collection area to help supplement or they may
    encourage us to have programs in certain areas. And it allows
    us to do these extra things that our sparse appropriated
    dollars don't necessarily allow us to do. And so we do accept
    donations.
        Mr. Farr. I think this is going to generate another
    research question for CRS, the question being why can't we use
    private donations for restoration projects here in the Capitol,
    because that was brought up yesterday when we were talking
    about it.

                           PRIMARY COMPUTING FACILITY

        We talked a little bit yesterday, I don't know if you were
    here, but we talked about this co-location of the data center
    in southwest Virginia. the chair and ranking knew more about it
    than I did, that that seems to be on target. But I don't think
    any money has been appropriated for it.
        The question here is, if the Library does not get the funds
    requested in the fiscal year 2017 budget, what would be the
    impact on the Library's services? What would be the fiscal
    impact on the Library if it is required to build its own new
    data center? I don't even know if that is an option. I don't
    know if the House has agreed to accommodate the Library in co-
    location.
        Mr. Mao. Well, thank you. The Library is interested, as you
    know from our budget request, in participating with the House
    in the legislative branch data center. We have had great
    support from the House in working with the House, and, in fact,
    we have based a lot of our decisions on the great studies that
    the House has done and working in tandem with them in providing
    us with the great studies that they have already done so that
    we don't have to recreate the wheel.
        The key question is the money. So we don't have the funding
    to actually move our data center.
        Mr. Farr. Is that in your budget?
        Mr. Mao. What?
        Mr. Farr. The funding. Is the money there to--well, if you
    co-locate, that means that the design of this center is going
    to have to be bigger, right?
        Mr. Mao. No. There would be room at the House data center
    for a Library of Congress to--legislative branch data center--
    for the Library to participate along with the House. What we
    are asking for is to actually move, and that is what the
    funding is for. There is approximately $55 million total.
        Mr. Farr. I don't mean to ask this question if it is all on
    track, but I got the feeling somehow, either discussing with
    you or others, that there was some glitch in this process.
        Mr. Mao. No, we are very happy with moving forward. It is
    just the money to be able to afford to do it.
        Mr. Farr. But that is in your budget?
        Mr. Mao. That is in the budget request, yes.
        Mr. Farr. So the question is for Congress to approve it or
    you can't do the co-location.
        Mr. Mao. That is correct. We would submit it again next
    year because we do believe that it is the best practice moving
    forward and that we would need to do that, if not now then at
    some point.
        Mr. Farr. Have we ever denied that before or cut back that
    request?
        Mr. Mao. We haven't asked for it before.
        Mr. Farr. All right.

                            VETERANS HISTORY PROJECT

        The other question I have is on the Veterans History
    Project, which, by the way, was created 10 or 12 years ago.
        Mr. Mao. Fifteen.
        Mr. Farr. Fifteen years ago. Congress created the
    authorization that we could go out and collect oral history
    projects from veterans of any war. Usually it's all the heroes
    who get the medals. But part of our national cultural
    collection is what grandpa did during the war, a sort of Story
    Corps-type things.
        I have used it in my district and it is just--I mean,
    everybody who sees these things ends up in tears. People,
    families, spouses even say: My husband never told me about his
    war experience. But he will tell his grandson or granddaughter,
    who usually gets an assignment as a school project, to go out
    and interview grandpa, and the vets decide at that age, well,
    maybe--I have never told these stories, never wanted to, but I
    will do it. Then we can archive these stories in the Library of
    Congress. I think it has really taken off and it gives our
    veterans a chance to feel like they are really appreciated.
        I see that you ask for a 4 percent increase. I want to
    know, is that enough? Because I think every 435 Members of
    Congress are now starting to use this process as a constituent
    tool, especially now that we have troops back from Iraq and
    Afghanistan. Are there any special plans to reach out to this
    particular group of veterans to record their stories?
        Mr. Mao. Yes. And so to answer your first question, we
    certainly would take more money and would appreciate having
    that. But seriously, it is a great project and it is a great
    program that Congress----
        Mr. Farr. But 4 percent will allow----
        Mr. Mao. Allow us to keep pace. And, in fact, we just
    passed our 100,000 mark. We celebrated receiving our 100,000th
    oral history to add to the archive, and it is now the largest
    oral archive history in the United States. And it is a great
    way for us to continue to honor the men and women that have
    served.
        Mr. Farr. I, frankly, think that every library in the
    United States ought to have oral history of that community.
    That ought to be just part of the American culture. We need to
    always tell our stories.
        Mr. Mao. Yes.
        Mr. Farr. That is how all information was passed along in
    the early days. So we ought to go back to capturing that.

                                SPOKEN LANGUAGES

        Mary, how many languages are there, do you speak in your
    Service?
        Dr. Mazanec. That is an interesting question. I don't have
    the answer to that.
        Mr. Farr. Are all your area specialists also linguists?
        Dr. Mazanec. No, not necessarily.
        Mr. Farr. So not all of them can read the local----
        Dr. Mazanec. No. But I can find out how many different
    languages are represented in the CRS staff and get back to you.
        Mr. Farr. I have traveled mostly in Latin America and
    everybody is fluent in Spanish. But we were talking the other
    day about how thin CRS is. It has area specialists, just like
    the military has foreign area officers. FAOs really live in the
    culture, they live in those countries and in those regions. For
    CRS area specialists to really catch up and sort of have a
    refresher, CRS ought to be give sabbaticals for your area
    specialists. But you told me that there is nobody to fill in
    while they're gone.
        Dr. Mazanec. Well, our travel and training budget has also
    been one of the line items that we have reduced in order to
    maintain the expertise across all the issue areas. And I know
    that in my Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division, the
    analysts that do the regions or the countries do feel they need
    in-country experience in order to be credible.
        Mr. Farr. Well, we just ought to think about that when we
    are looking at that budget.

                  FOREIGN EXPERTISE_INTRA-LIBRARY PARTNERSHIPS

        Mr. Mao. If I may, Mr. Farr, sorry to interrupt, but that
    is one of the great reasons why the Library is such a fabulous
    institution where we can all help each other out. Certainly in
    the Law Library there is a large staff of foreign-trained
    attorneys, and they are all foreign-born and speak the
    language.
        And to the extent that CRS analysts need assistance with a
    specific language or linguistic skills, we try to help out
    across the entire Library, and that is not necessarily even the
    Law Library. We have catalogers, people in our reading rooms,
    in our area study reading rooms, that speak the language.
        Mr. Farr. What I am really keen on, and this is for
    everybody in this room, are lessons I learned while negotiating
    with Plan Colombia. There we ended up trying to revitalize or
    upgrading all the institutions in the Columbian Government. The
    United States was angry with the military in Colombia because
    they were violating all kinds of human rights and stuff.
        We finally got around to realizing that the military is an
    institution of government. You can't just ignore the military
    and fund everything else. You have to train and upgrade and
    clean up parts of the Colombian Government. Now Columbia is one
    of our key allies in the world, including their military. Very
    professionalized.

                     HOUSE DEMOCRACY PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE

        What we always forget to do is to help professionalize the
    legislative branch of government. The House Democracy
    Partnership Committee is reaching out to do this. Members of
    Congress talk parliamentarian to parliamentarian to emerging
    democratic nations.
        I think what we need to do is leave behind or allow staff
    members from the Library of Congress and CRS to travel to these
    emerging democracies and work with their staffs. Many of these
    countries tell us: We want some independent information. We
    want a budget office. We want a Library of Congress.
        But that is not in our budget. I know we have had
    difficulties asking the Library to sponsor Open World. The
    ranking member and I have had two different opinions on that.
    But I understand the Senate reauthorized it and appropriated
    money last year.
        But I understand that Open World directed to create a
    strategic plan on how it could collaborate with other
    congressional engagement activities, like the House Democracy
    Partnership Committee. That plan is due at the end of this
    month, right? Is it ready? Or who does that?
        Mr. Mao. Not sure.
        Dr. Mazanec. To engage with HDP?
        Mr. Farr. Yes, that plan is supposed to be due to Congress
    on March 31.
        Do we know?
        Mr. Graves. I don't know. We will have to get back with you
    on that one. The question continues, yes.

                                EMPLOYEE MORALE

        Mr. Farr. Last one. Just a question on how you do your
    professional sort of upgrading. I mean, there have been rumors
    around that among staff at around CRS is, in some reports,
    declining morale. I don't know whether it is true or just, you
    know, there are always people who are complaining.
        I wondered whether you might have thought about bringing in
    an independent outside management consultant to perform an
    assessment and recommendations on possible improvements to
    morale and welfare of the Library and CRS.

                               EMPLOYEE FEEDBACK

        Mr. Mao. Well, I mean, I will certainly defer to Dr.
    Mazanec to talk specifically about CRS. But what I would say
    is, I think the morale question at the Library, my experience
    in walking around and speaking to employees and meeting with
    employees over the last--I guess since October, when I assumed
    this position--is that they are a very dedicated staff and all
    very concerned and really into the work of the Library of
    Congress and want it to continue to be the great place that it
    is.
        And we have walked around, both Robert and I, and we have
    met with small groups to hear what people think about different
    areas, because certainly it has been a long time since there
    has been a transition. And during the time of transition we
    want to make sure that we engage the Library and have them
    involved in setting the course for the Library moving forward.
    And from my experience, we have gotten a lot of great, great
    feedback from employees about different things at the Library.
    And so certainly we will take those into consideration.
        Mr. Farr. Well, I guess it depends on the extent of--if
    there is nothing broken, don't fix it. But there have been
    complaints.

                                   CRS STAFF

        Dr. Mazanec. Let me just make a few points.
        First of all, I would echo what David said about the
    dedication of the CRS staff. It is one of the--actually the
    best staff, the best group of colleagues that I have been
    associated with in my professional career.
        I think, though, we are asking them to do more with less,
    and they are stretched, and they are feeling that. And that
    sends a message to them about the value that is placed in CRS.
        I just finished a 5-year strategic plan for CRS. I held
    over 40 hours of all-hands and brown bags and there was a
    tremendous engagement. They are interested in the institution.
    They are very dedicated to the mission. They love working for
    Congress.
        Mr. Farr. We just don't pay them enough, or we give them
    too much work.
        Dr. Mazanec. They are here to support you. They are here to
    support you.
        Mr. Farr. Well, maybe, I don't know----
        Mr. Graves. Mr. Farr, we actually have one more panel, if
    you are open to inviting Ms. Pallante up, and we will ease into
    the next panel.
        Doctor, thank you very much for all you are doing, for
    answering the questions.
        Mr. Newlen. Mr. Chairman, could I just make one remark.
        Mr. Graves. You could. Could I invite Ms. Pallante up to
    join the panel.

                                DEDICATED STAFF

        Mr. Newlen. I just wanted to thank Ms. Wasserman Schultz
    for bringing up the Rosa Parks Collection today, because this
    is just a recent example of what our talented and dedicated
    staff do so well: acquire, preserve, and make accessible rare
    and unique material. And this is a wonderful, wonderful example
    of that.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And have the opportunity for people
    to see it.
        Mr. Newlen. Exactly. So thank you for bringing it up.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are welcome.

                                              Wednesday, March 2, 2016.

               U.S. COPYRIGHT PROGRAM PROJECT AND ACTIVITY REVIEW

                                   WITNESSES

    DAVID S. MAO, ACTING LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
    MARIA A. PALLANTE, REGISTER AND DIRECTOR

                            COPYRIGHT MODERNIZATION

        Mr. Graves. Well, thank you. That is nice.
        Thank you for joining us. We will sort of step into a
    second panel here, to discuss the digital age and Copyrights
    just a little bit.
        I know in fiscal year 2015 the Senate requested, and GAO,
    to examine the Copyrights' information technology
    infrastructure and to identify any deficiencies or obstacles to
    serving the copyright community in a modernized environment.
    Now, this report was released almost 1 year ago.
        Last year, this subcommittee included report language
    requesting a detailed plan on necessary IT upgrades that are
    required for a 21st century copyright organization.
        Now, we received this report this past Friday, the 26th. We
    want to thank you for your work on the report. And I know there
    have been some hearings held by some other committees. But this
    committee as well wants to hear your thoughts. And understand
    that you have a very different mission than the Library, the
    broader Library in itself.
        So the purpose of this hearing is not to talk about making
    the Copyright Office an independent agency--I know that has
    been a topic in past, but not today--but to focus on the future
    of the Copyright Office within the Library of Congress and what
    is needed to ensure that we are able to meet the demands of the
    digital age.
        So I know there is not a statement or such that we would
    ask you to present, but I know that we will have some
    questions. And I might start off, if that is OK, and then Ms.
    Wasserman Schultz, because I think mine is rather simple
    because it just comes from questions you have probably already
    received from those who are really trying to utilize the
    Copyright Office in the right way and have access to it. you
    have discussed in your report that the IT in the Copyright
    Office is behind the times, and that may be a little bit of
    your quote there.

                      COPYRIGHT OFFICE IN THE DIGITAL AGE

        So when, at this point when our Nation has been online for
    about 20 years now, will we be in the right spot when it comes
    to the Copyright Office? And why is it taking so long, in your
    opinion?
        Ms. Pallante. Well, thank you, Chairman Graves. And before
    I answer your question, thank you for the support of the
    committee the last couple of years, with respect especially to
    our registration program. We were able to add to our depleted
    staff and that has really made a difference.
        So this report is part reacting to what experts in the
    office know to be deficiencies currently, but it is very much
    looking to where the copyright system is going as well. So I
    wanted to make that point because I think good government is
    future focused.
        And we know that, for example, people will be registering
    on phones. They want to look on their tablets to find out who
    owns what. They want to create software APIs to collect our
    data and create, say, a new delivery service. And so we are
    focused on that, where is the system, where is the marketplace.

                        COPYRIGHT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

        What I would say in direct response to your question is
    that when the Copyright Office--and this is all before our
    time--first went online, the way that it was constructed was
    that the Copyright Office would control at the application
    level the software interface that customers see, but the
    underlying IT would be controlled by the Library agencywide.
        Over time, I think that has broken down, in part just
    because what we do is incredibly complex. It is a 24/7 focus.
    It is inefficient to try to explain our needs to a different
    department. And that department doesn't have the benefit of
    working side by side with the experts in the Copyright Office.
        So everybody else--and some of my division heads are here
    today--are by my side. The recordation staff, the registration
    staff, the statutory license experts, the policy team, the
    lawyers, the operations people. But the IT is not with us. And
    that is, I think, where we are. I also think that we have been
    underresourced.
        Mr. Graves. So it will take time, still a little more time.
        Ms. Pallante. Which I thought you probably knew I would
    say. I mean, we have a plan. That was the long history. But the
    good news is we can not only fix the deficiencies, but I think
    get ahead of them. That is the goal.
        Mr. Graves. That is good news. Good news.
        Well, one other question, then Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

                    SEARCHABLE COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION SYSTEM

        What I hear probably the most about when it comes to the
    Copyrights is why is there not an updated searchable
    registration system that is available to all the users who are
    really trying to use a system correctly and not violate
    anyone's copyrights?
        Ms. Pallante. Yes, no, I agree. That has been my talking
    point from the moment I became Register 5 years ago.
        So you are talking about the back end of the system as
    opposed to the filing side of the system. So the system, I
    think, probably was designed primarily to allow people that
    used to register with paper to do the same thing online. And it
    is searchable. I mean, I don't know if you are hearing that it
    is not searchable. It is not whiz, bang, Internet savvy
    searchable. I think that is what people are saying, and we
    agree, and it should be.
        And why is that important? Because you want to generate
    participation in the system and you want people to be found
    once they have registered with the government. And they don't
    have to. It is a voluntary system.
        And we are trying to create a platform where people can
    find out that so-and-so owns the rights or part of the rights.
    You have many rights holders owning various parts of work,
    music, the audio-visual, the underlying text, and you want to
    be able not just to find them and then call them, you want to
    be able to connect to the metadata and know exactly who owns
    what. But you also want to know if there are no rights owners,
    it is in public domain, you can use it.
        Mr. Graves. Maybe I left out a phrase, maybe updated and
    searchable.
        Ms. Pallante. Yes.

                     SEARCHABLE HISTORIC COPYRIGHT RECORDS

        Mr. Graves. I understand that something can be searchable,
    but if something is current today, is it available and
    searchable on the other end today? That that might be the
    question.
        Ms. Pallante. It is searchable within a reasonable
    timeframe.
        Mr. Graves. A day or 2 or a month.
        Ms. Pallante. But not all records going back to the Civil
    War are searchable. So it is basically after 1978. And most of
    those things are what people are using, but there is a
    historical piece that has not yet been digitized, because the
    system started--it was a different system starting at that
    point in time.
        So the modernization effort would be comprehensive. You
    have to fix the filing side. You have to generate interest and
    participation and encourage people to put their data into the
    government system. And then you want to make it clearly
    searchable, user friendly, so that people can come and use that
    data and use it for a different kind of business on the back
    end.
        Mr. Graves. Is that true with music or everything?
        Ms. Pallante. Yes, music is a great example. Music is the
    best example, because if you are a music creator, you want to
    be able to tap into an app or a program that you are creating
    the music in and register seamlessly, not log off, log onto our
    funky system, put your data in, hope that it catches up.
        Then on the back end, if you are an innovative music
    delivery service, you should be able to come and get all of the
    benefit of the government data on equal footing and build your
    business from that.
        And so we are supporting industries on both sides of the
    copyright equation. That is a good use of government. That is
    what we have been saying.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you for your explanation.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
        I also want to acknowledge that we are not talking about
    the future status of the office here, but the confines of the
    Library.

                            COPYRIGHT BUDGET REQUEST

        Your budget request was built many months ago and we did
    just receive your plan on Friday.
        Ms. Pallante. Yes.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We received it early, which was nice
    and refreshing. But I am concerned that you built a budget
    request that doesn't probably line up with your report.
        Ms. Pallante. Yes, that is correct.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. How are we going to reconcile that
    we have to build a budget but not ignore the report until we
    build the next budget. I will just ask my questions all at once
    and expedite this.

                             COPYRIGHT STAKEHOLDERS

        The other fiscal year 2016 requirement was that your office
    was to go out and ask stakeholders for their opinion of how we
    fund the Copyright Office and take their temperature in terms
    of their willingness to pay to improve IT infrastructure. I am
    guessing that there is probably willingness out there.
        I don't want to prejudge what we are likely to hear from
    the public when you go through the comment period, but I would
    like you to prejudge what we are likely hear from, large versus
    small copyright owners. Also, if you could just give a brief
    explanation of what we are allowed to pay for through fees
    versus appropriations at the moment.
        Ms. Pallante. Sure. So we have gone out with the Federal
    Register process. It is in motion. You will have comments from
    us, I would say, the first week in April. It closes on the 31st
    of March, I think.
        If I were to prejudge it, I think what you are going to
    hear is that it should be a mix of appropriations and fees, as
    it always has been, especially because you are potentially
    asking, if you focus mostly on fees, one group of contributors
    to the economy to fund the other part of the economy or
    subsidize them. It will feel that way to people because we
    don't charge them----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. To large copyright holders.
        Ms. Pallante. I wasn't even getting into the small versus
    large. I just mean the copyright owners who are filing and
    paying to put the data in versus those who would benefit from
    using it and building different businesses on the back end
    based on the fact that they have access to the licenses or the
    data or the royalties, whatever it might be. And that is free,
    and I think it has always been free. And again, we want to
    government to provide a platform for that kind of exchange.
        So, I guess, I am just saying that I think it is probably
    not the case that you are going to hear that the people paying
    into the system feel like they should pay for all of the
    modernization, especially because, as the chairman said, some
    of the complaints are on the back end. They want to be able to
    search on the back end.
        So because it is a voluntary system, it is an art. You will
    also see that big copyright owners are probably willing to
    subsidize small copyright owners. We already took their
    temperature on that a little bit this last fee schedule. But
    they also expect better service, and they expect their fees to
    be put directly back into the copyright system. And that is, I
    think, part and parcel to this plan.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. A little more whiz, bang.
        Ms. Pallante. Yes. I think, because, again, because we
    haven't----

                                 COPYRIGHT FEES

        Mr. Farr. Where do those fees go now?
        Ms. Pallante. The ability of the Copyright Office to spend
    fees for IT is very limited because the IT is not ours. It is
    agencywide IT. And so if you are asking them to pay more, I
    think--and this is what we are hearing--the fees have to be put
    back directly into the copyright system infrastructure,
    planning, IT, operability, focus.
        Mr. Farr. So they are just going in the general fund, are
    they in the Treasury?
        Ms. Pallante. Well, eventually they go to the Treasury.
    They come through Pay.gov. I think the issue is the more you
    charge, the more that they want to see the results.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. They are not plowed back into the
    service right now?

                              COPYRIGHT IT SYSTEMS

        Ms. Pallante. I don't think you could say that they are--
    because we are not picking IT systems based on the copyright
    system, we are picking agencywide systems. There is that
    concern then of course the system is not working right now for
    copyright owners or for copyright users.
        That doesn't mean there aren't synergies. That doesn't mean
    that the Copyright Office and the Library shouldn't have shared
    services, that we shouldn't have points where we touch. It just
    means that we have to recognize that there may not be a one-
    size-fits-all.
        And this has been a very long time coming, and I think most
    people agree with that. It is just figuring out what the points
    of alignment are and allowing the office to take over the IT
    that it is an expert in or allow them to work next to the
    experts.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. you are building, it looks like, an
    independent IT system, but you are still housed within the
    Library?
        Ms. Pallante. Oh, yes. I mean, it doesn't have anything to
    do with the constitutional, legal arguments about whether there
    are conflicts and what the structure should be and the
    interagency process with other IP organizations and the
    government.
        It only is saying that we built it, we built an online
    registration system. Recordation is still paper. We have all of
    these other things we need to connect. It is unlikely we can do
    that in the current paradigm where we are going to a central IT
    office and saying, as one of your many clients, here are our
    needs, because this plan is a 24/7, 5-year plan and it is going
    to take that. And it takes being in the Copyright Office.
        So we have a tiny, little team right now, and we have no
    responsibility for administering IT as to the underlying
    systems, the servers, et cetera. And it is stressful. We had an
    outage. It was extremely stressful for the Copyright Office.
    Because in part--I mean, things happen--but in part it is
    because we are on the outside of those failures or plans.
        I don't know if I answered your question.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You did. Thank you.
        Mr. Graves. Mr. Farr, any questions?
        Did you have anything you wanted to add, Mr. Mao?
        Anything additional?

                                 AGENCY SUPPORT

        Mr. Mao. No. We look forward to this plan as well and we
    are looking to working together, because that is what we need
    to do. The Copyright Office, their clients are clients of the
    Library of Congress and the Library wants to make sure that all
    of the clients are being served. And that is why our budget
    proposal is what it is, to make sure that our infrastructure
    can support all of our clients.

                           CHAIRMAN'S CLOSING REMARKS

        Mr. Graves. Great. Well, if there are no other questions,
    let me thank you all for joining us today, for working together
    for the betterment of what we are all trying to do here for our
    constituency across the country. And we will stand in recess
    until we are called back.
        [Questions submitted for the record and additional
    statements for the record follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               W I T N E S S E S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Ayers, S. T......................................................    37

    Braddock, R. L...................................................     1

    Burd, James......................................................   240

    Dine, K. C.......................................................     1

    Dodaro, G. L.....................................................   198

    Haas, K. L.......................................................    63

    Hall, Keith......................................................   221

    Irving, P. D.....................................................    63

    Mao, D. S

    Newlen, R. R.....................................................   125

    O'Keefe, J. M....................................................   229

    Pallante, M. A...................................................   163

    Plaster, Will....................................................    63

    Sapin, B. J......................................................   225

    Schniderman, Saul................................................   244

    Schuman, Daniel..................................................   256

    Stiverson, K. A..................................................   251

    Vance-Cooks, Davita..............................................   187

    Verderosa, M. R..................................................     1

                                   I N D E X

                                  ----------

                          United States Capitol Police

                                                                       Page
    Concealed Weapons in the Capitol Complex.........................    29
    Coordination with Law Enforcement Agencies in DC.................    26
    Future Threats and Challenges....................................    21
    House Garages and Enhanced Security..............................    30
    Long-term Impact of the Spending Plan for Enhanced Security......    22
    Longworth Magnetometers..........................................    27
    Opening Statement of Chairman Tom Graves.........................     1
    Opening Statement of Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz............     2
    Opening Statement of the Honorable Nita M. Lowey.................     3
    Questions for the Record, Chairman Graves........................    33
    Role of the Capitol Police Board in the USCP Budget Process......    23
    State of USCP Readiness..........................................    23
    Statement of Chief Kim C. Dine...................................     4
    Testimony of Chief Kim C. Dine...................................     8
    USCP Radio System................................................    25

                         Architect of the Capitol (AOC)

    Acting Chairman Remarks..........................................    37
    Advice and Lessons Learned.......................................    50
    Cannon Renewal...................................................    51
    Capitol Power Plant..............................................    53
    Data Center Relocation...........................................    49
    Energy Savings...................................................    49
    House Page Dorm..................................................    45
    Questions for the Record.........................................    54
        Cannon House Office Building.................................    54
        Capitol Dome Restoration.....................................    57
        Rayburn Building Garage Rehabilitation.......................    57
        FTE's........................................................    58
        Zero Based Budgeting.........................................    58
        Capitol Police Buildings and Grounds.........................    59
        Grant Memorial...............................................    60
        Stone Preservation...........................................    61
    Ranking Member Remarks...........................................    37
    Rayburn Small Arms Firing Range..................................    46
    Summary Statement of Architect of the Capitol....................    38
        Stewardship Through Prioritization...........................    38
        Fiscal Year 2017 Request.....................................    39
    U.S. Capitol Dome................................................    47
    Working Capital Fund.............................................    48
    Written Statement of Stephen T. Ayers............................    40

                         U.S. House of Representatives

    Access to the Capitol Campus.....................................   101
    Adequate Resources for Cyber Security............................    99
    Amount of Dollars Reprogrammed for Lawsuits......................   104
    CAO Response for Lawsuit Reprogramming Question..................   109
    CAO Response for Sodexo Question.................................   109
    Capitol Police Board.............................................    92
    Capitol Police Board (continued).................................   102
    Capitol Police Board Oversight...................................    93
    Committee and Capitol Police Board Meeting.......................   109
    Determining the Members' Representational Allowances Bottom-line.   110
    Electronic Voting Machines.......................................    91
    Feminine Hygiene Availability (continued)........................   109
    Feminine Hygiene Products Availability...........................   108
    Garage Security Initiative.......................................    94
    Garage Security Initiative (continued)...........................   101
    House Cyber Security.............................................    97
    Increasing Members' Representational Allowance Budget............   110
    Magnetometers throughout the House Campus........................   100
    Need for the Garage Security Initiative..........................    95
    Opening Statement of Hon. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Ranking
      Member.........................................................    64
    Opening Statement of Hon. Tom Graves, Chairman...................    63
    Order of the Longworth Security Initiative.......................   102
    Questions for the Record.........................................   113
    Recruiting and Retaining Quality Staff...........................    99
    Reforming the Capitol Police Board...............................    93
    Screening Members................................................   102
    Sodexo-House Food Service Vendor.................................   108
    Statement of Hon. E. Scott Rigell................................    91
    Statement of Hon. Karen Haas, Clerk, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    66
    Statement of Hon. Paul Irving, Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    75
    Statement of Hon. Sam Farr.......................................   100
    Statement of Hon. Steven M. Palazzo..............................    96
    Statement of Hon. Will Plaster, Chief Administrative Officer,
      U.S. House of Representatives..................................    84
    Structure of the Capitol Police Board............................    92
    Termination Timeline for Sodexo Food Services Contract...........   109
    The House Sergeant at Arms vs The Senate Sergeant at Arms........    93
    Three General Areas of Cyber Security............................    98

                              Library of Congress

    Agency Support...................................................   168
    Chairman's Closing Remarks.......................................   168
    Congressional Dialog

    Congressional Research Service...................................   154
        CRS Personnel................................................   154
        CRS Staff....................................................   161
        Impact on CRS................................................   156
        Public Access to CRS Reports.................................   155
        Use of CRS...................................................   157
    Copyright Office:
        Copyright Budget Request.....................................   165
        Copyright Fees...............................................   167
        Copyright Information Technology.............................   164
        Copyright IT Systems.........................................   167
        Copyright Modernization......................................   163
        Copyright Office in the Digital Age..........................   163
        Copyright Stakeholders.......................................   166
        Searchable Copyright Registration System.....................   164
        Searchable Historic Copyright Records........................   165
    Dedicated Staff..................................................   162
    Employee Feedback................................................   161
    Employee Morale..................................................   161
    Foreign Expertise--Intra-Library Partnerships....................   160
    House Democracy Partnership Committee............................   160
    Mass Deacidification Program.....................................   153
    Opening Statements:
        Acting Librarian of Congress.................................   127
        Chairman Graves..............................................   125
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz........................................   125
    Preservation--Mass Deacidification...............................   153
    Primary Computing Facility.......................................   158
    Questions for the Record from the Chairman:
        Copyright Office.............................................   179
        Information Technology.......................................   170
        Mass Deacidification.........................................   169
        National Library Service.....................................   178
        Primary Computing Facility...................................   177
    Questions for the Record from Mr. Farr:
        Mass Deacidification Program.................................   183
        Supporting Congress with Foreign Affairs.....................   183
    Spoken Languages.................................................   159
    Use of Private Donations.........................................   157
    Veterans History Project.........................................   159
    Written Statements:
        Acting Librarian of Congress.................................   130
        Director, Congressional Research Service.....................   138
        Register and Director of Copyrights..........................   148