    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS
                                     FOR 2019

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                     HEARINGS

                                    BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                  SECOND SESSION

                                    __________

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

                          KEVIN YODER, Kansas, Chairman

      MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada                    TIM RYAN, Ohio
      DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington                  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
      JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan               DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
      SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia

      NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Frelinghuysen, as chairman of the
    full committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as ranking minority member of the full
    committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

                              Jennifer Panone, Clerk
                         Tim Monahan, Professional Staff

                                   ___________

                                      PART 2

                       FISCAL YEAR 2019 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

      30-357                    WASHINGTON : 2018

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                    ----------
                 RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman

      HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky \1\                           NITA M. LOWEY, New York
      ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama                           MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
      KAY GRANGER, Texas                                    PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
      MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho                             JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
      JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas                           ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
      JOHN R. CARTER, Texas                                 DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
      KEN CALVERT, California                               LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
      TOM COLE, Oklahoma                                    SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
      MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida                            BARBARA LEE, California
      CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania                         BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
      TOM GRAVES, Georgia                                   TIM RYAN, Ohio
      KEVIN YODER, Kansas                                   C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
      STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas                                DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
      JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska                            HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
      THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida                             CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
      CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee                     MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
      JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington                     DEREK KILMER, Washington
      DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio                                  MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
      DAVID G. VALADAO, California                          GRACE MENG, New York
      ANDY HARRIS, Maryland                                 MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
      MARTHA ROBY, Alabama                                  KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
      MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada                                PETE AGUILAR, California
      CHRIS STEWART, Utah
      DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
      EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
      STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
      DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
      JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
      SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia
      ----------
      \1\}Chairman Emeritus

                                   Nancy Fox, Clerk and Staff Director

                                                   (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                   __________

                                   Testimony

                                                                       Page
    U.S. Capitol Police..............................................     1
    Government Publishing Office.....................................    27
    Architect of the Capitol.........................................    57
    Members of Congress and Outside Witnesses........................    85
    Office of Compliance.............................................   213
    Congressional Budget Office......................................   251
    Government Accountability Office.................................   273
    Library of Congress..............................................   323
    House of Representatives.........................................   363

                               Prepared Statement

    Open World Leadership Center.....................................   447

                                     (iii)

                   LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2019

                                  ----------

                                             Wednesday, April 11, 2018.

                          UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE

                                   WITNESSES

    MATTHEW R. VERDEROSA, CHIEF OF POLICE
    STEVEN A. SUND, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE
    RICHARD L. BRADDOCK, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

                         Opening Remarks Chairman Yoder

        Mr. Yoder. I call the meeting to order. Thank you,
    everybody, for coming today. It seems like just a couple of
    weeks ago, we were working on the 2018 bill, because we were,
    and now we are ready to get to work on our 2019 legislation. We
    are going to have to move quickly, given where we are in the
    calendar. So I appreciate everybody coming to the hearing this
    week. We have got two more hearings tomorrow, so it will be a
    busy week. And I know that there are a lot of hearings on the
    other 11 subcommittees going, so people may come and go because
    they have other legislative business.
        I want to thank the Chief of Police for attending today,
    along with his team, and I appreciate all of your service to
    the Capitol, to the visitors that come here, constituents, to
    the people that come to our buildings to conduct the business
    of the American people, of course, the elected Representatives,
    who have been targets of many threats over the last year and
    some of which were acted out. The work of your team at the
    shooting in Virginia last year was remarkable, and we are
    thankful for the lives that were saved because of the folks who
    work for you. So thanks for being here.
        And I thank my team. I have Jenny, Tim, and Joe in my
    office who are here with us today. We will get started on the
    2019 bill. I would like to welcome all the subcommittee members
    back.
        As we start consideration of the fiscal year 2019 budget
    request, I look forward to working together again on putting
    together a legislative branch appropriations bill that
    adequately addresses the needs of our agencies so they can
    carry out their respective missions while at the same time
    balancing fiscal restraint. We have important work before us in
    being good stewards of taxpayer dollars as they are spent on
    the legislative branch, and I am glad to formally begin our
    hearing season.
        I want this committee to work in a bipartisan and
    collaborative basis, as is the tradition of this committee, and
    I invite our members to recommend additional site visits or
    items which they believe would be important for us to achieve
    our mission in writing this upcoming bill.
        This year, as chairman, I have decided to expand the number
    of hearings we will hold. Our subcommittee will consider a
    fiscal year 2019 budget request of $4.9 billion, which is $200
    million over the fiscal year 2018 allocation. I felt it was
    important to hear from more of our agencies through in-person
    testimony in order to more thoroughly scrutinize the requests
    and help fulfill our responsibility of ensuring every taxpayer
    dollar appropriated is done so responsibly.
        Today I would like to welcome the Capitol Police back to
    the committee to hear their testimony regarding their fiscal
    year 2019 budget request. Testifying before us, we have Chief
    Matthew Verderosa. Accompanying him is Assistant Chief Steven
    Sund and Chief Administrative Officer Richard Braddock.
        I would like to take a moment again to thank all the
    officers and civilians of the Capitol Police for their service.
    Their presence allows Members and staff to freely conduct and
    safely conduct the people's work and ensures the visitors can
    safely enjoy their time on Capitol Hill.
        As mentioned, the shooting in Alexandria last year is still
    very much on all of our minds. This incident shook all of us in
    this Capitol Building. And I am pleased to hear that Special
    Agent David Bailey has returned to work and that Special Agent
    Crystal Griner continues to make strides in her recovery. They
    are both heroes and have been an inspiration to us all.
        In response to the shooting, the department identified the
    need for additional funds that could go to remediating some of
    the lessons learned and bolstering their efforts to make sure
    something like this doesn't happen again. Although a bit
    delayed, I am happy those funds were made available in the
    recently passed omnibus.
        Chief, your budget request for fiscal year 2019 is $456.4
    million. This is approximately a 7-percent increase from the
    fiscal year 2018 enacted level. I understand the Capitol Police
    is continuously asked to expand their role: from securing the
    O'Neill House Office Building to garage security to more
    prescreeners to additional dignitary protection, and the list
    goes on.
        Chief, I appreciate your leadership and efforts in trying
    to meet these additional responsibilities while at the same
    time making sure that day-to-day operations of the department
    continue. Having said that, this committee has a responsibility
    to scrutinize this request and to take a holistic approach
    across all the legislative branch agencies when determining
    where to allocate funds.
        Since sequestration, the Capitol Police annual
    appropriations have increased more than 32 percent, while most
    legislative branch agencies have only received a modest
    increase. Obviously, we have many competing priorities, but
    keeping our Capitol safe, making sure that we adequately train
    and support our officers, making sure they have the tools and
    equipment to do their jobs remains the top priority of this
    committee. And we are so thankful for the work of each and
    every one of you and the folks that report to you and work to
    keep us safe.
        We are going to come back to Ranking Member Ryan's opening
    remarks. And at this point, Chief, we will make your opening
    statement part of the record.

           Opening Statement of Chief of Police Matthew R. Verderosa

        Chief Verderosa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to present the
    department's budget request for fiscal year 2019. I am joined
    today by Chief of Operations, Assistant Chief Steve Sund; Mr.
    Richard Braddock, my Chief Administrative Officer; as well as
    members of my executive team. We are also joined here today by
    Acting Inspector General Michael Bolton and USCP Fraternal
    Order of Police Chairman Gus Papathanasiou.
        First, I would like to thank the committee for its
    unwavering support of the United States Capitol Police and for
    providing the necessary funding to support our personnel and
    operations. Since I last appeared before the committee, the
    department has effectively managed an ever-increasing number of
    demonstrations and swiftly responded to critical incidents,
    civil disobedience, and has investigated numerous credible
    threats made against Members of Congress and the Capitol.
        Most notably, our mission to protect and serve was thrust
    into the national spotlight on June 14, 2017, after a gunman
    fired shots during the Republican congressional baseball team's
    practice in Alexandria, Virginia. And our own highly trained
    special agents responded swiftly and heroically, preventing a
    serious tragedy. I am happy to report that both agents are back
    to work. Though Crystal is back on a limited basis, we expect
    full recovery as well, and she should be back to full duty
    hopefully by the year anniversary of the incident.
        The Department also received its sixth consecutive
    accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation for Law
    Enforcement Agencies. We were awarded CALEA's Gold Standard
    with Excellence, the highest rating a law enforcement agency
    can receive during the evaluation process. This distinction is
    a real testament to the professionalism of our workforce and
    demonstrates that we consistently implement the best law
    enforcement practices.
        I am extremely proud of the department and our responses to
    the extraordinary events over the past year. No one could have
    predicted all that we have encountered, but our officers are
    trained to face each crisis and challenge, and we must always
    be prepared to face the unimaginable.
        Mr. Chairman, the support of the committee and the Capitol
    Police Board has contributed to our success in achieving our
    mission, as well as our ability to recognize and address the
    dynamic nature of the current threats. We are truly grateful
    for your keen understanding of the complexity of our mission
    and the challenges that we face.
        We have developed our fiscal year 2019 budget with a focus
    on continuing to equip and prepare our workforce to be agile
    and responsive to the operations of Congress, and keeping the
    U.S. Capitol complex safe and secure. Our overall fiscal year
    2019 budget request is $456.4 million and represents an
    increase of 7 percent over fiscal year 2018 enacted levels.
        As we experienced on the ballfield in Alexandria last June,
    occurrences of homegrown violent lone wolf episodes are on the
    rise. Across the world, we continue to see more and more
    terrorist organizations attack public venues. As a result, our
    officers must look at every event on the Capitol Grounds,
    whether it is a mass demonstration, a concert, traffic stops,
    or even the simple act of Members crossing the street for a
    vote, as a potential target or threat.
        Based on the increase in terrorist and domestic mass
    casualty events and upon studying the attacks displayed by
    known assailants, we continuously review our operational and
    tactical postures to ensure that we are taking every measure
    possible to maintain the security of the complex, while
    allowing the legislative process to continue to function in an
    open environment, and protecting individuals' First Amendment
    rights.
        Therefore, working in concert with the Capitol Police
    Board, the department is continuing to deploy additional
    screening of various means throughout the complex. This
    involves deploying security measures to better secure and
    screen at building access points.
        Our fiscal year 2019 budget request includes base funding
    for 1,943 sworn and 420 civilian positions and requests half-
    year funding for an additional 72 sworn officers and 20
    civilian positions. These additional sworn personnel will be
    utilized to enhance the department's ability to detect, impede,
    and address the threats that currently exist and continue to
    evolve. Additionally, we are requesting one civilian position
    for the Office of Inspector General for the purposes of
    furthering their work on addressing potential cybersecurity
    threats.
        Our request includes funding for items such as protective
    travel, supplies and equipment, management systems and
    technology upgrades and other nonpersonnel needs. The funding
    for these requirements will address increases in operating
    costs, including investments in training, recruiting, and
    outfitting new employees, replacing key equipment and systems
    that are outdated and becoming obsolete, restoring annual
    levels reduced in previous fiscal years to meet the vital
    department needs.
        Mr. Chairman, the Capitol Police is the only department in
    the Nation that does what we do with such high visibility in
    the way in which we do it. Mission focus will always be the key
    focus to our ability to be successful, to serve and protect, to
    ensure employees go home safely every day. Congress relies on
    us to do our jobs so that they may do the people's work in a
    free and open manner in the people's house.
        In closing, I just want to assure the committee that the
    Capitol Police is committed to always being at the ready to
    ensure that the Capitol complex is safe and secure. We will
    continue to work closely with you and your committee staff to
    ensure that we meet the needs and the expectations of Congress
    as well as our mission in a reasonable and responsible manner.
        Again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today, and I will be pleased to answer any questions you may
    have.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Chief. I appreciate your opening
    testimony.

                     Opening Remarks of Ranking Member Ryan

        I would now like to call upon my good friend from Ohio,
    Ranking Member Ryan, for his opening remarks.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being
    late.
        I want to thank our guests here. I am going to be very
    brief and just say we are very thankful for your service. I
    think we found out last year exactly how important the mission
    is of the United States Capitol Police, and that was reflected
    in the increase in the budget. And so I look forward to hearing
    the rest of the testimony and having questions and answers, and
    would just like to thank my friend the chairman for his great
    work, and we have developed a great relationship and our staffs
    have developed a great relationship. And I very much look
    forward to hearing what you have to say and help you out the
    best we can and also talk through some of the issues we have.
    So thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Yoder. The gentleman yields back.

                             RETIREMENT AGE WAIVER

        Chief, one of the things we have discussed over the last
    year or so relates to the retirement age waiver. And it is my
    understanding that the waiver has been granted now for several
    years, and there has been some discussion about making the
    waiver permanent.
        Could you explain to the committee what the age
    requirements are, how the waivers work, and what options we
    have before us as a Congress to continue that waiver or go back
    to current law or to maybe make some permanent changes?
        Chief Verderosa. Yes, sir. It is a great question. The
    Capitol Police Retirement Act requires mandatory retirement at
    age 57. We are on parity as an agency with other law
    enforcement agencies in the Federal Government. We get the same
    law enforcement retirement benefits that other agencies
    receive, and that is the ability to retire after a certain
    number of years of service, the ability to receive a Social
    Security supplement. The ability to maintain a rigorous
    workforce is the reasoning for the age 57.
        The Capitol Police Board has the ability to grant a waiver
    if it is in the public interest to extend the retirement age to
    age 60. During the fiscal year that began last year, we
    approached the Board and we asked the Board to make that waiver
    for the purpose of keeping and retaining employees while we
    endeavor to build up our ranks to cover the Board initiatives
    that we talked about over the years. It is a multiyear
    initiative for the security of House broad security, for
    scanners, prescreeners, and the like. It is a great tool. Over
    the years since the Capitol Police Retirement Act has been in
    place, the Board has waived that mandatory retirement age on
    several occasions. The last group blanket coverage was when we
    merged with the Library of Congress. Those employees were able
    to, when they came over to the Capitol Police, remain, in an
    attempt to get to the 20-year requirement for service to be
    vested.
        I believe that it is important to work for all of the best
    benefits that I can for my employees. They really do work; they
    diligently work to keep this facility safe, the complex safe.
    In raising the age, it provides us with the ability to retain
    people. My only concern really is to make sure that we don't
    jeopardize the law enforcement benefits that it took us so long
    to achieve in terms of the Office of Personel Management's
    interpretation of the retirement regulations. If we could raise
    the age, in terms of 60, without losing the parity we have with
    other law enforcement agencies in terms of retirement, I think
    it is something that is a viable option.
        Right now, we have until September 30, 2020, to waive the
    mandatory retirement age to 60 for all employees that are
    employed at this time. We also have raised the maximum hiring
    age from 37 to 40 so that we can hire recruits who may not have
    met that mark but still would be able to achieve a 20-year
    retirement. All of these initiatives go toward the purpose of
    retaining as many employees as we can until we get to the FTE
    level that would assist us in providing for all of the security
    initiatives that we talked about.
        Mr. Yoder. Well, it seems like you are certainly thinking
    through the different aspects of the money that can be saved,
    what is best for the employees, what is best for public safety,
    what is best to have a trained person there who knows their
    job, has been on the job for a long time, and knows what they
    are doing versus bringing a new person that there are training
    costs, all those factors.
        To me, it seems like having this done on a sort of case-by-
    case or year-by-year basis creates a lot of uncertainty for
    your people. And so I would love to work with you guys to try
    to come up with maybe something that is a little more permanent
    so that we have some more predictability in how this would
    work.
        Chief Verderosa. Absolutely. And my counsel is going to
    reach out to OPM to work with a retirement specialist to make
    sure that any changes that would be made would be consistent
    with retaining the law enforcement benefits that we achieved
    and also achieving the goal of keeping the experienced
    workforce possibly to age 60. I am happy to work with your
    staff on these important issues.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Ryan.

                                 EVENT SECURITY

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to just talk about event security. If you can tell
    us, again, given last year's situation that we all dealt with
    and the demands of us, especially in an election year and how
    busy we are these days, can you talk to us a little bit about
    any adjustments that you may have made over the course of the
    last year, lessons learned, and what we could expect coming
    into this year?
        Chief Verderosa. Certainly. We will conduct an assessment
    on events that are occurring that involve Members of Congress
    in both Houses. We will look at the threat stream, all of the
    intelligence that is available. Obviously, there are those who
    come under the radar and who are not known to law enforcement--
    who may not pose an immediate known threat--however,
    nonetheless, are a serious threat. Given that, such a scenario,
    and based on additional resources provided, which are much
    appreciated, we are moving towards providing a more elaborate
    security blanket. And it is really dictated by the type of
    activity. If you have an outdoor activity, obviously, it is
    going to drive more personnel to cover. For instance, we will
    be conducting sweeps, and we will put posts in areas we believe
    that are potentially problematic or provide a level of risk to
    Members.
        We have a process in place where requests are made through
    the Sergeant at Arms Office. The Sergeant at Arms will delegate
    that task to our Protective Services Bureau. We will conduct
    the open source and any classified investigation, looking at
    threat assessment towards any type of activity that may be
    known, and then we will assess the need for personnel, based on
    time of day, venue, type of activity that is going on,
    notoriety, how much information is out there. Is this a planned
    or scheduled event? Is this a publicized event? All of those
    factors go into the analysis. Once that analysis is completed,
    we assign staffing to it. And that staffing can include not
    only dignitary protection agents, but it can include uniformed
    officers. It can include bomb technicians, SWAT team members,
    undercover officers who are looking for individuals out and
    about who may come to our attention.
        We have a holistic approach to securing events,
    particularly large-scale. Any time we move large numbers of
    Members, we will do it in an organized fashion. The smaller----
        Mr. Ryan. How has this changed? Have there been any changes
    that we can talk about at this level?
        Chief Verderosa. We are absolutely placing more emphasis on
    the local events, outdoor events, where we are deploying more
    personnel and equipment in order to provide a safe environment
    for you to operate in, whatever the issue is, whether it is a
    ball game, whether it is a rally, or whether it is an organized
    event.
        Certainly, for large-scale events here on the Capitol
    Grounds, we have a structure in place that we employ. We are
    going to change some of our parameters, in terms of our summer
    concert series and open air events. We deploy an all-hands-on-
    deck, all-capability type response for large gatherings here on
    the Capitol Grounds as well.
        You will see, there will be some things that you do see and
    some things that you don't see, in terms of undercover
    officers. We leverage technology by using our camera system. We
    leverage all of those things that I can talk about in open and
    some of the things that we talk about that I can talk about in
    a closed environment to ensure that we have a holistic
    approach.
        We absolutely are looking at the types of meetings and
    types of events that occur, particularly groups of Members. We
    are also applying a very deep focus on events in home
    districts. We work very closely with Members' staff and the law
    enforcement liaisons, to ensure that we have law enforcement
    coverage that can be arranged out of D.C. when you are at
    events in your home district.

                    PARTNERSHIPS WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

        Mr. Ryan. And how is the interfacing going with local law
    enforcement, whether it is here, in the district or at a
    retreat that we do? Do you feel like that is as adequate?
        Chief Verderosa. Yes, sir. We get outstanding commitment
    from our partners in law enforcement. Here in D.C., it is
    really no question. We have a great working relationship with
    the Metropolitan Police Department, with the FBI, the Secret
    Service, Federal Protective Service, Amtrak Police.
        I have never seen in my 33 years--and I have talked
    extensively with the Assistant Chief about this, who has great
    experience from the Metropolitan Police point of view. I have
    never seen a better working relationship between threat
    information, any type of intelligence gathering, or any other
    type of information that comes forward.
        We all realize that there is no small event anymore. They
    are all major events. You have to apply a level of security to
    all public events. It is the times. It is the way we are today.
    This is the state that we are in.
        Outside the D.C. region, we get tremendous support from the
    local entities, the local police authorities, whether it is
    city, government, State police, whether it be a university
    police department. We share the information that we gather. We
    will make an assessment on all of these events. We will assess
    them. We will share the information with the law enforcement
    liaisons in your offices. We will share it with the local law
    enforcement.
        If we deem, based on the information that we have gathered,
    that it is going to be problematic or there is going to be
    disruption, we may provide additional resources. We may deploy
    our own personnel as well. It is really dependent on the type
    of event, the particular circumstance. Last year, we did over
    400 liaisons for Members, both House and Senate, in terms of
    outside events, outside of D.C., coordination activities.
        We welcome the requests from the Member offices. Part of
    the funding that we received in 2018 goes toward personnel that
    do those types of liaisons and those types of investigations.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Amodei.

                       SCREENING TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS

        Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Good to see you, Chief.
        Something that I wanted to ask your folks, obviously
    offline, but I think the special event that you folks do that
    is probably the largest is the one you do every day, and that
    is the one at the entrances to garages and buildings. And so,
    since I have been here, which seems like about a hundred years,
    but not that long, it seems to me that we are still kind of
    doing the same stuff with the same technology and that sort of
    thing, and maybe that is the state of the art. But as you go in
    and out many times and watch your folks working and you are
    sitting there, and some days, it is like, hey, it is all, you
    know, beer and horseshoes, at least for me, not for you guys,
    but other times, it is like it is a big sale and the place is
    jammed. I would just like to, offline maybe, visit with whoever
    the appropriate folks are in your staff and say: Hey, what is
    the newest and the best in terms of allowing your folks to
    still do the job that they are doing? But if there are advances
    in technology or something like that and it just kind of boils
    down to we have been doing it this way for a while--maybe it is
    still the best way, but especially as we continue to go through
    the challenges for those people in the Cannon Building and as
    the Architect folks, you know, matriculate around the campus
    and create those new flows and problems and capacities, just
    something I would like to--schedule that if anybody else wants
    to listen and just kind of like say: Hey, if there are any new
    thoughts or any new mousetraps out there?
        And, with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Yoder. Chief.
        Chief Verderosa. Thank you. I appreciate the feedback. I
    agree with you. I think it always deserves a fresh look. We do
    have some proposals that I am working on with the Board that
    will not be in this fiscal year or likely the next, though in
    probably 2021, perhaps 2020, depending on the timing, we are
    going to bring forward some concepts that will change the
    dynamic for visitor screening, in terms of venue and how we go
    about it.
        I think what we do currently meets the requirements for
    what is being tasked. We do have some potential changes or
    additions, augmentation for the Capitol Visitor Center. If we
    have some funding left over, if we have any end-of-year money,
    we may be enhancing some of the secondary stream; Visitor
    Center first, and then we would look to the ancillary buildings
    as well.
        Mr. Amodei. Great, thank you.

                 METRO SAFETY, K-9 BUDGET AND RETIREMENT WAIVER

        Mr. Yoder. Ms. McCollum.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have got three
    things. I want to follow up on Metro safety and security. We
    talked about it a couple of times, and we have got the three
    stations around here. A lot of traffic. Members use them. Staff
    use them, and, of course, our constituents who are visiting our
    Capitol are using them.
        We talked about communication and response capabilities,
    and you have talked about some of the enhancements that are
    going to take place at Capitol South, and some more
    communication capabilities in the cars and platforms at the
    other Metro stations. If you could give us a brief update on
    that.
        And then one of the things that I had asked you to think
    about possibly is to offer, working with Metro for staff, what
    do you do if the train stops? What do you do if you smell
    smoke? I mean, we have got a lot of people that are on the
    trains regularly, that I know some of them have been involved
    in a couple of instances where they have had to deboard trains.
    You know, even how to open a door. They don't let you practice
    opening up the airplane door, even when you are on the ground,
    but we do do things for school bus safety. We encourage people
    to do fire drills and things in schools, and even in some of
    the larger businesses, they will do drills every once in a
    while. So that is one thing. And I will just put them all out
    there together.
        The second one is I don't have--and I know you would
    provide it if I asked for it, but we don't have a big breakdown
    of what is going on with your K-9 budget. And you have
    increased a lot of K-9. And K-9 have retirement just like
    everybody else does and the new force of dogs and everything
    coming in.
        So can you tell us how you are, you know, moving forward
    with your K-9 budget? And I know, being on a city council, our
    K-9 officers received a slightly different stipend, because
    they had responsibilities after work with maintaining the dogs.
        And then the third one I have goes back to what you and the
    chair were talking about earlier about the waiver. I think
    there are certain jobs and certain assignments in that where,
    you know, certain officers working until age 60, you know,
    great. Sometimes things happen with bodies. People don't
    realize how much equipment you carry around or if you have
    spent years sitting in a car, what that does to your back and
    your hips and everything like that. So I just want to make
    sure--and I am sure you are, it sounds like it--that you are
    talking and having great communication with the rank and file
    on how that works. And I think going up to age 40 if you are
    going to go to age 60 also maybe makes sense with people coming
    out of the military, retiring around here and doing that with
    expertise.
        So if you could just kind of touch on those three things.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chief Verderosa. Yes. Thank you, ma'am. Starting with the
    last, if I may, I agree we do need to examine the age 60
    retirement. I understand the pitfalls of getting older. I feel
    it every day myself. We do have physical fitness. You know,
    Congress has generously provided us with assets, provide
    opportunities for our officers to work out before work and
    after work, during their lunch hour. We are partnering with Mr.
    Kiko, the CAO of the House, on a wellness program, and we have
    a number of initiatives that we are looking at to benefit our
    employees as well.
        I do agree that it is important and I always felt that the
    37 year final hiring date did, in terms, eliminate some of the
    ability to bring military folks on who have 20 years in the
    military from age 18 and retire at age 38. I think this is a
    great benefit to bring on military folks who have the
    leadership and the dedication and a proven track record, to add
    them to our ranks.
        We also are looking to, through the 2018 money, civilianize
    a number of positions. I would also encourage vets to come in
    and work some of those, including Wounded Warriors, to fill
    some of these interior operational positions, whether it is a
    radio dispatcher or it is a command center technician. They are
    critical roles, but they certainly can be staffed with vets and
    with folks with a military background.
        In terms of our K-9s, fiscal year 2018 funding had 56 dogs
    that were allotted K-9 units as well as the equipment that goes
    along with that. We are in the process of training I believe it
    is five K-9 handlers at this time to replace some retirements.
        We had funding to replace some of our dogs. What we don't
    want to do is have the large-scale big-ticket item. We try to
    life cycle. Each dog is different, though. It is dependent on
    the health of the animal, the work ethic of the animal, the
    attention span. We generally get about 10 years of service out
    of the dogs. Sometimes it is less, because they get injured
    just like people get injured. They break bones. They tear ACLs
    and that kind of thing. That limits our ability. But we are
    monitoring the replacement schedule and the deployment schedule
    of the dogs. We recently went to a different vendor. We like
    the quality of the canines that we are getting. I think it was
    a great move.
        The K-9 officers do get a higher level of pay, with the
    responsibility that is relevant to what they do. It is probably
    one of the most coveted positions in the department. They love
    their K-9 partners. The best way to say it is that we could not
    do our job without our K-9 partners. They are a force
    multiplier. For instance, last year in 2017, we accomplished
    170,000 K-9 sweeps--if we were to rely on officers to do what
    those dogs do, we would grind this institution to a halt for
    security reasons. We place a great emphasis in our K-9 corps.
    They are a very proud unit, and we really do get sort of bang
    for the buck, in terms of our ability to multiply our abilities
    with the K-9 partners. It is difficult training, but when K-9
    handlers complete their training, they are well on the way to
    being able to communicate with that dog. And it is a true
    testament to their dedication.
        Ms. McCollum. The Metro?
        Chief Verderosa. We have worked very closely with the Metro
    and with Amtrak as well in terms of our ability to scale, to
    have drills on platforms, to train our personnel in the
    procedures that are necessary when you respond down to a
    platform. We have also had tabletop exercises. On June 1st,
    there is a large-scale exercise that we are going to actually
    have deployment on, in terms of the Metro tunnel near Capitol
    South, the Amtrak tunnel on Capitol South.
        Ms. McCollum. Okay.
        Chief Verderosa. We are well on the way to having that. And
    we have actually engaged in some of the training. Based on some
    of the recommendations from the last meeting we had, we had
    brought in Metro, and they did actually staff training and put
    out information out to the community. They held staff training
    in the CVC, to train staff who ride Metro, some of the various
    responses to Metro emergencies. Metro came in. We worked with
    their Emergency Management Division to provide two different
    training sessions for staff.
        Ms. McCollum. I hope they come in on a regular basis and do
    that.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Newhouse.

                      SAFETY MEASURES AT DISTRICT OFFICES

        Mr. Newhouse. Gentlemen, thank you for being here with us.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing.
        Most Members don't get an opportunity to personally thank
    the Chief and Assistant Chief. So thank you, gentlemen, for
    being here, and not only to talk about the budget and the
    necessary, perhaps, changes that we make there to benefit the
    work you do, but also express our appreciation to the fine work
    that the whole force does.
        We see on a daily basis every morning when we come to work,
    sometimes--usually--smiling faces that greet us and make sure
    that not only the public is safe, but we are too. So thank you
    very much for everything you do.
        I know in my district--I don't know that it is a whole lot
    different than others--we have had incidents, individuals that
    needed maybe more attention than we would have liked to have
    had to give them. I had an incident in my district office where
    a rock was thrown through a window. So let me just say I very
    much appreciate. My experiences have been that you have worked
    very well with local law enforcement agencies to help us feel
    secure and safe in our district offices as well.
        So a couple different things I would like to talk about
    with you. I just wanted to, you know, with this increased
    activity not only here in the Nation's Capital but around the
    country talk about some of the measures, the safety measures
    that you have been able to put into place when you yourselves
    can't have a physical presence in the district. That is a huge
    challenge. We have a big country.
        I am also guessing that--very similar--all of our district
    offices have had increased levels of security put into place
    over the last year. And if you could talk a little bit about
    your interaction with the Architect of the Capitol in making
    those and improving those security upgrades, I would appreciate
    that.
        And then something that--you know, we feel pretty secure
    here in Washington, D.C., most of the time. I think our
    district staffs are a little more vulnerable. So maybe if you
    could talk about any opportunities for increased amounts of
    training that might be available for those folks that work so
    hard on our behalf in our home States.
        Chief Verderosa. Certainly, sir. And I appreciate the
    backup. I know that my troops are very proud to serve. The
    mission is very clear to us, and they take extreme pride in
    what they do every day. In terms of what we do in district
    offices, we can, through the Sergeant at Arms Office, provide
    assessments for district locations, provide security
    recommendations. We actually conduct the assessment. I believe
    the Sergeant at Arms Office actually would direct that to
    occur. I believe it starts with the Sergeant at Arms Office. I
    would have to defer to his office on that.
        We can provide your staff with security awareness training
    and that is well-received. We have actually had 46 deployments,
    some of those of which are DPD agents or Threat Assessment
    Agents will go, either electronically reach your offices, your
    district, or we can also travel and provide this service. We
    talk about the issues, whether it is an unwanted guest or
    whether it is security of the venue itself or what happens when
    you have threatening correspondence.
        We also deal directly, in terms of threat investigations,
    with your district staff. If your office contacts us, any one
    of your offices contacts us, we will work to decipher in terms
    of what the threat is. We will make an assessment to determine
    whether or not it is an immediate threat where we need to get
    protection to you or your staff. Obviously, if you have an
    unwanted guest, we want you to dial 911, the local.
        We work very closely with the local authorities in terms of
    these investigations. When our threat investigations--and we
    did about 3,800 of these last year--take place, we will
    coordinate through our FBI task forces, and we will either
    deploy or we will have an FBI agent investigate that matter.
    They are all joint investigations. Depending on the
    circumstances, depending on the emergent need of the response,
    we will deploy personnel and we will--our position is that we
    will present all cases to the U.S. Attorney's Office where we
    can establish that a crime has been committed.
        And it may not be a technical threat. It may be some other
    type of--it could be harassment, stalking. It could be any type
    of violation. Our agents are very well-versed in the
    prosecution levels and thresholds. We will work very closely
    with your staff in trying to either preserve evidence or obtain
    interviews in order to establish probable cause.
        I don't want to miss any part of your question. We can
    conduct the assessments through the Sergeant at Arms approval,
    and we can also--again, if you would like to arrange for any--
    and this goes for all Members, both House and Senate--security
    awareness training, we are happy to do it. It actually helps
    us. When something does happen, it helps us. It helps your
    staff know what we are looking for ahead of time. And we can do
    that over the telephone or by video teleconferencing all of
    your groups together and do it all at once or, like I said, we
    can deploy and do several, depending on the areas and how many
    Members want to get involved.
        Mr. Newhouse. Good. I appreciate that.
        Chief Verderosa. Happy to do that.
        Mr. Newhouse. Appreciate that. I think I have noticed in
    the last couple of days a new crop of officers. It could be my
    imagination, but there seem to be some new faces around.

                 TRAINING BACKFILLING ATTRITION AND RETIREMENT

        Chief Verderosa. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Newhouse. Which is great. I just wanted to ask about
    your training programs, your ability to meet the attrition,
    retirements, if there are any issues that you face, challenges
    there that we should talk about that we should be aware of?
        Chief Verderosa. Yes. We have had three graduations in the
    last 6 or 7 weeks, all part of the----
        Mr. Newhouse. So it wasn't my imagination.
        Chief Verderosa. No, it is not. Once they complete their 26
    weeks of training, they go into what we call police officer
    training. It used to be called field training. They are out
    with an experienced officer for 8 weeks, and they are being
    observed. They are being taught to convey what is taught in the
    academy in a very sterile environment into the real world. And
    they are under the auspices of an experienced officer who are
    trained to evaluate, again, and make recommendations and take
    corrective action through their supervisors.
        It is a well-received program. It is interactive. And it
    really gets the student, the recruit officer--well, they are
    sworn officers, but they are under somebody's wing for a while.
    We find that once we get them that 8 weeks of training, they
    have really been indoctrinated to how we do business.
        I know that sometimes it looks like we may have excessive
    people on certain posts. They are generally the more junior,
    younger, if I can say that, officers, and they are learning.
    And, frankly, it is a great learning experience for them,
    because they are here; they are assigned during the peak
    periods. They are assigned during the day shift and the early
    evening shift so that they really do get the full experience of
    what is going on on Capitol Hill.
        Mr. Newhouse. You throw them into the deep end.
        Chief Verderosa. Absolutely, with no water wings on their
    arms. But, you know, they are never by themselves. They are
    always with an experienced officer. They are well-trained. And
    frankly, they can always notch a new recruit back if they get
    transferred to an evening or a midnight tour, but you really
    get the full breadth of a vote on the House side, a committee
    hearing in the Senate, or a head of state arrival in the
    Capitol. And these are things we want them to experience so
    they can gain the knowledge base.
        Mr. Newhouse. And you are able to meet those needs?
        Chief Verderosa. Absolutely. Mr. Braddock's team has done
    an outstanding job in recruiting, hiring, training, deploying
    personnel. You know, it ebbs and flows. We get very good
    candidates. We get an awful lot of candidates. We have some
    hiccups every now and then in the quality of the student, but I
    think that, by and large, when our students complete the
    training program and they experience their field training they
    are highly trained. I have seen the curriculum. I have seen the
    training. I have seen the quality of the instructors. We have
    police officers who can operate in any environment in this
    country. I am glad that we don't have recruiters here from
    other places trying to grab them, because they really are
    highly trained and do an outstanding job. I am very proud of
    the troops. The quality of our officers is a testament to the
    staff that I have working for me, both in operations and in the
    training and recruiting arena. They do an outstanding job. They
    really do identify the best candidates.
        Mr. Newhouse. Well, thank you. I appreciate it, Mr.
    Chairman. Thank you for your almost 200-year tradition carrying
    on the Capitol Police force.
        Chief Verderosa. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Yoder. Thank you.

                   AMMUNITION AND WEAPONS REPLACEMENT BUDGET

        Chief, I want to ask you about your budget request for
    ammunition and weapons replacement. You requested $6.7 million,
    including new weapons for DPD. And I note that there was an MP7
    weapons training initiative that started more than a year ago,
    so I just wanted to ask a few questions about that.
        How many of your 180 DPD agents have completed MP7 weapons
    training? What percentage of DPD agents will complete MP7
    weapons training by the end of the current fiscal year? And
    should we be concerned, do you have concerns with the amount of
    time that has passed since the first MP7 was received by
    Capitol Police and the number of agents that have been trained
    to date?
        Chief Verderosa. Thank you. Great question. We have
    decided, before we deploy the MP7, it should be noted that we
    do have the ability to deploy another weapon, the M4, the
    assault rifle. We have that ability today, and we deploy that
    when necessary.
        The MP7 is a pilot program that the Board has directed us
    to engage in, in terms of providing a weapon that meets the
    needs that sort of bridges the gap between a true assault rifle
    and a handgun. We have today--Steve, do you have the numbers?
        Assistant Chief Sund. The last eight right now. So that
    would be a total of 15 once they finish training.
        Chief Verderosa. We have 15 trained currently, and I
    believe we are going to have another training program soon. All
    DPD agents on at least one of the teams that will be outfitted
    with this weapon have been trained to become familiar with the
    weapon, even though they may not be trained to actually carry
    the weapon.
        A new weapons system takes time to procure. Some of the
    funding for additional weapons was in the 2018 money, which I
    believe we began the process for. We just received a shipment
    of ammunition, 30,000 rounds, enough to train another class.
        I am confident that we have the ability to provide the type
    of weapon needed to cover our DPD agents. Based on direction
    from the Board, we are starting with a smaller pilot on one
    particular detail. We will expand that program to other details
    as we gain more information and more familiarity.
        There are also issues--you have to train people on how to
    deploy it while you are carrying it. There are a number of
    issues that we want to make sure that the officers that have to
    carry these weapons can carry it safely, properly, and
    safeguard it in the proper manner.
        Mr. Yoder. I think that is ultimately the genesis of the
    question, which is, there is a request for additional new
    weapons for DPD. And the time to get folks trained, does that
    justify the amount of weapons you have asked for? Can people be
    trained to use all these weapons? Do you have enough staff, you
    know, of officers that can be trained in time for this budget
    request?
        Chief Verderosa. I believe so. We will be able to train
    more as we get more ammunition. And the problem for the
    training--probably the biggest impediment is taking people
    offline to put them in a school. It takes away the opportunity
    to work in the field.
        Now, we have a graduating class of new special agents
    should be occurring in the next couple of weeks. We have
    another class slated for later in the year of DPD agents. And
    we may have the ability to have a third class in the
    intervening time. The second class I mentioned is slated for
    the end of the fiscal year. We may be able to have a class in
    the summer period.
        What happens with that is there are so many people--the
    eligibility for DPD is the officers have to be off of their
    probationary period. It is tied to the tenure of the officers
    that are available to go to DPD. For each process, we can train
    12 to 14 people. The reason we only train that number is that
    it takes a significant amount of people to run the school, and
    it takes a certain amount of people offline. But what they do
    tactically, you can't teach 30 people at a time. You have to
    teach them incrementally, with the size of the team and the
    ability it gives. Otherwise, it would take twice the time to
    run the number of people. We could run multiple schools, but
    then we get into having enough agents work the field and also
    put on the school.
        I think we have a good plan. I think we have a good plan
    for the future for DPD, building up its ranks. I think we have
    a good plan for future rotation through the Dignitary
    Protection Division, and I think we have an excellent plan for
    the firearms training. Again, the Board wants to ensure that
    any time we employ a new platform, a weapons platform, that it
    is done incrementally, it is done appropriately, and it is done
    with the correct level of training to safely deploy that
    weapon.

                             INCREASES IN OVERTIME

        Mr. Yoder. I want to turn your attention to general expense
    when it relates to our employees and the topic of overtime,
    something we look at every year. I know you look at it very
    closely. I know it is an expense that is necessary in many
    cases when we have security needs, and the right staff, the
    right place; you just have to do what you have to do.
        But overtime funding has increased 41 percent since fiscal
    year 2013. Hours have gone up approximately 230,000 in the last
    5 years. Can you walk the committee through the overtime
    increases, what is causing them, and if you have concerns about
    that and what you are doing to address that and what we can do
    to help you address that?
        Chief Verderosa. Sure. It is a great question. There is
    always a balance between hiring FTE staff and using overtime.
    We allot a significant number of hours for unscheduled overtime
    for all of the various types of events.
        I can tell you last year has been significant for
    unscheduled events. We have had multitudes of demonstration
    activity, civil disobedience arrests within the buildings. We
    have had a significant number of demonstrations outside that
    require--permitted activities that require us to provide a
    level of coverage to maintain order. Sometimes you have
    competing interests that we have to put a police line between.
        Overtime and mission set--and I guess I should say from the
    outset, the staffing requirements that we have asked for in our
    budget request, are for new mission. We are staffed in the
    field at about 80 percent on all of the sections. Overtime is
    managed on a unit-by-unit basis. Each unit is staffed at about
    80 percent of where they should be, and we fill the gap with
    overtime.
        There is scheduled overtime and unscheduled overtime.
    Scheduled overtime is things that we know about, things, events
    that are going to occur: the concert series, State of the
    Union, the Inauguration every 4 years, national conventions
    where we provide coverage for Members of Congress. Those things
    we can calibrate, we can calculate, and we can formulate.
        What really drives overtime--particularly over the last
    year, has been the increased mission sets required for the
    regular day-to-day coverage of security matters. We have done a
    few things to counter that. For instance, we have a
    demonstration where we are going to have 150 people arrested.
    That requires a lot of personnel. We bring people in, based on
    what we know, so that we can cover those types of events,
    because our goal is always to provide the Congress with the
    ability to do their work free of disruption and free of
    disorder.
        There is a level of service I think that Members expect
    from a professional police department, and I think we provide
    that. Tactics have changed from some of these groups that come
    up. We have to respond sometimes with a hundred different
    officers in an hour or simultaneously, and we want you to be
    able to do your work in your offices, and we will cover those
    types of events. The frequency of the events drives overtime.
    Though, when we do engage in civil disobedience arrests, we
    have been able to streamline that process to the point where it
    is very manageable, particularly with events where we use our
    cite and release policy. Normally it would take 3 hours to
    process an arrest, we can release hundreds of people within an
    hour.
        I think we balance the costs with efficiencies. The
    Assistant Chief and Mr. Braddock monitor the overtime flow
    daily. We monitor what the usage is. We monitor leave. We have
    contractual obligations that allow us to work people within a
    certain parameter. We never work anybody more than a double
    shift. We never work more than 64 hours in a pay period of
    overtime.
        We assign the work. Officers are able to trade that
    overtime slot, if possible, to someone who wants to work if
    they don't want to work it. They have the ability to sort of
    control their own fate once they are drafted to work overtime.
        Now, there are events that require us to manage very
    directly. For instance, we may have civil disobedience going on
    in the House Chamber where there is a big vote. We may hold
    over day shift for an hour to be able to manage those arrests.
    If it dissipates, we let people go. We manage it to the hour.
    We manage it hands-on. All of my commanders are roll-up-your-
    sleeves commanders. They are out in the field. They are
    managing day-to-day, and they are out there with the troops. We
    manage it. We look at it. At a point where it becomes necessary
    to ask for more personnel, we would certainly come forward and
    do that.
        Mr. Yoder. Yes, Chief, that is my question, I think
    ultimately is, if this is an issue of we just have a lot more
    sporadic spontaneous events and things that are impossible to
    have people just sitting around waiting for, because one week
    we may have 10, the next week we may have nothing, right? That
    is basically the issue. That makes sense.
        The question is, is there a general need for more officers
    that would help reduce that at all? Is that part of the
    equation at all?
        Chief Verderosa. I think, as we look at increasing
    necessity to cover, we certainly have more requests to cover
    committees. We have more requests to cover events that occur.
    The officers that we are requesting in the fiscal year 2019
    request, are for the new mission. We will look at the trends.
    We will continue to look at the trends to determine whether or
    not there is a need to increase our staffing to cover routine--
    --
        Mr. Yoder. Particularly if it saves us money, right?
        Chief Verderosa. Right.
        Mr. Yoder. I mean, if it is a net savings. I think that is
    something that the committee needs to look at. If it is going
    to cost us more money because we are going to have more
    personnel and we are still going to have about the same number
    of overtime hours, then that doesn't really help us for that
    topic.
        Chief Verderosa. Right. It is a delicate balance. I know
    that our Inspector General recently looked at our overtime. It
    validated what was confirmed several years ago, that we are
    short a number of FTEs. I don't know that we are at the point
    at this point where we would increase our staffing in lieu of
    overtime, but we will look at that very closely and work very
    closely with your staff to look at that.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay, great. Thanks.
        Mr. Ryan.

                             PRESCREENING STRATEGY

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chief, I want to get your take on the prescreeners. So
    obviously a very important part, you start talking about the
    Metro. You start talking about increasing the range in which we
    can understand what is happening out there. And there has been
    some reports that maybe the prescreeners aren't out and about
    like we would want them to be, especially when it is cold and
    rainy, and generally nobody wants to be outside at that point.
        What are we doing to assure the Members and the people
    working on the campus that that strategy that we have is being
    implemented properly and that is getting done?
        Chief Verderosa. Yes, sir. The prescreeners are there.
        Mr. Ryan. Do we have a mechanism that is monitoring that, I
    guess would be the direct question?
        Chief Verderosa. Absolutely. We have--and I will talk about
    the inclement weather in a moment. The reason we have the
    prescreeners, so everyone sort of has the same level playing
    field, the same baselines, they provide us with an effective
    visible physical presence at some of our most vulnerable
    places.
        Over the years, since 1995, we have had a number of studies
    that called for having prescreeners. It certainly works very
    well here at the Capitol itself. We are pushing the envelope
    out to the office buildings so that we have eyes and ears out.
    The goal is for them to, one, prevent things from happening,
    but provide that visible physical presence. They are eyes and
    ears. They give us the ability to quickly lock down a door, if
    necessary. They have the ability to remotely lock down a door
    in a couple places here on the Hill. They have the technology.
    We are testing a pilot in two places to be able to lock down
    multiple doors at the same time. The goal is always to push the
    threat as far away as possible and to screen people.
    Ultimately, you don't want to screen people inside the
    building, which we do out of necessity, or in the office
    building. The CVC model is a perfect example of how well that
    could work when you push the screening outside sort of the
    envelope, the building, and you have the appropriate sort of
    infrastructure.
        The buildings are historic buildings. They were never
    designed for the equipment that we have installed. The goal and
    the security model for each access point is to have prescreener
    and overwatch. I think for a long time we haven't been able to
    risk mitigate that, but I think--and the Board agrees and this
    is one of our initiatives--to have eyes outside and then have
    the overwatch while the officers are screening, it really
    closes a vulnerability.
        The secondary benefit is it helps us manage the lines. I
    know that lines are always an issue, particularly in the spring
    when we have a lot of people coming to the Hill, whether it is
    a tourist group, a school group, people lobbying. It gives us
    the ability to help manage the lines, to move people. Sometimes
    they don't want to move because they don't want to break up
    from their group, but at least we have the ability to provide
    them information.
        Now, if an officer isn't as attentive as they should be,
    that is certainly a supervisory problem. The supervisors, the
    first-line supervisors are responsible for monitoring the
    awareness and attentiveness and complacency at every level. I
    have authorized officers who are on prescreener posts in
    extreme weather who step inside the door who should be
    maintaining their vigilance and looking out at the threat. The
    threat is outside. It is coming from the outside. If they are
    not doing that, then that is a supervisory issue, and we can
    address that. But the goal is to have the eyes looking out so
    that they can take action, if necessary, to prevent a possible
    tragedy.
        I think that it also provides a level of comfort I think to
    the staff and for visitors when they see a visible presence,
    and I think the value of that can't be understated either.
        I hope that addresses your question.
        Mr. Ryan. Yes. I would like to talk maybe a little bit more
    about that in a closed setting. Thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Amodei.
        Mr. Amodei. Nothing, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Yoder. Well, if there are no further questions, then,
    Chief and your team, thank you for your testimony today. Thanks
    for your work on behalf of the Capitol and our constituents and
    the many Members that serve in this body that are counting on
    you to keep them safe. We want to make sure you have the
    resources necessary and that your employees have the means to
    do their job. We will continue to look forward to working with
    you.
        I want to acknowledge our guests that have joined us, the
    Open World Leadership Center, and guests from Tajikistan. Thank
    you for joining us today. We appreciate the delegation from
    Tajikistan joining us for today's hearing, and hopefully you
    can take back some pointers on how to conduct an efficiently
    run meeting and the spirit of bipartisanship that reigns here.
        I invite my Legislative Branch Subcommittee members to meet
    with our guests briefly at the conclusion of the hearing. Thank
    you for your appearance today. We will continue to work with
    you as we proceed with this year's budget process.
        The subcommittee stands in recess until tomorrow, April
    12th, at 10 a.m., at which time we will receive testimony from
    the Government Publishing Office. Meeting adjourned.

                                              Thursday, April 12, 2018.

                          GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

                                   WITNESSES

    ANDREW M. SHERMAN, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    HERB JACKSON, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING
        OFFICE
    LYLE GREEN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICIAL JOURNALS OF GOVERNMENT,
        GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
        Mr. Yoder. Good morning, everybody. I call the subcommittee
    to order.
        Thank you everyone attending this hearing this morning. We
    are conducting our second hearing of the 2019 appropriations
    process for the Legislative Branch Subcommittee.
        I am joined by Ranking Member Tim Ryan from Ohio, and other
    committee members will be coming and going as they are able. We
    have a lot of hearings this week in a lot of different
    subcommittees. So they will hopefully come and go when they are
    able to.
        This morning, we are having a hearing on the Government
    Publishing Office. I would like to thank the Acting Deputy
    Director, Mr. Sherman, for joining us today.
        I understand this is your 38th year at the Publishing
    Office. And your other witness this morning is Herbert Jackson,
    Chief Administrative Officer.
        You have been with the agency for?
        Mr. Jackson. Thirty-eight years.
        Mr. Yoder. Thirty-eight, as well.
        And then bringing up the rear, kind of one of the new kids
    on the block, Lyle Green, Managing Director, Official Journals
    of Government, who has only been there 27 years.
        GPO has not been up to testify in recent years. We felt it
    was important to hear from them directly regarding your fiscal
    year 2019 budget request, part of our effort to continue our
    work to ensure that we are spending taxpayer dollars wisely.

                              GPO'S BUDGET REQUEST

        The Government Publishing Office has the important mission
    of keeping America informed. GPO does that by providing
    permanent public access to Federal Government information at no
    charge to the public through its Federal Depository Library
    program, which partners with over 1,140 libraries nationwide,
    and govinfo.
        They produce and distribute products and services for all
    three branches of the Federal Government, including U.S.
    passports and official publications of Congress and the White
    House, and operate distribution centers to fulfill orders for
    government publications.
        So this is an agency that many haven't heard of, but
    probably have utilized over the years in one way or another.
        The fiscal year 2019 budget request is $117 million, which
    is $68,000 below current levels. GPO's appropriations have been
    flat since fiscal year 2016 and have declined 21 percent since
    fiscal year 2010. We often hear the cliche, ``We have to do
    more with less,'' but GPO has been a true example of doing just
    that, doing more with less resources.
        Their continued transition to digital technologies and
    products has increased productivity while also maintaining
    tight financial controls on overhead costs, coupled with a
    buyout for employees in fiscal year 2015, has made it possible
    for GPO's lower funding request.
        So, gentlemen, thank you for coming to the committee today.
        And I would like to yield to my good friend, the gentleman
    and scholar from Ohio, Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. And I
    will be very brief.
        You have done a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of GPO's
    coordination with this committee over the years and we really
    appreciate it. We want to say thank you to you for being so
    responsive, coming up and talking with us here at the
    committee.
        I would also like to commend you, as the chairman
    mentioned, about your approach to the annual budget. Even
    though the cost of each full-time equivalent and employee and
    other prices are going up, and even though you know we have a
    budget deal that is helping to begin to dig our way out of
    sequestration, you are asking for almost the exact same amount
    of money you were given in 2016, 2017, and 2018; a slight cut,
    in fact, as the chairman mentioned.
        You are not only making our jobs easier, you are proving
    that sometimes the government can keep costs down by leveraging
    new technologies and innovative ways of managing your
    situation.
        So we are very thankful, Mr. Chairman.
        I look forward to your testimony. Thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Sherman, your complete statement will be
    made part of the official record, probably something you will
    print at some point and publish.
        Mr. Sherman. I hope so, sir. We look forward to it.
        Mr. Yoder. But feel free to summarize your remarks at this
    time for the committee.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to be here this morning
    to discuss the GPO's appropriations request for fiscal year
    2019.
        With me at the table, as you have said, are GPO's Chief
    Administrative Officer Herb Jackson and the Managing Director
    of GPO's Official Journals of Government Business Unit, Lyle
    Green. Lyle is responsible for day-to-day liaison with both
    Houses of Congress to make sure your printing and other
    publishing requirements are met as you need them.
        GPO is responsible for publishing congressional
    publications and for making them known to the public. Our
    mission derives from the requirement in Article I, paragraph 5
    of the Constitution, which says that, ``Each house of Congress
    shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time
    publish the same.''
        The Government Printing Office, as we used to be called,
    was established to carry out that publishing mission on
    Congress' behalf. For most of our history we did this by
    printing and distributing congressional publications.
        For the past quarter century, however, we have deployed
    digital technologies to carry out our mission. As a result, we
    are now named the Government Publishing Office, where printing
    is just one of the many publishing technologies we use.
        Today, for the House and the Senate, we produce
    congressional documents, the daily Congressional Record, bills,
    reports, hearings, committee prints, and other documents in
    digital and print, providing official information in the forms
    and formats that Congress needs to carry out its constitutional
    legislative mission while providing public access to these
    documents nationwide.
        Our use of modern publishing technologies has significantly
    reduced the costs of GPO's operations. Computerized typesetting
    and related technologies have cut the costs of congressional
    publishing by more than 70 percent since 1980.
        Digital dissemination through the web has reduced the cost
    of disseminating congressional and other government
    information, while expanding public access exponentially. Last
    year, our online service provided access to more than 2.2
    million titles. The service averaged more than 45 million
    document retrievals a month and more than half a billion
    annually.
        We have just 1,740 staff now, fewer than at any time in the
    past century. When Herb and I started, we had over 6,000. We
    are an agency that is compressing its size, not growing its
    size. Yet our productivity as a result of the digital
    technology and other equipment upgrades that we have made in
    the last 5 years continues to increase.
        As a result, our total appropriations request of $117
    million for fiscal year 2019 is the lowest in the last 15
    years. That is measured in current dollars.
        For our congressional publishing account we are requesting
    $79 million for fiscal year 2019. Funding for this account has
    been flat since fiscal year 2014, the last 5 years.
        For the public information programs of the Superintendent
    of Documents we are asking for $32 million to expand our
    efforts to bring more digital products into the Federal
    Depository Library program, whose libraries average
    approximately three per congressional district nationwide.
        For our Business Operations Revolving Fund, we are seeking
    $6 million to continue development of our online system, called
    govinfo, and pay for necessary cybersecurity measures.
        Before ending, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the
    men and women of the GPO are some of the hardest working, most
    dedicated employees that you have in the legislative branch.
    Regardless of the demands of the legislative schedule and
    regardless of the conditions under which they have to work,
    whether there is a snowstorm, an earthquake, a government
    shutdown, or other conditions, they will be there to support
    you in carrying out your work. That was what we were created to
    do, and it remains our most important mission.
        So, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Ryan, with that, thank
    you so much for letting me speak to you. And I would be happy
    now to answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Yoder. Well, thank you, Mr. Sherman. If your colleagues
    have anything to add at any time, feel free to chime in. I want
    to make this sort of a little bit of a casual format.

                            MODERNIZATION OF THE GPO

        Mr. Yoder. I first kind of maybe want to ask a broad
    question about the mission and where you see the department
    heading in the next 10 to 20 to 30 years. Certainly in your 38
    years and 27 years you have seen very significant changes at
    the publishing office. When did it change from printing to
    publishing?
        Mr. Sherman. In 2014.
        Mr. Yoder. 2014. Okay. So that is obviously a symbolic
    change, but it also indicates the changing nature of the agency
    and how you operate. I am guessing when you started the concept
    of a digital publishing was not something that was in your
    vernacular. I assume it is now in the Style Manual, which is a
    good read, by the way. It is going to be a must read for my
    legislative staff here coming up.
        You have reduced workforce from 6,000 to 1,740, which I am
    sure in some ways has been painful for folks that had been
    there, and as jobs become less necessary that changes how
    employees fit in our current economy. We are having to focus
    our own on retraining and getting people retooled for the jobs
    of the modern economy.
        Where do you see the future of this heading? What do see
    the role of the publishing office? Continuing to go more
    digital? How are you innovating and keeping up with the
    innovations that are out there? Are there apps for phones and
    those sorts of things? Where do you think our best investment
    would be to get the best ROI for taxpayers? Where would we want
    to place dollars that might help you innovate which would help
    us save net savings?
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is an excellent
    question. When Herb and I started at the GPO, type was set by
    machines called linotype machines and monotype machines. This
    is the way type was set across America in both government and
    the commercial sector for 80-some-odd years. Those machines
    were invented in the early 1900s, late 19th century.
        We had more than 1,000 people alone involved in what is
    called composing: operating the linotype machines, setting the
    type for pages, and proofreading.
        What we did was we adopted, like the rest of the industry,
    computerized typesetting, which immediately began reducing the
    need for so much staff. You could be much more productive with
    computerized typesetting than linotype machines.
        For GPO this was an evolutionary process, and what we did
    was we retrained staff who formerly used the older equipment to
    use the newer equipment. And that has been our style all along.
    We don't have occupational dislocation. We don't let people go
    because technology has changed. We attrit. That is how we get
    the employment reductions. But we use a lot of retraining to
    get people involved in newer technologies.
        The appropriation for congressional printing in those days,
    1980, let's say, was about $90 million in 1980 dollars. That is
    the equivalent of almost $300 million today. And as you can
    see, our request is for $79 million, a reduction of 70-some-odd
    percent. That reflects increased productivity and it reflects
    fewer staff required to carry out these tasks.
        We still publish as much material for Congress as we used
    to. By that I mean, the Congressional Record remains a
    significant publication, and you all are still producing bills,
    reports, hearings, and other documents, but the technologies we
    are using are much more productive. And that is where the
    investment needs to keep going.
        We have a system of financing at GPO which is totally
    directed and pointed in that direction, investing in GPO's
    future. We have increased the book value of GPO's plant and
    equipment almost 100 percent over the last 5 years by the
    investments we have made in new equipment and technology.
        We will continue trending towards more and more utilization
    of digital. And I am sure that digital itself will continue to
    evolve in many different ways, some ways that we know nothing
    about now, just as in 1980 we had no idea of apps or
    smartphones.
        But we have to stay on top of that because that is what the
    public expects. That is how we ensure public access to the
    information about what Congress is doing and how you are doing
    your jobs. That is how we keep the public informed about what
    you do.

                             IMPACT ON TRANSPARENCY

        Mr. Yoder. Well, I think that is maybe the clear benefit,
    beyond the taxpayer savings, is that we create more
    transparency, because with govinfo and other opportunities you
    can reach people that you wouldn't reach in a printing format.
    But anywhere in the world, the country can get the information
    they need immediately. So it provides a better service at a
    cheaper rate.
        Mr. Sherman. With respect to that, if I could just add one
    thing.
        Several years ago in the House a group was set up called
    the Bulk Data Task Force, the Legislative Branch Bulk Data Task
    Force. Actually, it was set up through the impetus of this
    committee and the Office of the Clerk, and it continues to
    operate under the leadership of the Deputy Clerk of the House,
    Bob Reeves.
        It is a group that comprises not only the GPO and elements
    of the House, but staff from the Library of Congress, from the
    Congressional Research Service. People from the Senate
    Secretary's Office are also involved.
        And this group has come up with a lot of novel and
    innovative projects. It has been a sort of a hothouse for new
    ideas that can be developed and implemented to push Congress
    forward in the field of transparency.
        We have done a lot of projects with the task force, we have
    a lot operating right now, and they will last into the future.
    And they are not terribly expensive. The Speaker's Office, by
    the way, both Mr. Boehner at the time it started and Mr. Ryan
    now, have been totally supportive of this effort. And with
    their support, the efforts of this group have reached new
    levels of transparency and openness in congressional
    information for the public.

                              CHANGES TO TITLE 44

        Mr. Yoder. Well, sounds like a worthy endeavor.
        I want to ask you a little bit about the changes to Title
    44. The House Admin Committee is working on revisions of
    chapter 19, which focuses on the Federal Depository Library
    program.
        As we know, the program was created to make the Federal
    Government publications available to the public at no cost. The
    House Admin bill greatly expands the electronic distribution of
    documents, which would allow more libraries to participate and
    provides the flexibility of not having to have shelf space for
    the hard copies.
        What impacts would these proposed revisions have on GPO's
    appropriations requirements?
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you. We were part of this process. This
    bill grew out of hearings that were held throughout the year
    last year on modernizing Title 44. We have felt throughout that
    process that the Depository Library program, whose organic
    legislation dates to 1962, needed a significant amount of
    updating.
        As a practical matter, we have made that program responsive
    to electronic and digital measures over the last 25 years, but
    the statute needed to catch up with modern practice. And that
    is what this bill does. It recognizes statutorily that digital
    is an important component of the program and provides us with
    certain tools to work with Federal agencies to ensure that more
    digital information is brought into the program on a systematic
    basis.
        It does envision an expanded role for GPO in some areas
    that we anticipate will require additional staff and additional
    IT systems, but I think that that will be done on an
    evolutionary basis. We are not going to be able to go zero to
    60 all of a sudden. What we will in fact be doing is building
    on certain services that we already have operating.
        Our request for fiscal year 2019 seeks an increase in
    funding for the public information programs of the
    Superintendent of Documents to be more aggressive in collecting
    digital data from the executive branch. So it is kind of a
    downpayment on that already.
        I think with ongoing savings in the congressional
    publishing appropriation, it is quite likely that we could see
    a stable appropriation with increases for public information
    programs for the Superintendent of Documents and offsetting
    decreases in congressional publishing.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Ryan.

                             BUILDING SPACE AT GPO

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am having a bit of nostalgia here. I was an intern in
    1995, and my job was to get the Congressional Records tied up
    in a bow and go put them on everyone's desk. So as a Member, I
    am glad that no one has to do that anymore.
        I have got a couple of questions. They are kind of more
    about the real estate, some of the real estate issues. We have
    talked about the Books for the Blind Program. Can you give us
    an update on where we are with that?
        Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir. We were asked by the staff of this
    committee a month or two ago to look into whether available
    space could be prepared for the NLS. We think it is possible at
    GPO. We have got certain space currently occupied by binding
    equipment which could be relocated out of where it is, and we
    could make some other housing changes for some of our staff on
    both the fourth and fifth floors of our building.
        We are talking about a package of space that is the
    equivalent of 50,000 to 60,000 square feet. The Architect of
    the Capitol has been over with some of the NLS staff and has
    already looked at the space. And as I understand it, there is
    report language about the development of a feasibility plan for
    this.
        We are in the process of making a major acquisition of new
    press equipment to print the Congressional Record and the
    Federal Register, as well as congressional calendars. The
    current equipment we have consists of three enormous newspaper
    presses that we bought in 1995, at a time when we were printing
    about 20,000 copies of the Record at night and 35,000 copies of
    the Register at night.
        We need to get smaller, more flexible ink jet machines
    because the print runs for these publications are tending
    towards less than 2,000 now.
        Once we make that acquisition and install the smaller
    equipment, we will get rid of this larger equipment, and that
    will provide more space that we can move existing binding
    systems into and free up space for the NLS. So we are happy to
    work with the AOC and the LOC on this project.

                               GPO'S DATA CENTERS

        Mr. Ryan. Great. We appreciate that.
        The other issue is the future location of primary and
    backup data centers.
        Mr. Sherman. We actually anticipated this several years ago
    by moving our primary data center outside the building to the
    Legislative Branch ACF. We still have a data center in our
    building that we believe we could reduce by about 50 percent
    and relocate that as well.
        We still need, as I understand the House still needs, some
    access to a data center on site, but the footprint of that can
    be substantially reduced. Herb and I have already talked to our
    CIO about coming up with a plan for us. He will be visiting the
    Redstone Turner site later this month, and we are going to come
    up with a plan to carry this out.
        Mr. Ryan. How close does it have to be?
        Mr. Sherman. The amount of material that we would reduce in
    our current building here, we would move to an alternate
    location.
        Mr. Ryan. A lot of what we deal with, with regard to
    protecting our systems deals with cyber and cybersecurity. Is
    there any issue within the GPO?
        Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir. Anybody who doesn't worry about it
    doesn't know what they are doing. We expend a great deal of
    money on cybersecurity. We are members of the Legislative
    Branch Cybersecurity Working Group, as well as the Legislative
    Branch CIO Council, and the Legislative Branch Chief
    Information Security Officer Council.
        The budget that we just got approved through the omnibus
    has $2 million for cybersecurity, which we will spend, and we
    are asking for another million in the fiscal year 2019 budget.
    We have close ties with the Department of Homeland Security and
    the relevant law enforcement agencies to help us police our
    cybersecurity. It is something that we always are very
    cognizant of. We don't want to brag about it, because it is a
    continually evolving field.
        Mr. Ryan. Right. Only as good as your next shot, right?
        Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Ryan. Well, keep us abreast of any needs you may have
    with that.
        Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Ryan. I yield back.

                               GPO AND PASSPORTS

        Mr. Yoder. Talk to the committee about passports. What does
    the future of passports look like?
        Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir. Since 1926, GPO has been producing
    passports for the State Department. Until 1985, that was a
    modest line of business for us. They were hand-bound and we
    produced maybe 3 or 4 million a year.
        Starting in 2007, the passports that we produce began to be
    manufactured in compliance with International Civil Aeronautics
    Organization, or ICAO, standards. This is a U.N. Organization
    where the signatory nations agree to have certain features in
    their passports to improve interoperability in crossing each
    other's borders.
        Passports since then have had an electronic chip in them
    and an antenna array implanted in the cover which carries
    personal data, the same as the data that is printed on the
    personal page.
        We produce blank passports for the State Department. The
    State Department personalizes them with the information that is
    adjudicated from applicants for passports.
        Last year, we produced about 22 million passports. It is
    not a modest line of business anymore. It is a high-tech,
    automated process with a significant secure IT component to it.
    And we manage a secure supply chain as well as provide other
    forms of security to it.
        We are in the process right now of getting ready to produce
    what is called the Next Generation passport. This passport, for
    the personalized page, will have a polycarbonate card sewn into
    the binding of the book. To personalize it, the State
    Department will laser engrave the information on that card.
    This is an advanced anticounterfeiting device.
        We are continually working with the State Department on
    security features for the passport. Over the last 5 years, we
    have spent about $100 million, which we have recovered through
    fees we charge to the State Department for passport production,
    in capital investments for the equipment to produce this line
    of work.
        We have reconstructed our facility substantially to do
    that. We would be happy to have you over to show you what we
    have and what we do. We have passport operations not only here
    in Washington, D.C., but in southwest Mississippi at the
    Stennis Space Center.
        By the way, this program is not based on appropriated
    funds.
        Mr. Yoder. Yes, how is that funded?
        Mr. Sherman. We charge the State Department a fee for every
    passport we make. It is approximately $15 a passport.
        Mr. Yoder. And that will continue with the NextGen
    passports?
        Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Yoder. The same fee or same at least----
        Mr. Sherman. We anticipate that it will increase.
        Mr. Yoder. We will pay for it one way or another, I guess.
        Mr. Sherman. GPO's price is currently $15. The fee paid to
    get a passport includes other costs which are not our costs.

                        GPO'S ONLINE INFORMATION SYSTEM

        Mr. Yoder. We discussed earlier in the hearing the
    digitization of records, in particular govinfo, which I
    understand has moved out of beta this past December. What is
    the status of your plan to replace the Federal Digital System
    with the new information access system govinfo?
        Mr. Sherman. That is a good question. Govinfo is the third
    iteration of our online information services, which started in
    1994. We have been putting the Congressional Record and
    congressional documents online for the public for about 25
    years now.
        The first system was called GPO Access. That ran for many
    years. It was modernized with the Federal Digital System, which
    debuted in 2009, and now that system itself has become dated.
        And we have upgraded our systems completely with govinfo,
    which is mobile friendly and has a number of interesting search
    features. For example, if you search on a congressional bill,
    it will show you not only the bill, but if it has been enacted,
    the law, the debate that was associated with it, and any
    regulations that might have been issued pursuant to it. It is
    much more modern than FDsys.
        And this shows you how quickly things change in the digital
    world. FDsys was up and operating for well, approximately, it
    will be close to 10 years. But after that, the system had to be
    refreshed and rebuilt. We will move FDsys out of operation by
    the end of this calendar year and govinfo will become our
    system of record.
        Mr. Yoder. By the end of the year?
        Mr. Sherman. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Yoder. And how long do you see its lifespan?
        Mr. Sherman. We are hoping for a good 5 years. But, again,
    it depends on how rapidly technology keeps changing.
        Mr. Yoder. And what are the modernizations of govinfo off
    of the current system, the FDsys?
        Mr. Sherman. The amount of content continues to expand. The
    searchability is much improved. The retrieval has features like
    the one I just described. It is mobile friendly. FDsys was not.
        So we don't have to build apps anymore, and we were in that
    business for a while. The United States Budget is an app which
    you can read on your phone. We don't need to do that anymore
    because govinfo is gauged directly for that technology.
        Depending on how quickly things keep changing, what other
    features pop up, it is really anybody's guess.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. I am good, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you so much for your time.
        Mr. Yoder. Gentlemen, thanks for your testimony. I think it
    is good to have GPO come before the committee and continue to
    conduct good oversight and ensure that we are making GPO
    successful carrying out its mission and doing so in the most
    cost-effective manner.
        Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ryan, we appreciate your
    support. We work very closely with the staffs of this committee
    and have nothing but good things to say about them. And we look
    forward to continuing to work with you on this budget.
        Actually we would love to have you down for a tour.
        Mr. Yoder. Let's do that.
        Mr. Sherman. It is an interesting place to see. It is a
    great Washington institution.
        Mr. Yoder. Let's do that.
        Thanks for your work. Thanks for your leadership. Thank you
    for your appearance today. We will continue to work with you.
        The subcommittee stands in recess until 2 p.m. today, at
    which time it will receive testimony from the Architect of the
    Capitol.
        [Questions for the record follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                              Thursday, April 12, 2018.

                            ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                                    WITNESS

    HON. STEPHEN T. AYERS, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                                Chairman Remarks

        Mr. Yoder. Good afternoon, everybody. I call the House
    Legislative Branch Subcommittee back to order. We were in this
    morning at 10:00 a.m. for a hearing with the Government
    Publishing Office, and this afternoon we have the Architect of
    the Capitol.
        Today I would like to welcome Stephen Ayers, the 11th
    Architect of the Capitol. We will hear testimony regarding the
    Architect of the Capitol's fiscal year 2019 budget.
        Since he last appeared before this subcommittee, the AOC
    has made significant progress with several initiatives. They
    include preservation products across the campus at the Capitol,
    Supreme Court, Russell Senate Office Building, and Botanic
    Garden. Additionally, work on the west wing of the Cannon House
    Office Building is more than 50-percent complete, with the goal
    of 100-percent completion by this year's congressional
    transition. Furthermore, conservation of the Capitol's Brumidi
    Corridors was completed. I look forward to hearing about these
    projects.
        These projects, along with several others, were done by the
    AOC while also maintaining its day-to-day services and
    operations, which include welcoming over 3 million visitors to
    the Capitol Visitor Center and the Botanic Garden. It is safe
    to say the AOC had a busy year, and I commend the organization
    for its hard work.
        The larger, ongoing, multiphase projects included in this
    request are the Cannon House Office Building renewal, which is
    a $752.7 million project, of which is $62 million is included
    in this year's request. Also included is a request for $32.7
    million for the final phase of the Rayburn Interior Garage
    Rehabilitation Project, a project that will total $131 million.
    And, finally, in the request is $22.6 million for cooling tower
    renovations at the Capitol Power Plant, with that project's
    total cost estimated at $232.6 million.
        Over the last year, I have had the opportunity to learn
    more about these projects and appreciate the site visits the
    AOC has hosted. Anytime I get to wear a hardhat, that is a good
    time.
        Mr. Ayers, I look forward to continuing to work with you
    and your team as the subcommittee puts together the fiscal year
    2019 legislative branch appropriation bill. So welcome to the
    committee.
        Mr. Ayers. Thank you, Chairman Yoder.
        Mr. Yoder. And, at this point, I would like to yield to my
    good friend, the Honorable Tim Ryan.

                             Ranking Member Remarks

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We appreciate your time and effort. We have had some great
    tours.
        And we know that the omnibus we just passed, you received
    $712 million, a 15-percent increase over fiscal year 2017. And
    in your request for fiscal year 2019, you asked for $720.2
    million, which is a 1.1-percent increase. Your budget is
    heavily project-based, so your request can go up or down
    depending on what work happens to be needed in a particular
    year. But even taking that into account, the increase you are
    requesting today is fairly modest. I hope we can get you the
    resources you need for 2019.
        And of the project dollars you are requesting, I notice
    that 49 percent of it is classified as deferred maintenance,
    meaning around half of the work is just to catch up with the
    needs of our buildings and infrastructure that has passed the
    end of its useful life. And I think that is very telling, and
    it is a good indication of how we approached investments in our
    country generally under sequestration. I am pleased that with
    the budget caps deal we struck earlier this year we are
    starting to dig ourselves out of that hole.
        And your organization's responsibilities are extremely far-
    ranging, from security infrastructure to daycare centers, to
    power plants and gardens, and we have a lot to talk about, so I
    will save the rest of my comments for the round of questions.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your scholarly leadership. And
    I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.

                     Summary Statement of Stephen T. Ayers

        Mr. Ayers, your complete statement will be made part of the
    record, but feel free to summarize your remarks for the
    committee at this time.
        Mr. Ayers. Thank you, Chairman Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan
    and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity
    to present the Architect of the Capitol's budget request for
    fiscal year 2019.
        First, I would like to thank the subcommittee for your
    support of our needs in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus. The
    projects and initiatives that you were able to fund in that
    bill I know will be important to our collective success moving
    forward. This funding will also assist our more than 2,100
    talented employees with reducing the constraints that have been
    put upon them in recent years, impeding their ability to get
    their jobs done.
        We take pride in our mission to serve the Congress and the
    Supreme Court and preserve America's Capitol, as well as
    inspiring memorable experiences for those that visit here, I am
    pleased to tell you that I am incredibly happy with our
    accomplishments over the last year.
        As the chairman noted, we successfully completed the
    conservation of the Capitol's Brumidi Corridors this year.
    Several major projects across the campus reached milestones,
    including the stone preservation projects at the United States
    Capitol, the United States Supreme Court, the Russell Senate
    Office Building, and the United States Botanic Garden
    Conservatory.
        Also, the major equipment needed for the cogeneration
    system at the Capitol Power Plant has been installed, and
    testing is underway. And I know you will be interested to know
    we are going have a first fire of that piece of equipment this
    summer. So that will be a fun event for us, and we look forward
    to celebrating that.
        Unfortunately, our annual costs continue to rise and our
    work is often backlogged. Our request of $720 million
    represents the resources we need to support our infrastructure
    and fulfill our mission day to day.
        Our ability to retain sufficient people to keep up with
    increased security demands is important. Reducing our risk of
    infrastructure failures that lead to larger and more costly
    repairs is equally as essential.
        Additionally, with annual visitation growing by 12.5
    percent last year, another 8 percent this year, trending on top
    of that 12-percent increase last year, resources and people are
    needed to continue to provide first-rate customer service,
    first-rate visitor engagement to your constituents.
        We must bolster our common central services that improve
    our agency effectiveness and decrease the operating costs for
    all of our jurisdictions. These services include the AOC's
    specialized construction, project management, historic
    preservation, cybersecurity, safety, information technology
    support functions, just to name a few. Inadequate funding for
    these services is critical in the successful delivery of our
    construction projects each year.
        For 2019, our agency's risk-based prioritization process
    identified $173 million of projects that are primed and ready
    for 2019 funding. Of this, about $49 million of them are
    requests for projects that were requested in 2018 but were
    unable to be funded. This includes the north-exit stair
    improvement project at the Library of Congress' Jefferson
    Building, which would address a citation that we have received
    from the Office of Compliance.
        In the House, we are seeking funding for the final phase of
    the four-phase Rayburn garage interior rehabilitation.
        We also continue to prioritize security upgrades across the
    Capitol campus, with the ongoing effort to replace vehicle
    barriers and kiosks that have reached the end of their intended
    life.
        Additionally, for a third year, we are pursuing funding to
    begin the replacement of critical infrastructure at the
    Alternate Computer Facility, which is an important component of
    maintaining reliable IT operations for the Congress.
        While to an untrained eye our buildings look to be in great
    condition, delays in our annual preventive maintenance
    initiatives and the continued phasing of some of our major
    projects are concerning to us. Funding the needs as we have
    identified them in our 2019 budget will ensure that
    stakeholders and visitors to Capitol Hill experience the great
    grandeur of these historic treasures that we experience every
    day.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any
    questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Stephen T. Ayers follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               CHILD CARE CENTER

        Mr. Yoder. Great. Thanks for your testimony, sir.
        A few quick questions to get us started.
        Could you brief us on the childcare center?
        That is a project that we started last year, so, you know,
    we have funded phase 1 and 2 of that project. Ultimately, that
    project will house 232 children, up from the current amount of
    70, which, of course, there is a long waitlist, we all know, on
    Capitol Hill.
        The old joke is you have to register your child before you
    are even married or before you are even pregnant. And so we are
    hoping to alleviate some of that backlog, make the Capitol a
    more family-friendly place, allowing working parents to
    continue to work here with convenient and affordable childcare.
        So is everything still on track for construction to be
    completed by November 15th of this year, with an opening in
    January of 2019?
        Mr. Ayers. We are scheduled mid-November to be complete,
    and that leaves 6 weeks for the House Chief Administrative
    Officer to outfit it with furniture and supplies and to do some
    training with the folks that will work there. So we are working
    towards that date.
        Obviously, this is a pretty high-risk project for us. You
    know, we developed a cost estimate and provided that $15
    million estimate before we had design documents even started.
    We are putting forth a great deal of effort to manage it day to
    day, to keep costs under control.
        We are pretty comfortable with that November date. We are a
    little less comfortable with the number, but we are working
    hard to keep costs as contained as we possibly can.
        Mr. Yoder. ``On time and under budget'' I think is the
    motto over at the Architect's office, right?
        Mr. Ayers. It is, yes. And we do a good job at that, don't
    we?
        Mr. Yoder. So we hope you are true to form on this project.
        So this will be phase one, correct?
        Mr. Ayers. Correct.
        Mr. Yoder. And then phase two would open up about a year
    later?
        Mr. Ayers. That is correct.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay. And all resources for that project have
    been appropriated at this point?
        Mr. Ayers. That is correct, yes.
        Mr. Yoder. In terms of what we budgeted.
        Mr. Ayers. Yes.

                      CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING REMOVAL

        Mr. Yoder. Hopefully we live under that. Okay?
        Let's turn to the Cannon House office project for a second.
    To date, $502.9 million of that projected budget of $752.7
    million has been provided. For fiscal year, you are requesting
    $62 million more in no-year funds for the project.
        How much has AOC already obligated for the project to date
    out of the $502 million, that we have provided? Why is 62 the
    number? Can you kind of work through the math on when that
    would be needed?
        What amount of prior-year funding is still currently
    available for the AOC's use on the project? And is the project
    on track to be completed on time in its projected $753 million
    budget?
        Mr. Ayers. First, thank you for that extra little bit of
    money. It is 752-point-something, so that is a few extra
    hundred thousand dollars. I do appreciate you rounding up.
        That project continues to be running incredibly smoothly
    for us. It is on time. We are under budget. We are coming up,
    this November, on an important milestone. We will begin the
    phase-one move back in and the phase-two move-outs. We will
    start that, of course, on December 1st, and all of that will
    happen during the month of December.
        We do have $502 million appropriated for that, with another
    about $250 million yet to go to finish that project. We have
    mapped out what is the minimum amount of funding we need to
    have each year in the appropriations cycle to enable us to
    award each phase on time, and that turns out to be $62 million.
        It is important that we appropriate that every single year
    through the end of this project, and that will enable us to
    finish it on phase four in 2024.
        Mr. Yoder. So your plan would be a $62 million request for
    4 more years.
        Mr. Ayers. Correct, approximately $62 million a year to
    equal $250 million.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay. Each year, $62 million, to get to your
    roughly $250 million, in additional resources necessary.
        Mr. Ayers. Yes, $250 million total.
        Mr. Yoder. Got it.
        And the entire project will be completed in 2024?
        Mr. Ayers. It is 2024.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay. And for those who are in Cannon, Members
    who ask us, so phase one, what areas will be reopening? So some
    of the fifth floor?
        Mr. Ayers. Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chairman. The entire
    west wing is under construction now. All of that will open back
    up, the entire west wing----
        Mr. Yoder. The Rotunda will be back open.
        Mr. Ayers. Brand-new fifth floor.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay.
        Mr. Ayers. All of that will open up.
        Mr. Yoder. Right.
        Mr. Ayers. As we will move Members back in. The north wing,
    along Independence Avenue, is phase two. All will move out in
    December.
        Mr. Yoder. Got it.
        Mr. Ayers. For the folks that are moving back in, we have
    identified 21 Members, I think, that are eligible to move back
    into phase one on the New Jersey Avenue side. We have been in
    touch with them. About a dozen of them have expressed interest
    to move back in, so we are working with them now. And they have
    return rights to their previous suite.
        Mr. Yoder. Oh, they do. So you can go back to your suite
    that you had before you were moved out.
        Mr. Ayers. If you were in that suite for the full 114th
    Congress, you do have return rights to that suite.
        Mr. Yoder. Got it. Okay.
        Mr. Ayers. There are 21 of those, and 12 have expressed
    interest so far.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay. Well, I look forward to taking a tour
    later this year and getting an idea of how the progress is
    coming. Okay?
        Mr. Ayers. Great.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

                                    PARKING

        First, let me just say thank you for all your work on the
    childcare center. I think, other than food, we hear most about
    the challenges for our staff with regard to childcare, so this
    has been a huge priority for those of us on this committee.
        And I know that the chairman talked to you a little bit
    about that. Can you talk to us a little bit about the parking?
    I know there are some unresolved issues there. And when we have
    toured it, the couple times we have been down there, that is my
    concern too, getting people in and out of there and what the
    parking looks like. So if you could maybe share a little bit
    about where your head is on that.
        Mr. Ayers. I would be happy to.
        I think the decision point was whether we drop off and pick
    up on C Street or D Street, and we have made the decision that
    D Street is the best place to drop off. So we will be dropping
    off and picking up for the childcare center on D Street.
        And we think taking both sides of that street for parking
    is appropriate. Today, there are 36, at least, parallel-parking
    slots along that street.
        We are hiring a consultant to help us design what
    interventions we need in that street--improved crosswalks,
    traffic calming and slowing devices in the street, perhaps some
    curb bump-outs, maybe slanted parking. Through the design
    process, we will figure that out and incorporate that into the
    project.
        Mr. Ryan. And everybody is going to be coming in at the
    same time, obviously, or right around the same window. What
    negative impacts do you see in the blocks around that? That is
    a pretty active area in the morning. How bad is it going to be?
        Mr. Ayers. I certainly can't sit here and tell you there is
    not going to be any impact, with 232 children in there. That is
    potentially 232 drop-offs and pickups. It may not be that many,
    but potentially that many.
        I think it is incumbent upon us to set up a process whereby
    we can get them in and out fast so that each drop-off is a
    pretty quick turnaround.

                                ENERGY REDUCTION

        Mr. Ryan. And hope the dads aren't dropping off, because we
    forget stuff all the time, and you have to put the hazards on
    and get out. It is a mess. But, anyway, I am having a little
    therapy session here.
        The other issue was the green buildings. We have a lot of
    money, a lot construction, and a lot of renovation. Can you
    share with us what you are doing with regard to using the
    latest technologies? Solar panels being a more obvious example
    of what we are able to do to save money in the long run. We
    talk about these upfront costs, but saving the taxpayer money
    in the long run. So if you could talk a little bit about that.
        Mr. Ayers. I would be happy to.
        The Energy Independence and Security Act required us to
    reduce our energy intensity by 30 percent. We achieved that
    goal in 2015, which was the end of that legislation. That same
    year, we established a new goal for ourselves, thinking that we
    could get another 20 percent out of our inventory of buildings.
    So we think 10 years from then, in 2025, we will be able to
    reach a 50-percent reduction in our energy intensity.
        To get the 30 percent in 2015, the biggest thing we did
    were the three ESPCs, energy savings performance contracts. And
    that is where private investment came in. Investors and private
    contractors renovated the House office buildings, the Capitol,
    and the Senate with nearly $100 million of investments, and we
    pay that back through proven energy savings. And that really is
    the biggest thing that enabled us to reach that 30-percent
    goal.
        The 20 percent more, the two biggest things that are going
    to be most important there are the cogeneration system at the
    Capitol Power Plant--when that comes on line, we are going to
    save significant energy by that. And the three energy savings
    and performance contracts were so successful for us we decided
    to do a fourth one at the Library of Congress buildings. And we
    have modeled that, and it is going to save considerable energy
    for us as well.
        The rest are some behavioral changes that we think our
    building occupants can make; some technology improvements, by
    changing some of our mechanical systems from pneumatically
    controlled to electronically/digitally controlled. Those kinds
    of investments, we think, are necessary.
        But we are pretty confident that we are going to be able to
    get 50 percent out of our buildings by 2025.
        Mr. Ryan. That is fantastic. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Taylor.

                                 CYBER SECURITY

        Mr. Taylor. I just have a couple questions, and you have
    answered a few. Thank you. Appreciate it.
        On cybersecurity systems, can you explain what the standard
    services are on monitoring of the daily cyber attacks? I know
    that the last time we had a meeting we had a ton of them that
    were coming in. Have you seen an uptick in them? And are there
    any new, emerging threats? And is this the reason that you guys
    asked for increased funding to harden the network systems?
        Mr. Ayers. Thank you, Congressman Taylor.
        Congress put together a Legislative Branch Cybersecurity
    Working Group, and coming out of that group were a series of
    recommendations for all of the agencies in the Legislative
    Branch to put forth. And we have requested money in our budget,
    $1.8 million, to accommodate some of those improvements and
    some of those hardening initiatives.
        Prior to that, for us today, our steady state today is we
    feel pretty comfortable with our cybersecurity posture. We
    certainly haven't seen any significant attacks on any of the
    Architect of the Capitol's systems. We routinely test our
    system through penetration testing. We do phishing testing with
    our employees, and people are doing a pretty good job at it.
        We are not overly concerned about our systems today but
    recognize there are some things that we could do to continue to
    harden them.

                              LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE

        Mr. Taylor. Can you speak to the language for the transfer
    authority of the AOC Office of Security programs? You know, why
    the request and a justification of it.
        Mr. Ayers. Yes. Thank you.
        Over the last several years, we have had a number of
    security project requests in our budget and requests that we
    are simply not able to fund. We don't have the bandwidth to
    fund them. But some of our clients come to us with money, and
    we are able to accommodate that if they can pay for a variety
    of projects.
        This legislation would enable us to easily transfer money
    from the Capitol Police to us to do a security project they
    want to do, or from the House or Senate Sergeant-at-Arms to us
    to execute a security project that they want to do.
        It is very cumbersome for us to do that now, transfer that
    money. It actually takes five or six transfers of the money
    before it gets to us to enable us to do it. So it is simply
    reducing some of the bureaucracy, enabling us to receive money
    from other agencies to execute their work.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Ayers. You are welcome.
        Mr. Yoder. Ms. McCollum.

                            HOUSE RECYCLING PROGRAM

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        And I just want to again commend all the workmanship, all
    the work that you did outside of the United States Capitol.
    People who are returning here after maybe seeing all the
    scaffolding or not being here for 15 or 20 years are just
    constantly in awe of the way that the building looks.
        Mr. Ayers. Thank you.
        Ms. McCollum. So I just simply have to remember, in making
    these investments, which was the right thing to do structurally
    for the building, but also it enhances our national treasure
    and our face forward to our constituents and visitors from all
    over the world.
        In talking about green buildings, I have two kind of small
    things to kind of bring up. But at the same time, we kind of
    sometimes function as a city council for a lot of the people
    that we work with, both staff and Members.
        You mention temperature control. And I will put these two
    issues together. It is so cold in our office in Rayburn at
    times I have staff wearing jackets, using blankets. They have
    brought in heating pads. And I have been known to wear gloves,
    sitting at my desk. So I hope when you are looking at the
    temperature control that someone can get back to us kind of
    what is going on. We are not the only office that talks about
    this in the elevator.
        Then the other thing for green. People still haven't
    figured out how to recycle yet, right? Even some of the younger
    generation that grew up with all the commercials and that on
    there. So you went through a big push in recycling.
        At the same time, the recycling in the offices, all the
    smaller bins were replaced with bigger bins. I have limited
    office and traffic space. I have been trying to actually get
    people--you would be happy with me, Mr. Ryan--to get up from
    their desk on occasion from sitting all day and walk over and
    recycle something or to throw something out, rather than have
    all the maintenance and the collection on that.
        Could you kind of explain to me--I understand what you are
    trying to do with recycling, and I want you to know I really
    appreciate it. But what prompted this change? And what kind of
    expertise or help did you have? Because I don't know if you
    consulted any Members and staff on it.
        If you could answer those two.
        And then, Mr. Chair, I have two other small items.
        Mr. Ayers. I would be happy to.
        I am sorry to hear you are cold in your office, and we will
    work to take care of that. It is indicative of old buildings
    where we are simply unable to control the mechanical systems in
    the building. It was the exact same way in the Cannon building.
        Ms. McCollum. Yeah.
        Mr. Ayers. And we are really looking forward to the reduced
    number of service calls that we get, sending out technicians to
    make adjustments, once the Cannon building comes back on line.
    But we will certainly look into yours and see if we can remedy
    that.
        I think the good news, the big picture for me in the
    recycling program is that our goal this year was to recycle 40
    percent of office waste coming out of Members' offices across
    the Capitol campus, and we actually achieved a 44-percent
    recycling rate----
        Ms. McCollum. Great.
        Mr. Ayers [continuing]. Despite changing containers and
    other things.
        And we also had a recycling rate of 90 or 91 percent of
    construction debris, and we achieved 93 percent this year.
        And our new goal, moving forward, is to bump up our
    recycling rate, I think, to about 50 percent for office wastes.
    All of that is a landfill diversion technique. The rest of that
    waste that is not recycled goes to a waste-to-energy facility
    that is burned and turned into energy. So that is the big
    picture.
        I must admit I am not exactly familiar with the recycling
    program in your office and why we changed----
        Ms. McCollum. Oh, it is in all of our offices.
        Mr. Ayers [continuing]. Why we changed the bins--in the
    House of Representatives I mean--from one size bin to a
    different size bin. But I will figure all of that out, and we
    will come talk to you about that.
        Ms. McCollum. Well, we are not looking to--I saw one of my
    colleagues shaking her head when I was talking about--we are
    not looking to purchase anything new. I have just hung on to
    everything small that I can in my office, to the best of my----
        Mr. Ayers. Space is at such a premium in the House of
    Representatives, you are right.

                      CAPITAL VISITOR CENTER TUNNEL REPAIR

        Ms. McCollum. So one question that I am being asked a lot,
    and I know you have people working on it, is: Where the new
    part of the visitor center abuts the tunnel portion that goes
    walking towards Longworth or Rayburn, there is a water issue
    and a problem with that. Is that just trying to meet new
    buildings with old buildings? Because I don't want to give
    misinformation out to anybody, and I said I would ask you.
        Mr. Ayers. Well, I think that tunnel is 60 or 70 years old,
    and it probably needs to be dug up and re-waterproofed. That is
    the big picture. And we are trying to hold on as long as
    possible without doing that, because that would dig up the road
    and the grounds between the Capitol and the Cannon/Longworth
    building.
        It is old, and it leaks. And we are using some techniques
    to try to stave off that leaking from inside. So we will find
    the cracks that are leaking and we will inject products in
    those cracks to try to prevent it from leaking. I think we are
    going to get several more years out of it. It doesn't look that
    great, but I think it is better than digging it up at the
    moment.

                      MEMBERS REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCES

        Ms. McCollum. And then, Mr. Chair, not so much a question
    for the Architect of the Capitol, but Ms. Wasserman Schultz was
    present back a couple years ago when some of us made a
    suggestion, and I would ask the chair while we have the
    Architect of the Capitol here to maybe speak to it.
        Members often return money from their accounts. It goes
    back into the U.S. Treasury. It does not go down to pay debt or
    deficit, as some Members often think it does. And some of us
    had an idea at one time that the money that would be returned
    from Members who didn't use all of their allotment go to the
    Architect of the Capitol for the very thing of energy
    efficiency, having more funds available for making the Cannon
    project move along faster, or something that comes up with a
    security need. Because those funds would be helpful not only, I
    think, to the Architect but speeding things up for Members and
    also for all our visitors and guests who are coming into our
    office.
        If this committee were to decide to work to have an account
    like that, you wouldn't necessarily know, sir, what it was
    going to be or how it could be used. It would be kind of like,
    as my grandmother would say, extra purse change. It would be
    significant.
        But if you had something like that, do you have some
    projects that would be shovel-ready or things ready to go, that
    you could use it either for a window emplacement, heating, air
    conditioning, cooling? Would something like that be of help to
    you to reduce energy costs and to speed up some of the repairs
    that you need to make?
        Mr. Ayers. There is no question about that, Ms. McCollum.
    If you look in our budget, we have a list of recommended
    projects. We also have another list behind that of projects
    that we have deferred because they just don't rise up in
    priority to the budget bandwidth we think is available.
        So we have projects in all categories that are shovel-ready
    and ultimately need to be done and need to be funded.
        Ms. McCollum. And it would save money, in some respects.
        So, Mr. Chair, I know that that is us talking to our
    respective caucuses and doing some Member education. But I
    think what we would save in the long run would be saving
    taxpayers money in the long run by doing this and getting
    through the list.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Mr. Yoder. Thank you. And, Ms. McCollum, I note that in the
    Architect's budget they ask for $22 million for cooling tower
    renovations. We had money in the previous year's budget, and so
    maybe a better thermostat could go along with that or
    something.
        I don't know if I want to keep replacing these cooling
    towers if it is freezing out my colleagues.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I am from Minnesota, so when I
    tell you it is cold, it is cold.
        Mr. Yoder. All right. Well, there you go.
        Mr. Moolenaar.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And good to see you again.
        Mr. Ayers. Thank you.

                             LEAD IN WATER TESTING

        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you for being here today.
        My office is in the Cannon building, and one of the
    questions I get periodically is--I know it was about a year ago
    that lead was discovered in the drinking water. And people ask,
    you know, what is the status. Is that changing? Are there
    improvements? I have to believe there is a cost of supplying
    water in dispensers and bottles right now. Is there a plan to
    improve the drinking water?
        Mr. Ayers. There is. The most important part about the
    Cannon building project is we are taking out all of the wiring,
    all of the ductwork, all of the piping, and everything that is
    behind the walls and in the mechanical rooms, and that building
    gets completely replaced. So it is really an infrastructure
    upgrade to the bulling.
        And so, as we turn over phase one, all of the piping and
    all of the ductwork and electrical systems, mechanical and
    plumbing systems will all be new. All of that will obviously be
    lead-free. And so, if we make a decision to turn the water back
    on on this west side, certainly all of that will be lead-free.

                                ELEVATOR SIGNAGE

        Mr. Moolenaar. Okay. All right. Thank you.
        And then this is just a thing I have noticed. I am somewhat
    directionally challenged, so I rely on directions quite a bit
    when I am walking around. And one of the things, when you go
    into the elevators--and, you know, again, I am in the Cannon
    building. If I go to a different building, the Rayburn
    building, sometimes I am trying to figure out, okay, which
    level do I get off at. You know, some of those plates are very
    small, where you are trying to figure out which button you are
    going to push. And I noticed there were some new plates that
    looked like they were larger font, and somebody is, you know,
    trying to help improve the signage, I guess, on the elevators.
        Is that something you are working on? Because I have to
    believe, if I am, you know, having trouble with that, visitors
    to the Capitol or people who are trying to find their way
    around the House office buildings have to be experiencing that
    as well.
        Mr. Ayers. I think that is a great observation. And as I am
    sitting here thinking, I have noticed the same thing, but I
    haven't done anything about it. Obviously, I should have,
    because that is at least two of us and there is probably
    another 30 in the room that have experienced the same small
    lettering on those little plates by the elevator buttons.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Okay.
        Mr. Ayers. So we will get to work on that.
        Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you.
        Mr. Ayers. You are welcome.
        Mr. Yoder. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Ayers, nice to see you.
        Mr. Ayers. Thank you.

               HOUSE HISTORIC BUILDINGS REVITALIZATION TRUST FUND

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I have some questions about the
    House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund. How much is
    in the trust fund at the moment?
        Mr. Ayers. There is $55 million in the trust fund at the
    moment.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And we are in the posture now where
    we are just continuing to bank funds; you are not drawing it
    down.
        Mr. Ayers. That is correct.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So you are continuing to put it in--
    okay.
        Mr. Ayers. Yes.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So you have the $62 million that you
    are requesting each year until Cannon is finished. We at the
    moment have $55 million in the trust fund.
        And then Cannon will be done in 2024, you mentioned?
        Mr. Ayers. Yes.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And then is Longworth or Rayburn
    next?
        Mr. Ayers. Well, we haven't made that decision yet.
        By the end of the Cannon building, I think we will have
    about $115 million to $120 million in the trust fund by the
    time we finish Cannon.
        We have talked a little bit in the past about our modeling
    of what Longworth or Rayburn might cost us in the future. And
    so we have recently began the process to secure a consultant
    that is going to help us figure that out.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Figure out how much the projected
    cost of Longworth or Rayburn would be?
        Mr. Ayers. Well, they are going to----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Or see what you need in the trust
    fund to augment what we appropriated?
        Mr. Ayers. Yes, both of those, plus help us determine how
    we can best go about doing something like the Rayburn building.
        When we last looked at the Rayburn building, it was a
    several-billion-dollar project. We are not poised to do, nor is
    the Congress poised to fund, a project like that. So we have to
    find a different way to go about that project and break it
    down, perhaps into smaller pieces or do different mechanical
    systems at a time, whether we do it horizontally by floors or
    whether we do it by wing. We need some help figuring that out.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So you are making the points that I
    would like to make, because, regardless of any which way we
    figure it out, it is going to be extremely expensive.
        Mr. Ayers. Yes.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And Rayburn is rated ``poor.''
    Longworth is rated ``fair.'' Presumably we would have to start
    on Rayburn first because it is deteriorating faster. And we
    don't want to end up in a situation like we have in Cannon,
    where you have lead in the drinking water or any other issues
    like that.
        So, Mr. Chairman, when we initially envisioned and created
    the Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund, the idea was
    that we would put $30 million to $70 million in each year. We
    have been banking $17 million in 2010. We dropped it--I mean,
    excuse me, $17 million in 2017. We dropped it to $10 million in
    2018.
        Over 10 years, I mean, the Architect projected we would
    have about $115 million. And if it is over a billion to do
    Rayburn, even pieces at a time, we are really going to have to
    step up the amount of funds that we bank. Because you just
    questioned the $62 million that we are going to have to
    appropriate separately from what is in the trust fund every
    year until it is done, and that was why we envisioned the trust
    fund.
        Because, when we went through finishing the CVC, there were
    insane cost overruns, and it took so much longer than was
    projected because we are dealing with older buildings. So there
    is absolutely, even if these projects go swimmingly well--and
    this one appears to have done so--there are cost overruns and
    there are change orders and it takes longer than you expect,
    because once they get behind those walls in old buildings, they
    find things that they didn't expect because they don't know
    they are back there.
        So I would just strongly--while I appreciate that we put at
    least $10 million in in fiscal year 2018, we really need to
    seriously take a look at and consult with the Architect on,
    realistically, what we are going to need to bank so that we
    aren't--I mean, this is a little bit, you know? And so the
    percentage--you know, this is the smallest bill. And, you know,
    these projects can consume, you know, almost, you know, a
    tremendous percentage of our overall budget. And then we don't
    want to be in a situation where we are shortchanging the other
    needs that we have in the legislative branch. So I just wanted
    to make that point.

                                TREE MANAGEMENT

        And then if I can just ask the Architect one additional
    question.
        Last year, we had an AOC employee, Matt McClanahan,
    tragically pass away after a large tree fell on him. May he
    rest in peace.
        And I wanted to ask you, Mr. Ayers, does the AOC have a
    process for identifying problem physical elements on the
    Capitol Grounds? And did you conduct a review of this tragic
    incident, and what recommendations, if any, came from that
    review? And how are you working towards implementing those
    recommendations?
        Mr. Ayers. We did conduct a complete review of that
    incident and issued a report on that. And we worked closely
    with the Office of Compliance, hand-in-glove, along the way. I
    am sure they will issue a report soon, as well, on that.
        Our report gave us six recommendations. I have seen a draft
    of the Office of Compliance report. There is another four
    recommendations. Many of them overlap.
        Essentially, it comes down to having a good process where
    you evaluate all of those assets every single year; you
    document that. And that is not something that we were doing a
    good job at then. We have since rectified that.
        We have also, I would say, revised our standards. Today, we
    don't allow any high-hazard tree anywhere on Capitol Grounds to
    remain, and we will take that down. In the past, we may have
    had some high-hazard trees that were not in public areas that
    we might keep on and try to keep alive for a period of time. So
    we have changed our standards a bit.
        Another one of the important elements was to make some
    changes to ensure the long-term health of the trees on the
    Capitol campus by not doing any construction or having events
    that are under the trees. Doing that compacts the soil under
    the trees and is detrimental to their health. So we have made
    changes there and are working with people like Capital Concerts
    that are incredibly agile in what they do, and they are working
    with us to remove some of their infrastructure from under the
    trees at various events.
        They felt we were a little light on resources, so you will
    see an arborist and an urban forester request in our 2019
    budget. That will bring us from six certified arborists up to
    eight certified arborists.
        That was about it.

                            HOUSE RECYCLING PROGRAM

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
        Do you mind if I ask one more question? And then I am done.
        Just to follow up on what Ms. McCollum was asking you about
    the garbage pails. So it used to be--my office is in Longworth.
    It used to be that the recycling bin that took plastic had an
    orange bag in it. And so you knew the orange-bagged bin was
    where you placed your recyclable plastic. And then there was a
    paper--everything else was a paper bin.
        Now, for some reason, at least in my office, every one of
    those recycling bins has an orange plastic bag. In our office--
    and I don't know if I am the only one in Longworth--they all
    have orange plastic bags. So there is no--I mean, I don't know
    whether we can--we don't know whether we can mix all the
    recyclables, paper and plastic, or you still need to put
    plastic in one and paper in the other.
        But do you--I assume you don't know why that change was
    made?
        Mr. Ayers. I don't know why that change was made, but----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And if there could be some more
    clear direction on what to do with our recyclables if all the
    bags are orange, then that would be helpful.
        Mr. Ayers. I would be happy to do that.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
        Mr. Ayers. Sure.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Amodei.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.

                          TOUR OF U.S. CAPITOL GROUNDS

        So the only thing I would add is to thank you for the fact
    that you have been more than forthcoming in terms of making
    your different folks available for getting familiar with what
    is going on. More on the yard work people, and I will probably
    want to do another lap this year----
        Mr. Ayers. Excellent.
        Mr. Amodei [continuing]. Once whoever is in charge of the
    weather does a better job than they have been doing so far this
    year.
        And, other than that, I might want to talk with you about
    what you are doing with that wood after you cut it down on
    those hazard trees.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Yoder. The gentleman yields back.
        Does anyone have any further questions?
        Well, I think, at that, Mr. Architect, we are going to give
    you a reprieve and allow you to get back to work.
        Mr. Ayers. Thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. I appreciate your appearance today. We will
    continue to work with you as we proceed with this year's budget
    process.
        The subcommittee stands in recess until April 17 at 10:00
    a.m., at which time we will receive testimony from Members of
    Congress and outside witnesses. Meeting adjourned.
        [Questions for the record follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND
                                 ORGANIZATIONS

                                  ----------

                                               Tuesday, April 17, 2018.

                        OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

                                    WITNESS

    HON. MARK TAKANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        CALIFORNIA
        Mr. Yoder. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the
    Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. We are in the
    process of working on our 2019 appropriations legislation.
    Having just completed our 2018 work a few weeks ago, we are
    right into 2019, and I have had a number of hearings. This is I
    think our fourth hearing so far of this process, and we will
    have a number of other additional hearings this week. This is a
    very busy couple of weeks for the Appropriations Committee. So
    there will be Members that will have conflicts at other
    hearings. So, of course, they are working somewhere and will
    attend when they are able to.
        We are here this morning to hear testimony from fellow
    Members of Congress as well as outside witnesses that submitted
    testimony relating to items within the jurisdiction of the
    Legislative Branch Subcommittee. This year's response was
    actually significantly higher than last year's, which I am
    pleased to see, and I speculate this is due in part because
    Ranking Member Ryan and I listened closely to the testimony we
    heard last year with an open mind and were actually able to
    move forward on a number of items that were the result of these
    open hearings that we had last year. One of them was making the
    Congressional Research Service reports available to the public
    for the first time, something that I am very proud of that was
    accomplished under this committee's work, as well as I was glad
    that the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which does good
    work, has dedicated funding now to help further expand their
    bandwidth as a result of this hearing we had last year. And I
    look forward to hearing from this year's witnesses and welcome
    all of you here this morning to our hearing.
        Due to the number of witnesses we have here today, there
    will be four panels of outside witnesses. Additionally, we will
    fit in Members of Congress that wish to testify as they arrive.
    In an effort to be respectful of everyone's time and to ensure
    that we hear from all of today's witnesses, I ask those
    testifying to keep their remarks under 5 minutes, as your full
    written testimony will be entered as part of the record.
        I would like at this point to welcome to the committee my
    friend from California, Mr. Takano, who will be testifying
    about the Office of Technology Assessment funding.
        Actually, before that, I want to turn it over to my friend,
    Mr. Ryan, for his opening statement. My apologies.
        Mr. Ryan. I think Mr. Takano's comments are going to be
    more interesting than mine, but thank you. We have got a great
    opportunity today, as we did last year, to hear a lot about
    what is going on and the ideas that are out there, and I look
    forward to it. I appreciate the committee doing this.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Takano, the committee is yours.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I enjoy a great
    relationship with both you and the ranking member; you as the
    bipartisan co-chair of the Congressional Deaf Caucus and with
    Congressman Ryan, the ranking member, as one of the co-chairs
    of the Congressional Maker Caucus.
        Congressman Yoder and Ranking Member Ryan and members of
    this committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify this
    morning, and I am here to express my strong support for
    restoring funding to the Office of Technology Assessment,
    commonly known as the OTA.
        The foundation for good policymaking is accurate and
    objective analysis, and for more than two decades, the OTA set
    that foundation by providing relevant, unbiased, technical, and
    scientific assessments for Members of Congress and staff.
        But, in 1995, the OTA was defunded, stripping Congress of a
    valuable resource to understand emerging technologies as well
    as the nuances of the legislative process. In its absence, the
    need for the OTA has only grown.
        Last week's hearings on Facebook's data security practices
    exemplified the increasingly complex, technical issues that
    this Congress and future Congresses will be responsible for
    addressing.
        Now, if we are going to be effective policymakers in the
    digital age, we must develop a better understanding of the
    technologies that are transforming our daily lives. Existing
    sources of research and information, including the Government
    Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service,
    provide excellent support to Members and staff, but no entity
    has both the capacity and the expertise to provide indepth
    analysis of complex technical issues.
        A relative modest investment in the OTA will not only fill
    a critical void, it will also save us money. In the last year
    that it operated, the OTA's budget was $23 million, but its
    studies on the synthetic fuels corporation saved taxpayers tens
    of billions of dollars.
        Perhaps most importantly, the OTA is an intentionally
    bipartisan organization. Before it was defunded, it was
    governed by a director and a technology assessment board. The
    director was nonvoting, and the board was comprised of six
    Members from the Senate and six Members from the House, split
    evenly between the majority and the minority.
        This bipartisan governance ensures that studies remained
    unbiased and looked into the issues of relevance for both
    parties. Now, members of Congress bring a great deal of
    experience and expertise on a number of issues, but we must
    acknowledge our blind spots. When it comes to the policy
    challenges presented by new technology, we are not seeing all
    of the relevant issues. With that in mind, I urge you to
    support funding for the Office of Technology Assessment.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Takano, thanks for your testimony this
    morning.
        Can you tell the committee how you see the OTA, their
    unique perspective, and what they are capable of doing that you
    don't believe the GAO or CRS is able to do? Why do we need to
    create this additional entity, and what can it do that those
    other entities can't?
        Mr. Takano. Well, no agency has stepped in to fill the void
    since OTA was abruptly defunded in 1995. CRS provides excellent
    support to Members and staff, but they do not complete the same
    type of forward-looking, thorough analysis with prescriptive
    policy suggestions.
        Now, OTA staff were experts in their fields, but they also
    understood Congress and the policymaking process. The National
    Academies are a vital Federal resource, but their studies take
    time and funding, and those studies are targeted to a much
    wider audience. So there is really no entity that really
    specifically is Congress' tool, and it is important to have
    Congress--Congress needs its own advisers that are seen as
    unbiased, that are not industry, that are not from the
    administration, and that specifically understand how Congress
    operates.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. I just want to say thanks for bringing this issue
    up. I think you are right: We did see last week how much this
    body lacks an understanding of technology, social media, the
    business model that a lot of these companies are running. So I
    want to say thanks.
        Is there a particular amount? I didn't see it in here. I
    know you said it was a $23 million request the last year it
    operated.
        Mr. Takano. We are asking for $2.5 million, which is I
    think----
        Mr. Ryan. 2.5?
        Mr. Takano. Which is a modest investment just, again, to
    get the office back underway.
        Let me just say that I want to bring up one other topic.
    You might recall just a couple of years ago this issue of
    encryption and whether Congress should intervene more in terms
    of whether companies like Apple should--we should regulate how
    much they encrypt their phones.
        Who are we going to turn to for some unbiased advice? We
    can't rely on Apple. We can't necessarily rely on the FBI, in
    terms of how they might slant this policy question. That is a
    perfect example of how, for a body of 435 Members, what source
    are we going to turn to for an unbiased evaluation of, say,
    encryption issues.
        So I think it is well past overdue that Congress look at
    funding anew an agency that really has never died; it was just
    defunded. So $2.5 million I think is a modest beginning, but it
    is an important beginning.
        Mr. Ryan. I appreciate that. I think we should get a better
    understanding, Mr. Chairman, of exactly what CRS is doing and
    just kind of understand that better as we evaluate this.
        So I appreciate you bringing it up.
        Mr. Takano. Thanks.
        Mr. Yoder. Thanks for coming to the committee this morning,
    Mr. Takano.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you.

                       TOM LANTOS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

                                   WITNESSES

    HON. RANDY HULTGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        ILLINOIS
    HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
        MASSACHUSETTS
        Mr. Yoder. Gentlemen, welcome back to the committee. I note
    that you were some of our witnesses last year when we had our
    first open hearing and had a number of topics that we worked on
    based on those hearings. One of them was your support and
    advocacy for the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.
        I think we were able to make some progress in our bill. I
    would like to certainly hear how that is going. We will have
    your written remarks in the record. So you are welcome to
    utilize those remarks as much or as little as you like, and we
    extend you whatever courtesies you would like to testify before
    the committee of Mr. Ryan and myself.
        I know you guys are a good duo, so I will let you guys take
    it from here, however you want to proceed.
        So welcome back, Representative Hultgren and Representative
    McGovern, to the committee.
        Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairman Yoder. Thank you, Ranking
    Member Ryan. I appreciate all that you have done for us and
    always so grateful. Co-chairman McGovern just does a great job
    on this, and we really work together well. I thank you for the
    opportunity to be able to be here. I want to start by thanking
    the subcommittee for the report language it issued subsequent
    to reviewing our testimony in this matter last year, as you
    mentioned, Mr. Chairman.
        My request today builds on that favorable decision; that
    is, I ask for inclusion of language in the fiscal year 2019
    Legislative Branch Appropriations bill to provide $230,000 for
    salaries and expenses for professional staff for the Tom Lantos
    Human Rights Commission, an official bipartisan body of the
    House of Representatives.
        As Congress' premier human rights oversight body, the
    Commission is committed to promoting and advocating
    internationally recognized human rights norms. I believe the
    commission continues to fulfill its mission with distinction,
    having conducted more than 15 hearings and almost as many
    briefings during the 115th Congress.
        These hearings and briefings cause foreign governments to
    pay close attention to the concerns of Congress and serve as an
    important platform for civil society to keep Congress apprised
    of human rights conditions around the world.
        Additionally, the Commission develops congressional
    strategies to promote, defend, and advocate internationally
    recognized human rights norms; raises awareness amongst
    Members, their staff, and public regarding human rights
    violations and developments; provides Members and staff with
    expert human rights advice and information; advocates on behalf
    of individuals whose human rights have been violated; and works
    closely with the President, executive branch officials, and
    internationally recognized human rights entities in promoting
    human rights initiatives in Congress.
        In carrying out its broad, global mandate, the Commission
    has done its work and served as bipartisan members through a
    rotating patchwork of temporary fellows and volunteers. What
    has been missing historically, however, is funding for
    professional staff.
        Until this year, no funds have been specifically dedicated
    or allocated to the Commission for this purpose. Our purpose
    today is to seek to ensure that funding is available for fiscal
    year 2019 and, more generally, to regularize the funding stream
    for the Commission.
        Our modest request of $230,000, which I know is supported
    by my colleagues, my good friend and distinguished co-chairman
    of the Commission, Jim McGovern, will allow us as co-chairs to
    hire or maintain dedicated full-time personnel, thus greatly
    increasing the effectiveness and expertise of the Commission,
    as well as amplifying Congress' important voice on human rights
    and foreign policy.
        Thus, I would respectfully suggest adding a new provision
    to the legislative branch appropriations bill to finance
    salaries and expenses for professional staff for the Tom Lantos
    Human Rights Commission in the amount of $230,000 for fiscal
    year 2019. Again, these funds would be administered through the
    House Foreign Affairs Committee in keeping with the
    Commission's establishment resolution.
        I am deeply grateful for this opportunity to speak with you
    today, and I want to thank you so much for your consideration
    of this request and the progress that has already been made on
    this.
        With that, thank you, and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Yoder. Mr. McGovern.
        Mr. McGovern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking
    Member.
        I agree with him. Without repeating everything he just
    said, I mean, we have a modest request for $230,000. We
    appreciate the subcommittee's report language and your
    recognition of the incredible work that the Tom Lantos Human
    Rights Commission does.
        It is a bipartisan commission. I am honored to serve with
    Mr. Hultgren. We have participation by Democrats and
    Republicans, all focused on the issue of promoting human
    rights. We were happy that the House Administration came up
    with some funds for this year out of their reserve. The problem
    is the money has to be used by the end of the year, and we
    don't know whether or not it will continue next year or the
    year after.
        So, as Mr. Hultgren said, we are looking for some certainty
    so we can hire professional staff and we can keep them and we
    can continue our work.
        I think some people might have concerns that funding this
    through Leg Branch could somehow open the floodgates for
    funding requests from House caucuses, but I don't think this
    should be the case because the Commission is not an affinity
    group nor is it a caucus. It does not appear on House
    Administration's list of congressional membership
    organizations. This is because the Commission is established
    under the rules of the House as a unique and independent
    entity. It was created by the 110th Congress pursuant to House
    Resolution 1451 adopted unanimously in September of 2008. Its
    authorization has been renewed by every Congress since, most
    recently in the House rules for the 115th Congress.
        Again, I think everybody recognizes the importance of the
    Commission, but I think what we need is to have some sort of a
    carve-out here so we can operate. As I said, we can't depend on
    the House Administration reserve funds. The House Foreign
    Affairs Committee doesn't want to be the entity to oversee us.
        So, anyway, I want to just conclude by saying we would very
    much appreciate if you could help us with this.
        Mr. Yoder. Gentlemen, I appreciate your testimony today,
    and I certainly think all of us in Congress appreciate your
    work on the Commission. I have heard nothing but positive
    comments and support.
        I think the issue you have highlighted in particular, Mr.
    McGovern, that we wrestle with is whether to create a specific
    line item or whether to have it directed under other entities.
        Mr. McGovern. I hope I gave you enough cover.
        Mr. Yoder. Why is it so critical that the committee give a
    specific line? How will that help you do your work?
        Mr. McGovern. Well, my colleague may have an answer here as
    well, but look, we don't have any certainty. We do a lot of
    work in this Commission. We have some great staff. We need to
    keep them. We can't just run this on a volunteer basis. Quite
    frankly, this is a full-time job.
        Again, we are grateful to House Administration for coming
    up with some money that they found in their reserves, but, you
    know--and it is great we have some money to pay people this
    year, but I can't tell anybody that we will have money to pay
    them next year.
        And so I think, for continuity and for certainty and for us
    to be able to do the work that everybody appreciates, I think a
    separate line item would be helpful.
        Mr. Hultgren. Just quickly for me, again, I am amazed at
    the stuff we have been able to get done without having funding,
    where it really has been by fellows, by volunteers. But I just
    think there is so much more that needs to be done. There has
    never been more challenges to human rights, I think, ever in my
    lifetime than right now. We have some amazing people who are
    dedicated to these issues.
        The reality is too many of these human rights challenges
    aren't done in a year. They might be decades that we are
    working on it. So we need people who are committed to this who
    can plan for their own families and see that this is something
    that brings us together, that is bipartisan, and the challenge
    is taking that step and seeing that this is unique. It doesn't
    open up opportunities for any anyone else. There is nothing
    else, I don't think, like the Tom Lantos Human Rights
    Commission, even in the name. But, again, the history of this
    from the very beginning was bipartisan. So this will allow the
    Commission to continue to be effective, increase effectiveness,
    and then also just have that longevity where I think there are
    entities out there that just kind of I think hope we are just
    going to go away and kind of put up with us raising these
    issues thinking that, well, maybe they won't be the same group
    speaking up next year. We want to make sure that doesn't
    happen, that we are that continued strong voice for those
    people who don't feel like they have got a voice right now.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. I just say thank you. I appreciate the work of
    the Commission. I think you both touched on it. I don't think
    there has ever been a time in the world's history where we have
    had so many challenges with regard to human rights. I think for
    the United States Congress to have a voice in highlighting
    these issues is really, really important. So thank you for
    carrying the mantel on this.
        One question I have, I think we have underutilized the
    Congress--I don't think I am alone in that sentiment--in
    pushing out our values to the world through our travel, through
    our visits to these countries. Is there anything that the
    Commission does with Member travel that helps coordinate trips
    that maybe we are going to go on anyway to give us an
    opportunity to highlight?
        I think that would be a very valuable tool for us to have.
    As we are going out and about in the world--we go to the
    military bases, we go to the conflict zones--is there an
    opportunity for the staff or staffing to help maybe put a finer
    point on our use of our own time and resources to continue to
    highlight this as Members are around and about?
        Mr. Hultgren. I think it is a great point. I do think it
    has happened a little bit, where we have done some of that
    coordination, but I think it can be so much more, just, again.
    With just a really modest request of $230,000, that would help
    us I think to have that broader view of where people are
    traveling to and making sure they have got the information and
    speaking up for people who are imprisoned there for abuses that
    are happening.
        Mr. Ryan. That would mean a lot.
        Mr. Hultgren. Some of that is happening, but usually it is
    the Members who are coming to get that information, rather than
    us being a little bit more proactive of finding where people
    are traveling to and getting them that information.
        Mr. McGovern. We provide Members who are traveling with,
    you know, information on human rights defenders, on the human
    rights situation in countries, suggested people for them to
    visit, suggested topics for them to raise with our embassy and
    with foreign governments. So we do that.
        We don't have--the staff cannot travel anywhere, because
    there is no budget for them to travel. That would be helpful
    because they could accompany some of these delegations, and
    they could be more useful. But we would like to expand that.
    The whole purpose of the Commission is to raise the issue of
    human rights, not just having hearings, but to get people
    information so they can be better advocates.
        We have launched this Prisoners of Conscience Campaign
    where we have actively sought out Members to adopt prisoners of
    conscience so they take their case on and highlight what is
    happening to these individuals. But we would like to do more of
    that.
        Mr. Ryan. Great.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Yoder. Gentlemen, thank you for taking the time to come
    to testify this morning.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                               Tuesday, April 17, 2018.

                           INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY

                                   WITNESSES

    KEL McCLANAHAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS
    MANDY SMITHBERGER, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION
    SAMANTHA FEINSTEIN, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
        Mr. Yoder. Okay. As part of our open hearing effort this
    morning, we are going to take testimony from a number of
    members of the public who have issues they would like to bring
    before Congress and they would like to have this committee
    consider.
        We have broken those witnesses down in four different
    panels, and we will start now with panel number one. So I would
    call forward Kel McClanahan, Mandy Smithberger, and Samantha
    Feinstein.
        Good morning. Welcome to the committee. Thank you for
    taking the time to testify this morning and share your insights
    on the topics that you are bringing forward. We have grouped
    the panels based upon subject area. So I think the first panel
    will be related to intelligence and security. Certainly, the
    floor is yours when you want to testify on topics you bring
    forward.
        I think we are going to begin with Mr. McClanahan. We will
    have your testimony in the record. So to the extent you can
    summarize it, that would be great, as we have a number of folks
    coming to testify this morning. I appreciate your time.
        Mr. McClanahan.
        Mr. McClanahan. Thank you for having me here. I am the
    Executive Director of National Security Counselors. This is a
    nonprofit law firm that deals with, as the name would suggest,
    national security law matters. We tend to represent people like
    intelligence community employees, intelligence community
    contractors, and the like.
        I am here to testify today about something that should be a
    bit of a noncontroversial issue: the idea that GAO should be
    able to investigate the entire executive branch when it is
    asked to.
        The problem is a large segment of the Federal bureaucracy
    is considering itself exempt from GAO purview, and that would
    be the intelligence community. This has been going on for many,
    many years. I have the testimony of previous OMB members--
    sorry, previous GAO officials who have been complaining about
    this for decades.
        In 2001, a high-ranking GAO official announced that they
    had not investigated the CIA since the early sixties because,
    quote, ``We discontinued such work because the CIA was not
    providing us with sufficient access to information to perform
    our mission,'' and that they, quote, ``made a conscience
    decision not further pursue the issue,'' and that they even had
    to resort to subterfuge in order to get any information from
    the CIA, saying: We are most successful at getting access to
    CIA information when we request threat assessments and the CIA
    does not perceive our audits as oversight of its activities.
        That right there is the problem: anything that hints of
    oversight is rebuffed.
        Fast forward a few years later and you have another GAO
    official saying that: We foresee no major change in limits on
    our access without substantial support from Congress, the
    requestor of the vast majority of our work.
        That is why I am here today: to ask you to provide the
    substantial support from Congress that they have been asking
    for.
        So, why is this? It seems that it wouldn't happen. But back
    in 1988, the Office of Legal Counsel at DOJ came out with this
    remarkable opinion that said two really noteworthy things. The
    first was that, because GAO was supposed to investigate
    programs or activities the government carries out under
    existing law, intelligence was exempt from that because it was
    the executive discharged of its constitutional foreign policy
    responsibilities, not its statutory responsibilities;
    therefore, it is not law, and, therefore, GAO cannot do
    anything.
        Then it followed that up and said: Even if GAO could have
    investigated it, it no longer could, because when the
    intelligence oversight committees were created, the Congress
    knowingly intended to strip GAO of authority by giving
    exclusive dominion over intelligence oversight to those two
    committees.
        So what happened then?
        Well, Congress tried to fix this several times but most
    notably in 2010 when the House passed a version of the fiscal
    year 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act that basically said
    that the DNI shall cooperate with GAO. And OMB threatened a
    veto. It cited to the OLC opinion from 1988, and then-Acting
    Comptroller General Gene Dodaro wrote a letter that thoroughly
    refuted this and even said that the IC's resistance has greatly
    impeded GAO's work for the Intelligence Committees and also
    jeopardized some of GAO's work for some other committees of
    jurisdiction, including Armed Services, Appropriations,
    Judiciary, and Foreign Relations, among others.
        But Congress, for its part, gave the executive branch a
    chance to do the right thing. They passed a law that ordered
    the DNI to issue a directive governing GAO access. And the DNI
    issued Intelligence Committee Directive 114 that says the
    intelligence agencies shall only cooperate with GAO on matters
    that don't fall within the purview of the congressional
    intelligence oversight committees, which is basically nothing.
        So, we are right back where we started. And why is this a
    problem?
        A few reasons. Most notably, logistics and expertise. GAO
    is an agency. It has a tremendous number of workers. In 2009, 9
    years ago, 199 GAO staffers had top secret clearances. Ninety-
    six had sensitive compartmented information clearances. In
    2018, when I checked yesterday, there were a total of 35 Senate
    Select Committee on Intelligence staffers and a total of 37
    House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence staffers. So
    more staffers at GAO had SCI clearance than the entire staff of
    both oversight committees. That is just the math.
        GAO has expertise. It was designed to investigate agencies.
    It was designed to audit agencies to look for things that were
    problems: waste, fraud, and abuse, and whatnot. With all due
    respect to even the most brilliant oversight committee, that is
    not comparable experience.
        The main reason that this hasn't gotten anywhere is that,
    in 2001, they told you: We made a conscience decision not to
    further pursue the issue.
        I understand that Mr. Dodaro is coming to testify this
    afternoon. If you were to ask him, how many times has the
    executive branch rebuffed attempts to conduct audits, he would
    probably say none. And the answer and the reason for that is
    because they don't even ask. And that is a problem.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Yoder. Mr. McClanahan, thank you for your testimony.
    That is an issue that has not been raised before this committee
    during my tenure. So it is something that we are certainly
    going to have to study a little further. Certainly, you raise
    something that I think we have not considered in recent years.
    It is interesting that Leon Panetta was one who pursued this
    matter and then, of course, later led the CIA.
        Do you know what sort of budgetary impact this would have
    if the GAO took on this responsibility, was allowed to take on
    this responsibility? Do we have an idea of the scope of work
    they would need to entertain and how many people? I am sure
    they can't just absorb this within their current workload.
        Mr. McClanahan. To my understanding--and I would defer to
    my colleagues who might know more about the inner workings of
    the GAO on this--GAO takes a finite number of investigations.
    How they choose that is their own internal deliberations. This
    isn't asking them to take on new ones; it is just opening up
    the universe of investigations they can take on.
        So, if they can only take on 500 investigations a year,
    they still can only take on 500 investigations a year, but now
    some of this can pertain to the intelligence community.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. It is a very interesting issue, one that I have
    not heard of either. So I appreciate you coming and bringing
    this to our attention.
        I do a lot of work on my Defense Appropriations
    Subcommittee around in this world, and I think, given
    everything that we have experienced going back to 9/11, the war
    in Iraq, we can go back further than that obviously, but in
    modern history, this is a very interesting idea, and I
    appreciate you bringing it to the committee's attention.
        Mr. Yoder. It merits further discussion.
        Mr. Ryan. Yes. Absolutely. Thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. McClanahan.
        Now we are going to move to Ms. Smithberger, the Director
    of the Center for Defense Information.
        Ms. Smithberger. Thank you so much for having me today.
        I just want to associate myself with Mr. McClanahan's
    testimony and just also point out I think as far as the
    workload goes, something to take into consideration, a lot of
    GAO's work, there are other bodies that can do it because it is
    unclassified, but GAO would have a unique opportunity to do
    oversight in this area that I think would be worth your
    consideration.
        Mr. Yoder. I will mark you down as a supporter, as well.
        Ms. Smithberger. Yes. Thank you.
        Thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of Demand
    Progress and the Project on Government Oversight about ways to
    strengthen congressional oversight of our national security
    spending and operations.
        The Church Committee and Pike Committee famously identified
    abuses in the intelligence community. In response, Congress
    implemented a number of important reforms like the
    establishment of the Select Intelligence Committees and
    expanding Congress' access to classified information. Since
    then, at the behest of the executive branch, Congress has
    limited its own access to classified information. At the same
    time, the number of employees and contractors who have security
    clearances has expanded significantly--we have nearly 4 million
    people holding clearances--and spending has also increased. So
    the need for Congress' oversight is more important than ever.
        Congress has not come close to keeping pace to maintain its
    own capacity to conduct oversight. Specifically, we would like
    for the committee to consider allowing each member of the House
    Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Defense
    Appropriations Subcommittee, and the House Armed Services
    Committee, some of the key committees for conducting oversight
    over national security and intelligence operations, to receive
    a TS/SCI clearance. This reform has broad, bipartisan support
    and would strengthen oversight.
        I appreciate that you all are appropriators, and this is
    where money really counts. We believe that the costs are going
    to be relatively marginal, given the importance of the work.
    For instance, most of these offices will already have a staffer
    with a top secret clearance, and the investigation used to
    determine whether they should have received that clearance is
    likely going to be able to be reused for a TS/SCI clearance.
        I think in a number of instances, offices already have
    staff members who have had TS/SCI clearances and it would be a
    matter of, quote/unquote, ``turning it on.'' I know that I had
    a TS/SCI clearance before I came to Congress, but then once I
    came into a personal office, I no longer had it. But that
    investigation was already completed.
        In the worst-case scenario, let's assume that none of these
    offices have anyone with a top secret clearance and that there
    needs to be the investigations conducted. We believe the cost
    would be about $500,000 over 5 years, or $100,000 a year.
        We also appreciate that Congress and the executive branch
    are concerned about expanding access to classified information.
    We think that, again, it is important, though, for Congress to
    be able to effectively conduct oversight for you all to be able
    to look into these matters, but moreover, we would urge the
    committee to support more robust counterintelligence training.
        We think that if staff members understand what happens when
    you mishandle classified information, when you leak classified
    information, particularly the harms to sources and methods,
    that they will treat the seriousness of this information and
    this work in a way that they will safeguard it. I will also
    note that we are much more aware of breaches coming from the
    executive branch than we are from Congress.
        Finally, I would say my group, the Project on Government
    Oversight, rarely argues for spending more money, but in this
    instance, we urge you to invest in fulfilling your
    constitutional duties.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Yoder. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Smithberger.
        You said the Senate does allow the TS/SCI for their staff.
        Ms. Smithberger. Right. They have those designees
    specifically for Senate Intelligence.
        Mr. Yoder. And the House has never done that?
        Ms. Smithberger. Correct.
        Mr. Yoder. Do you know what the reasoning has been, what
    the difference is?
        Ms. Smithberger. I think the House doesn't stand up for its
    own oversight powers like they should, to be honest.
        Mr. Yoder. Now you are playing to the crowd. I see what you
    are doing. It is time to stand up.
        Ms. Smithberger. I think, one, there are reasons why there
    is reluctance to expand access to clearances and this
    information, and I understand that, but I think the Senate has
    demonstrated that this kind of system can be handled
    responsibly. I think it has really resulted in being able to
    have more robust oversight.
        One of the great things about committees is the diversity
    of the points of views of Members. If they have their own
    personal staffer who can pursue issues of interest, I think
    there are a lot of oversight opportunities that are being
    missed. I think there is a lot in IT spending, for example. As
    we were talking about, Cambridge Analytica, propaganda, I think
    a lot of this information is essential for staff to know to be
    able to puncture the propaganda efforts of other foreign
    countries to know what our real interests are and to make
    better policy decisions.
        Mr. Yoder. What concerns should Congress have about adding
    all of these new clearances, though? Wouldn't one of the
    drawbacks be potential for leaks of this information?
        Ms. Smithberger. Oh, that is certainly a concern, but that
    is why I think it is important to have more robust training and
    retraining to make sure that people are properly handling this
    information. We have found that staff are very responsible for
    this information.
        We would also point out that, unlike in the executive
    branch, congressional staffers don't even have any
    whistleblower protections to be able to give this information
    out to others. And so there would be severe consequences for
    anyone who mishandled this information.
        Mr. Yoder. I think we are going to hear some testimony on
    that, as well.
        Mr. McClanahan. I have some information on that, if you
    wish to hear.
        Mr. Yoder. Let's continue on with our testimony. We can
    come back to that if we want additional information.
        Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. I am good.
        Mr. Yoder. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Smithberger.
        Now we are going to move onto Ms. Feinstein with the
    Government Accountability Project. Thank you and welcome to the
    committee.
        Ms. Feinstein. Chairman Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan, thank
    you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
        My name is Samantha Feinstein. I am the international
    legislative and policy analyst at the Government Accountability
    Project, and I respectfully request that the House of
    Representatives establish a whistleblower resource center in
    fiscal year 2019 appropriations.
        Under the False Claims Act, whistleblowers have helped
    return an average of $3 billion to $5 billion a year to the
    United States Government. As such, whistleblowers play a vital
    role in our democracy, but they are often going against a
    bureaucratic giant. As such, they risk everything when they
    make a disclosure, and it takes a great amount of courage to
    come forward. Our hope is that establishing a whistleblower
    resource center would help handle whistleblower claims
    responsibly.
        The Government Accountability Project has helped an average
    of 8,000 whistleblowers over the last 40 years, and 7,000 of
    them have sought our informal advice on how to maximize their
    impact and minimize their pain.
        We know from experience that working with Congress can
    provide a vital lifeline. They are the best allies for
    whistleblowers. For instance, Franz Gayl exposed that the
    Marines for a year and a half during the Iraq war didn't send
    mine-resistant vehicles to Iraq and Afghanistan. They had about
    1,000 of them. After congressional intervention, they sent the
    vehicles to Iraq. Unfortunately, 1,000 lives died needlessly
    while they were sitting on bureaucratic red tape. Once the
    vehicles were deployed or shipped to Iraq, the fatalities went
    down from 60 percent to 5 percent from land mine-related
    accidents.
        Unfortunately, for a whistleblower, going to Congress can
    also be the highest risk for them. One common mistake that
    congressional staffers make--often in good faith while trying
    to help them--is, you know, first reaction, question the
    agency. Sometimes, in questioning the agency, staffers will
    send evidence provided by the whistleblower that can expose
    identifiable information about the whistleblower and open them
    up to vulnerability.
        Another common mistake is limiting the confidentiality to
    identity protection but not figuring out what other identifying
    information about the whistleblower in advance would protect
    them and accidentally exposing that. For instance, in hard-
    hitting questions during testimony, some of that information
    could come about.
        A third common mistake is going to the media and law
    enforcement with evidence. Sometimes they don't have the
    knowledge about the confidentiality of the whistleblower, and
    they can also open the whistleblower up to exposure and danger.
    When this happens, the agency will increase their retaliation
    because they see them as a danger to the agency, and it could
    make things a lot worse for the whistleblower, and this has a
    chilling effect.
        So establishing a whistleblower resource center can help
    with training and providing resources for Congress on how to
    communicate with whistleblowers. These are avoidable mistakes,
    and we think that the center will help address that problem.
        Another goal of the center is to facilitate communications
    between whistleblowers and the appropriate congressional
    offices and committees for their matter, based on the subject
    of their claim. The whistleblower resource center wouldn't
    necessarily investigate the claim. That would fall within the
    offices and the committees to do that, but they would be a
    resource for them.
        Moreover, in conclusion, whistleblowers are extremely
    important to our democracy, and this would provide a safe
    channel for them and a secure way of submitting evidence. If
    there is a secure mechanism for providing information to
    Congress to the resource center, we think this could provide
    the vital lifeline for communications between whistleblowers
    and Congress.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Yoder. So the way I understand your proposal, this
    entity would not do the investigation; it would just provide
    resources for potential whistleblowers to understand the
    process, their rights, how to direct their complaint so that it
    doesn't get lost. Is that sort of how you envision this?
        Ms. Feinstein. That is exactly correct: so that it doesn't
    get lost and/or mishandled.
        Mr. Yoder. Mishandled. I know we have some resources in the
    Office of Government Reform Committee's Blow the Whistle
    service. How would this differ from that?
        Ms. Feinstein. Well, the resource center would provide a
    secure mechanism for communicating, which I think is really
    important, and we recommend that the whistleblower resource
    center be established as an independent apolitical entity so
    that there is no risk or interference for--or, at least to
    mitigate the risk for interference from politics.
        Mr. Yoder. So we keep both entities or would your entity
    sort of remove the OGR Blow the Whistle service out into its
    own separate entity?
        Ms. Feinstein. I don't think it should duplicate existing
    efforts or replace existing efforts.
        Mr. Yoder. I think independence is part of your proposal,
    the value of your proposal.
        Ms. Feinstein. Exactly. Independence, security, provision
    of resources, facilitating communications. But I think it could
    work with other entities that support whistleblowers. The
    Office of Congressional Oversight is another one that provides
    education and training. I think it is important not to
    duplicate existing efforts.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. First, I want to say thank you. You are doing
    amazing work. I think one of the things we rely on in Congress
    in this country that we have kind of gotten away from is the
    citizenship aspect of how this whole country needs to go down.
    I just want to say thank you to each of you who probably live
    and breathe this work every day. It is very meaningful to you,
    and it is very meaningful to us. I just want you to know we
    appreciate you taking the time out of schedules, as busy as you
    are, to come here and continue to advocate for this. So thank
    you.
        A question on the whistleblower thing. Is this something we
    could roll into the Office of Compliance? Have you thought
    about that? Obviously, that office has gotten a lot of
    attention over the last 6 months to a year. Is this something
    that would fit in there? I know you mentioned it being
    independent. If you could just share your thoughts on that.
        Ms. Feinstein. That is exactly our line of thinking. I
    think the independence aspect of this is going to be just the
    thing to get the risk for whistleblowers to be way down from
    what it is now, but I also think it is incredibly important to
    work with the Office of Congressional Oversight. They do really
    great work as well, so I think it would complement what they
    do. There is always the possibility to consider modifying the
    idea. That is not our recommendation.
        Mr. Ryan. When you say ``whistleblower,'' what do you mean
    by that? We all have different versions of what that may mean.
    What are the issues that you think would be relevant in this
    office? You open it up. We staff it up. What kind of issues are
    we going to hear about that you think aren't being heard about
    right now?
        Ms. Feinstein. That is a great question.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you. I didn't even get my staff to write
    that one for me. I did that all on my own.
        Ms. Feinstein. Awesome. That is a terrific question.
    Whistleblowers expose waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.
    They come from various industries, from farming to agriculture
    to health to the intelligence community, national security.
        I think that there needs to be a resource center that can
    direct various types of disclosures and various types of
    protected speech that falls within the general framework of
    waste, fraud, and abuse.
        Mr. Ryan. Do you see this coming mostly from committee
    staff, with regard to Capitol Hill, or personal staff? The
    whistleblower. I am just thinking of the detailed knowledge of
    programming. A lot of that, in my mind, would come out of a lot
    of our committee staff.
        Ms. Feinstein. Exactly. So what I envision the
    whistleblower resource center doing is providing the list of
    all of the appropriate committees that they may contact and the
    appropriate offices. Because if the office has the right
    jurisdiction and the right amount of leverage, they can make
    more of a difference than just acting on their legal rights
    alone.
        So they wouldn't necessarily stipulate which committee they
    must contact or which office they must contact. There are
    certain committees that are dedicated to protecting
    whistleblower rights. So that is a natural first ally for
    whistleblowers for navigating the process.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
        Ms. Feinstein. Thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay. Ms. Feinstein, I appreciate your testimony
    today. Ms. Smithberger and Mr. McClanahan, thank you. I know
    Mr. Ryan and I and the Congress have benefited by your time
    today and your testimony. I know we will be looking very
    closely at these proposals, and hopefully we can move forward
    on some of these things.
        Thank you for being here. I appreciate it.
                                  ----------                              --
    --------

                                               Tuesday, April 17, 2018.

                              LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                                   WITNESSES

    JOHN PARE, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
    GREG LAMBERT, PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES
    KEVIN KOSAR, VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY, R STREET INSTITUTE
        Mr. Yoder. We will call forward the second panel, which
    will be dealing with topics on the Library of Congress. I call
    forward John Pare, Greg Lambert, and Kevin Kosar.
        Gentlemen, welcome to the committee. Thank you for taking
    the time to testify today. I will note that your testimony will
    be placed in the record. So, to the extent that you can
    summarize your comments, we look forward to hearing your
    thoughts and having a little dialogue and moving forward.
        With that, I will start with John Pare with the National
    Federation of the Blind.
        Mr. Pare. Thank you.
        Chairman Yoder and Ranking Member Ryan, thank you very much
    for this opportunity to testify today before the committee. As
    you heard, my name is John Pare. I am the executive director
    for advocacy and policy at the National Federation of the
    Blind. I am here today to testify on behalf of the NFB. The
    National Federation of the Blind is the largest organization of
    blind people in the United States. We have over 50,000 members,
    with affiliates in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and
    Puerto Rico.
        I want to thank the committee for your terrific support of
    the National Library Service for the blind and physically
    handicapped. NLS serves 450,000 patrons, has 85,000 audio books
    and 62,000 hardcopy braille books.
        NLS was the first service that I began using when I started
    losing my eyesight 25 years ago, and I still use it to this
    very day. The most recent book that I have read on NLS is ``Hue
    1968'' by Mark Bowden, a book about the Vietnam war and the TET
    offensive, and I highly recommend it.
        When one begins to lose his or her eyesight, we can feel
    isolated, uninformed, and disconnected from everyday society.
    NLS allows blind people to obtain the information we need in an
    accessible format. On behalf of all blind Americans, I want to
    thank you for this educational, informative, and entertaining
    service.
        Next, I want to comment on the importance of refreshable
    braille displays, also known as E-readers. Braille is essential
    for literacy, and refreshable braille displays make braille
    more efficient, practicable, and compact.
        A 2016 GAO report entitled ``Library Services for Those
    with Disabilities'' ' said that NLS could save up to $10
    million per year by moving primarily to electronic braille
    distribution and servicing hardcopy braille requests on an on-
    demand basis. This means that we could better serve our
    patrons--or NLS could better serve its patrons for less money.
        This transition would require a one-time additional
    appropriation of approximately $5 million so that NLS could buy
    the initial inventory of refreshable braille displays. We urge
    you to support this request when NLS makes it, which we expect
    to be in fiscal 2020.
        The National Federation of the Blind strongly supports the
    relocation of the National Library Service to a more prominent
    location near the Library of Congress. Such a location would
    promote the collaboration between NLS and other government
    agencies, would allow blind patrons to visit the NLS using mass
    transit, and would help educate the general public about the
    true capabilities of blind people.
        I want to thank the committee for including funding for an
    audible newspaper service. Obtaining time-sensitive information
    in an accessible format is especially difficult, and NLS does
    an excellent job in this area.
        Increased literacy is a stepping stone to education, which
    is the foundation of employment, which in turn is critical for
    the all blind Americans to achieve their full potential.
        The NLS has been an important factor in my life, as well as
    the lives of tens of thousands of blind Americans. I want to
    thank you for your terrific support of this important library
    service.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Pare, thank you for your testimony today. I
    think you will find this committee is very supportive of the
    programs that you are supporting and testifying about today. I
    for one have the School for the Blind in my district in Kansas
    and have seen firsthand the value of the E-reader technology
    and the need for resources to support these programs that local
    communities don't have the ability to do, so I know this is a
    Federal question.
        We did include report language in our 2017 omnibus bill
    that supported the E-reader program, and we have directed the
    NLS to conduct a pilot program with the goal of identifying
    which E-reader technology to invest in specifically. Results of
    the program are yet to be shared with the committee. Do you
    have insight into that pilot program or a recommendation on
    which type of E-reader NLS should purchase?
        Mr. Pare. We thought your recommendation was good, the
    report language was good, and that NLS should continue its
    study. We know it is doing a good job.
        Mr. Yoder. You are looking forward to those results, as
    well.
        Mr. Pare. Yes, yes.
        Mr. Yoder. Great.
        Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. I just want to say thank you for coming here,
    carrying the flag. We appreciate all you do. I think the
    chairman and I both feel rewarded to support this program and
    support the blind folks in our community and giving them
    opportunity. That is really what this is about: it is about
    opportunity to live a fulfilling life and grow and educate
    yourself. I think you are a great representative of what we are
    trying to do. So thank you for being here.
        Mr. Pare. Thank you.
        Mr. Ryan. We will continue to support you the best we can.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. I concur with the ranking member's remarks. As
    we work on our 2019 appropriations allocation, certainly your
    comments will be valuable to us in the process.
        Thank you, sir.
        Next, we are going to turn to Greg Lambert, president of
    the American Association of Law Libraries.
        Mr. Lambert. Chairman Yoder and Ranking Member Ryan, thank
    you for the opportunity to testify in support of the
    legislative branch appropriations for fiscal year 2019.
        In my time today, I would you like to focus on the
    necessity of adequate funding for the Government Publishing
    Office, or GPO, and the Library of Congress.
        First, the funding for the GPO.
        The GPO produces, authenticates, disseminate, and preserves
    government information in multiple formats from all three
    branches of the government. These are complex and demanding
    responsibilities that are essential to the information
    lifecycle and help promote government transparency.
        GPO administers the Federal Depository Library Program, or
    the FDLP, under its public information program account.
    Approximately 200 law libraries participate in the FDLP,
    including academic, State, court, county, and government law
    libraries.
        Law libraries rely on the GPO for distribution of specific
    tangible materials, especially core titles in print, as well as
    to official authentic material online through the GPO's govinfo
    website.
        On March 15, the bipartisan FDLP Modernization Act of 2018,
    H.R. 5305, was introduced in the House with the support of the
    American Association of Law Libraries, the American Library
    Association, and the Association of Research Libraries.
        The bill will update the FDLP for the digital age. It will
    strengthen the Superintendent of Documents' responsibility to
    authenticate and preserve government information and improve
    oversight and increase transparency by adding reporting
    requirements.
        Grantmaking authority for the GPO was not included in the
    final FDLP Modernization Act, as introduced. However, we are
    pleased to request that the subcommittee direct GPO to continue
    to study the creation of a grantmaking program to support the
    services of Federal depository libraries in providing permanent
    public access to public information.
        Next, I would like to address the Library of Congress.
        As the largest library in the world, the Library of
    Congress provides leadership on many critical issues, including
    digitization and preservation, access to legal and scholarly
    information and copyright. The Library's fiscal year 2019
    request includes $1.8 million to strengthen the capacity of the
    Law Library of Congress.
        The Law Library is the world leader in providing access to
    reliable legal materials in print and electronic formats, and
    it must have adequate funding to meet the needs of Congress,
    the Supreme Court, and other court judges, attorneys, and the
    public.
        The Law Librarian must also be able to function with some
    autonomy within the Library of Congress, as she is the leader
    of the de facto National Law Library.
        It is critical that the Law Library be adequately staffed
    with experts who have appropriate foreign, legal, and language
    knowledge to answer complex legal questions and to meet
    increasing demand for foreign language and foreign law
    initiatives, including the maintenance and preservation of
    materials.
        We strongly support the Law Library's digitization
    strategy, which will provide access to public domain U.S. legal
    and legislative materials and unique foreign law materials not
    subject to copyright restrictions and not otherwise available
    free of charge.
        Finally, I would like to address a couple of other funding
    requests. Now that access to the CRS reports is law, we ask the
    subcommittee to consider other priorities that would enable
    legislative branch agencies to provide greater access to
    government information.
        One way to do this is by ensuring access to reports that
    are mandated by Congress but not publicly available in any
    systematic, comprehensive way. The Access to Congressionally
    Mandated Reports Act, or the ACMRA, H.R. 4631, would direct GPO
    to maintain a central repository for agency reports submitted
    to Congress. We are pleased that the Committee on House
    Administration reported the bill on April 12 and are hopeful
    that it will pass the House.
        We also urge the subcommittee to formally establish the
    Congressional Bulk Data Task Force on a permanent basis. The
    task force has been successful bringing various players within
    the government together to improve access to legal information
    and modernize legislative data.
        In conclusion, thank you for the opportunity to testify to
    the subcommittee on behalf of the GPO and the Library of
    Congress. We urge you to approve as close to full funding as
    possible for these agencies, and I will be happy to answer any
    questions you have.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Lambert, thank you for your testimony today.
    As someone who has spent a fair amount of time in his life in
    law libraries, anything you can do to make things easier to
    find would be welcome.
        But I think you will find that this committee has been very
    supportive of creating additional access and transparency for
    the public to find the resources the government produces.
        And I don't think you make a good point when sort of
    discussing we can, you know, make these reports public, we can
    have them there, but if they are not easily findable, it can be
    very confusing, I think, to members of the public to even know
    what is out there, much less be able to find what is out there.
        Mr. Lambert. Correct. And that is our--one of our goals is
    to make sure that, yes, it is great that the reports are there,
    but if you can't find it, they might as well not be there in
    the first place.
        Mr. Yoder. Well said.
        Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. I concur with my colleague. I too have
    posttraumatic stress from my legal education and just want to
    say thanks. We appreciate you coming and bringing us this
    information. It is obviously very important as the economy gets
    globalized, and we need to continue to engage in a robust way,
    and I think you are giving us an opportunity to do that. And,
    again, we have a lot of challenges here, but this is a very
    important issue brought. So thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. Great. Thanks for your testimony.
        Now we are going to move to our third member of this panel,
    Kevin Kosar, the VP of policy at the R Street Institute.
    Welcome back to the committee, I believe. Thank you.
        Mr. Kosar. Good morning. Yes. Chairman Yoder, Ranking
    Member Ryan, thank you for having me back. Nice to see you. And
    thank you to your staff, who are terrific.
        So this is the second year in a row that you have done
    this, and this is wonderful. It is remarkable. All of us in the
    room are very thankful that you have taken the time.
        Growing up in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, and taking civics in
    school, this is the way it's supposed to work. You know, the
    public comes and talks to you and you guys deliberate and make
    a decision. But it is remarkable how few committees actually do
    that, literally keep a blank agenda and say: Just come and
    speak on things within our jurisdiction. So, again, thank you.
        Mr. Ryan. A special welcome to the gentleman from Ohio who
    is joining us here----
        Mr. Yoder. Buckeyes are always welcome to this committee.
        Mr. Ryan. I am from the 13th Congressional District of
    Ohio. Thank you.
        Mr. Kosar. I spent 2 good years at Kent State University
    before going to Ohio State, so yeah.
        So a year ago I sat before you and asked you to help
    complete something that began more than 20 years ago,
    equalizing public access to CRS reports. I argued then that it
    was good for the public, as they pay more than $100 million a
    year for CRS but had remarkably little access to its very
    informative reports, while D.C. insiders knew where to get
    them.
        I also suggested that the public would benefit because we
    are in this strange era of, you know, fake news, alternate
    facts, and CRS is the gold standard. I mean, their work is
    absolutely trustworthy. They don't have a finger on the scale.
    They are just doing the best to tell the truth.
        And so having those reports out there to help people
    clarify, you know, the truth from the untruth would be
    valuable. And I also suggested--and I am somebody, as you
    recall, worked at CRS for more than a decade--that you do CRS a
    favor by making the reports publicly accessible.
        It has long been a hassle for staff to have to fend off
    calls and emails from media, academics, random citizens who are
    asking them for copies of reports, and, of course, they have to
    say no, which is not a pleasant thing. So basically you are
    removing the middleman. You are taking CRS employees out of
    that and opening the buffet to the public, and that is
    terrific. That is disintermediation. That is efficient. Twenty
    years of advocacy by folks, many of whom are in the room, and
    you were the ones who got it done. So thank you very much for
    that.
        But now comes the challenge of implementation. The law
    signed March 23 tasks CRS to provide the Library with the
    reports within 90 days, June 21st, and for the Library to
    certify that it had done so. This is a good oversight
    provision.
        My concern is that, in that intervening time between
    passage of the law and the due date, it might be valuable to
    ramp up some additional oversight so that we can assure that we
    don't find ourselves in a situation where it is June 21 and you
    get a report of, oh, there was a technical glitch; there was
    some sort of issue of one sort or another.
        In my testimony, I suggested that you might ask CRS to send
    you a memo, one, two pages per month explicating clearly what
    the progress is towards meeting the goal. We could even do it
    every 2 weeks.
        And in order to help you out with the oversight, if you put
    those things up online on your website, then there is the rest
    of us on the outside who can look through those responses, help
    you process what they are saying in case it slips into kind of
    a bureaucratic gobbledygook of sorts, and, obviously, those of
    us who are on the outside have access to the media.
        And, you know, my hope is that the agency will willfully
    and promptly comply with the rule of the law, but you can never
    assume. It is like Reagan said, trust but verify, and we would
    be happy to help you with ensuring that happens.
        So the second topic I wanted to just put on your radar
    because ultimately it does involve spending approved by you
    all, is the state of management at the agency, employee
    happiness at the agency. I talk a lot with people who still
    work at the agency. And, again, I spent 11 years there. By all
    accounts, things aren't going so great. A few years ago, CRS
    commissioned a survey of its employees for the first time, and
    the results were not good. I don't know if you all were given
    the full initial survey results or if you were given the kind
    of selected results that were shared with staff, but you might
    find those results interesting and a little surprising.
        Symptomatic of kind of the situation over there--you know,
    I hear lots of anecdotes about things not going so well--is a
    couple months back one of CRS' attorneys boldly drafted a
    letter to the head of the Library of Congress, Carla Hayden,
    and to the head of the CRS, Dr. Mazanec, and said the
    environment here is not good for doing our job.
        Our job is to tell Congress the truth and the facts as best
    we can discern them. And there was this sense that there was a
    pressure to kind of not call balls and strike but to kind of
    say: Maybe it is a ball. Maybe it is a strike. You decide in
    Congress.
        That really--that sort of situation undermines the agency's
    value to you all. You need them to tell the truth, share the
    facts even when the facts are inconvenient or upsetting. But
    folks over there, many don't feel like they can do that.
        And related to this, I have seen that the agency is
    hemorrhaging talent. When I last checked 2 weeks ago, there
    were 14 open job positions where they were calling for
    applications, and that doesn't count other ones that they
    haven't listed yet or ones where the application process has
    just closed.
        In recent years, I mean, the departures have been
    significant and the former Deputy Director, the number two of
    the agency, left; long-term head of finance departed; the
    leader of the Government Finance Division, who oversaw 80
    analysts, after about 4, 5 years left; head of the Human
    Resources Unit left; so have various analysts and attorneys.
        And these are not folks who are just kind of happily going
    off into retirement to go fishing. No, these are people often
    mid-career, even earlier in their career, who have just kind of
    had enough and left.
        The turnover at CRS and the loss of good employees is bad
    for the agency. It is bad for Congress, and it is expensive. It
    costs a lot to on-board and train a new employee. That people
    are choosing to leave a job where basically, after 1 year, you
    have tenure for life, and if you are an analyst, you can go all
    the way up to GS-15 and earn $160,000-plus a year with hardly
    any chance of being fired, that people would leave that sort of
    job is extraordinary, and it is symptomatic.
        I don't know if CRS' Oversight Committee, the House
    Committee on Administration, is examining these issues.
    Regardless, I think you all might want to take a look, maybe
    consult with the head of CREA, CRS' employee association, maybe
    talk with some of the folks who have left the agency. No doubt
    you could get a full list of who is left and who hasn't left.
        And you might also want to take a look at the retention
    rate data. In the previous 2 years, fiscal reports, CRS
    reported that the retention rate was slipping. This year, when
    I looked in the fiscal year 2017 report, they didn't list the
    data. I don't know why.
        So thank you for your time, and I would be happy to answer
    any questions you may have today or in the future.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Mr. Yoder. Mr. Kosar, I appreciate your testimony once
    again. And I think one of the great bipartisan achievements of
    this committee was the work to make the CRS reports public last
    year or, I guess, a few weeks ago, last year's budget.
        But we know that was a long time coming, and that success
    had a lot of authors. We were proud to be part of the
    culmination of that work. We want to make sure that it is done
    effectively, so appreciate your thoughts on oversight.
        And, of course, the employees at CRS are very important to
    us. We value their work. We value their independence. We value
    the reliability of the research, and so we will certainly take
    your thoughts about the morale or status of those employees to
    heart because we want to make sure that they are fulfilled in
    their work because they will produce a better work product. So
    thank you for bringing that to our attention.
        Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. Yeah. I have got a question, just a comment. You
    know, I think those of us who have been here for a little
    while, we know that the last few years have been tough for a
    lot of different agencies and departments throughout our
    government with sequestration and all the problems we have had
    here that we have caused. We take responsibility for that.
        And so we have heard similar comments in the military and
    in other agencies, so we hope that recent budget agreement, our
    ability to maybe get some of the work done, can help relieve
    some of this pressure at CRS and, you know, other parts of the
    government.
        One question. So, as I was listening to you kind of make
    the case, I thought that if we want someone to get the job done
    in 90 days, aren't we kind of impeding their ability to do that
    with a detailed account on 30 days, 60 days?
        I mean, I would rather them working towards the goal
    ultimately. So can you explain maybe how maybe that wouldn't be
    a problem and why you think it would not slow down the process
    of trying to get to the 90-day goal?
        Mr. Kosar. Right. I think----
        Mr. Ryan. And the other aspect of that just, so I can throw
    it all out there and then you can comment on it, are you
    talking about details of what the final report would look like?
        Because a lot of that--you know, if it is a 90-day process,
    I am just thinking, if I had to write a paper or do a detailed
    analysis or a book or whatever in 90 days, that I really
    wouldn't fully know what was going to come of it until the last
    few weeks where everything started to come together.
        So would that--would a 30-day report, other than maybe we
    are on track, we are not on track, maybe whatever, but as far
    as like getting into the details of some kind of analysis. Is
    that risky to have an incomplete analysis of sorts going out
    into the public after 30 and 60 days?
        Mr. Kosar. Right. Yeah. What I envisioned basically was,
    you know, a one-page, two-page top status memo, like past 2
    weeks, we met with the Library of Congress, such-and-such
    person at the technology office who gave us the basic
    requirements for the file types for transfer purposes; we
    agreed to, you know, commit to a transfer of the files by such-
    and-such date. Really kind of a status check in like a person
    would do for their boss.
        Mr. Ryan. A little more process.
        Mr. Kosar. Yeah. So it is not sitting there, and, of
    course, if there are any problems they are running into, you
    want to know those now. You don't want to get those right
    before the deadline and find yourself, you know, entering
    summer and autumn and the job is still not done. That is all I
    was looking at.
        Mr. Ryan. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Yoder. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony.
                                  ----------

                                               Tuesday, April 17, 2018.

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ISSUES

                                   WITNESSES

    DANIEL SCHUMAN, DEMAND PROGRESS
    JOSH TAUBERER, CIVIC IMPULSE LLC
    SHEILA KRUMHOLZ, CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS
        Mr. Yoder. We are now going to move on to our third panel
    this morning, and I will call before the committee Daniel
    Schuman, Josh Tauberer, and Sheila Krumholz, who will all be
    testifying related to operations of the House of
    Representatives.
        Welcome to the committee. Welcome back to the committee for
    some. Appreciate your interest in testifying today and look
    forward to hearing your comments. As you know, your written
    comments will be in the record, and so you may summarize those
    for the committee.
        And I will start with Mr. Schuman from Demand Progress.
        Mr. Schuman. Great. Thank you so much for having me back.
        Mr. Yoder. Welcome back.
        Mr. Schuman. Appreciate it.
        So just a couple quick things: One, thank you for CRS. I
    won't say as much about it as Kevin said. But thank you. Thank
    you. This is very exciting.
        I would like to talk about another great congressional
    institution, which is its staff, all the people who are
    smirking maybe as I say that. Very few things can happen in the
    House without its staff, but we don't know a lot about current
    staff in the House of Representatives.
        This wasn't always the case. From 1978 until 2010, the
    House commissioned 17 studies of House staff pay, retention,
    and demographics, looking at sort of how they function and how
    they turned over questions like, is there a pay gap between the
    legislative branch and the executive branch staff? What is the
    composition of staff that work here? What is their educational
    attainment, questions of race and gender? And things like that
    so we could get snapshots sort of over time.
        And when we looked at it, I did sort of a meta-analysis in
    2010 of the data, and, you know, some staff pay had actually
    stagnated over the period of time and a handful of categories
    had done better. But that was at 2010. There haven't been any
    studies, that I am aware of, sort of since that time.
        We do know that from 2010 to present there has been a 12.34
    percent decrease in funding for the House. The Congressional
    Management Foundation has said that the number one reason that
    staff leave is because of pay in a report that came out last
    year.
        The R Street Institute, one of Kevin's colleagues, said
    that, while we have finally equality in terms of there are
    roughly the same numbers of men and women working in the House,
    which is great, but we see that senior positions tend to be
    occupied by men as opposed to women, so there may be a
    promotion question.
        And people who have done a lot of scholarship on this issue
    have suggested that we have sort of overextended our
    congressional staff. And what that means is that lobbyists like
    me and think tanks have become a little bit too sort of able to
    overexert themselves in this process. And that is important for
    staff to be able to find their own facts and not necessarily
    have to rely on outsiders for some of the information that they
    need.
        So my suggestion is it is time for another staff study. It
    has been 8 years. This was valuable. It was not all that
    expensive to do. And let's look at some of the things that we
    looked at before. Let's look at our folks in the legislative
    branch earning the same kind of money for their equivalents in
    the executive branch.
        Let's look at questions around expertise. Do we have the
    same level of expertise in the House, or has it changed? Same
    levels of educational attainments. You were joking before about
    too many lawyers in the room. As an attorney, that is often a
    problem. As an attorney, I can say that as well, and as a CRS
    attorney, it makes things even worse.
        But so, looking at that question. We can also look at a
    couple other things. So some things that we haven't looked at,
    so we used to have reports on diversity. That is useful, but
    let's also look at are the same people getting the same pay for
    the same job, whether it is for men and women or based on race.
    Like that is a useful thing to know whether we are actually
    sort of equalizing those things, or are we not quite there yet?
        And let's not just do sort of snapshots, or where we are
    in--it is 2018, right? Yeah, 2018. But let's also--like how has
    this changed over time? Are we sort of trending in the right
    direction, or are we trending in the wrong direction?
        I would sort of suggest two additional things as well: One
    is we have seen emergence of shared staff. One percent of House
    staff, according to a CHA hearing last week that I attended,
    are shared staff, but they work for 75 percent of the offices.
        We don't know a whole lot about them. Like we don't know
    how--I mean, like how they function, how it works. That is
    something that we should sort of see how it fits into the
    congressional process.
        There is also--I don't have a great--I think this is kind
    of clever, although I suspect that everyone else will just roll
    their eyes. I am calling these folks ghost staff. These are
    staff that work for the House but are paid for by outside
    entities. What this does is this raises questions of conflicts
    of interest. So there are a number of folks that are paid for
    by the executive branch who go and they do a term in the House.
    There is some folks who are paid by for nonprofits or by civil
    society. These are people who have interest in what is
    happening here.
        My research suggests that there are hundreds of these
    folks, but we don't really know. And we should know. If we are
    having congressional functions being shifted to those who are
    not being paid by Congress, we should get our arms around the
    issue and have a sense of who they are and what they are doing
    and sort of what their incentives are and sort of put that in
    the context of how we have changed the way the House itself is
    functioning.
        So I am requesting--you know, this committee has before,
    you know, charged CAO with hiring a contractor to do this
    report. I think it makes sense to do it again. I came up with
    something that I thought was clever. In retrospect, it is not
    as clever, but I am going to say it anyway, which is that these
    staff can provide a factual foundation to address what more
    should be done to support the staff who support you in the work
    that you do.
        So that was only mildly clever, but that underlines the
    point which is that like, I mean, staff are at the heart of
    what happens here. And we need to do all that we can to make
    sure that they continue to make the system work properly.
        So I respectfully request that we take another look at it
    again.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Yoder. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Schuman. Do
    you have an estimate of what the study would cost? What did it
    cost 8 years ago? Do we know?
        Mr. Schuman. So it is not clear. The Senate did a study
    like this 11 years ago, and they appropriated $80,000. The
    underlying details for what the CAO led is not publicly
    available, so I don't know, but I imagine it is probably in
    that ballpark. You could talk to CMF, the Congressional
    Management Foundation, who used to conduct these or--I forgot
    what the name of the other one is who did it more recently, and
    they could probably give you a better estimate. But we are
    probably talking like 100K, which is not nothing, but it is
    also not a ton of money in a leg branch context.
        Mr. Yoder. And does part of that study look at just the
    House or look at comparative to private industry? I mean, do
    they get into sort of--you know, part of it is, is it keeping
    pace with House salaries, but is it also keeping pace with, you
    know, what folks might make outside of their staff work?
        Mr. Schuman. I think that is--so when I tried to do a meta
    study of this in 2010, I tried to do that. So I looked at
    comparison of leg branch, personal office, and committee
    office, versus the executive branch because that is the closest
    comparator. You can look at the job titles. They don't line up
    great, but you can sort of get a sense of how they line up.
        I found about a 20-percent gap. So, you know, if you make
    $80,000 working in the congressional office, you know, you are
    probably a 13 or 14 on the executive branch side, so you are
    probably earning 20K or 30K more. So there was that sort of a
    disparity.
        Private sector is harder to do assessments. What I saw sort
    of paralleled what we saw when there was a study of the
    executive branch, which is that some of the junior staff--so
    folks that wouldn't be personal committee office but oftentimes
    like janitors and folks like that, in government service they
    tend to get paid a little bit more than the private sector, and
    as you go up with experience in credentials, they tend to get
    significantly underpaid. The janitor question doesn't apply, of
    course, in the context of personal and committee office staff
    so that doesn't fit here. But what we are generally seeing is
    that like there is a significant diminution in sort of, you
    know, what is paying in that space.
        It is valuable to look at a private sector. We have found
    that when people leave the Hill, they tend to make
    significantly more money than they would have earned if they
    were congressional staffers. Sometimes they can double or
    triple it.
        Mr. Yoder. And that is not going to change, but I do think
    it is helpful just to sort of look at the entire perspective if
    we were going to study that issue.
        Look, I think I would speak for my colleagues in how much
    we know that we rely on the talent and hard work of staff
    members who work long hours and for probably way less than they
    could make if they left the Hill.
        And we certainly know that experience is part of the reason
    they come to the Hill, but at the same time, it becomes very
    difficult for folks. They have, you know, lots of expenses and
    things aren't getting any cheaper, and maybe the salaries
    aren't keeping up with where they need to be, so I think it is
    helpful to look at that.
        And I think additionally, probably it would be useful to
    look at the benefits themselves. Obviously, the student loan
    payback program is one reason people might stay on the Hill.
    That would be interesting to know how valuable that is, right.
    Is it robust enough? Are there other concerns?
        You know, one of the things this committee is leading on is
    additional child care options, right. There has been a really
    long line for staff members to be able to get affordable child
    care close to their work, so we are roughly tripling or more
    the amount of spaces that are available.
        So there is the salary issue, but there is also the
    benefits, and then there is the amenities, and, you know, for
    most of us, our staff members are like family, you know. We
    couldn't do our jobs without them, and we want to make sure
    that the retention stays, and there are a lot of things that go
    into that.
        Mr. Schuman. Can I add just one thing?
        Mr. Yoder. Yes, please.
        Mr. Schuman. So what you said is exactly right. The only
    thing that I would add is, like, I don't think it is going to
    be possible to match the private sector. But my goal was not to
    match. It is simply, you know, when people hit 30, they no
    longer want to live in a group house, and they no longer--
    right, like those things change.
        And what we see, based on the data from the past, is that
    staff tend to be very young, and they tend not to stay here
    that long. I don't think that we can match it. But I think that
    we can provide people enough of a quality of life so that
    they--if they want to stay here, that they have that option.
        Mr. Yoder. Well, there are a number of staff members that
    are only here because their parents have to subsidize their
    lifestyle, and, you know, they wouldn't be able to pay rent and
    live on the salaries they get.
        And what that means is that Hill jobs aren't open to every
    American citizen who doesn't have that support, right. We want
    to make sure that the kid who is on student loans who doesn't
    have any support also has the chance to come to the Hill and
    maybe someday have the dream of not living in a group home,
    right. Let's aspire to greatness here.
        Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
        I appreciate your testimony, as a former staffer and a
    current member of a group home here in Washington, D.C. I
    aspire too. Yeah, I aspire too. My wife comes to D.C. and will
    not stay in my apartment. Let's just put it to you that way.
        No, in all seriousness, thank you for raising this. I think
    it speaks to a broader--I don't have any questions, but I think
    it speaks to a broader issue that we have. And there has been a
    level of disrespect in the country for people who participate
    in the government, who work for government, and are looked upon
    as somehow, you know, not capable.
        And I think we see every single day on this committee just
    how capable members of the legislative branch are and how many
    different agencies that we rely on with vast amounts of
    technical expertise, from IT to the research that we just had
    in the previous panel.
        And I think we all can probably do a better job of saying
    this is a noble calling to come here and serve. We rely so much
    on the staff for our committees, our personal staff, to the
    point where we are dealing with very complex issues that we
    rely on them and we start functioning really as a team in our
    own offices.
        So you coming here and kind of validating the work that
    everyone is doing and advocating for increased pay and benefits
    and all of these things, I think, is appropriate. And those of
    us in the office, it is easy to dismiss and say, you know,
    nobody is worth it and the government stinks and all this other
    stuff. But the reality of it is it is very important to have
    experts in these jobs and continue to try to learn and grow in
    that tenure.
        I use the example all the time, I represent a district not
    far from the Cleveland Clinic, and I certainly don't want a
    heart surgeon operating on my mother who hasn't been around for
    a long time and over the process probably made some mistakes,
    but that is how you learn and grow. And I think we can bring
    back some kind of appreciation.
        So I don't mean to go on a rant, but I just think that it
    is an issue that I get frustrated with a lot, so thank you for
    being here to advocate for this. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Schuman. Thank you so much for having me.
        Hubert Humphrey said a long time ago that your public
    servants serve you right, and I think that that is something
    that is often unrecognized. And I appreciate your thoughtful
    remarks and thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Schuman.
        Now we are going to move to Mr. Tauberer with Civic Impulse
    LLC.
        Welcome back to the committee.
        Mr. Tauberer. Thank you.
        Chairman Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan, other members of the
    subcommittee--thank you, Daniel, for turning on my mike--thank
    you for the opportunity to testify today.
        This year, I am here on behalf of the Congressional Data
    Coalition, which is made up of public interest groups, trade
    associations, businesses, and citizens that use congressional
    information, from the text of legislation to staff salaries.
        My organization, which is a member of the Congressional
    Data Coalition, runs the website GovTrack.us, wherein the last
    9 years--wherein the last year, 9 million Americans came to
    research and track Federal legislation for free. And we serve
    journalists, legislative affairs professionals, including staff
    here on the Hill, advocates, students, educators, and so on.
        To members of the Congressional Data Coalition and my
    organization's users, this hearing is among the most important
    of the fiscal year. Congress' efforts to publish its
    proceedings accurately, comprehensively, and comprehensibly is
    an indispensable function of our government.
        But congressional information doesn't become public on its
    own. In recent years, the subcommittee has favorably reported
    appropriations legislation that, once enacted, has dramatically
    improved access to information about the work of the House, so
    thank you for that.
        Some examples include the establishment of and the support
    of the House Bulk Data Task Force's Legislative Bulk Data
    Program at the Government Publishing Office and the Library of
    Congress, and most recently, of course, access to Congressional
    Research Service reports. Thank you for those efforts.
        And we now rely on many of those resources that you have
    supported and helped create and has had a tangible impact on
    improving civics education and public engagement with Congress.
        So I am going to talk at a much lower level than some of
    the other folks that are here. There are three more incremental
    steps that I am going to offer that would continue the momentum
    on building the information needs of the institution and for
    the public.
        The first is publishing a committee calendar on
    Congress.gov. Congress.gov is a website administered by the
    Library of Congress with support from the Government Publishing
    Office and is visited by nearly a million people each month.
        It provides a valuable resource to the public about
    legislation. But the website doesn't provide an integrated
    calendar about hearings and markups taking place each week in
    both Chambers. And as a result, congressional offices currently
    pay third parties for a service to provide the information.
        So we know it is possible and not costly to combine all of
    the committee information into a user-friendly calendar on
    Congress.gov because we have done that as a prototype on our
    own organization's website GovTrack.us.
        The second incremental step that I am going to offer is
    publishing the Bio Guide website as data. So the Biographical
    Directory of the United States Congress, also known as the Bio
    Guide, is maintained by the Office of the Clerk's Office of
    History and Preservation and the Office of the Historian in the
    United States Senate. It is an excellent source of information
    about current and former Members of Congress. But at this time,
    the format that the information is published in is not amenable
    to analysis and reuse. So, if I wanted to use that in my own
    organization's projects, it is hard to do that.
        The Bio Guide information should be published in what we
    call a structured data format, which could just be a
    spreadsheet, or more technically XML, and using what we call a
    change log, which indicates what information has been changed.
        Finally, improving disclosure around committee witnesses.
    Before appearing before you today, House Rules required that I
    disclosed recent grants and contracts from the Federal or
    foreign governments, and I actually listed some, which the
    committee then discloses to the public.
        In implementing this requirement, congressional committees
    are using PDF forms that witnesses often handwrite their
    information onto which undermines the purpose of the rule,
    which is the useful disclosure of information about witnesses.
        We recommend instead that the information should be
    gathered by a House-wide web forum, a website, that would
    ensure the information is typed in, publishable in an online
    and searchable database, and downloadable, sortable by witness
    by the organization they represent and any contracts and grants
    that they have received.
        Lastly, I want to just echo a theme that we have heard from
    many of the witnesses today. So we urge the legislative branch
    to continue cultivating its in-house technology talents. The
    fundamentals are already in place.
        The Clerk's website, docs.house.gov; the Library of
    Congress's website, Congress.gov; GPO's govinfo.gov, these are
    all evidence that in-house talent here in the House and
    legislative branch can produce effective and cost-effective
    solutions for the Congress' public information needs, so
    whether that be supporting them--and I echo Mr. Takano's
    remarks about the Office of Technology Assessment and Mr.
    Schuman's and Kosar's remarks about supporting staff in the
    Library of Congress. The talent is here in many cases, and I
    urge you to support it. Thank you for the time.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. Thank you for your testimony today. And I think
    you have raised a number of what appear to be very useful but
    simple solutions to a frustration that members of the public
    may have with accessing government data.
        And so I actually am very thankful that you are bringing
    this to us because these are things that necessarily we would
    never see as Members because we may not be accessing this
    information that way. So it is critical that members of the
    public bring these issues to us.
        You know, working in reverse order, the committee House
    disclosures and the biographical data seem to be just making
    those more user-friendly and efficient, and it doesn't seem to
    be some sort of cultural change that should cause much angst
    for anyone.
        The committee calendar seems very helpful to members of the
    public. What I don't know enough about is how information
    related to committee hearings would migrate to it, and I don't
    know if you have any suggestions as to how that would actually
    work.
        Mr. Tauberer. So, over the last decade, there has been a
    lot of progress here in the House and the House Administration
    Committee on centralizing House committees. So there is a new
    website, docs.house.gov--it is not new anymore--but that
    collects House side information. The Senate has begun
    publishing--it has been a long--this has been decades, right,
    so, to me, it seems like it is recent, but it is not. The
    Senate publishes committee information in a data format called
    XML. It is all online for anyone to reuse, and so, in
    principle, the Library could also just gather the information
    that the House and the Senate have been publishing and
    centralize it.
        That is, you know, a basic thing that they could do. They
    could go beyond that and work with the House and the Senate on
    making sure that the data flows smoother and better, but
    already the pieces are in place to do it.
        Mr. Yoder. Ultimately, that would fall upon the members of
    the staff on the subcommittees and committees. For example, if
    we were to schedule a hearing this afternoon or change a
    hearing, there is not going to be someone from the----
        Mr. Tauberer. Right. So your staff is probably already
    doing it.
        Mr. Yoder. Right. But it is not migrating to one central
    spot. Is that your point?
        Mr. Tauberer. Correct.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay.
        Schuman.
        Mr. Schuman. So docs.house.gov is the official place for
    committees to provide notice of all their hearings and markups.
    So everybody in the House already is required to put their
    notices and information on docs.house.gov. So there would be no
    additional requirement that would be placed on staff at all. It
    is already in a structured data. All the Library would need to
    do is to take the data and basically copy----
        Mr. Yoder. Create a calendar of it.
        Mr. Schuman. Yeah.
        Mr. Yoder. As opposed to having to go to each link to find
    out if there is a hearing today, it would all be listed in one
    spot?
        Mr. Schuman. Right.
        Mr. Yoder. So you would say, ``What are the hearings today
    in Congress,'' and, boom, you could just find them all.
        Mr. Schuman. Totally right. The House already has it for
    the House. The Senate already has it for the Senate. But there
    isn't one place that takes from the House and Senate and
    smushes it together.
        Mr. Yoder. Seems relatively simple.
        Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. I would just say that for those of us that sit on
    multiple committees, I can save you a lot of trouble: They all
    happen at the exact same time, okay. Solved your problem right
    now.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Newhouse, any comments?
        Mr. Newhouse. Well, I would just agree with Mr. Ryan's
    comment. That is why I am late.
        Mr. Yoder. All right. Thank you for your testimony today.
        Okay. Now we are going to move onto Ms. Krumholz with the
    Center for Responsive Politics.
        Welcome to the committee.
        Ms. Krumholz. Thank you, Chairman Yoder and Ranking Member
    Ryan, committee members. I lead the Center for Responsive
    Politics. We track money and politics at the Federal level. We
    are an organization founded by Democrat Frank--former Senators
    Democrat Frank Church and Republican Hugh Scott 35 years ago
    this year.
        My testimony today focuses on lobbying data, which we also
    gather and present on our website OpenSecrets.org. The Offices
    of the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate serves as
    repositories for more than 20 years of data detailing the
    lobbying activities of thousands of organizations required to
    file under rules set forth by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of
    1995 and the House Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of
    2007.
        These reports serve as the basis for important public
    resources that allow investigations by academics, journalists,
    and Congress itself that contribute to the integrity of
    policymaking processes.
        Annually, these reports list about 11,000 individual
    lobbyists. We, and others, rely on this data both to populate
    OpenSecrets.org, our website, which is a free public resource,
    as well as to provide custom research assistance to
    journalists, academics, and scholars, or advocates.
        But our core mission is to inform and engage citizens, more
    than 600,000 of whom visited our site last month and, in the
    prior month, more than a million visitors. So the public
    interest in this kind of information and substantial, and that
    is especially true of information about lobbying.
        Unfortunately, the quality of information on Federal
    lobbying is undermined by the lack of a key ingredient: a
    publicly available, unique identifier to connect all of the
    name variations for each individual lobbyist. In fact, our
    research finds that over the last 20 years, an average of 12
    percent of names reported annually are extraneous variations
    due to typos, nicknames, and name changes.
        So CRP researchers invest a lot of work to normalize
    lobbyist names, to improve data accuracy, and to facilitate
    tracking their employment history and political campaign
    contributions. We reconcile the different versions as well as
    verify that individuals with similar or common names are, in
    fact, different people.
        Changes to a lobbyist's legal name based on changed marital
    status are common and present further challenges. Our
    researchers put a lot of effort into creating and maintaining a
    version of lobbyist IDs through algorithmic matching as well as
    human review.
        Following each quarterly filing deadline, we spend a full
    day reconciling all the name variations and changes in
    associated registrants, delaying the release of an improved
    data set, all of which would be unnecessary if information
    already collected were converted into a publicly accessible
    identifier.
        Based on official filing manuals, the Clerk of the House
    and Secretary of the Senate assign a unique identifier to each
    lobbyist during the filing process that is used internally to
    track each person across time and across reports, including
    registrations and quarterly activity reports for multiple
    lobbying firms.
        However, the downloadable data released to the public does
    not include these IDs. The Honest Leadership and Open
    Government Act's revolving door provisions make clear that
    Congress sees tracking registered lobbyist employment across
    government and the private sector as essential to monitor for
    conflicts of interest, which it is.
        The Government Accountability Office undertakes an annual
    review of LDA compliance and recently found that 15 percent of
    filed reports failed to disclose previous government employment
    as required.
        The ability to easily and accurately identify individuals
    through their lobbying careers is critical to research and
    oversight by the press and civil society to fill that gap.
        Furthermore, the lobbyists themselves want the information
    about their activities to be accurate based on the calls we
    receive from them whenever they are misidentified.
        We are not requesting changes to the form that lobbyists
    use to submit their reports. Again, all lobbyists use the
    unique ID to sign into the online system to submit their
    reports. It is available only to them and internally at the
    Offices of the Clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate.
        We believe it is possible to generate from those private
    IDs a public-facing unique ID that can be released in XML data
    files. If the addition of such identifiers is not possible at
    this time, we request that a study is undertaken to determine
    the feasibility of doing so in the future.
        I appreciate the opportunity to speak today, your work in
    support of transparency, and for considering the small but
    important change that will advance transparency and the
    accuracy of information on Federal lobbying. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Yoder. Ms. Krumholz, thank you for your testimony,
    another interesting idea to create greater transparency, and we
    may have to nickname this committee the Legislative Branch
    Committee on Transparency here pretty soon. We have got a lot
    of good ideas.
        So just so I understand your proposal: Essentially when a
    lobbyist would register--when an individual would register as a
    lobbyist, they would be given a unique identification number.
    So they would basically have their lobbyist ID number, and then
    that would be connected with them for all future filings, name
    changes, variations of names, et cetera. They would be
    lobbyist, you know, badge number et cetera?
        Ms. Krumholz. They already have an internal badge number,
    internal unique ID that is private so that they can log in and
    file their reports, but this would create a mirrored public-
    facing ID based--generated from that--that need not be secret.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay. All right.
        Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
        Just appreciate everybody's testimony. And I think the
    chairman and I have--I think, are very committed to the issue
    of transparency, as you have seen with CRS and all of these
    other things. So we appreciate you coming here and continuing
    to give us opportunities to do that. So thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. Great. Thank you for your testimony.
                                  ----------

                                               Tuesday, April 17, 2018.

                        TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION ISSUES

                                   WITNESSES

    ZACH GRAVES, DIRECTOR OF TECHNOLOGY POLICY, R STREET INSTITUTE
    TIM LORDAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNET EDUCATION FOUNDATION
        Mr. Yoder. Okay. Committee, we have our fourth and final
    panel, and I will now call to the table Mr. Zach Graves and Mr.
    Tim Lordan.
        Welcome to the committee, gentlemen. I would like to go
    ahead and start with Mr. Graves, Director of Technology Policy
    at the R Street Institute.
        Mr. Graves. Chairman Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan, and
    members of the committee, thank you for considering my
    testimony today. My name is Zach Graves. I am the director of
    technology and innovation policy at the R Street Institute, a
    free market think tank headquartered here in Washington.
        At R Street, my team's work focuses on issues such as
    autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity,
    and telecommunications. Our aim, as we say, is to make the
    future happen sooner. To accomplish this we hope to encourage
    policies that maximize the benefits of new innovations while
    anticipating and mitigating their risks and externalities.
        In coming here today, I am hoping to start a discussion
    about how Congress equips itself with the expert advice and
    resources necessary to understand and tackle the growing number
    of innovation policy challenges that face our country.
        In the past several decades, we have seen astounding
    technological advances that have propelled the global
    improvements to the human condition and grounded America's
    leadership in the world's economy.
        These advances were made possible because of American
    ingenuity and because America took a forward-looking approach
    to establish and, when appropriate, to forebear from creating
    legal frameworks and regulatory policies that allowed emerging
    technologies to mature and flourish.
        Because of this, American technology companies dominate the
    roster of most valuable firms in the world, employ millions of
    U.S. workers, and account for a significant portion of our
    gross domestic product.
        However, the breadth and scope of new technical challenges
    is increasing faster than ever with such issues as securing the
    Internet of Things, evaluating renewed calls for extraordinary
    access to encrypted communications, understanding the labor
    effects of automation, halting the spread of antibiotic-
    resistant diseases, regulating driverless cars, or thinking
    through the implications of machine learning. To name only--
    unfortunately, however, Congress' internal capacity to tackle
    the associated technical complexities has not kept pace with
    these new issues.
        Earlier this year, I coauthored a white paper with my
    colleague Kevin Kosar on the Office of Technology Assessment. I
    am here to talk about OTA, like Representative Takano was
    earlier, but from a different perspective, noticing that there
    is a big red ``R'' on our logo.
        As you may recall, the OTA was an expert legislative
    support agency that existed inside the legislative branch from
    1972 to 1995. Although the Congressional Research Service is
    also sometimes referred to as Congress' think tank and has many
    virtues, it has a very different mission from what the former
    OTA had.
        Unlike CRS' focus on producing digestible summaries of
    existing research and giving responsive advice to Congress, the
    OTA focused on producing robust original research reports
    authored by teams of highly credentialed scientists and
    engineers.
        In developing these reports, it also conducted formal
    consultations with outside stakeholders and industry in
    academia, similar to how the GAO functions. In this way, the
    OTA played an important role in shaping how the United States
    and other countries approach technology issues.
        However, falling victim to a political landscape that
    demanded a symbolic sacrifice, it was defunded in 1995. This
    landscape emerged from the Contract with America, a platform of
    the 1994 congressional campaign that helped propel Republicans
    to a long-sought majority in both Chambers of the 104th
    Congress.
        This platform gave rise to a politically useful but flawed
    policy idea, namely that of cutting Congress first. This was
    ultimately achieved with deep cuts to congressional staffing as
    well as legislative support agencies, including the OTA's
    entire $22 million budget.
        While the goal of cutting wasteful government spending is
    an admiral one, abolishing the OTA merely undermined Congress'
    ability to do its job in exchange for negligible savings. After
    all, its budget was only a tiny portion of the legislative
    branch budget, which itself is a tiny fraction of the overall
    $4 trillion Federal budget.
        In contemplating any savings, one must also consider the
    trillion-dollar stakes involved in setting technology policy
    and the high costs of getting it wrong. When it existed, the
    OTA also helped Congress make cost-saving decisions well in
    excess of its own budget, as Representative Takano mentioned.
        Many conservatives today, for instance, Senator Mike Lee,
    Representative Jeb Hensarling, and the R Street's own
    governance project have showed a renewed interest in
    strengthening the first branch and restoring its proper role
    and capabilities.
        As part of this effort, it is of key importance that
    Congress must have its own resources to ascertain the facts;
    otherwise, it is left to take the word of executive agencies,
    interest groups, and lobbyists. This circumstance is
    unfavorable to the health of our democracy.
        This understanding has informed R Street's interest in
    reviving Congress' technology assessment arm, whether in the
    form of OTA or a differently structured entity. Indeed, the
    OTA's authorizing statute remains in effect, and its funding
    lies within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
        It could therefore be revived, practically speaking, simply
    by including a funding for a pilot in the next legislative
    appropriations bill. I am not calling for this to happen now.
    It has been nearly 25 years since the agency existed, and,
    thus, before jumping in, appropriate consideration must be
    given to what a successful technology assessment office would
    look like today. And, admittedly, this may be quite different
    from what it looked like in 1995.
        As we discussed in our paper, there are also a number of
    general points upon which OTA's structure might be criticized,
    and there are a number of logistical considerations that also
    need to be thought through and addressed.
        In order to resolve these questions and open further
    discussion, I respectfully urge the subcommittee to request a
    study on what would be necessary to reestablish an independent
    technology assessment function inside the legislative branch.
        Such a study could be done by the subcommittee. It could be
    done through an outside entity, such as the National Academy of
    Public Administration, which has done technology assessment
    studies before, or through an ad hoc group of legislative
    branch and technical experts.
        This study could answer key questions about reestablishing
    a technology assessment function in Congress, such as: What
    type of in-house experts should the office have? Should the
    reports be driven by in-house or outside experts? How should it
    balance deep original analysis with responding to inquiries or
    other timely requests? How might it be restructured to avoid
    politicization or bias or the perception thereof? How and to
    what extent it should engage with outside stakeholders and
    academia, civil society and industry? Should it be structured
    as an independent legislative branch agency or housed in
    another entity like the Library of Congress? Or should it
    merely improve and expand upon the existing technology
    assessment function that exists within the GAO?
        In summary, a 21st century Congress needs a 21st century
    understanding of the world and its policy challenges. Given the
    limited resources and a fast-paced congressional calendar,
    congressional offices aren't always able to meet these
    challenges alone. With your help, we can begin the discussion
    about how our institutions can modernize and adapt to the
    demands of our changing times.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts with
    you.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Yoder. Thanks for your testimony. We certainly heard
    testimony from Mr. Takano as well. And you have raised a number
    of important questions. You know, certainly there is no reason
    why we couldn't provide additional information to Congress
    regarding technology.
        And as this continues to advance and change, there is
    certainly a need, whether, as you point out, going back to
    exactly what we had before is the answer or some sort of wholly
    new entity, there is lots of variations.
        But I continue to hear yourself and others demonstrate this
    need, and we will certainly continue to discuss what the best
    way to move forward is and maybe a study is the proper answer.
        Mr. Graves. Thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
        Okay. Our last witness this morning is Mr. Lordan,
    executive director of the Internet Education Foundation.
        Welcome to the committee, sir.
        Mr. Lordan. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you so much for
    having me today. I realize that I am probably the only person
    between you and lunch, so I will try to be as brief as
    possible, and I am so sorry.
        I work for--as you said, I work for the Internet Education
    Foundation, which is a nonprofit here in the city. We basically
    do internet policy work and have been doing this since the dawn
    of the commercial internet for about 21 years or so. We work
    with the Congressional Internet Caucus on the House and Senate
    side here.
        And we do other educational programs like the Congressional
    App Challenge. We are the official sponsor of the Congressional
    App Challenge. And I know that a lot of people know what the
    app challenge is, and stop me if I am going on, but it is kind
    of a hard to get your arms around what the congressional app
    competition--Congressional App Challenge is.
        It is an officially sanctioned competition in the U.S.
    House of Representatives. It is an official project of the
    House. It was created by a 2013 floor vote on House Resolution
    77 that wanted to promote STEM, computer science education for
    students in America.
        I would defer to Ranking Member Ryan, and he has always
    made impassioned speeches about the importance of technology
    and STEM and computer science education for the future of
    America. And we have millions of STEM jobs that need to be
    filled, and we have no domestic pipeline really to do that.
        So there is a massive imperative for programs that inspire
    youth in America to pursue computer science, coding, STEM,
    education. Just, it is an existential crisis for America, and,
    you know, Ranking Member Ryan says it much more eloquently than
    I will.
        But the app challenge is administered by--it was created by
    the Committee on House Administration Resolution 114. It is
    actually in the House of Representatives Member handbook.
    Basically, each Member of Congress can sign up to host a local
    competition for their students to create an app. If you win,
    you get to come to Washington and demo the app. We have an
    event we call House of Code, which was actually last Thursday.
    And their apps get displayed in a display right around the
    corner here in the Capitol Building, right near the artwork. So
    the artwork is from the Congressional Art Competition, and the
    display for the apps is from the Congressional App Challenge.
        Yeah. And it is really exciting, really important, and it
    is done by the Committee on House Administration. We have been
    appointed as the official coordinator because it is a beast. I
    mean, trying to imagine--this year, in 2017, we had 225
    challenges in each district in--each congressional district all
    across America. Some urban districts, but also many rural
    districts, like Congressman Ryan's district, Chairman Greg
    Harper from the Committee on House Administration's district in
    Mississippi, all over the place.
        So they are not like urban centers. They are reaching
    into--using the strength of the Member office, they are
    reaching into the districts in America to inspire students.
    And, frankly, as we saw last week at House of Code, the
    students are inspiring the Members to be more appreciative of
    technology, as Zach was arguing.
        The problem is that it has grown from 2016 to 2017. It grew
    like by 129 percent. I mean, the numbers are stunning: 229
    Members have signed up to host challenges. The chairs for 2017
    were Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen and Congressman Ryan. He was
    the chair. So, in a way, I am here because he was so successful
    at doubling participation.
        This project is kind of hard to administer. To have--about
    5,000 students participated last year, about 1,250 apps were
    created by students, and it has just been incredibly difficult
    to manage that entire process.
        The art competition is relatively simple. If we had the art
    competition--we could do an art competition right now and five
    students would bring in paintings, and we could say that one.
    And then the Architect of the Capitol ships it here and hangs
    it.
        The Congressional App Challenge is a massive database
    issue. It is also reaching into local communities to actually,
    you know, get the word out to students and teachers so that
    they can compete. And I would say, you know, the Committee on
    House Administration, you know, administers this with a
    memorandum of understanding with the House Ethics Committee. We
    are appointed every session to do this by the committee, and
    they could appoint anybody to do it, frankly.
        So it is done every year as a separate challenge. Like the
    2018 challenge should start in a few weeks. It is separate from
    the 2017 challenge. And I think, you know, if you look at--I
    think there is a concern about precedent being set. And
    Congressman McGovern made a really interesting--and I would
    echo his comments about the difference between the Lantos
    Commission and like a caucus or other thing like that.
        The Congressional App Challenge isn't a caucus. It isn't a
    congressional Member organization. It happens every year, every
    session. It may not--like this is a Congressional App
    Challenge, right. Apps didn't really exist until, you know, the
    iPhone was created in 2007 and widely adopted in 2008.
        Ten years from now, there may be no such thing as apps. It
    may be something different. So it is one of those things that
    has grown very quickly, but it doesn't have this permanence to
    it. But, you know, I think we all realize the imperative to
    inspire students to pursue coding and STEM is really important.
    And we are hoping that this project can do that.
        And as far as like, you know, really important bipartisan
    efforts and, you know, Congress inspiring their constituents,
    49 percent--it was basically 50/50 of Republicans and Democrats
    participating in the Congressional App Challenge, so it is
    totally bipartisan.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Yoder. So, the basis of your proposal, then, Mr.
    Lordan, is?
        Mr. Lordan. We are seeking funding for the Committee on
    House Administration to provide staffing, because the thing is
    doubling like every year.
        Mr. Yoder. So, right now, they are doing it with internal
    resources.
        Mr. Lordan. The committee basically does--a lot of the
    organization is handed off to us. Like, for instance, even the
    programming for the congressional display, that took us like 50
    hours of programming time for our staff.
        Mr. Yoder. And they are paying you to do this.
        Mr. Lordan. No.
        Mr. Yoder. So they are doing within your resources.
        Mr. Lordan. Yeah, I go around with a tin cup raising money
    from the private sector, which isn't as easy as you might
    think.
        Mr. Yoder. So your point is the program has grown to such
    significance that that is sort of a difficult thing to
    maintain. It really needs its own separate staffing and funding
    if we want to continue this.
        Mr. Lordan. It is outpacing our ability to manage the
    program.
        Mr. Yoder. Well, this is very helpful, and I think one of
    the themes I think we have seen from most of these witnesses
    today is the value of technology and how it is changing the
    things relating to transparency, as well as the modern-day art
    competition, which is the app challenge. So thank you for that.
        Mr. Lordan. I would say on that: I love art.
        Mr. Yoder. Apps are art.
        Mr. Lordan. They are. But I don't want to live in a world
    without art. But we really can't live in a world without coding
    and computer science and STEM.
        Mr. Yoder. Thank you for your testimony.
        With that, everyone, this will end our hearing work for
    today. The subcommittee will reconvene tomorrow at 2:30, when
    it will hear from the Office of Compliance. This is a change
    from our previous schedule. We are rescheduling our GAO hearing
    that was scheduled for today at 2:30 until tomorrow at 4:30.
        The committee is adjourned. Thank you.
        [Testimony for the Record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                             Wednesday, April 18, 2018.

                              OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

                                    WITNESS

    SUSAN TSUI GRUNDMANN
        Mr. Yoder. The subcommittee will come to order. Thank you
    everybody for attending this hearing on the Office of
    Compliance. This is our fifth hearing, hearing in the last week
    or so as we work on our fiscal year 2019 appropriations
    legislation. And so we appreciate Ms. Grundmann coming to
    attend the hearing today. I don't believe we had a hearing with
    you last year. It is my first year chairing the committee so we
    are thankful that you are here this year. I know from time to
    time you are brought in for hearings and sometimes you aren't.
    So we are glad you are here and we appreciate your work.
        Ms. Grundmann is the Executive Director of the Office of
    Compliance, established by the Congressional Accountability Act
    of 1995. The Office of Compliance is tasked with dispute
    resolution, safety and health compliance, labor management
    relations, and educational offerings across the legislative
    branch. Over the past year the office has received much
    attention as the House has debated how best to ensure employing
    authorities, including Members of Congress, are held
    accountable for employee rights that are violated under their
    watch, as well as making sure employees know, and understand
    their rights, and have access to a dispute resolution process
    that is fair, easy to navigate and is not layered in burdensome
    bureaucracy. The House has taken action in three ways, to
    address workplace harassment. We passed House Resolution 630,
    which makes in-person workplace rights training required for
    all Members and employees, we passed House Resolution 724,
    which established an Office of Employee Advocacy, with the
    mission of providing legal assistance to House employee's
    regarding Congressional Accountability Act procedures. And
    finally, the House passed Comprehensive Congressional
    Accountability Act reform that continues to be debated in the
    Senate.
        The implementation of the two past House Resolutions has
    been the responsibility of the House Chief Administrative
    Officer because they are house specific and not legislative
    branch wide. However, it has required close coordination with
    the Office of Compliance and will certainly have an impact on
    their operations moving forward. With all the attention the
    Office of Compliance received over the last year their profile
    certainly by raised. They have seen a triple digit percentage
    increase in request for training both in person and online, in
    addition to increased service requests across the board. Also
    worth mentioning is as a result of the fiscal year 2018
    omnibus, the Office of Compliance's jurisdiction has been
    expanded to include claims submitted by employees of the
    Library of Congress. This expanded jurisdiction I believe is a
    good thing, but will likely result in an increase to the Office
    of Compliance annual caseload. With all that being said, the
    revised budget request for fiscal year 2019 operations is
    $5,410,089, which represents a 9 percent increase from enacted
    levels.
        Thank you for joining us today. And now I am going to yield
    to my good friend from Ohio, Mr. Tim Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it and I
    appreciate this hearing. In my opinion, this hearing is going
    to be one of the most important we will have this year in this
    committee. And the discussion we will have today couldn't be
    more timely.
        Across the country, industries and organizations are
    reckoning with the dark reality of workplace harassment,
    especially sexual harassment. It has become abundantly clear
    that Congress is no exception to that. And the elected
    officials here in Washington are being called to lead and we
    must answer that call. How can we expect others to follow our
    example if we are not willing to fully acknowledge the problem
    and take concrete steps to address it. It was my pleasure with
    the chairman to support the resolution that mandates required
    training for all Members, House employees and interns. And I
    look forward to learning more today about how this training
    will be implemented.
        The Office of Compliance plays an essential role for the
    employees of this institution in advancing workplace rights,
    safety, health, and accessibility.
        Today this hearing will shine a light on the upcoming
    efforts by the OOC to make this historic institution a safer
    place to work. And every man or woman who wants to work for the
    United States Congress should feel comfortable and safe coming
    to work. No person should show up to work in the Halls of
    Congress, their government, and be forced to worry that it will
    be a toxic work environment where they will be harassed or
    assaulted.
        I will close by thanking the staff in the OOC for carrying
    out this mission and for testifying here today. And I look
    forward to working with you in the upcoming year to make all of
    this, and our goals here, a reality.
        So thank you for being here with us.
        Mr. Chairman I yield back.
        Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
        Ms. Grundmann, your complete statement will be made part of
    the record. Feel free to summarize your remarks at this time
    and I now recognize you for your opening remarks.
        Ms. Grundmann. Thank you very much.

                               Opening Statement

        And good afternoon, Chairman Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan,
    and distinguished members of the Legislative Branch
    Appropriations Subcommittee. On behalf of the Office of
    Compliance it is our honor and privilege to have this
    opportunity to discuss our fiscal year 2019 budget with you.
        We thank the subcommittee and the staff Jenny, Tim, and
    Adam over there and everybody else. We thank you for your
    support in reinforcing our statutory mission, which as you both
    note is both broad and diverse, that is to ensure the health
    and safety and public accessibility of the legislative
    community, to provide a dispute resolution process for covered
    employees in our jurisdiction, and to inform and educate this
    community and the public about the rights and protections under
    the CAA.
        The members of this committee have led by example. You have
    led by as you know passing landmark legislation, mandating in-
    person workplace rights training and protection for every
    Member of Congress, both paid and unpaid staff with new hires
    receiving the same training within 90 days. You demonstrate
    that you hold yourselves to a higher standard as the elected
    leaders of our Nation.
        What a year it has been at the OOC, from a little known
    office this time last year to the focal point mandating
    accountability through reform. During the past 5 months our
    tiny staff has been tested, weighed and found not to be
    wanting. Since October our staff personally trained over 15,000
    employees in the House and Senate alone and not all at once but
    in ones and twos and tens. Training to prevent sexual
    harassment discrimination retaliation is now mandatory in the
    Halls of Congress. And our posters notifying employees of
    rights are now prominently displayed in every office in the
    House of Representatives.
        But training is the floor and training is only a means to
    an end. And that end being a change in our culture whereby we
    have strong principles of collegial respect in the workplace
    and where problems are prevented before they occur. In order to
    meet that goal and to meet our statutory goal to educate, we
    require your continued support for funding and for staffing the
    positions to take on this challenge.
        We no longer live in a world where it suffices to train on
    the legal meaning of the letter of the law. In order for true
    change to occur and for us to honor the spirit of the law, we
    must educate on the behaviors, biases, and practices that could
    lead to harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, that could
    create a hostile work environment.
        So we must continually update the tools of our training,
    and methods of delivery to keep education fresh, relevant and
    real. This is our constant challenge, to update what we have
    developed and to create new tools to engage our legislative
    colleagues. And to meet this occasion we currently have
    everybody training on staff, our ADR staff to our safety
    inspectors, to our attorneys and our general counsel's office
    and it is still not enough, because our daily work continues.
        Biannual inspections of almost 18 million square feet of
    the Capitol complex, responding to concerns of hazards and
    public accessibility. Counseling of legislative employees,
    mediations and hearings which as the chairman notes will now
    markedly increase as a result of the Library coming under our
    jurisdiction.
        We welcome the Library to our dispute resolution process
    knowing full well that our caseload will only increase, thus
    increasing costs and the need for more personnel. Mr. Chairman,
    Ranking Member Ryan, we are grateful for the funding we
    received in 2018. And even given our limited resources, we
    still think we do an amazing job. Inspections are now complete
    in the House and we continue to enjoy a 100 percent affirmance
    rate by our reviewing court for our board decisions. All our
    successes are documented in our annual report which was
    released on Friday. Copies are available to you.
        However, as we continue to reach out we realized just how
    much more we need to do, such as to bring our case processing
    system into the 21st century by bringing e-filing to OOC, as
    mandated by the CAA Reform Act that passed the House in
    February. Now whether or not we see full CAA reform at the end
    of Congress is yet to be seen. Pending funding, we intend to
    and hope to move forward with this measure.
        As always, our budget's mission consists almost entirely of
    funding for people, not things. The 20 women and men who report
    faithfully each day to work are a testament to our commitment
    to excellence and efficiency. Having weathered our most
    challenging chapter in our history, we now move forward with
    you, knowing that your support has been crucial to our
    continued success.
        Thank you for the privilege of your attention. I look
    forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared and amended statements follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               WORKPLACE CLIMATE

        Mr. Yoder. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Grundmann.
    Again, welcome to the committee and we appreciate all of your
    hard work.
        At the beginning of my comments I mentioned and as did Mr.
    Ryan a number of the acts that Congress has taken already in
    this 115th Congress to take steps to curb workplace harassment,
    things like mandatory training, employee advocacy office,
    proposed process changes at the OOC. Those are things that are
    needed. But I guess a couple of questions for you.
        What are our biggest impediments within your office to
    being able to resolve and help with complaints, is it any
    structural issues? Is it mostly resources? I know you have
    asked for a 9 percent increase. What will that allow you to do?
    Sort of discuss how we can best help you do your job, first and
    foremost.
        And then second of all, what are other solutions that
    Congress should be looking at in general that maybe we haven't
    pursued legislatively yet that we should be?
        Ms. Grundmann. Sure. There are a number of things. Our main
    need is people. The statutory mission is broad, it is
    purposeful, it has all sorts of different kinds of aspects to
    it, but our current issue is we have one person performing four
    to five functions and that is part of our FTE request. We
    have--we have trained these hundreds and hundreds of people
    over the last 4 or 5 months with two people who currently
    perform other jobs. We don't have a single person dedicated
    solely to training.
        So in terms of our request for FTE, we are looking for five
    to be allocated in the following fashion. We would like two
    dedicated to education, one specifically dedicated to the
    website. We don't have anybody solely dedicated to the website.
    And the website is an important tool because this is how we
    reach the staffers in your home districts, in the State and
    district offices. There are 15,000 people in the field, that is
    half of the legislative community.
        The second FTE we want to dedicate to have that sole person
    to not only develop and to update the training, but to deliver
    in-person training on demand. Two other FTE, and this will give
    you a sense of how our staffing works. We are asking for two
    attorneys, one specifically dedicated to the board's function.
    Currently as we are staffed we have one individual who not only
    researches and writes the decisions for the board, advises the
    board, writes procedural regulations, assists the general
    counsel in reviewing his briefs and preparing him for hearings,
    and serves as legislative counsel. So this one individual is
    performing four to five different functions.
        In addition, our general counsel needs more support. We are
    seeing an increased amount of litigation in the Federal circuit
    and those types of cases are more complex, they do take longer
    to prepare.
        Finally, the last FTE we would ask be dedicated to
    something as simple as administrative support. As we are
    currently staffed, we have one administrative assistant
    supporting the entire office and the five board members who are
    scattered throughout the country. So FTE is very important for
    us.
        In terms of changes that we saw through the Reform Act, we
    as we testified before the committee on House Administration, a
    number of those changes were incorporated and adopted in the
    Reform Act that passed the House. We are very encouraged by
    that. We will have to see what happens in the Senate.
        Our staff has been put in an enviable position of chasing
    proposals, because we are never sure which proposal will come
    through, which is why you have seen our budget change over the
    many iterations over the last few months. Clearly if the
    legislation passes at the end of this year through the Senate,
    then there are other things we will have to come back for,
    particularly funding and staffing for the investigatory
    authority and funding for the climate survey, which is under
    the CAA reform format.

                                    TRAINING

        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We all received notice recently about attending harassment
    training sessions, whether in Washington, D.C. Or throughout
    the country. And my office and I received our training last
    year, which was very well received in our office. However, to
    do a similar type of training this year, the office-only
    sessions would cost offices $4,275, can you explain to us the
    cost breakdown for that?
        Ms. Grundmann. That is not us. It was decided by CHA that
    the primary training function would be undertaken by a private
    contractor and that does not--we do not qualify for
    certification purposes. Let me note that the training that will
    be provided specifically only covers the House, it doesn't
    cover the Senate or the other legislative offices.
        In addition, the training that will be provided to your
    office for certification purposes only covers one aspect of the
    law. The CAA covers 19 different laws that will generally I am
    assuming not be included. Furthermore, even though we don't
    qualify for certification purposes under 630, and I know your
    office attended our session, Members still continually reach
    out to us to conduct personal training. And the training that
    we conduct is specialized, it will be by standard and invention
    training, unconscious biases coming online in May. Those are
    the types of training that blend themselves easily to in-person
    training in small groups in the ones, in the twos, in the tens,
    not a room full of 500 people.
        So as Members still continue to reach out to us, some
    Members have actually asked us to travel to the district and
    home offices to train their staff. We don't like to say no. But
    the travel is not reimbursable by the Member's office because
    there could be a conflict of interest so we pay for that
    ourselves, so that you see some additional funding allocated in
    our 2019 request towards travel. Right.
        We are very proud of what we do. We have not seen what the
    contractor is going to do. Certainly we will be there to assist
    this contractor should he so request, but feel free to continue
    to reach out to us. I mean, we are doing some very cutting edge
    things. We have new technology in our training, which is
    interactive. Let me also emphasize the importance of having the
    small setting, so students, people who are attendees can engage
    the educator in question in how to handle a troublesome
    scenario. And we develop those. We also customize our training
    for individual offices.
        So if you have a particular interest or particular
    questions you want to ask in your office we can build them into
    our presentation.

                                     TRAVEL

        Mr. Ryan. Of the budget request this year, how much of that
    is for travel?
        Ms. Grundmann. I can't recall, but it was an additional--it
    was only a few thousand dollars.
        Mr. Ryan. Okay. I yield back.

                            WORKPLACE RIGHTS POSTER

        Mr. Yoder. Ms. McCollum.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        You mentioned in your testimony a poster that every office
    would have received dealing with sexual harassment. I have
    never seen the poster. I just conferred with my staff, my LD,
    and everybody else. No one else has seen this poster. Can you
    tell me when this poster was delivered? And are other Members
    familiar with this poster? Maybe my office didn't get it
    slipped underneath the door. Here is a copy of it.
        Ms. Grundmann. We can get one to you.
        Ms. McCollum. Well, no, I asked you when they were
    delivered? Do you know when they were sent out so I can figure
    out what happened in my office?
        Ms. Grundmann. We have had a number of people actually come
    to us. We have also gone around and delivered them. If we
    missed you, we can get one to you.
        Ms. McCollum. We will make that happen.

                                   I.T. NEEDS

        Can you explain the website person? And if you have that
    person writing programming, that person just maintaining the
    websites what are going to be the duties and roles and function
    of the person doing the website?
        Ms. Grundmann. We currently have a contractor handling the
    website, but it is not a full-time position. The individual
    would be updating each module annually along with creating new
    content--you can't keep the same thing on a website all the
    time, it gets boring. So we do have revolving content. There
    are modules that are being created right now that will be--we
    have the bystander--we have new antisexual harassment,
    discrimination and retaliation module that was loaded in
    January.
        Ms. McCollum. So right now you have a contractor who is
    doing that part-time and that is going to be a full-time, plus
    a part-time contractor, or is that part-time contractor going
    to be full-time?
        Ms. Grundmann. If there is a technical expertise I think we
    would reach out to the contractor, but I think in terms of the
    content alone, that is the time consuming part of our project.
        Ms. McCollum. So you are--I am not--I just want to
    understand. I am not disputing what you are putting forward in
    your vision. So you would keep the part-time contractor for
    when you needed something very technical done and so the person
    who would be doing the Web would just be doing McCollum
    content. It would be more of the sense of a communications
    person, a writer.
        Ms. Grundmann. Yes, yes.

                                 ATTORNEY NEED

        Ms. McCollum. Okay. So I hear what you are saying about
    your attorneys being overstretched, putting another attorney
    on. What would be--so what is going to be the cost of putting
    another attorney on in the office?
        Ms. Grundmann. Depends on how we set the pay and benefits.
    I believe our calculation was with the benefits and the pay
    about $200,000 per person.
        Ms. McCollum. $200,000 times two. And currently you have
    one.
        Ms. Grundmann. We have one attorney dedicated solely to the
    board, but he is doing other functions.
        Ms. McCollum. Well, I can certainly appreciate it because
    my staff is overstretched and we haven't seen except for
    security any raises or anything going in to our staff in that.

                           LIBRARY OF CONGRESS COSTS

        Under the Library of Congress coming in, so you are just
    absorbing that cost? You are not doing a charge back to the
    Library of Congress?
        Ms. Grundmann. You can't.
        Ms. McCollum. You can't.
        Ms. Grundmann. We can't. Let me explain what is going on.
        Ms. McCollum. No, no, that is fine. That is the answer in
    and of itself. So the Library of Congress will have that as
    less of an expense in their budget because they won't be doing
    that in-house anymore at all?
        Ms. Grundmann. Let us have this conversation. This is
    important to understand. Just to be clear, the Library's
    internal process does not go away. It is still available to
    employees. Nor does the Library's collective bargaining
    agreements that they have with their unions. There is an
    arbitration proceeding that that still stays in place. What the
    omnibus does is it brings Library employees into our process
    only for only certain types of claims. Claims associated with
    discrimination, Fair Labor Standards Act cases and Family and
    Medical Leave Act cases.
        Ms. McCollum. I see that. So how many full-time equivalents
    is going to be doing that?
        Ms. Grundmann. Well, the hearing offices in the media it is
    our contractors for us. We are not bringing on somebody full-
    time for them. But just anecdotally in having a conversation
    with the Library, they take in about 50 to 60 cases a year with
    five cases going to an administrative hearing. We currently
    take in 50 to 60 cases with five cases going to admin----
        Ms. McCollum. You are able to kind of budget it a little
    bit?
        Ms. Grundmann. Well, we have asked for 2-year money just to
    expand or contract so we need to go into the next year money we
    can.

                       ADA INSPECTIONS OF MEMBER OFFICES

        Ms. McCollum. So you are asking for forward money--Mr.
    Chair, the last question I have is on ADA inspections. Is that
    Member's offices as well.
        Ms. Grundmann. The answer is yes.
        Ms. McCollum. I would be interested in seeing that report
    because I work very hard to have wheelchair accessibility in my
    office. There is only parts of my office I can make accessible.
    Other parts I cannot make accessible at all, no matter what I
    would choose to do. We could barely have one person walk
    through an aisle.
        So I would--Mr. Chair at some point if you could provide
    the committee how out of compliance our offices are with the
    ADA I would appreciate that, and I do mean we are out of
    compliance. Thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. Thank you for that, Ms. McCollum.

                          CONFIDENTIALITY AND STATUTE

        The chair recognizes Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,
    Ms. Grundmann. When the OSD was created more than 20 years ago
    now, the idea behind it was to increase transparency, to have
    the CAA be applicable to Congress as well. So why then has the
    OOC in practice kept the public in the dark about which
    lawmakers or offices have been accused of improper workplace
    behaviors?
        Ms. Grundmann. That is a good question and the answer is it
    is actually in the statute. Under the statute--in the statute
    counseling sessions, which is the beginning of our process and
    mediations, which you have to go through to get to an
    independent hearing. I have actually brought a chart if it is
    helpful to have this kind of conversation.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It would be.
        Ms. Grundmann. Let me share this with members of the
    committee. Let me explain the process starting from the
    beginning. Everything starts with counseling and that is
    initiated by the employee within 180 days of any given
    violation.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And this is all statutory?
        Ms. Grundmann. This Is all statutory, it is not regulatory
    on our part. Counseling under the CAA is strictly confidential,
    and it not so much binds the employee from speech, it is not a
    gag order, but it precludes us from publicly speaking about any
    of these cases. And the employing office is not told at the
    time that the employee has entered the system.
        So the counseling period can be anywhere from 1 to 30 days.
    Following counseling, mediation is mandatory. This is when the
    employing office is brought to the table, meets with our
    independent mediator and has a discussion. This is where
    approximately 40 percent of our cases start so it is a good
    process.
        Following mediation is the so-called cooling off period and
    that is the timeframe that runs 30 days after the end of
    mediation to 90 days so their filing windows is essentially 60
    days. If the employee elects to go to court, they can go to
    court at that point and litigate in full public view. Or the
    employee can elect to go through our administrative dispute
    resolution process with a hearing officer and a final decision.
        The hearing office gives them a certain period of time. I
    can tell you that our median processing time for these types of
    cases is 190 days. I do not know what the EOC process----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And meanwhile the employees is still
    working in the office?
        Ms. Grundmann. That is the problem. Now the CAA reform act
    that the House passed would address a number of these issues.
    Counseling and mediation would become voluntary, there would be
    a reporting requirement on our part to disclose the--in other
    words, lifting the veil of the strict confidentiality that you
    are concerned about.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That legislation, that is--the
    lifting of that rail is already in the legislation that we
    passed out of the House.
        Ms. Grundmann. Yes.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. But the Senate hasn't taken
    that up yet?
        Ms. Grundmann. They are working on it from what we hear.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And the reason we are not able to
    implement it on our own since we passed in the House of
    Representatives then that is the policy we have all voted for
    is because the statute prohibits it?
        Ms. Grundmann. Correct.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The statute proscribes this process?
        Ms. Grundmann. Right.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. There is certainly a need for
    confidentiality and I understand that this is in the statute,
    but that confidentiality seems to me to be more applicable at
    certain points in the process. I mean the CAA requires an
    annual report for the public that details initiated
    proceedings.
        Ms. Grundmann. Right.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Are you barred by law? Is the LLC
    barred by law or by internal rules from publicizing annual
    settlement sums, particularly in a breakdown by office instead
    of a year end total? Are you barred from breaking it down that
    way?
        Ms. Grundmann. We are not, but here is the concern. The
    concern is if we disclose by employing office, and our offices
    are very small, we are talking about seven, ten people. It
    won't be very--we run the risk of exposing confidentiality of
    the employee.
        Now if there are settlement agreements let's talk about
    those in particular. Those are--most settlement agreements in
    fact all that I have seen contain nondisclosure clauses in
    them. Those are not by our doing. We don't offer sample
    language for NDAs and we don't require employees to have them
    in their settlement agreements. The product of the parties'
    negotiation. But that nondisclosure----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. During the mediation?
        Ms. Grundmann. During the mediation, during the hearing
    wherever, any time in the process. If there is a nondisclosure
    agreement, it means that we can't talk about it.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. If they reach a nondisclosure
    agreement?
        Ms. Grundmann. Correct.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But before there is a nondisclosure
    agreement, if there is one, wouldn't it be more transparent to
    provide settlement information via office rather than suggest--
    offer that information in the aggregate. I mean we all have
    about 18 employees. It really is unlikely that a specific
    employee would be exposed unwillingly if you are reporting what
    office has reached a settlement.
        Ms. Grundmann. We have provided our oversight committee's
    CHA with all the numbers basically by year. They have also met
    with us and they talked about individual settlements but we
    haven't talked about which offices they are attached to.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But you aren't prohibited under the
    law from doing so, you are choosing not to?
        Ms. Grundmann. I think we are prohibited--no, I think we
    are prohibited under the law. In terms of the strict
    confidentiality that adheres to each one of our processes and
    the nondisclosure agreements we cannot disclose who they are.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Does the law require you to only
    report in the aggregate or are you allowed to provide a
    breakdown publicly by office rather than a yearend total.
        Ms. Grundmann. We don't think the law allows us to----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. When I asked you the question a
    minute or so ago you, answered differently.
        Ms. Grundmann. What I am trying to say is we don't think
    the law allows us to break it down individually by office. Now
    can we do that? We think we can if the law changes.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But when I just asked you a few
    minutes ago you said that you don't offer it that way, but the
    law doesn't prohibit it because you worry about exposing the
    employee.
        Ms. Grundmann. That is true, yes.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So is it prohibited or is it by
    choice?
        Ms. Grundmann. We believe it is prohibited.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So then your first answer was not
    correct?
        Ms. Grundmann. I misunderstood your question. I am sorry.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Well, the transparency issue
    is revolting. It is absolutely unacceptable that we continue to
    let Members who abuse their employees hide. And respectfully, I
    don't agree with your interpretation of your inability to
    instead of report those numbers those settlement numbers in the
    aggregate. So I would like to see the opinion that you base
    that on.
        Ms. Grundmann. Sure.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So Mr. Chairman, if we could have
    that information provided by the OOC?
        Ms. Grundmann. Sure.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Because I would like to see where
    that opinion has been proffered to you when it has been
    inquired about in the past.
        Ms. Grundmann. Sure.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Yoder. Just so for clarification, is it your testimony
    then that that has changed under the legislation that has been
    passed in the House?
        Ms. Grundmann. The reporting requirements will be--yes. The
    Reform Act provides for--are disclosing Member's offices that
    have had settlements and awards that have come through the
    Treasury account that come out of the account. And that
    reporting would be on a 6-month basis to be published on our
    website.
        Mr. Yoder. Office by office?
        Ms. Grundmann. Office by office, particularly with the
    Members.
        Mr. Yoder. Based on the legislation that passed the House.
        Ms. Grundmann. Yes.
        Mr. Yoder. You think that clarifies the statute or directs
    it, regardless of the question answer you were just having with
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
        Ms. Grundmann. Yes.
        Mr. Yoder. You think that gives you the direction to be
    able to do it?
        Ms. Grundmann. Right.
        Mr. Yoder. Does it direct you to do it or does it permit
    you to be able to do it?
        Ms. Grundmann. No, it directs us to do it, we shall, we
    shall.

                              SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS

        Mr. Yoder. Did you have a follow up, Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes, just based on your question,
    because my understanding of the legislation we passed was that
    those settlements would no longer be able to be paid out of a
    Member's office or a committee office, a committee budget but
    would have to be paid by the Member personally. Is that
    correct?
        Ms. Grundmann. That is a great question because there is a
    mechanism that the format developed. Currently the way it works
    is when a settlement agreement comes to us, we request funds
    from the Treasury to be placed in an account that is designated
    for payment. After we obtain payment information, the funds are
    dispersed and the account is emptied.
        So there is a compromise that the Reform Act struck. Rather
    than having the employee have a settlement to chase after
    collecting that fund, the compromise that was struck is that we
    still pay the settlement or award up front and we leave it to
    other means for the Member to repay that to the Treasury. We
    are not in the collections service.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. What does leaving it to other means
    mean?
        Ms. Grundmann. It is in the statute, there is a means for--
    they give the Member I belive 90 days to repay the Treasury. If
    that doesn't occur, then a garnishment occurs, and if that
    doesn't occur, then they go after the annuity.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. That is what I thought it was,
    but I just wanted to confirm. Thank you.

                      REFORM IMPLEMENTATION AND TRANSITION

        Mr. Yoder. Thank you.
        We are blessed this afternoon to have the ranking member of
    the full committee from New York, our good friend, Mrs. Lowey.
    Welcome.
        Mrs. Lowey. It is so nice that you are blessed. We have had
    several hearings so I have been running around, but I am glad
    that I am able to contribute a little bit today. And I thank
    you. I am sorry I missed your testimony.
        Following up again--and I apologize if it is repetitive
    because I missed so much of it.
        If the final product is similar to drafts that have been
    discussed, how long would it take the OOC to implement the new
    reforms?
        Ms. Grundmann. That is a great question. The draft gives us
    180 days, at least the version that is passed the Senate. We
    would love a year, because there are a number of processes that
    need to occur. There is the hiring, the standing up of the
    investigatory authority granted to the general counsel. In
    addition to that, there is the climate survey that we have to
    contract out for and that we have to meet with our the
    committees and all our stakeholders and talk about it and roll
    that out. And then there is finding more space for the office.
    In addition, we are going to have it to design our name. A lot
    of things are going to change, new rule writing. One hundred
    eighty days is really fast, we would like a year.
        Let me further answer that. What helps us out a little bit
    in this process is the Library has come under us now so that
    gives us an opportunity today to work with the Library to
    develop how they fold into our system. So that is one less
    thing in other words that we have to do.
        Mrs. Lowey. Now, another question, should new allegations
    arise in the meantime, what is the OOC doing to make sure
    victims aren't misinformed or misrepresented during the
    transition?
        Ms. Grundmann. We still have our counseling period. And our
    counseling period----
        Mrs. Lowey. You still have what?
        Ms. Grundmann. Our counseling period that begins our
    process. And how that works really is the employee comes in and
    meets with our counselor and she explains to the employee what
    avenues of redress the employee has. Such as you can go to the
    government ethics committee. We understand that the Office of
    Employee Advocacy is being stood up even as we speak, and that
    is--for us it is good. Because if Congress is represented but
    the employee is not, the employee is clearly alone. So this
    gives us another person to talk to, somebody who also will
    understand our process who can explain the ramifications of the
    decisions the employees make.
        Mrs. Lowey. Now in light of the funding the OOC received in
    the 2018 omnibus, are there additional resources? What would be
    needed to carry out the new responsibilities?
        Ms. Grundmann. The new responsibilities pending passage
    from the Senate would essentially increase--we ran the numbers,
    would increase our 2019 request, it wouldn't double it, but it
    would bring at least another 50 percent to it, because we would
    have to bring on investigators to perform that function.
        Mrs. Lowey. And you have been specific about that in giving
    that information to the committee?
        Ms. Grundmann. Again, when the documents--when we filed a
    justification request the law had not passed. So our budget
    request has actually changed over a period of time. The chasing
    proposals, as you will. We know we don't have the investigatory
    authority currently so we haven't asked for the investigators
    because there is nothing to investigate.
        At the time that we are granted the authority we are going
    to be looking for that--either the FTE or the funding for that
    function.
        Mrs. Lowey. And I assume you will keep the committee up to
    date on that request.
        Ms. Grundmann. Absolutely. That is a promise.

                             LIBRARY VISITOR SAFETY

        Mrs. Lowey. In another area, I know you are aware that the
    Library of Congress, Dr. Heyden, has an inspiring vision for
    the Library. She is going to leverage their incredible
    collections, historical artifacts, beautiful architecture to
    improve the experience for visitors. And I want to ensure that
    the Library's facilities can safely handle this increased
    traffic.
        Can you tell us about any recommendations you have made to
    the Library of Congress and the Architect of the Capitol that
    might be relevant and specifically about the stairwell and fire
    egress needs?
        Ms. Grundmann. That is a good area to talk about. Currently
    our general counsel does all the occupational health and safety
    inspections, including the tree. And he works directly with the
    parties. We generally don't discuss these items in a public
    setting, we can arrange a special session with you with the
    general counsel to have a more in-depth conversation.
        Mrs. Lowey. But you are confident that the plans are
    progressing appropriately?
        Ms. Grundmann. They are working with us. The architect is
    working with us. And these are long-term plans, they don't
    occur overnight. These are changes, major changes.
        Mrs. Lowey. Yeah but, a year goes by pretty quickly and I
    know there'll be additional requests. It is very exciting, but
    I just want to be sure that all the appropriate mechanisms are
    being put in place for review. Yes?
        Ms. Grundmann. Yes. Yes.
        Mrs. Lowey. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                              OSH RECOMMENDATIONS

        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Taylor.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman I appreciate it. Thank
    you for being here and all of your work, we appreciate it.
        A couple of quick things, you guys require general counsel
    to inspect all legislative branch facilities for compliance
    with occupational safety and health standards at least once
    each Congress. As part of those inspections you provide
    recommendations. Do you currently have a list of
    recommendations that haven't been remediated? If so, how many
    are on the list? And what happens once you make a
    recommendation, is there follow up on your end?
        Ms. Grundmann. The process that the general counsel follows
    is actually detailed in the report and it starts with the
    inspection and then the findings. And if the findings are not
    correct, that could result in a citation. Citations can be
    litigated before our board of directors. Very rarely does
    anything result in citation, because the goal for the general
    counsel is to work with remediation, it is perspective in
    nature rather than looking backwards of who did what wrong.
        So that is an ongoing process. I think that is a
    conversation that we could reserve for the general counsel and
    make him available to you. Okay?
        Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you.

                              TRAINING DEVELOPMENT

        For fiscal year 2019 you are requesting an increase in
    funds to pay for three new online training modules. Can you
    break down your process for determining when the new training
    models need to be created, who develops them, determines the
    content and how often the training programs are then
    reevaluated to make sure they are up to date with the latest
    information.
        Ms. Grundmann. Correct. Well, they must be reevaluated
    every year, annually, because training becomes stale unless you
    change it. The current FTE request is actually aimed at
    development of these modules and updating modules along with
    delivering in-person training.
        Currently, by the end of this fiscal year, we will have
    four online modules that are new. The first one in January was
    a new antisexual harassment discrimination retaliation module,
    followed by a family and medical leave module that was launched
    on the anniversary of the FMLA. Coming later on in May is our
    bystander intervention training, along with unconscious bias.
    Those are topics and we have talked about changing the culture
    in this environment and changing the behavior as part of it so
    that became a top priority for us.
        Let me also say something about the modules that the
    modules are great, they are good for the staff that is not in
    D.C., but that is the kind of training that lends itself best
    to in-person training where our instructor, our educator can
    engage in a conversation with individuals in that office. So we
    are urging in-person training.
        To add to that in 2019, this is what we are looking to do,
    not forget the other side of our functions, but we are looking
    at adding an ADA public accessibility and common safety and
    health issues module, interactive. And that will be also for
    your district offices.
        Currently our safety inspectors conduct webinars with the
    State and district offices about these issues. And that is a
    good thing. It is good for your staff and it is good for your
    constituents that come and visit you in your home office.
        Mr. Taylor. Who develops and determines it?
        Ms. Grundmann. We do as a group. We look at priorities, we
    look at what we haven't covered yet, we look at what the
    community wants us to discuss and the community has asked us to
    focus on sexual harassment and the behaviors that can lead to
    sexual harassment.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                               CASE FILE SECURITY

        Mr. Yoder. Ms. Grundmann, how do you store your case files?
        Ms. Grundmann. That is--I knew you were going to ask that
    question. So first of all, let me just say that we have not
    been breached, we have not been hacked, we have never stored
    our data on an unsecured server. We recognize and our oversight
    committee has confirmed that we are Fort Knox and that is not
    our words, it is theirs.
        We are in discussions with our oversight committee on how
    to handle this, but Fort Knox doesn't talk about their
    cybersecurity or their physical security of functions in a
    public setting. We know you have questions. We want to answer
    those questions. And we would be happy to set up a private
    meeting with you to have that conversation.
        Mr. Yoder. So it is your testimony to the committee today
    that you have not stored complaints on an unsecured server?
        Ms. Grundmann. Correct.
        Mr. Yoder. So the letter from Senator Wyden to your board
    of directors and the article entitled congressional office
    stored sexual harassment complaints on an unsecured private
    server, those allegations are incorrect?
        Ms. Grundmann. That is not true, correct.
        Mr. Yoder. Those are incorrect allegations. Why do they
    believe that you have. What do they base that on?
        Ms. Grundmann. I think this is a better conversation in a
    private setting. And I am free after this hearing.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay. I just think it is a concern for the
    committee regarding how the information is maintained.
        Ms. Grundmann. No doubt.
        Mr. Yoder. My understanding is starting fiscal year 2016
    your office began the process of replacing your case handling
    system.
        Ms. Grundmann. Oh, it is not a case handling system, it is
    a management system so we can track when cases come in.
        Mr. Yoder. Where you store them and how you manage them are
    two different sort of topics there?
        Ms. Grundmann. They are actually the same, because the case
    management system is on this secured server.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay. It is my understanding you began the
    process of replacing the case handling system, part of the
    system is intended to have a fully electronic component, which
    would create a more streamline process. When will that be in
    place? And in total how much will the new system cost?
        Ms. Grundmann. It is currently in place. What we are
    talking about for 2019 is a new e-filing system. And if you go
    to the Cadillac series, it is $260,000 for just the initiation
    process itself and then about $35,000 annually to maintain it.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay. Mr. Ryan.

                                TRAINING DEMANDS

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        So one of the things we think about here on the
    Appropriations Committee in general and on this committee in
    particular is when we begin doing something, what does it look
    like today and then what does it look like 2 years from now, 3
    years from now through the budget cycle and how much.
        If we were to ask you to begin the training in a
    comprehensive way like we all feel needs to happen, can you
    give us some perspective on what scaling that up looks like? I
    know you talked a little bit about some of the full-time
    employees and what your needs are. But can you give us a little
    bit more insight on what that looks like.
        Ms. Grundmann. Well, currently we have two people doing the
    training who do other functions. We average about two to three
    sessions a week, in between sessions we are schooling up for
    the next session. We are ready to go now, full blast. Our
    people enjoy training. And like I said, we have everybody on
    staff who is trained to do it right now.
        Mr. Ryan. So moving forward there wouldn't be a significant
    increase in trainers? I mean we are getting more demand, more
    people are fortunately coming out, speaking out, that is a good
    thing. We just want to make sure we are able to handle the
    demand of that and at the same time the preventative part
    through----
        Ms. Grundmann. And the focus really is on preventative at
    this point. The behaviors and the biases. But what we need to
    do is free up people to do their jobs. I mean, we have safety
    inspectors and attorneys in our general counsel's office doing
    the training right now. They need to focus on the case
    processing as well, the cases and the briefs.
        We do have--we are ready to train now, but we need more
    staff to fulfill our other functions as well.
        Mr. Ryan. You talk a lot about the video conferencing and
    the video training. I think we all know the down side to that.
    Can you talk to us a little bit about what--we know it has
    limitation, but what are the benefits of that that you have
    seen in your personal experience?
        Ms. Grundmann. If you are talking about video conferencing,
    when we are talking about video conferencing are we just
    looking at your district offices?
        Mr. Ryan. Yes.
        Ms. Grundmann. It is a much smaller setting. It gives
    employees an opportunity to ask questions of the educator and
    create different scenarios. It is a much more personalized
    experience. It can be done--in person is better, but we don't
    have the funding to travel. It is the second best. It is better
    than a module. The module there is the baseline, then you go to
    video conferencing, then we go to in person.
        Mr. Ryan. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

             CONFIDENTIALITY AND INFORMING MEMBERS OF STAFF CONDUCT

        Mr. Yoder. Ms. McCollum.
        Ms. McCollum. I want to go back to your alternative dispute
    resolution. You said 40 percent of your mediation ends
    successfully?
        Ms. Grundmann. Forty percent approximately, yeah.
        Ms. McCollum. So Ms. Wasserman Schultz was talking and
    there was a discussion with Mrs. Lowey about Members acting
    inappropriately with their staff. But there is also Member
    offices where its staff and staff was not acting appropriately
    with each other.
        So part of what comes to mind is the length of time 180
    days and you have an employee maybe who goes through mediation
    and maybe somebody decides to leave on their own, they are not
    happy in the office. Maybe two employees actually worked
    something out, but then you have 60 percent where that is not
    ending at the mediation.
        Ms. Grundmann. Uh-huh.
        Ms. McCollum. We have interns in our office who can be a
    summer intern to someone who is maybe going to intern for 6
    months, maybe 9 months or something like that. What is the
    remedy for an employee who is in a work situation--because we
    have done and unfortunately some of it is being undone in some
    of the higher education institutions right now in dorm room
    settings where people are living together, because if you are
    working together in our office you are in close quarters.
        What do we do for someone who comes in as a victim,
    starting with counseling moving forward, does that person--part
    of the criticism with some of the Member settlements were
    people were removed from the office and paid. We tried to get
    people who are in sexual harassment and sexual abuse systems,
    women or men, couples, we try to get them separated. Now we
    have people working together with this timeline.
        So what is something if I went in and I was having problems
    not with--let's say not with a Member but with a coworker, you
    said it is all confidential. If I am a Member and someone
    approaches me, maybe I can figure something out to make the
    worksite more comfortable for everybody while this is going
    through. What do you do?
        Ms. Grundmann. Actually, that is very significant that you
    brought that up. In some of our training sessions, the Member
    is present and the Member will say, look, I am telling you
    right now, if you see any kind of activity like this, I want
    you to tell me. So they are stepping up to the plate. So that
    is an one-on-one, in-person training.
        Something else let me clarify for you, we talk about 40
    percent of our mediations settling, not all of them go on to a
    hearing. There is steep drop off from after mediation to an
    election of a hearing.
        Ms. McCollum. Right.
        Ms. Grundmann. So what can you do, education. You have to
    change the behavior, you have to change the climate. And you
    have to address--nip it in the bud before it starts, the
    culture has to change.
        Ms. McCollum. I understand that, I worked in the private
    sector and I worked on this a lot and I also serve on the
    defense committee. So believe me I have been in this over and
    over again. I am 63 so I have seen it for a long time. I know
    what is going on. Okay.
        My question was you have--if someone chooses not to go to
    the Member, they can choose not to go to the Member. They come
    in, there is something seriously going on in the office. At
    what point does the Member know or do you contact the Member so
    that the Member can make it system deceased.
        Ms. Grundmann. The Member's office would know--I don't know
    if the Member would know--but the Member's office chief of
    staff remember would know at the mediation stage, because in
    the counseling stage the employee comes to us the employing
    office is not told. If the employee choose to advance to
    mediation then we would contact House employment counsel and
    they would represent the Member in the mediation session.
        So presumably the Member would know of any alleged illegal
    activity at the mediation stage so that is day, somewhere
    between day 2 to day 45.
        Ms. McCollum. So to be clear and I would hope someone would
    come to me, but we all live in the real world. Right?
        So someone is in the counseling, your mediator sees
    something that is pretty alarming. Your mediator--does that
    mediator--can that mediator step in and say, you know, wait a
    minute. We are not doing counseling anymore. We need to move
    this up. We need to move faster.
        Ms. Grundmann. Well, the mediator is not part of the
    counseling stage. The counseling stage is a separate stage with
    one of our employees. The mediator would be trying to----
        Ms. McCollum. Well, okay. The mediator can sometimes tell
    that something isn't going to work.
        Ms. Grundmann. Sure.
        Ms. McCollum. Okay. So are the counselors empowered to step
    in?
        Ms. Grundmann. Because of the strict confidentiality
    clause, no they cannot tell the employing office and that is
    baked into the law. Now let's look forward and let's talk about
    the CAA reform. In the CAA reform there are certain remedies
    that are provided to employees----
        Ms. McCollum. I get that, but I am not waiting for the
    Senate here. If we--what is the big thing around here, see
    something, say something. If somebody in my office is under
    harm and a counselor knows that they are under harm and I am
    not told, eventually something goes out in the press later on,
    who is going to be held accountable? We are. And so I get the
    confidentiality and everything, but if somebody is really under
    that kind of harassment or duress that a professional counselor
    would say, time out, we have got to separate these folks, we
    have got to do something different, you are saying there is no
    way to step in?
        Ms. Grundmann. The counseling, and this is going to change,
    we hope this will change, is a misnomer, the counselor is not
    the employees representative. That is why you have the Office
    of Employee Efficacy coming in.
        The counselor is only telling the employee what his or her
    rights are and what avenues there are. It is essentially
    intake. It is not a therapy process. That is the difference.
        Ms. McCollum. Well, I am not talking about therapy. I am
    talking about somebody comes in to your office and there is
    something very seriously wrong going on, very serious.
        Ms. Grundmann. Yes.
        Ms. McCollum. And it is alarming to that individual. They
    know it is absolutely wrong. The Member's office doesn't find
    out about it. Can the employee waive that?
        Ms. Grundmann. Yes.
        Ms. McCollum. Do you encourage employees to waive that?
        Ms. Grundmann. Where the employee would waive it is so if
    they think that we can make a speedy resolution, a satisfactory
    resolution, the employee can waive confidentiality and we would
    go directly to the employing office.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I think this begs to why this
    system needs to change and I think the new system if the Senate
    ever moves forward on it and we go to it, it is going to have
    things that have to be worked out as well. This reminds be back
    in the day when if a police department came upon a domestic
    violence dispute how it used to be handled versus how it is
    handled now. You take care of the victim.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Ryan. Mr. Chairman, if I may.
        Mr. Yoder. Sure.
        Mr. Ryan. I don't want to keep splitting hairs here, but I
    think it is important. So there is only one blanket elimination
    of your confidentiality and maybe one of the things that we
    need to explore is a limited waiver for the boss, because I
    don't want someone saying I need someone to intervene here
    immediately.
        I am not talking about a blanket waiver of confidentiality,
    I am talking about very limited so you can tell my boss that we
    can fix this problem.
        Ms. Grundmann. The employee can do that currently under the
    system.
        Mr. Ryan. And it would be limited to just the boss?
        Ms. Grundmann. It would be limited for the purposes--to
    resolve the issue, yes. It is broader than that, it would be to
    resolve the issue. So the confidentiality goes--the employee's
    driving it all the way through. He or she is deciding at
    counseling whether they want to move to the next stage. At
    mediation the employee is deciding whether they want to move to
    the next stage.
        At the next stage they are deciding which process to
    choose. The law and we understand the frustration. We have been
    called Byzantine, shrouded in secrecy, but this is the process
    that Congress designed in 1995 and that is the process you are
    seeking to change. To lift that veil of confidentiality, and
    particularly if an employee wants it. Sometimes the employees
    will come to us and they don't want us to discuss it with their
    employing office, in which case it ends.
        Mr. Ryan. Right. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Yoder. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So under the law that bill that we
    passed out of the House, Mr. Harper's bill, what happens to
    confidentiality?
        Ms. Grundmann. Confidentiality, it is still there. There is
    a provision for confidentiality, it is not--no longer called
    strict confidentiality anymore. We need to reach out to our
    lawmakers, CHA in particular to find out what the change is
    between strict confidentiality--for us, I don't think anything
    has changed in the sense that there is no affirmative duty for
    us absent waiver by the employee to discuss their claim with
    anyone.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So we haven't changed the
    transparency in the new bill?
        Ms. Grundmann. The transparency changed in terms of our
    reporting requirements. They are more ample, they are more
    fluid and they are certainly more ongoing.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Because I am looking at the language
    in the bill, which says protection of personally identifiable
    information, if a committee to which a claim is referred under
    paragraph 1 issues a report with respect to the claim, the
    committee shall ensure that the report does not directly
    disclose the identity or position of individuals involved in
    the claim.
        Ms. Grundmann. You are talking about the Ethics Committee,
    right?
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am talking about whatever this is
    referring to in the legislation.
        Ms. Grundmann. It sounds like the Ethics Committee, because
    we don't have a committee in our process.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The bottom line that I want to know
    is have we enabled there to be transparency absent the waiver
    of the confidentiality by the person who is the victim?
        Ms. Grundmann. We think you have. Certainly the employee is
    going to have to choose whether or not they want it disclosed.
    I mean there is competing interest here, isn't there? There is
    a competing interest for the public to know what is going on
    and there is the other interest of whether the employee wants
    to disclose what is going on.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. What have we required in the
    legislation that has passed the House?
        Ms. Grundmann. That it remained confidential, that is still
    there. So is your question that you want to know which
    lawmakers offices----
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My question is if somebody has
    abused a subordinate of theirs, whether they are a Member, or a
    chief, or an LD or anybody, does the law, if this bill became
    law, still protect that individual if at the conclusion of the
    process they settled and are found in some ways to have been
    guilty of what they had been accused of?
        Ms. Grundmann. In the Senate version the language is
    extended to naming not just the Member but senior staff.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. An in our version?
        Ms. Grundmann. It is not.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So no one gets named in our version?
        Ms. Grundmann. Just the Member.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So if a chief of staff engages in
    that conduct or anyone else what isn't the Member, their
    conduct is not disclosed?
        Ms. Grundmann. That is correct.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is absolutely unacceptable.
        Mr. Yoder. Further questions for Ms. Grundmann?
        Thank you for your testimony today. And we look forward to
    continuing to work with you on your budget request and these
    many issues that have been raised today. And we appreciate your
    work on behalf of the taxpayers of the United States.
        Ms. Grundmann. Thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. This subcommittee meeting is adjourned
    temporarily and then we will reconvene in about a minute in
    which the Congressional Budget Office will be here to testify.
        [Questions for the Record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                             Wednesday, April 18, 2018.

                  FISCAL YEAR 2019 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

                                    WITNESS

    KEITH HALL, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
        Mr. Yoder. We will call the subcommittee back to order.
    Good afternoon. I would like to welcome Keith Hall, Director of
    the Congressional Budget Office, back to the committee.
        Dr. Hall, welcome.
        Dr. Hall. Thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. Created in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
    that infamous bill, the Congressional Budget Office produces
    independent analysis of budgetary and economic issues in
    support of the congressional budget process.
        Each year, CBO produces hundreds of formal cost estimates,
    thousands of preliminary cost estimates, and dozens of analytic
    reports and papers, releases numerous economic projections, and
    is a constant source of advice relating to budgetary issues for
    Members and staff.
        Last year, I had the opportunity to visit with Director
    Hall and tour CBO's offices personally, and during that tour,
    it became clear to me just how committed the CBO staff is to
    their mission. You could feel the energy and enthusiasm
    throughout the office.
        CBO's fiscal year 2019 budget request is 50.7 million,
    which represents a 1.6 percent increase from previously enacted
    levels. In reviewing your budget justification, this year CBO
    focuses on three key areas: Responsiveness to Congress,
    increased transparency, and expanding analytical capacity.
        I am supportive of all three of these areas in increased
    transparency, and I look forward to hearing more about your
    plans to improve in each area during your testimony and the
    question and answer that will follow.
        I would now like to yield to the great Ohioan, my friend,
    Mr. Tim Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will keep my remarks
    brief.
        I want to thank Director Hall for being here today and
    highlighting for the members of our subcommittee the important
    work of the Congressional Budget Office. As we have learned,
    since 1975, you have been providing independent analysis of
    congressional legislation. We certainly do appreciate that.
        These men and women are consummate professionals who, let's
    be honest, sometimes frustrate both sides of the aisle with
    their analysis of legislation we would like to see signed into
    law. But their work is essential to the operation of Congress.
    And I have seen that on both sides over the last 16 years, of
    both sides being upset.
        Today, with the ongoing war on facts, science, and
    expertise, your job is even that much more important. CBO's
    analysis is a key part of pushing us towards fiscal discipline
    and transparency.
        Members of Congress need to know the economic effects of
    the bills before we vote, and the public needs to know how
    those economic effects were estimated. That is why I am pleased
    to see the CBO focus on the need for responsiveness to Congress
    as well as transparency in their fiscal year 2019 budget
    request.
        I will save the rest of what I have to say for questions,
    and I yield back.
        Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
        Dr. Hall, your complete statement will be made part of the
    official Congressional Record. Feel free to summarize your
    remarks at this time.
        Dr. Hall. Sure. Great.
        Chairman Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the
    Congressional Budget Office's budget request. CBO is asking for
    appropriations of 50.7 million for fiscal year 2019. That
    amount represents an increase of $800,000, or 1.6 percent from
    the $49.9 million provided to CBO for 2018. Of the total
    amount, nearly 91 percent would be used for personnel costs.
    Increases of $2.6 million for three priorities: to pay for
    current staffing, to bolster responsiveness and transparency,
    and to expand analytical capacity--would be significantly
    offset by one-time savings of $1.8 million this year. With the
    requested funding, CBO would be able to add 13 new employees to
    augment its capabilities. To fund the current staffing levels
    in 2019, CBO requests an increase of $1.2 million. That amount
    would be used for a small increase in employees' average salary
    and benefits to keep pace with inflation. If such funding is
    not provided, CBO will need to shrink its staff and
    consequently provide less information and analysis to the
    Congress in 2019.
        CBO proposes to hire 20 new staff members by 2021 to
    bolster its responsiveness and transparency. In 2019, the
    agency would hire 10 of those new employees at a total cost of
    $1 million, mainly for salary and benefits.
        The agency has shifted resources already to undertake such
    activities and has plans for further shifts, but many
    initiatives of great interest to Congress could be undertaken
    only with more employees.
        Also, with additional resources, CBO would be able to
    pursue three main strategies to produce cost estimates more
    quickly: First, the agency would hire more assistant analysts
    who could move from one topic to another and provide support to
    more senior analysts when demands surged for analysis of a
    particular topic, such as healthcare, natural resources, or
    banking; second, CBO would hire analysts to develop deeper
    expertise in certain topics, such as cybersecurity and higher
    education policy, so that the agency was better positioned to
    analyze new proposals in those areas; third, the agency would
    hire analysts to expand its use of team approaches, in which
    work in large and complicated proposals is shared.
        With respect to transparency, CBO is actively exploring
    ways to provide additional information about its modeling that
    would be useful to Congress. The agency has released new
    publications this year describing its processes for producing
    economic forecasts, budget baselines, and cost estimates.
        Key staff are making presentations to congressional staff
    about those processes, and in the coming months, efforts to
    bolster transparency will include the following: Publishing
    detailed information about key aspects of CBO's updated model
    for simulating health insurance coverage, including computer
    code and about how analysts use the model in preparing
    estimates; developing a version of CBO's model for projecting
    spending on discretionary programs to allow for replicating
    roughly 40 percent of the agency's formal cost estimates;
    releasing technical documentation and computer code explaining
    how key parts of CBO's long-term budget model work and how they
    contribute to the agency's analysis; providing information
    online that enables users to examine how a large variety of
    changes in baseline economic projections can affect projections
    of the Federal budget; and last but not least, posting on an
    agency's website, a tool for examining the cost of different
    military force structures.
        Added resources would also allow CBO to produce other kinds
    of information that would aid transparency. For instance, CBO
    could provide more information about the basis for key
    parameters that underlie the results of models.
        Additional funding would also help the agency turn its
    internal comparisons of projections and actual results--for the
    economy, revenues, spending, deficits and debt into public
    documents.
        CBO proposes to expand its analytical capacity primarily by
    adding three new healthcare analysts in 2019. The total cost
    would be $400,000. Congressional interest remain high in
    modifying and replacing the Affordable Care Act, and changing
    Medicare and Medicaid, and the new analysts would help the
    agency examine new approaches to do so.
        The increases for the three priorities are offset by $1.8
    million in savings, resulting from being able to use fiscal
    year 2018 funding to cover one-time costs for the migration of
    the agency's data center, and contractors' support of
    transparency efforts, and to pay for some multiyear contracts
    to acquire data and to install new communication lines.
        The requested amount of funding would allow CBO to provide
    estimates and other analysis to the Congress, such as more than
    600 formal cost estimates and thousands of preliminary informal
    cost estimates; about 80 analytical reports and papers; and
    more than 100 scorekeeping tabulations, including account-level
    detail for individual appropriations acts at all stages of the
    legislative process, as well as summary tables showing the
    status of discretionary appropriations and running totals on a
    year-to-date basis.
        In closing, I would like to thank the committee for its
    longstanding support of CBO. That support has allowed CBO to
    provide budget and economic analysis that is timely,
    thoughtful, and nonpartisan as the Congress addresses issues of
    critical importance.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        PRIORITIZATION OF COST ESTIMATES

        Mr. Yoder. I appreciate your testimony, Director Hall.
        In your testimony you mention that last year, CBO completed
    740 cost estimates, formal cost estimates?
        Dr. Hall. That is correct.
        Mr. Yoder. That is the highest number in a decade, I think
    you said, with the average completion time of 25 calendar days.
    How do you prioritize cost estimates?
        Dr. Hall. Really, we look to committees. The basic logic is
    that legislation that is close to getting to the floor on a
    vote needs the most priority, and so we focus on the priorities
    of committees. We actually ask committees what their priorities
    are and look at their legislation.
        That is also consistent with how we were created. We were
    created to be responsive to the Budget Committee, Ways and
    Means, et cetera. So we very much are a committee-oriented
    organization, and this actually creates a lot of frustration
    with us because we only have resources to work for committees.
    We don't work as much as we would like for individual Members,
    so that is sort of how we prioritize things by literally
    talking to committees.
        Mr. Yoder. So if a Member doesn't have the committee's
    endorsement to get something scored, how would they ever get a
    cost estimate of that legislation?
        Dr. Hall. Well, if we have got time, we can do it. And, in
    fact, that is actually part of what I hope we could--we could
    do more of that if we have more resources. This is part of the
    responsiveness.
        But lots of times, individual Members just have to wait. We
    literally will go back to a committee and ask the committee--if
    we are busy, ask the committee, should we make this a priority?
    Where should this be in our priorities? And sometimes we have
    to disappoint Members.
        Mr. Yoder. Well, and I am sure that happens a lot. I mean,
    there are thousands of bills that are, you know, crisscrossing
    around here, some of which might be interesting to get a cost
    estimate of, but that will maybe never even see the light of
    day, certainly never get a hearing, don't have many cosponsors.
        But I do think that there needs to probably be a mechanism
    for Members who have demonstrated that legislation has buoyancy
    in and of itself outside the committee process. You know, we,
    for example, have a bill that has 322 cosponsors. That is a
    lot.
        Dr. Hall. Right.
        Mr. Yoder. That maybe even one of the most cosponsored
    bills in Congress. Yet, when my staff exchanges with you on
    this legislation, essentially the office has stonewalled us,
    indicated they can't score it, and then just responding to
    requests to engage.
        So my own experiences, outside of working directly with
    you, sir, and during and meeting some of your very fine people,
    that is not a very good correspondence, you know, a very good
    experience.
        And part of our job here is oversight, to ensure that we
    are working on behalf of all the Members, and not just the
    Appropriations Committee, or not just the Judiciary Committee.
    And so, one of the things I think we are really going to need
    to look at is how we make the CBO responsive to initiatives for
    individual Members who have demonstrated that legislation has
    buoyancy or has support.
        Maybe there is a threshold. I mean, if someone brought you
    435 cosponsors, would that be enough, you know? I mean, there
    ought to be some demonstration. Maybe if you have 100 people
    that have sponsored your legislation, that goes into another
    category. But I would think 322 would at least demonstrate the
    need for some acknowledgment that that might be of value to
    have it scored.
        The other problem with that is, in some cases, you need to
    have the cost estimate in order to move something through the
    committee process. So you sort of have a chicken-and-egg
    problem here. And I understand it is a resources-driven
    situation, but, you know, these loose ends create frustration
    for rank-and-file Members.
        Dr. Hall. I appreciate that. Hopefully, we can figure a way
    out to prioritize more of that work. You know, maybe we can set
    aside a certain share of our time for just non-committee work
    so we actually have some time carved aside, some things like
    that. That sort of thing is the sort of--what we are sort of
    hoping to do with increasing our staff a little bit.
        Mr. Yoder. Do you think my team's interaction with the CBO
    in that experience is common, or is that a unique, inexplicable
    result? Do you find that surprising, or do you find that, yeah,
    that is sort of how it goes, we are inundated with so much
    stuff that we know there is a lot of loose ends and maybe not
    even return calls, et cetera.
        Dr. Hall. I am afraid it is somewhere in between. It is not
    absolutely unique. It does happen. It doesn't happen very
    often. But I know it is frustrating. For example, we should
    never stop responding. And I think Members should always feel
    free to call me to see--to get an explanation for where our
    priorities are and we can talk about what we can.
        One of the things that is a little tricky for us is so much
    of our work is informal. And when it is informal and a
    committee asks us not to talk about it, for it to be
    confidential, I can't tell you what we are working on sometimes
    other than assure you that we are busy. And that is kind of
    frustrating.
        Mr. Yoder. Well, I think it is to the benefit of Congress
    that the CBO is a viable and trusted entity. As Mr. Ryan noted
    in his comments, sometimes the results frustrate, you know,
    both sides of the aisle. That is to be expected.
        You know, we have added additional transparency
    requirements in our 2018 report, which you referenced in your
    opening comment. You know, your thoughts and our ability to
    work with you and if it is a resource--I know you mentioned
    resources as part of this but, you know, to gain that trust
    part of that is transparency.
        Dr. Hall. Sure.
        Mr. Yoder. And, you know, CBO's score is as good as
    bipartisan trust exists.
        Dr. Hall. Right.
        Mr. Yoder. Right? And if one side isn't going to regard it
    as viable, then CBO starts to lose its effectiveness.
        So I encourage colleagues on my side of the aisle, you
    know, and whoever is in the majority and minority, to work with
    the CBO to make it more effective, where they have concerns to
    raise those with you, and to make it more viable, because the
    CBO is necessary, I believe, in this process. Their cost
    estimate process is critical.
        So with that, Mr. Ryan.

                        IMPACTS OF HEALTHCARE PREVENTION

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        So you mentioned you are going to hire more healthcare
    analysts in the next couple of years. One of the longstanding
    discussions we had during the healthcare reform debate was
    about preventive healthcare--I think we are going to get in the
    weeds a little bit here--because it was a frustrating thing for
    us to kind of deal with at the time, that there is an inability
    of CBO to account for savings through prevention in the
    healthcare system.
        Can you explain to me how that is--why that is an issue?
        Dr. Hall. Sure. Sure. It is not that we don't try. We
    really do look very carefully to see if there is some savings
    from preventative healthcare. One of the difficulties for us is
    having evidence of that, having really solid evidence that we
    have got something to lean on about how much impact the
    preventative healthcare has.
        And there is another side to it. I think it is easy to
    underestimate the cost of preventative healthcare sometimes.
    For example, if you provided additional healthcare to a large
    number of people, and a small share of them really benefits, it
    is still a small share of the spending.
        And so, that is one of the things that I think people don't
    often think about is a lot of preventative work doesn't
    actually make its way into better healthcare. Even though it
    does for individuals, it doesn't necessarily for the entire
    spending.
        But we are serious about trying to look at that. We really
    do try to look for savings on that. There wasn't this year, but
    the year before, I think we have even used our blog post to
    talk about how we are limited in some preventative healthcare
    issues, and we would love to see some research that would help
    us use that in our estimates.
        Mr. Ryan. What can we do to help?
        Dr. Hall. Oh, I think continue to make that a priority. You
    know, I think----
        Mr. Ryan. I mean, who do we need to contact? Do we need to
    coordinate this with HHS? Are there research institutions that
    are out there that we can engage with? I just think, I mean,
    moving forward, regardless of where you stand on healthcare, I
    mean, we should know as a country how much we are going to save
    if we have a robust preventative program, regime established
    for our citizens. I mean, how can we probably move forward with
    healthcare reform, whether you want to do their side or our
    side or whoever's side, who can we help you engage with?
        Dr. Hall. Well, I think certainly talking to HHS and
    talking to individual researchers that this is a priority,
    because so often we are left with really just no evidence on
    what the effects of some preventative healthcare will be.
        Mr. Ryan. And that is just mind-boggling to me. You know, I
    am not trying to be a jerk, but I am just saying, you know, how
    are we, in 2018 in the United States of America, and we can't
    figure out how much savings we can garner from making sure that
    people have preventative healthcare, you know, given Medicare
    and Medicaid and what we know about screenings? I think we need
    to make this a priority because, moving forward, health care is
    going to continue to be an issue. So I made my point.
        A follow-up question would be, are there any other areas of
    our economy, programming that you feel the same, somewhat the
    same frustration in your analysis and that your analysts may
    feel?
        Dr. Hall. Sure. Actually, there are lots of areas. One of
    the bigger ones, it comes up almost every time we have our
    budget and economic outlook that we produced last week, is we
    continue to sort of adjust the cost of healthcare, of Medicaid
    in particular. We keep overestimating the cost of it. It keeps
    coming down.
        And the big problem is, we don't know why. And so, it is
    hard to change the forecast if you don't know why it is coming
    down. It is just coming down. So we actually are trying to----
        Mr. Ryan. Medicare or Medicaid?
        Dr. Hall. Medicaid.
        Mr. Ryan. Medicaid.
        Dr. Hall. Medicaid in particular. But, you know, that is a
    big part of the budget, and we hate to see ourselves
    overestimate the cost, you know, more than once or twice
    because we would like to sort of get a good--a better estimate.
        And we are handicapped because there just isn't any
    evidence of why that is happening. So that is one of the things
    we are trying to prioritize. It is an example, I think, of what
    you are talking about.
        Mr. Ryan. Mr. Chair, maybe there is an opportunity for us
    to sit down with the money we spend at NIH and some of these
    research institutions, the Department of Defense spends a lot
    of money on research, private university--private corporations
    spend a lot of money on research. Maybe there is a way for us
    to coordinate this so that we can just have a better
    understanding of what is working, what is not working.
        I am the first to say, if there is something that we are
    pushing that is not working, stop doing it. But we have to base
    that on some good information.
        Dr. Hall. Well, we would be happy to sit with you and talk
    a little bit about some priorities. We can certainly tell you
    where we feel like we would like some help, the extra help in
    terms of research that would help us more accurately score
    things like preventative healthcare.
        Mr. Ryan. Okay. Follow up on that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Taylor.

                         OUTLOOK OF ECONOMIC FORECASTS

        Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks for being here. Appreciate it. I know you don't have
    an easy job, and like Congressman Ryan said, you have got your
    feet up on both sides sometimes, you know.
        CBO, do you routinely look back at previous estimates and
    compare those to actual outcomes? If so, what is your internal
    process for reevaluating those estimate models, and then how do
    you incorporate your findings going forward?
        Dr. Hall. Sure. Well, we do it in a big sense. Every couple
    of years, we look at our economic forecast, how has our
    forecast gone? We have also now completed recently a report on
    how accurate our overall forecast on outlays has been, and then
    also, revenues has been. So we get this big picture of what is
    the average error from our baseline.
        We are also starting to pick out particular bills and start
    to look back and sort of see how we did on those. We are always
    going to have a limitation, because so often a change in
    legislation is part of a bigger budget category and is very
    hard to isolate the effect of that change in the legislation.
        But we are starting to do that more when we can. For
    example, we just did it with our estimate of the ACA. We just
    took a really hard look about how well we did on that
    forecasting, and we actually made a presentation at CRS on it.
    But we do have some information on that. We are trying to do
    that more and more.
        And as part of our routine, this doesn't become public, but
    every year we go through all our budget categories and talk
    with the analysts and see how they did that year, how their
    budget category did. Was it up too high? Too low? And we talk
    about that, and that is actually part of their evaluation, and
    then we will discuss their modeling if they need to adjust
    things like that.
        Mr. Taylor. On that note for modeling methodologies, is
    that just an internal process, or do you reach out to, like,
    academia and other financial researchers that are experts to
    sort of have an independent evaluation to make sure that you
    guys are on track?
        Dr. Hall. Well, we use those folks routinely for almost
    anything we do. Anytime we do research reports, we reach out
    and have them review things and get feedback that way. And, you
    know, certainly, when we did those larger studies about how
    accurate have we been in forecasting revenues, for example, we
    have that reviewed by outside folks who have some expertise.
        So we try to engage in that way. We have a panel of
    economic advisers that we meet--meets twice a year, and we
    routinely throw important topics in front of them. We also have
    a panel of healthcare advisers. So, for example, we were
    concerned about our estimate of the effects of the individual
    mandate. Well, last fall we made a presentation to our advisers
    and got comments and got some info as to whether they thought
    we were being accurate or not.
        Mr. Taylor. What happens if you are inaccurate or when you
    look back and when your cost estimates are widely off, not
    because of, you know--perhaps, obviously, there is different
    budget things and other things that happen. What if you got it
    really wrong? Like who do you communicate that to? Do you talk
    to Members of Congress? Do you talk to folks like, Hey, we
    really got this wrong and this is why?
        Dr. Hall. Well, we are certainly willing to do that. We
    don't have a formal process for doing that. You know, our first
    notion is to try to fix what we are doing so we get it correct.
        I will tell you, one of the things that we are going to do
    that maybe fits into that category, I mentioned that once a
    year, I go through all our budget categories and do an analysis
    of how we did. It is something we call the analysis of actuals.
    We are actually going to start making that public every year.
    So you can actually just look at how we did by budget category,
    you know, in 2017, and sort of see how we did budget category
    by category, give you some feedback that way about how we are
    doing.
        Mr. Taylor. And then for your average time, was it 25 days,
    I guess?
        Dr. Hall. Right.
        Mr. Taylor. What is your goal? And then if you are not
    meeting that goal, why, and what are you doing to meet the
    goal?
        Dr. Hall. Well, the tricky part is different pieces of
    legislation have wildly different complexity and time frames.
    Basically, our process has us doing what I sort of feel like is
    due diligence, where we spend some time looking at the
    legislation carefully, talking with folks who understand
    exactly how the legislation is going to work, and that is a big
    part of the cost estimate.
        You know, we reach out to experts. We reach out to the
    administration folks who are going to be implementing it. So we
    have this process where we are working hard to get comfortable
    with what we think the impact will be. And then, it is a
    judgment call that, well, okay, we have done enough work, time
    to write it up and send it out.
        So it is this little process. And, you know, sometimes the
    time frames are really short. We get really rushed. And we
    still try to maintain a certain level of quality, but sometimes
    it is harder to do than others when we are pressed for time.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Yoder. Ms. McCollum.

                    SCORING ON PREVENTATIVE HEALTHCARE BILLS

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        As Ranking Member Ryan said, healthcare will be in your
    future. I want to go back to healthcare. So I think there are
    places out there we can look at prevention. It maybe makes it
    hard for you to score in a very large bill, but I think
    figuring out a way to break it down, I would cite the Mayo
    Clinic, for example, with all of its research over the years.
        The CDC--I mean, the CDC knows if you have a flu shot, your
    emergency room trips, which not only--and insurance companies
    can figure that out too. So, I mean, there are some
    preventative interventions that are out there that are well-
    known. And diabetes is starting to become on an up ramp where
    we are having more and more success in figuring out what to do
    with that.
        I am going take this to the Indian Health Service, and
    maybe figure out if this is a place where we can start. The
    chairman and I--and it is nonpartisan on the committee, as the
    other members of the appropriation knows, it is a way that we
    work on this.
        So I will just give you a snapshot. So an Indian healthcare
    hospital is going to be 40 years old. Any other hospital,
    without having--would have had revisions or things done to it
    within the last 10 years.
        An Indian healthcare hospital is going to maybe have an
    old--and I have seen them--an old x-ray machine. Any other
    hospital might, depending upon how old it is, would have a CAT
    scan.
        An Indian healthcare hospital might not--or clinic might
    not be very well connected to the internet where it could
    provide telemedicine. Rural hospitals have found that if they
    are going to survive and really do quality patient care, they
    have to have telemedicine available to them.
        So you start out with all those inequities and then you
    start looking at the outcomes that Indian healthcare service
    has. Then you look on top of that, if you just graduated from
    medical school, are you going to go to the 40-year-old hospital
    that has the old x-ray machine? So then you start having
    problems retaining doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, PAs,
    technicians. It just goes on and on and on.
        Now, here is where we know it affects our budget. Someone
    on an Indian reservation--Mr. Stewart has had some great
    examples--has a--sustains a head injury. Come into the clinic,
    we don't have anything to look at that head injury. What are we
    going to do? We have to call air transport in to transport you
    out to get an x-ray, or to have the right machine do the scan,
    and maybe you need no further intervention. Oh, and now you
    have to come back.
        So I think there are some things out there, if we want to
    try to look at small bites to work together on that--on it,
    because we have treaty and trust responsibilities to get this
    right. We are totally failing.
        And now we are having hospitals that are falling out of
    compliance, which means we can't be reimbursed when we have
    patients there. So it is--we are seeing that cycle before our
    eyes now that we finally started bipartisanly, non-partisanly
    collecting information, working with the tribal communities on
    this.
        Another area where there is clear healthcare disparities is
    in maternal child health among minority populations, whether it
    is urban or rural. And we know what the outcomes are for
    hospitalization. We know what the outcomes are for low
    birthrate and everything else that is in there.
        So I think, you know, to Mr. Ryan's point--and I think
    there are a group of us--just let's not get into whether it is
    single health payer, the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare,
    RyanCare, TrumpCare, whatever you want to call it.
        I think some of us need to start saying that we have a
    responsibility of using information that is in front of us on
    healthcare to lower costs, because it will lower cost for
    Medicaid, Medicare; it will lower cost for Indian Health
    Service; it will lower cost for the DOD; it will lower cost for
    the BA, and that means that we start reaching better parity.
        If someone wanted to put a group together to talk to you
    about how we would narrow the silo down so that we could look
    at it, to the chairman's point, you know, trying to get a
    reporter to get you to work on something--through no fault of
    your own. You are overworked--is very difficult.
        What would be your recommendation to those of us on the
    Appropriations Committee? And Energy and Commerce in a
    nonpartisan way is working on this too, especially with Indian
    Health Service.
        Dr. Hall. Well, I think certainly expressing interest to
    us. And one of the things I think we should try to do a lot
    better, and that is, just when you have an interest in talking
    about one of these topics, we can send folks in and just talk
    with you about it, how we think about the effects of some of
    these things, how we think we might approach it.
        One of the things that we wind up doing--again, it is too
    much for committees, but so much of our time is spent in this
    sort of technical assistance, where we are helping committees
    think through the possible legislation, draft pieces of
    legislation. I think that is really important.
        And this is the sort of thing, I think, could help
    individual Members more if we did more, where we could come in
    and talk to you about.
        Ms. McCollum. So one of the things that we ran into, and it
    is a term called ``dynamic scoring,'' so when we do have some
    of these preventions that we know will save money, we weren't
    allowed to do it because we were told there were prohibitions
    on dynamic scoring. Is that correct, on healthcare?
        Dr. Hall. No. No. In fact, we are directed to use dynamic
    scoring for any piece of legislation that is significantly
    large, and then we are required to do it whenever one of the
    Budget Committee chairs asks us to do it to the degree it is
    possible.
        Ms. McCollum. So the tax bill was dynamically scored, I
    understand.
        Dr. Hall. Right.
        Ms. McCollum. And so if someone had a piece of healthcare
    legislation, it could be dynamically scored is what you are
    telling me?
        Dr. Hall. That is right. Now, the tricky thing for us would
    be does dynamic scoring really makes a difference when it is a
    big piece of legislation. When it is smaller, there can be some
    dynamic effects, but they are much harder to estimate.
        But we are willing to look at it and talk about that. But
    we are not constrained on the dynamic scoring. In fact, I kind
    of wish we were used a little bit more for the dynamic----
        Ms. McCollum. Well, the tax bill was pretty big, so I think
    I can come up with a piece of legislation smaller than that,
    Mr. Chair. Thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Ms. McCollum.
        Director Hall, thank you for your appearance course, as we
    put together the pieces of the 2019 budget puzzle.
        The subcommittee stands in recess until April 25 at 1:00
    p.m., at which time we will receive testimony from the
    Government Accountability Office.
        Meeting adjourned.
        [Questions for the record follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                             Wednesday, April 25, 2018.

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

                                    WITNESS

    GENE L. DODARO, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
        Mr. Yoder. The subcommittee will come to order.
        Today, I would like to welcome the Government
    Accountability Office. Testifying before us, we have Gene
    Dodaro, the Comptroller General of the United States.
        The GAO, often referred to as the Congressional watchdog,
    is tasked with the investigating how the Federal Government
    spends taxpayer dollars in an effort to ensure accountability
    of the Federal Government for the benefit of the American
    people.
        The GAO estimates that for every $1 invested, $128 of
    potential savings government-wide is identified, which total
    over $73 billion in fiscal year 2017. So maybe we can give you
    a $1 billion and we could solve all of our problems.
        You give it a shot? If it were only that easy.
        Your budget request submitted to the President is $616
    million, and I understand now that the fiscal year 2018 omnibus
    has become law, and your revised request is flat.
        And with that, thank you for attending today. We are going
    to take your testimony in a minute. But first, I would like to
    yield to my good friend and colleague from the great State of
    Ohio, Mr. Tim Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dodaro, thank you
    for being here. We appreciate your work. You play an essential
    role in helping Congress exercise its oversight
    responsibilities, not only in pushing government programs to
    run more efficiently and effectively, rooting out waste, fraud
    and abuse, but also in keeping an eye on government officials
    who try to skirt the law.
        In the recently passed 2018 omnibus, we intentionally
    funded GAO at a level that will allow them to reach 3,100 full-
    time equivalent employees again, well below their peak
    personnel levels, but high enough that they feel they can do
    the job adequately. And I am pleased to see that while they
    ramp up their hiring to reach 3,100 FTEs, GAO is also able to
    fund IT modernization and investment in their building and
    infrastructure.
        So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I will yield back. And we will
    hear from our distinguished guest.
        Mr. Yoder. All right. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Dodaro, your complete statement will be made part of
    the record, so feel free summarize your remarks at this time.
        Welcome to the committee.

                               Opening Statement

        Mr. Dodaro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
    here. Ranking Member Ryan.
        I would like to first start out by thanking this committee
    for the support that you provided for our fiscal year 2018
    budget.
        That budget, as both of you noted, will enable us to meet
    priority needs of the Congress, but also make investments on
    our information technology and infrastructure operations in
    GAO.
        This will help improve our communications, data management
    efforts, allow us to prepare parts of the building to rent out;
    this will allow us to generate additional revenue.
        With the investments in IT modernization, we will reduce
    our future operating cost such that we didn't ask for any
    additional money for 2019.
        So if we are held flat, we will achieve the 3,100 FTE level
    by redirecting operational savings from IT investments and
    bring additional staff into GAO.
        With 3,100, we will meet the highest priority needs of the
    Congress. As you know, we serve all the committees in the
    Congress. We will focus increased resources on four specific
    areas that I think are very important.
        One, is cybersecurity. I am talking not only about the
    information systems that the Federal Government operates, but
    how the government works with the private sector to protect
    critical infrastructure like the electricity grid as well as
    personally identifiable information.
        I am also concerned that we are into a new evolution of
    cybersecurity issues with the Internet of Things such as
    autonomous vehicles. In addition, we are moving to an air
    traffic control system that will be satellite-based, not radar-
    based. This will be a more open system.
        Anything that is connected to the Internet, while it is
    going to improve services, is going to have security issues.
    GAO has been playing a leading role in this area and I think we
    can continue to do so.
        Second would be increasing our resources in science and
    technology. This not only would help us bolster our technology
    assessment capability at GAO, which we have demonstrated the
    ability to do, but would also help us in a number of other
    areas where science and technology is infused into our normal
    work.
        For example, in Defense, we are looking at the new Columbia
    class nuclear submarine, investments in satellite technology,
    space-based technologies, technologies to improve homeland
    security to detect radiological intrusions, or biochemical
    attacks on the United States, as well as other homeland
    security issues. We are looking at the medical area as well. We
    just completed a technology assessment on new technologies to
    rapidly detect infectious diseases so that quick action could
    be taken in those areas.
        Third is Defense. Congress has increased investments in
    Defense, and so we need to focus our oversight to ensure that
    money is invested properly. I have been concerned about the
    readiness levels. We have also done work in weapon systems
    acquisitions on the joint strike fighter and other areas.
    Defense is also undergoing their first ever financial audit of
    the entire Defense Department.
        We are helping oversee that. I would really like to see
    them have a proper accounting of all their funds. They are the
    last major department in the Federal Government that hasn't
    been able to pass an audit. So we are prepared to help them.
    These additional resources would help.
        Last is healthcare costs, which is the fastest growing part
    of the Federal budget. We have done work in the past in this
    area not only in access to services, but also trying to reduce
    some of the improper payments in Medicare and Medicaid.
        Last year there were tens of billions of dollars, over $70
    billion, in improper payments in those programs. We have a
    number of our high-risk areas in those areas. Veteran's
    healthcare is also a high risk area. There are healthcare
    issues that we could review. We do work at FDA regarding food
    safety and medical device safety, as well as Medicare,
    Medicaid, and normal healthcare expenditures. Those would be
    our priorities.

                                ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        As you noted, Mr. Chairman, we are a good investment. We
    provide a great return on that investment. In addition to the
    numbers you mentioned, about 128 to 1 for last year, over the
    last decade, our high-risk program has brought financial
    benefits to the government of over $240 billion. Work we have
    done on overlap, duplication and fragmentation of the Federal
    Government so far has saved over $136 billion. I will be
    testifying tomorrow on our 8th annual report in that area.
    Those numbers will go up. Additional savings have been realized
    as a result of our work.
        We still have over 300 open recommendations. There are
    billions of dollars that could be saved through the full
    implementation of our recommendations.
        I know you always give careful consideration to our
    request. I appreciate that very much. I would be happy to
    answer any of your questions.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Yoder. Thank you for your testimony, sir. And thank you
    for your good work on behalf of the taxpayers of our country.
    And I am thankful for your budget request, in that you are not
    asking for additional increases.
        As you know, we are trying to operate within limited
    expenditures here, managing all the different aspects of the
    Federal Government. And so, you are hopefully, you know,
    utilizing your great comptroller accounting strengths within
    your own agency.
        So I know we gave a significant increase in 2018, just
    about a month or so ago, and hopefully, those resources are
    being plugged in well and helping you reach further into the
    government to, you know, find savings.

                          SAVINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

        I am interested in the $73 billion that were saved. So
    those are actual dollars that you can point to because of a
    recommendation----
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
        Mr. Yoder [continuing]. That was taken up, dollars were
    saved?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
        Mr. Yoder. How many more estimated dollars did you
    recommend that weren't taken up?
        Mr. Dodaro. There are tens of billions of dollars in
    additional savings that could have been achieved by
    implementations and recommendations.
        In fact, next week or tomorrow--It should be tomorrow
    because this hearing was supposed to be last week.
        Mr. Yoder. Right.
        Mr. Dodaro. Tomorrow----
        Mr. Yoder. That is true.
        Mr. Dodaro. Tomorrow, we will be releasing that report.
        I will have an attachment in my testimony of 58 specific
    recommendations to the Congress that could result in tens of
    billions of dollars in additional savings.
        Mr. Yoder. And are some of these, been around for a while
    or these are all new ones in the current year?
        Mr. Dodaro. Some are new.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay.
        Mr. Dodaro. Some have been around for a while.
        Mr. Yoder. Right.
        Mr. Dodaro. We had some that were open for a number of
    years. The specter of sequestration affected the budget deals
    that were done for 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, so a lot of our
    recommendations that implemented there were around for a while
    because Congress wanted to stay under the caps----
        Mr. Yoder. Right.
        Mr. Dodaro. At that point in time.
        Mr. Yoder. Right.
        Mr. Dodaro. And so----
        Mr. Yoder. I am guessing sometimes Congress comes looking
    for pay-fors, they come to your list to find a way to offset a
    spending increase.
        Mr. Dodaro. We are ever ready----
        Mr. Yoder. Just the pay-fors.
        Mr. Dodaro. I advocate our work at every opportunity,
    because it is important. There are some savings in there that
    can be made that won't have any adverse effect on the American
    people and would really be true efficiency savings or revenue
    enhancements. A number of recommendations we have could bring
    additional revenues.
        Mr. Yoder. What is a good story or a good example that Tim,
    myself, others, could use at home with our constituents when we
    are talking about the work we are doing at the GAO?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. You want one of an open recommendation?
        Mr. Yoder. Something that has been successful. A
    recommendation that was made that saved taxpayers.
        Mr. Dodaro. Yeah, sure.
        Mr. Yoder. Some of that $73 billion.
        Mr. Dodaro. In the TRICARE----
        Mr. Yoder. Okay.
        Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. Area, for example. We found that
    DoD was paying for compound drugs that included ingredients
    that FDA had not approved. Therefore, TRICARE should not have
    paid for those drugs.
        Our recommendation had safety implications for the people
    who were taking those drugs, and saved the government a lot of
    money.
        Second, with the explosion of information technology, the
    federal government manages the spectrum areas. We found that
    the auction process that was being used was a good process. We
    recommended that Congress reauthorize that process. That
    resulted in spectrum auctions that brought in billions of
    dollars to the federal government.
        Another example would be in food or medical product safety.
    Right now, 80 percent of the ingredients from prescription
    drugs come from foreign sources.
        We suggested that the FDA needed to change its approach,
    which had been primarily focused on domestic production, to
    look at foreign production as well. This is going to better
    protect the public in terms of medical products. These include
    medical devices, too, including pacemakers and other equipment.
    About half of these come from foreign sources around the world,
    we recommended a change in strategy.
        Another example is drug shortages on cancer therapy drugs.
    For instance, if one of your constituents went in for
    treatment, the proper drug might not have been available, or
    they have to use a substitute that might not be effective.
        One of the reasons we found for this shortage was that the
    manufacturers did not have to notify the FDA in advance. The
    FDA could take action to increase production, go to another
    manufacturer, or go to another country. Those are the types of
    things we do. We save money, but we really have other really
    important recommendations that go to public safety and
    protection.
        I gave you a few examples here, but there are quite a few
    in Homeland Security including border technologies and other
    things.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay.
        Mr. Dodaro. So those are all good examples.
        Thank you for sharing that with the committee.
        Mr. Dodaro. Sure.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

                             MEDICARE AND MEDICAID

        Talk to us a little bit about Medicare and Medicaid. You
    are saying there is $70 billion at this point a year in waste,
    fraud, and abuse in those two programs? Could you mention a
    recommendation or two that you have? And then also with the VA?
        Mr. Dodaro. Sure. First, I am very concerned about the
    Medicaid program. The managed care portion of the Medicaid
    program has grown exponentially. It is almost 40 percent of
    total Medicaid spending right now.
        The estimates that I gave you on improper payments don't
    even include complete estimates on the managed care portion of
    the Medicaid area.
        I think State auditors ought to be more involved in
    reviewing the Medicaid programs. In some States, it is 30
    percent of their entire budget. I have been working with State
    auditors to try to get them involved in those areas.
        Some of the recommendations we have in Medicaid have to do
    with better improper payments estimates on this managed care
    portion. There is also the supplemental payments that are made
    to institutions for uncompensated care, for example. What we
    find is they were using improper formulas in those areas.
    Actually, in some cases, they were paying hospitals more than
    their total operating cost, not just compensating them for
    uncompensated care. They were getting more than their total
    operating costs from the Federal Government. We made
    recommendations to fix that area as well.
        Another area is in demonstrations, where they approve
    demonstrations by States. By their policy, it is supposed to be
    budget neutral. We find it is not budget neutral, and it is
    costing the Federal Government billions of dollars more. Those
    demonstrations haven't been properly evaluated to know whether
    they are working effectively or not. Nonetheless, they are
    regularly extended.
        The Medicaid program is a big area.
        Mr. Ryan. How much do you think we could save in the
    Medicaid program if we implemented some of your----
        Mr. Dodaro. There are tens of billions of dollars. I can't
    give you a precise estimate.
        Mr. Ryan. Yeah, yeah.
        Mr. Dodaro. But it is orders of magnitude. This is not
    operating at the margins.
        The demonstrations that have been approved are one-third of
    the total spending for the Medicaid program. This isn't a few
    experiments here or there. These are large-scale demonstration
    projects.
        Hopefully, the administration has been listening. We have
    been talking to them and trying to get them to focus on these
    areas.
        In Medicare, if you go into a doctor's office--and some of
    the doctors are now affiliated with hospitals, for example. If
    you go into a doctor's office at a hospital or if you go into a
    doctor's office in Youngstown or Kansas, Medicare will
    reimburse you more if you go into a doctor's office at a
    hospital than if you go into your local physician's office.
    That doesn't make sense.
        So we say you have got to equalize payments here, and if
    you do that, you will save billions of dollars.
        There are special cancer hospitals that were established in
    the 1980s, when things were just getting started, that are paid
    at a higher rate now than teaching hospitals that provide the
    exact same cancer therapies. We estimate you could save $500
    million a year by equalizing those payment rates.
        There is an adjustment that they make in Medicare between
    fee-for-service and managed care. In managed care, they make an
    estimate ahead of time, and there is a per capita rate. They
    adjust it to the actual fee-for-service on the other side of
    Medicare's operations. They are not using current information.
    The best information in the adjustments, we estimate, would
    save a billion or two a year if they did the proper adjustments
    (correctly). So those are a few examples.

                                VETERANS AFFAIRS

        Mr. Ryan. What about the VA?
        Mr. Dodaro. We added VA healthcare on our high-risk list in
    2015.
        I have been very concerned about the Veterans
    Administration, being able to provide timely, high-quality
    care. We have just received from them, even though we put them
    on our High Risk List back in 2015, their first attempt at a
    plan to address the high risk areas. We found a lack of
    accountability and poor training for some of their people.
    Their IT systems are antiquated, and there are not clear
    alignment of their resources with their needs.
        They have fundamental management challenges that are deeply
    seated in that agency.
        Over the years, I have met with Secretary Shinseki when he
    was there, Secretary McDonald, and Secretary Shulkin. I am
    waiting for the new person to get in place to really talk to
    them about what they need to do to fix those problems.
        Mr. Ryan. [Inaudible]
        Mr. Dodaro. I don't know if it is that much, to be honest
    with you, but they could save millions, clearly. We have one
    example, we issued a report on medical supplies, which I will
    be talking about tomorrow.
        Each hospital purchases their medical supplies separately.
    They should have a regional approach or a national approach for
    contracts.
        They tried to have something like that, but they didn't
    involve the clinicians. It didn't get off the ground. There
    wasn't buy-in. In some cases, they still use emergency
    purchasing vehicles rather than going through a competitive
    process that would bring costs down.
        In the area of buying surgical supplies and medical
    supplies, there are tens of millions of dollars that could be
    saved as well, but more importantly, the services are not where
    it needs to be. We continue to find problems and a lack of
    accountability, and a lack of good information to make good
    decisions and to hold people accountable. There is a lot that
    needs to be done in that area. I have made it a high priority.
        I have also testified recently on the appeals process
    reform for disability claims. That has been a problem for a
    number of years. They have a new approach that they are
    planning to use, but what we found was they weren't testing all
    the different avenues that they were proposing to change. In
    particular they were going to allow people to appeal directly
    to the Veterans Appeals Board, and not go through the VBA, the
    Veterans Benefit Administration.
        They weren't even testing that option, so I am hopeful they
    will turn that around.
        The appeals, and the disability programs in the Federal
    Government have been on our high risk list for over a decade.
    Now we put the healthcare on there. It is going to take a while
    to get it fixed, but I am determined to work with them to try
    to get it fixed properly. Our veterans deserve better service
    than they are currently receiving.
        Mr. Ryan. Yeah. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Chairman, we have had this conversation offline, but
    this is, I think this has been, the last 5 minutes, you hear
    the value of what this operation brings to us. I wish we had
    listened to you more, but maybe the chairman and I can take
    some of your recommendations in some of these areas and work
    together in a bipartisan way to get them implemented because
    they are, as you said, it is going to benefit the taxpayer and
    improve the quality of the program, get the government running
    more efficiently. I think it is something we need to jump on.
        Mr. Dodaro. I will be happy to work with you. Over three-
    quarters of our recommendations actually do get implemented
    over a 4-year period of time. I never give up. I have also sent
    letters every year for the last 3 years, to each major
    department head and agency outlining not only the number of
    total open GAO recommendations, but I prioritize the top ones
    that I think will save the most amount of money or improve
    services.
        We share those with the congressional committees. For
    oversight purposes, I will be happy to share those with you for
    any agency they would like to work with us on.
        Mr. Ryan. I yield back.
        Mr. Yoder. I think, you know, Mr. Ryan has been a very
    strong advocate for additional resources to the GAO for
    precisely the savings, but the better government we provide to
    our constituents. And he has made a convincing case lots of us
    support. I think the more information about your successes and
    the specific recommendations that cross the desk of more
    Members of Congress, I think the better, right?
        I mean, we are all inundated with information, but Congress
    probably needs to be even more engaged with what you are doing
    so that it gets the most value out of it.
        Mr. Dodaro. I meet once a Congress with every committee
    chair and ranking member----
        Mr. Yoder. That is good.
        Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. In the Congress. And we talk
    about----
        Mr. Yoder. Go through what is in their area?

                                 IDENTITY THEFT

        Mr. Dodaro. Right. And what could be implemented. A good
    example is identity theft. This is something your constituents
    may be interested in, too. Where people are filing tax returns
    falsely and stealing refunds. When they go to file, the IRS
    states, ``we already paid you.''
        Mr. Yoder. Right.
        Mr. Dodaro. What we found was that the W2 information from
    employers wasn't going to the IRS until April when it----
        Mr. Yoder. Now it goes earlier.
        Mr. Dodaro. Now it goes earlier. That was a GAO
    recommendation.
        Mr. Yoder. Right.
        Mr. Dodaro. And it is helping them stop fraud.
        Mr. Yoder. A solution.

                                     INTEL

        You know, as we look at the role of GAO going forward, you
    know, a couple of areas that we have heard testimony about
    already this year, we have taken testimony from outside
    organizations on their recommendations for a better government.
    And one of the recommendations was to allow the GAO to oversee
    Intel. And that there is a prohibition on the GAO working to
    oversee Intel within the Federal Government.
        What is the GAO's position on this? What do you do with
    intel right now? What could we do to enhance that?
        Mr. Dodaro. Right. First of all, we believe there is no
    prohibition. We believe we have the statutory authority to do
    the work. What has happened over the years, particularly, I
    would say up until about, you know, 7 or 8 years ago, we lacked
    the cooperation from the intelligence community, and quite
    frankly, support from the intelligence committees, to do the
    work. So GAO really didn't program work in those areas.
        The Congress, then, in one of the intel reauthorization
    bills, required the Director of DNI to come up with a directive
    that presumed cooperation with GAO. And so I met with Director
    Clapper at the time. They worked on this directive, and there
    is a clause in there that allows us to resolve differences.
        We have started doing more work in the intelligence area in
    the last several years. We did some work in the facilities
    area. We are looking at contract management now. I met with
    Director Coats recently I talked with him about improving
    cooperation. It is still not easy.
        Mr. Yoder. Do you need additional support from Congress----
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
        Mr. Yoder [continuing]. Or direction to the intel agencies
    to make sure they are aware that this is an authority you have?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes, that would be helpful. We are working with
    the intelligence committees. When we get support, and we have
    been getting support from the intelligence committees, then it
    is easier to do the work over there.

                             TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

        Mr. Yoder. Each year, we also receive a number of
    recommendations from sitting Members of Congress to the
    committee to bring back the Office of Technology Assessment.
        We know that GAO was tasked with this responsibility back
    in 2002. How much funding does GAO currently allocate in that
    area? Are you receiving congressional requests? Is this an
    expansion that you think is necessary, or do you think the GAO
    has the ability to handle that mission?
        Mr. Dodaro. Yes. First, I am very supportive, as I
    mentioned in my opening statement, about the science and
    technology area. We went into this in terms of trying to create
    the capacity to do technology assessments very willingly,
    openly and we are committed to do them well.
        We have demonstrated our capacity to do them. We do about
    two of those a year, based on requests from Congress. We just
    finished one on artificial intelligence, which is going to be a
    huge issue going forward, and one on sustainable chemistry. We
    have done ones in the past on nano-manufacturing, 3-D printing,
    detecting explosive devices on passenger rail, and a whole host
    of other areas.
        We have that capacity. It can be scaled up. I have, over
    the years, told Congress that if we get additional resources,
    we can increase that capacity. I didn't want to recreate OTA
    within GAO at the expense of having other committees not have
    their work done.
        I try to balance the portfolio against all the needs of the
    Congress from all the committees.
        We have about 16 people in GAO already who focus on this
    work. They have the capability to do this. We also use GAO
    subject area experts. The other point I would like to make here
    too is OTA did a lot of different types of reports. We do a lot
    of reports that have science and technology issues in those
    reports. We are going to do one now on antibiotic resistance
    bacteria. That is not quote, ``a technology assessment,'' but
    it is going to have a heavy component related to science and
    technology issues.
        In the energy area, for example, we are doing work on
    modernizing nuclear weapons, including the development of
    interoperable nuclear warheads and the life cycle extension of
    our current nuclear fleet. (For this) you need special
    expertise. So we are not calling that a technology assessment,
    but we do that work in the energy area as well.

                                   HEALTHCARE

        Healthcare, same thing. We were brought in when there was
    Zika. We should do work more in the vaccines areas,
    particularly for influenza vaccines. More people die every year
    from just normal flu, and there are questions about vaccine
    development. We can do more work in that area.
        I created, while I was Acting Controller General, our
    center for science technology engineering. I hired our first
    chief scientist, and our first chief technologist in the GAO.
        We have lots of capability. We can continue to improve and
    evolve our technology assessments. I have seen some of the
    commentary, and they have some good suggestions. We will
    continue to take those under account. I think we can meet the
    needs of the Congress if we have the funding support.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay. Great. Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Ryan. I don't have a question, Mr. Chairman. I just
    have a statement.
        I think you and I need to do some kind of bipartisan
    initiative designating Mr. Dodaro as the smartest man we have
    ever met in our lives on multiple issues. I mean, I just think
    it is amazing to, you know, I think, again, the importance of
    your office to have the scope of work that you do and having
    that scope, you see the interconnectedness of all of the
    different programs. And I think that is a real value. You know,
    you talk to a committee, and the committee is digging in on
    this issue or that issue. But what your office provides for us
    is really a bird's eye view of how all these things, the
    interplay of all of the different agencies and how important it
    is to make these run as efficiently as possible.
        So I just want to say thank you to you. And I know your
    team is at work all the time doing this, and we really
    appreciate you. We need your work to continue. And we will do a
    better job of trying to take some of your recommendations. So
    thank you so much.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Dodaro. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Yoder. There you go.
        Thank you for your testimony today. We appreciate you
    coming. And certainly, I think, Mr. Ryan and I think that the
    work you are doing is critical. And we are, you know, it took a
    lot of work to get new resources into GLS. We know that that
    was something you had asked for for a while, and to be able to
    keep up with the pace of inflation.
        So, again, I appreciate you asking for a flat budget in
    light of those increases and be able to work within existing
    resources. And it kind of leads by example. It increases your
    credibility on the other issues.
        So thanks for your work. And we will be passing our bill
    out soon, and we will include your work in it.
        And with that, the subcommittee will stand in recess until
    2:00 when we will hear from the Library of Congress. Thank you.
        Mr. Dodaro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        [Questions for the record follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                             Wednesday, April 25, 2018.

                              LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                                   WITNESSES

    HON. CARLA D. HAYDEN, LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
    MARK SWEENEY, ACTING DEPUTY LIBRARIAN
    KARYN A. TEMPLE, ACTING REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS
    MARY B. MAZANEC, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

                      Opening Statement of Chairman Yoder

        Mr. Yoder. I call the subcommittee back to order.
        We are pleased today to welcome the Librarian of Congress,
    Dr. Carla Hayden, and the Acting Deputy Librarian Mark Sweeney,
    here today, as well as your entire team.
        But I know you have a great group of folks here that are
    experts in different areas, and if we need to, they are
    available, I know, to make comments or testify as well.
        Dr. Hayden, the Library of Congress' adjusted fiscal year
    2019 request that you have made is $706 million, an increase of
    $36.2 million above currently enacted levels.
        This requested increase would go towards mandatory pay and
    price level increases, information technology system
    enhancements, increase staffing to enhance the Library's
    bandwidth in the areas of collection management, analytical
    capacity at CRS, and reducing the recording backlog at the
    Copyright Office, as well as continued funding for the Visitor
    Experience Project at the Thomas Jefferson Building.
        The Copyright Office request is $93.4 million, and the
    subcommittee continues to believe that the modernization of the
    Copyright Office is a very important initiative.
        The Congressional Research Service request is $125.6
    million. And we thank the CRS for its work in ensuring that all
    nonconfidential CRS reports will soon become available to the
    public, and ask CRS to keep the committee informed on the
    progress leading up to the implementation of this new
    procedure.
        And finally, the Books for the Blind and Physically
    Handicapped request is $52.7 million, and relocating the NLS'
    headquarters to a location in closer proximity to the Capitol
    campus continues to be a priority of this committee, and we are
    working to make that relocation a reality.
        So again, Dr. Hayden, welcome to the committee.
        And at this point, I am going to yield to my good friend
    from Ohio, Mr. Ryan, for his opening statement as well.

                    Opening Statement of Ranking Member Ryan

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
        The Library of Congress is one of my favorite institutions
    on Capitol Hill. I love the buildings. I am repeatedly
    impressed by what they have hidden in the stacks in climate-
    controlled storage rooms.
        If James Madison, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson could
    see today what their creation has evolved into, I think that
    they would be extremely pleased with themselves. And in fact,
    yesterday was the 217th anniversary of the Library's creation,
    which I know you know, because you know everything about the
    Library.
        Walking through the halls of the Library and viewing their
    collection and artifacts is something everyone visiting
    Washington, D.C., should add to their list. And I encourage all
    of our groups to at least get over there and take a look.
        And I am looking forward to learning more today about the
    plans to enhance the visitor experience at the Thomas Jefferson
    Building. I expect our subcommittee will provide support to
    help bring Dr. Hayden's vision for the Library's future into
    being.
        The Library is also someplace we can turn when we want to
    talk to an expert on some area of policy coming up in Congress.
    In last year's legislation the subcommittee worked to make CRS
    reports more accessible to the public. These documents are
    invaluable to Members and congressional staff. And I am pleased
    to see CRS' budget request prioritizes an increase in staff to
    expand research capacity in many policy areas.
        I am also glad to see that the Library's budget request
    prioritizes IT modernization, because information technology
    ties in with everything the Library does.
        Upgrading the Library system will help serve Congress'
    research needs, serve the needs of copyright holders, and make
    it easier for people across the country to access the Library's
    materials remotely.
        So thank you all for coming in today. I look forward to
    hearing what Dr. Hayden and her colleagues have to say.
        And I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
        Dr. Hayden, your statement and written testimony will be
    made part of the record, as well as statements of the Acting
    Register of Copyrights and the Director of Congressional
    Research Service. And so we would be pleased to allow you to
    summarize your statement and address the committee at this
    time. Welcome.

                 Opening Statement of the Librarian of Congress

        Dr. Hayden. Thank you, Chairman Yoder and Ranking Member
    and members of the subcommittee. And I appreciate the
    opportunity to give testimony in support of the Library's
    fiscal year 2019 budget.
        As you know, the Library remains the largest library in the
    world, a research institution, and of course a destination for
    scholars and Members of Congress.
        It also holds enormous potential for reaching many, many
    more Americans in all walks of life. And this has been and will
    be a major focus of my tenure. And over the past year, we made
    great strides in increasing access to the Library and improving
    the user experience.
        For example, the U.S. Copyright Office published a new
    archive of copyright cases. The Congressional Research Service
    is currently testing online webinars and added instant
    messaging. The National Library Service for the Blind and
    Physically Handicapped launched a public awareness campaign to
    reach seniors and others challenged. And the Law Library put
    fully indexed and searchable historic versions of the U.S.
    Codes online.
        And then new primary source collections online include the
    papers of Alexander Hamilton, Ulysses Grant, Benjamin Franklin,
    and Susan B. Anthony, as well as high resolution scans of the
    original documents in the Abraham Lincoln papers.
        I have visited libraries and communities this past year in
    many congressional districts, and I have been energized by the
    interest and enthusiasm and expressed need for greater
    connection to the resources and services of the Library. And
    realizing the Library has the potential to reach out across the
    country means that we have to take care of fundamentals first.
        And I would like to express my gratitude for your support
    in the two previous fiscal years for mission-critical work. And
    that has helped with our modernization of information
    technology and Congress' service that we are very proud of.
        Special thanks, too, for your support for an initiative to
    revitalize and enhance the visitor experience in the Thomas
    Jefferson Building through a public-private partnership. And
    also, deeply appreciative--and the Acting Deputy Librarian,
    Mark Sweeney, joins me in this--for the storage modules at Fort
    Meade that are part of the Architect of the Capitol's budget.
        And I am happy to report, as we look at the support of this
    committee in the crucial areas of IT modernization, Copyright
    Office staff and storage programs, the Library has closed or
    and is awaiting confirmation from GAO on 24 of the 31 public
    recommendations for improving IT efficiencies.
        The Copyright Office has reduced its registration backlog
    by 25 percent, and we are actively filling the interim storage
    units at Cabin Branch, as well as the recently completed Module
    5 at Fort Meade.
        And in addition, I have taken significant managerial steps
    to make sure that we have efficiencies in our operations. I
    have appointed Mark Sweeney as the Acting Deputy Librarian of
    Congress; all information technology organizations and
    personnel were centralized; and we completed the first year of
    the strategic planning process, Envisioning 2025.
        Part of that process determined with research that the
    Library needs to be more user-centric. And we will have, of
    course, Congress as the Library's foremost user.
        As a result of this planning, I realigned internal units to
    prepare for that move forward. And I am confident that these
    steps will give us a robust management structure to move
    forward.
        Now, the fiscal 2019 budget request builds on the past 2
    years and concentrates on information technology modernization,
    targeted workforce skills, and increased access, and the
    details are provided in my written testimony. And the
    highlights include ongoing investment in copyright information
    technology modernization, as we move to the development of a
    new generation of the registration system, and a modern
    recordation system, which is, many people might not realize,
    currently paper-based and manual.
        We will have an investment in our CRS service with more
    analysts, economists, and attorneys, and also full restoration
    of copyright examiner workforce and additional foreign legal
    and language expertise for the Law Library.
        And finally, workforce investment in Library Services that
    will speed up the processing of significant collections, a
    backlog that includes collections such as Theodore Roosevelt
    and Caspar Weinberger that are waiting to be processed.
        So to reiterate, IT modernization, a strong workforce helps
    the Library meet its goal of increased access and better
    service.
        So, Chairman Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan, members of the
    subcommittee, we are the embodiment of the American ideal of a
    knowledge-based democracy, and we thank you for your support. I
    am happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statements follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              VISITOR'S EXPERIENCE

        Mr. Yoder. Thank you for your testimony. You spoke to the
    committee about the visitor's experience.
        Dr. Hayden. Yes.
        Mr. Yoder. I thought maybe we could dive into that a little
    bit. This is a new project at the Thomas Jefferson Building. It
    is a public-private partnership that has the potential to
    change and revolutionize the experience for visitors at the
    Library.
        You stated, I think, well, that you are the largest library
    in the world. And Mr. Ryan makes the case that the Founders
    would be astounded to see how far we have taken it. Yet one of
    the concerns you have laid forward is that maybe we are not
    fully grasping the potential for the public to be engaged with
    the experience the Library has to offer.
        Can you talk to the committee about why this project is
    important and how it will enhance and benefit the experience of
    those coming to Washington, D.C.?
        Dr. Hayden. Congress invested a significant amount of
    funding in the 1990s to renovate and bring out all of the
    architectural beauty of the Thomas Jefferson Building. It was a
    magnificent project. The Main Reading Room was closed for 5
    years. And now 1.8 million visitors physically come into the
    Jefferson Building, and they all say this is the most beautiful
    building--some people agree--in Washington.
        Mr. Newhouse. That is what I tell everybody.
        Dr. Hayden. It is. And, however, they leave without getting
    the experience of connecting to the collections, those
    magnificent collections that the Library has, and also without
    an understanding that this is their Library as well and to get
    a chance to have that and be inspired, we hope, like so many
    other people have.
        And so the project has three parts: to make sure that the
    Library has a permanent exhibition space to exhibit the
    treasures, from the Gutenberg Bible, to the contents of Abraham
    Lincoln's pockets the night he was assassinated, to the
    original draft of the Declaration of Independence in Thomas
    Jefferson's hand with footnotes by Benjamin Franklin and John
    Adams; and a rotating collection that will showcase all of the
    things that the Library has, film, sound recording, all of
    these things. So that will be a major part, a treasures
    gallery, as we are calling it.
        Also, people walk into the wonderful Great Hall. They are
    fascinated by the beauty. And then they are not able to go into
    the magnificent Reading Room. And that will be the second part,
    to open up the Reading Room with acoustical and privacy
    protections for any researchers that might be in the room, and
    to get the idea across about Thomas Jefferson's library.
        So we are hoping we will be able to relocate select items
    from Thomas Jefferson's original 6,000 volume library, in that
    space in the Reading Room, and tell the story of the Library.
        And a part that is very exciting for a former children's
    librarian is to have an actual youth center, hands-on history,
    to engage young people--and we are talking very young all the
    way up to teenagers--in working with primary sources, to see
    Alexander Hamilton's last letter to his wife. They are engaged
    with the play. This is the time for them to actually see that,
    to test paper, to find out how you preserve documents, and also
    think about making history themselves.
        So those three areas would be the major focus. And then, of
    course, enhancing the gift shop and also having some cafe-type
    of experience as well so people can linger.
        So we are very excited about this opportunity.

                          VISITOR EXPERIENCE TIMELINE

        Mr. Yoder. Well, I think it is a wonderful vision and
    really connects the public in a way that you, as you laid out,
    haven't been connected in the past and makes the Library a much
    more tangible, usable asset.
        What are your estimates on the timeline, the cost? How many
    visitors do you expect you might see? How many do we get now?
    And sort of how do you view the numbers?
        Dr. Hayden. I mentioned the 1.8 million, and we are working
    very closely with the Architect of the Capitol, Mr. Ayers. His
    staff has been very involved as we have developed this. And we
    know that we will be working with them on the impact of
    additional visitors and flow and egress and things like that.
        So that is part of a master plan with an estimated
    timeline, that should be about 12 months. And that is the
    master plan for everything. $2 million is the estimate for that
    plan. And I think that is in the appropriated proposed language
    as well. The actual master plan should be available in June of
    2019.
        Mr. Yoder. When the project will be completed?
        Dr. Hayden. Everything. And this will include fundraising,
    that private-public partnership that I mentioned. So that will
    be going on as well.
        The entire project should be finished by May, June of 2023.
    And that would include the treasures gallery, the Reading Room,
    and the youth center. And we also think that 2023 is a
    wonderful timeline.
        [The information follows:]

                Visitor Experience Clarification for the Record

        The Visitor Experience design will be completed in 2020. The
    Visitor Experience project is expected to be designed, fabricated and
    completed in the 2023/2024 timeframe.

        Mr. Yoder. A great vision. All right. Thank you.
        Mr. Ryan.

                                FUNDING IMPACTS

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just got motivated to
    get reelected a couple more times to make sure I am here for
    all that.
        One of the issues with the upcoming fiscal year 2019 bill,
    other than the Visitor Experience, the bill proposes to give
    your salaries and expenses account a $6.8 million increase over
    last year, but $6.2 million less than the request.
        Can you share with us what that means for you and your
    operation?
        Dr. Hayden. And I want to rephrase to make sure that I
    answer correctly in terms of the impact of getting less. That
    would probably necessitate a hiring freeze, and we hope that we
    would not have to have any furloughs. And also reducing some
    programmatic aspects as well. But a hiring freeze would be.
        Mr. Ryan. And have you evaluated what programs would be
    reduced or eliminated?
        Dr. Hayden. We have thought about it. And in terms of
    actual programming, we wouldn't want things that affect the
    core mission. That is the preservation, conservation, basic
    reference work, CRS, and Copyright. So those mission-critical
    things, we would definitely look at.

                             CONGRESSIONAL DIALOGUE

        Mr. Ryan. In the interest of making sure all of our
    colleagues have an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Amodei.
        Mr. Amodei. In the same interest as the ranking member, I
    yield back.
        Mr. Yoder. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
        Mr. Ryan. You have 15 minutes of questions you can ask.

                          LIBRARY'S YOUNG READERS ROOM

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I will only take 3 or 4 hours. No
    problem.
        I wanted to just ask you about the potential improvements
    and expansion of the young readers room. Is that part of the
    vision of the----
        Dr. Hayden. The visitor experience. And we want to thank
    you also, I know that have you been involved, the idea of
    having a place for young people to get inspired.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank Jake and Rebecca Schultz.
        Dr. Hayden. I recently received a letter from an 8-year-
    old, Adam Coffey from San Clemente, California, who expressed a
    little disappointment that there wasn't a young reader's card
    and definitely spaces for young people. And we know that there
    is an opportunity with the lack of significant investment now.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So he was not impressed with what is
    there now?
        Dr. Hayden. Oh, he was impressed. We invited him in. He is
    going to be the first recipient of the young reader's card,
    with his approval.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Oh, good.
        Dr. Hayden. So we are looking at that. But there is a need
    to supplement civics education throughout the country. When I
    have traveled, that is something that I am hearing, that people
    want to be able to encourage young people to get involved in
    history, make history themselves. So that focus on the youth
    center will have several areas based on age groups.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is great.

                                HANDS-ON HISTORY

        Dr. Hayden. And also an area for teachers. We have teaching
    with primary resources, so we will be able to supplement that
    as well.
        So it is very exciting. And when I mention it to people
    throughout the country, they are very excited about having
    screens that will allow young people to interact with curators
    and with preservation and conservation specialists in the
    Madison Building.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Oh, wow.
        Dr. Hayden. So they may be able to talk to a conservator
    who is working on something and then preserve some paper
    themselves, invisible ink. We are trying all the things that
    will get them involved.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So not to bore you, Mr. Chairman,
    but 14 years ago when I first came to Congress, twin 5-year-old
    little boy and girl who I gave birth to, wanted to do nothing
    more than to go across the street to the Library of Congress
    and check out a book, which was not possible.
        And there were no children's books at all in the Jefferson
    Building. I went to the stacks and found an annotated research
    fairy tale books, Aesop's fairy tales, and that didn't quite
    cut it for my 5-year-olds.
        And fast toward a few years later, and when I had a chance
    to talk to your predecessor, Dr. Billington, and now you are
    expanding on that dream, the young readers room was created.
    And Jake, Rebecca, and Shelby Schultz were the ribbon cutters
    for the opening of it. And that little boy and girl just
    finished their freshman year of college. So time flies.
        And thank you. It is really, I share the feelings of my
    colleagues, of how much love we have for the Library. And thank
    you and your colleagues for the incredible Library of Congress
    dinners that I know are underwritten, but also that require
    Herculean effort on the part of your staff to put on. And they
    are not only educational, but one of the few opportunities that
    I think we all have to sit and break bread together in a
    bipartisan way and learn something and get to know one another.
        So thank you very, very much.
        And now I have an actual, real, substantive question, on
    electronic media. I actually have two questions, and then I
    will be quiet.

                COPYRIGHT MANDATORY DEPOSIT RULEMAKING PROPOSAL

        You published a notice of proposed rulemaking that you
    would begin demanding e-books under your mandatory deposit rule
    on a request basis. And that is a long overdue step. I think it
    is phenomenal that you have moved in that direction, because
    you have authors and publishers now that create electronic-only
    books and self-publish.
        And so my question is a couple parts. How as Members of
    Congress can we help support the Library with the resources
    necessary to carry out that increased responsibility? And do
    you see the Library making an affirmative commitment in terms
    of making this a requirement in the future like it currently is
    for printed publications.
        Dr. Hayden. As Librarian of Congress, I am responsible for
    the administration of the copyright process and the efficiency.
    And IT modernization, of course, is going to be a major part of
    any future digital aspects of copyright deposit.
        And we are very pleased that Karyn Temple, who is the
    Acting Register, is involved with the policy, of course, and
    that she is here to be able to address the rulemaking directly.
        Ms. Temple. Good afternoon. Thank you.
        In terms of the rulemaking, yes, we did issue a rulemaking
    on behalf of the Library to begin potentially the collection of
    e-books. That rulemaking will be open until the end of May. We
    will receive comments from various stakeholders about how the
    collection of e-books actually should take place. And once we
    receive those comments, we will be able to draft a final rule,
    which will allow the Library for the first time to be able to
    collect through mandatory deposit electronic-only books.
        So that is something that I know that the Library is really
    supportive of given their interest in providing for access to
    digital material.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Do you think you will expand that to
    audio books and podcasts as well eventually?
        Ms. Temple. So in 2016 we did issue a notice of inquiry on
    the Library's behalf asking about whether we should expand
    mandatory deposit to both e-books and sound recordings.
        We determined at this time, or rather the Library has
    determined at this time to restrict the current rulemaking just
    to e-books and not to expand to sound recordings. I don't think
    the Library will consider expanding to sound recordings until
    after we get comments from stakeholders about the e-books.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The e-books.
        Ms. Temple. And then determine whether we have even the
    capacity to be able to accept e-books and sound recordings. And
    then, subsequently, I think that there will be at some point a
    sound recording NPRM, but that is not something that will
    probably happen in the near future.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman, I have two more
    questions. Do you want me to ask them now?
        Mr. Yoder. Sure.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
        Dr. Hayden. And Mr. Sweeney also worked closely with Ms.
    Temple on that in terms of from the Library side.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Temple. Thank you.

                    CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE WORKFORCE

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. My other question is on the CRS
    workforce. It has decreased by approximately 13 percent in the
    last 8 years.
        Dr. Hayden. Yes.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You have lost 92 FTEs, and 23
    percent of CRS staff will be eligible for retirement this year.
    I mean, we need to let that sink in for a moment.
        Given that CRS processes over 60,000 requests for custom
    research and that almost a quarter of CRS staff will be
    eligible for retirement this year, what steps are you taking to
    retain current subject matter experts and to recruit new
    qualified experts? And how can we support your efforts?
        Dr. Hayden. This fiscal year's request is for 20 additional
    FTEs, and those will be more senior analysts, economists,
    lawyers, who will give more depth to the CRS services. That is
    in addition to the eight junior positions that were requested
    last year.
        There is an active mentoring program that is going on right
    now, and they are very aware of the need for knowledge
    management. And in fact, IT modernization is helping in terms
    of the capturing of information and knowledge. It is an
    information knowledge system that CRS is working on as well.
        So that when that 27 percent that are eligible for
    retirement right now, that is concerning, because some of that
    experience is very difficult to transfer. But the technology
    and what CRS is working on in terms of technology is to have an
    information management program that people can basically
    transfer some of the knowledge that they are expert in and
    working on digitizing the files. A lot of the analysts have
    files that go back many years.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You are not talking about shifting
    to not having a person who is a subject matter expert?
        Dr. Hayden. Oh, no. Oh, no. No. The strength of CRS is
    having the 24/7 access to an expert person.
        CRS is also looking, I mentioned, about the instant
    messaging, texting, other ways to make sure--Skyping--and
    really using technology so that they are available in different
    ways.
        So people are still the essence of it, though.

                                SUBJECT HEADINGS

        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
        And my last question is, we don't really have too many
    contentious issues in the Legs Branch, but we did have one a
    couple years ago with the card catalog, and the renaming of one
    of the catalog categories related to how we refer to
    immigrants.
        Dr. Hayden. Right.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Or how we refer to what was at one
    point known as illegal aliens. And the Library had proposed
    modernizing the terminology, and there was an issue in this
    subcommittee that, let's say, slowed that process down. So
    where are we with that in the Library?
        Dr. Hayden. The Library has proposed additional subject
    headings for that particular term, and over 5,000 of these
    types of updating actions take place a year with the Library.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
        Dr. Hayden. There are all types of things. I was part of
    one in terms of African-American, Black, Negro, so I know that,
    in the 1970s.
        So what the Library has proposed, terms that will not
    conflict with the U.S. Code. That was another concern.
    ``Unauthorized immigration'' is what was proposed.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
        Dr. Hayden. The other older terms, and this is as with all
    the other terms that have been updated, I think that is the
    easiest, without getting too librarian-ish, updated, because
    this is cataloging, subject headings, things like that, will
    still be available as cross references to newer terms.
        So if you type in a term that has been updated, you will be
    referred possibly to another term. But this is a way that the
    Library uses. And the Library of Congress cataloguing is for
    all libraries, look to our cataloguing.
        So right now we are paused, waiting on direction, but that
    was the original proposal. The library has looked at
    alternatives.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you
    were on the subcommittee when we dealt with this, but the
    Library over the years has phased out terms that are offensive
    or that fall out of use or are ultimately deemed no longer
    appropriate for modern communication. And that term was one of
    those, which, again, was along with thousands of updates that
    they proposed.
        And so as we move forward with this bill, if we could
    discuss possibly ensuring that we don't interfere with the
    Library's ability to be the professionals that they are and use
    their judgment as to what the appropriate search terms are. And
    it may be that they decide to keep it, since it is part of the
    Code and some people search that way.
        But that was not their original proposal. And so giving
    them the freedom that they should have, particularly under the
    First Amendment, I think is something that we need to not be
    obstacles to.
        And I yield back.

                         CROSS-REFERENCING TERMINOLOGY

        Dr. Hayden. And, Mark, I don't know if you want to, but in
    terms of the Library catalog, the terms are not taken out of
    the catalog. It is just, if you think about a--and I won't
    mention the major search engine--but when you type in a term,
    what comes up first.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Right.
        Dr. Hayden. Or something like that. So it is adding
    additional terminology to the catalog.
        Mr. Sweeney. We continue to maintain cross references so
    people can discover works regardless of the terminology that
    they use. We never alter titles or anything like that or the
    text of an actual work.
        We did an extensive survey of opinions around the proposed
    ``unauthorized immigration'' as well as ``noncitizens,'' and
    take into full consideration the terminology used in the U.S.
    Code, try to make it as consistent as possible.
        Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Newhouse.

                       CONGRESSIONAL DINNER APPRECIATION

        Mr. Newhouse. Welcome, Librarian Hayden. It is a pleasure
    to have you here. And thank you for bringing all your people
    here, Mr. Sweeney. I am not sure how far, all the way across
    the room, I guess, right? But welcome and thank you for taking
    the time.
        I, too, want to thank you for playing host to the dinners,
    the congressional dinners. Those are very worthwhile, and not
    only a good way to get us together in a bipartisan way, but to
    see the beautiful venue that you call your workspace.
        And I honestly do, every chance I get, tell the visitors
    that come to the Capitol that they need to go see the Library
    of Congress. It is the most beautiful building in Washington,
    D.C.
        So you mentioned that you got, I think, 93 million visitors
    to your website last year?
        Dr. Hayden. Yes.

                             ACCESSIBLE COLLECTIONS

        Mr. Newhouse. Which is amazing. And that new collections
    are coming online all the time.
        So I guess my question, what percentage of the Library's
    collection is accessible? And what kind of utilization do you
    foresee in the future with the resources that you are getting
    to accomplish that?
        Dr. Hayden. I am going to let Mark answer the question.
        Mr. Sweeney. I would like to say that, well, all the
    collections of Library of Congress are accessible in one way or
    another.
        Mr. Newhouse. Online?
        Mr. Sweeney. Not online necessarily.
        The exception, of course, would be the unprocessed
    collections that we have, which is estimated at about 28
    million items. And an item that can be counted as a book could
    be an individual item or an individual sheet of paper in a
    manuscript collection is an item.
        Mr. Newhouse. What is unprocessed?
        Mr. Sweeney. Unprocessed means that the material has been
    received by the Library but it hasn't been organized and we
    don't have an entry, either a finding aid or a catalog record
    that people can use to identify what part of the collection
    they want. So, unfortunately, that means we are not able to
    serve the collection in the way that we would ideally want it
    to be.
        Of course, on the spectrum of accessibility, at the highest
    level, of course, the item is digitized and is accessible 24/7
    online. In order for that to happen a work has to be in a
    rights status that permits us to make it accessible like that.
        So we have a very large collection, but a very, very high
    percentage of it is material that is not in the public domain
    yet or is rights-restricted in one way or another. An example
    would be that someone may have provided their papers, their
    manuscripts to the Library, but it may be under an embargo for
    a period of time.
        So we have a lot of work to do. There is a lot in the
    collection that we can digitize and make accessible. But we
    tend to focus on items that are unique. There are titles or
    works that are only held by the Library of Congress or not
    widely held so that we don't duplicate what other libraries
    might be able to digitize, and then those items that have
    little or no restriction on their use, so that we can make them
    as broadly accessible as possible.

                               INCREASING ACCESS

        Dr. Hayden. And this year's fiscal request has 40 FTEs to
    double the rate of the processing of those special collections.
        And I like to say, I mentioned Theodore Roosevelt and Susan
    B. Anthony. Just imagine all of these people behind us waiting.
    Their papers are there waiting to be put into a format that
    will allow you to not only look at them, but find them online.
    That is a process.
        Mr. Newhouse. So is it realistic to believe that at some
    point all the collections will be online?
        Dr. Hayden. We recently had an inspector general report
    that says that history never stops. So there is always going to
    be material not online. And for the next 50 to 100 years, we
    estimate that we will still be receiving things in paper format
    from historical, significant people and organizations like the
    NAACP, which is the largest archive, but it is not digitized.
        The 15 to 20 percent of things that are waiting to be
    processed will probably be the average. This request is to get
    us to that point, because we will always be in the near future,
    50 to 100 years, getting in those types of materials waiting to
    be processed.
        We are working on work-study programs, internships, citizen
    historian projects that will allow people from the public to
    help us in terms of this. But we really have to have dedicated
    staff to get that out.

                                 CRS INQUIRIES

        Mr. Newhouse. Just one more question, if I could, Mr.
    Chairman, about the Congressional Research Service. It has
    proven to be an invaluable asset that I think most all of us
    use. And Ms. Wasserman Schultz recited some numbers that are
    very concerning in staff changes. Not that people can't retire,
    but we have to be able to continue.
        Has the number of requests for information increased over
    the last couple years? And what is the average turnaround time
    for offices that make requests to receive the requested
    information?
        Dr. Hayden. You mentioned that our staff members are here.
    And the head of CRS, Ms. Mazanec, is here, and I would let her
    address that directly.

                                 CRS WORKFORCE

        Mr. Newhouse. And then I would ask also, how do you expect
    that will change when you add employees? I am trying to get, is
    it going to improve the timeliness if you can add more
    personnel? Thank you.
        Dr. Mazanec. Thank you for your question.
        Mr. Newhouse. Good to see you.
        Dr. Mazanec. Good to see you.
        The number of requests is pretty consistent, but the
    requests are all over the board, from purely informational
    requests that are a very quick answer to more in-depth
    analytical requests. So I can't even begin to figure out or
    calculate the average time it takes to respond.
        Mr. Newhouse. Because it is all over the board.
        Dr. Mazanec. It is all over the board.
        I think in recent years, as our staff numbers have come
    down, the analysts have worked with congressional staff to try
    to scope the request to be able to do what needs to be done in
    the timeframe that we are given. If we are given more time, we
    can produce a more highly analytical product.
        Then your other question was about additional staff or----
        Mr. Newhouse. Well, how that would impact that turnaround
    time, I guess.
        Dr. Mazanec. I think what we are trying to do, what I am
    trying to do, is bring on staff so that the senior analysts and
    attorneys have more time to focus on the analytical work, the
    highly analytical, sophisticated work that at least they don't
    feel they have enough time to do because they are answering a
    lot of requests.
        So some of the folks we are bringing on board, especially
    in last year's appropriation, fiscal year 2018, were more
    junior folks, 3- to 5-year NTEs, that would come in and
    hopefully unload the senior analysts so that they can do the
    more highly analytical work for Congress.
        Dr. Hayden. It is like a SWAT team, and so triage. And so
    you have the junior level fielding the more basic type of
    questions and then the others coming in on that.
        Mr. Newhouse. Good. Good. I appreciate that. And since
    freshman orientation, before I even knew what CRS stood for,
    you guys were right there being very helpful. And so I want to
    expression appreciation for that, too.
        Dr. Mazanec. Thank you. You are so kind. Thank you.
        Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Yoder. While we are on the subject of CRS, Mary, if you
    wanted to stay at the table.
        Dr. Hayden. And, Chairman, I must say, on a recent visit to
    CRS I noted an exceptionally large number of coffee machines.
        Mr. Yoder. Some late nights over there or what?
        Dr. Hayden. They are something.
        Mr. Yoder. A lot of caffeine.
        Dr. Hayden. A lot of energy.

                     PROGRESS ON MAKING CRS REPORTS PUBLIC

        Mr. Yoder. We will keep sending it over.
        I just wanted to ask a little bit of a follow-up on making
    the CRS reports public, and that process, and what that will
    eventually look like to the public, what the timeline is. If
    you could just update the committee on your work since that
    measure has passed and how you see it progressing.
        Dr. Mazanec. Sure. We have done it right away. We are
    working on it very aggressively. We have a working group that
    consists of CRS analysts and folks, and also staff from Bud
    Barton's office, OCIO, to do the technology piece.
        So we will be able to meet the statutory deadlines. It
    appears that the most feasible option, although I don't want to
    lock down into any definite plan at this point--we will get the
    plan to you as scheduled--is to use the Congress.gov website as
    the portal to go into and then have something on the website
    that would take you to another page for the CRS reports.
        We are starting with our classic R Series reports, the
    classic analytical reports. And as this evolves, we will be
    adding additional products.
        Did I answer your question?
        Mr. Yoder. I think so. I am trying to remember what the
    statutory timeline was.
        Dr. Mazanec. So we have to have a plan in 60 days.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay.
        Dr. Mazanec. And then after that we have--basically the
    drop dead date in September 2018.
        Mr. Yoder. To have it up and running?
        Dr. Mazanec. To have it up and running.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay.
        Dr. Hayden. And I just have to say that this subcommittee's
    investment, Congress' investment in IT is allowing us--the last
    2 years are allowing us to be much more capable of responding
    in a more timely fashion because everything is being
    centralized.
        Mr. Yoder. Right.
        Dr. Hayden. So Mr. Barton is here, and I want to just give
    him credit for helping us.

                  NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE'S E-READER PROGRAM

        Mr. Yoder. Okay. Thank you.
        On the NLS e-reader program, in 2006 Congress authorized
    the NLS to provide e-readers for electronic braille. Since that
    time, NLS has been working on a pilot program to determine the
    specific time of e-reader technology it would be best to invest
    in.
        Could you update the committee on that pilot program and
    when NLS might be in a position to make a recommendation on the
    specific type of technology that Congress should invest in?
        Dr. Hayden. And Ms. Keninger is not here today. She was
    ill. But the experiment with the Perkins School, about 200 e-
    readers, is yielding very good information about that, and they
    are tracking the usage of the new e-readers.
        And it is anticipated that in the fourth quarter of fiscal
    year 2018, the NLS pilot will purchase up to 2,000 braille e-
    readers that will be distributed to eight of the network
    libraries. There are about 100 network libraries. So this will
    be the next pilot phase.
        And from the early feedback, the response has been very
    good, and we are very excited about this opportunity to make
    more braille e-readers available.
        Mr. Yoder. When do you think the request will come to
    Congress to expand and to invest in the actual program?
        Dr. Hayden. I will have to get back to you on that one in
    terms of the actual request that will be in. There are parts of
    the program in the testing in terms of working with different
    technology vendors in terms of producing the e-readers that
    will be used.
        So we know the features that we want, but we will also have
    to make sure that we have a vendor that can produce the
    quantity of about 30,000 e-readers needed. So that is a part we
    will be looking at. So we will come back to you on that.
        Mr. Yoder. All right. And then lastly, back to the
    Copyright Office
        Dr. Hayden. Yes.

                           COPYRIGHT IT MODERNIZATION

        Mr. Yoder. We are investing in technology of last year, and
    in next year's bill we will be adding additional resources for
    technology based upon your request.
        You know, we really want the Copyright Office to be
    successful and be efficient. And, of course, we have had public
    testimony in front of this committee in the past couple of
    years from outside organizations discussing how Patent and
    Trademark Office can turn around in 48 hours and it takes the
    Copyright Office 6 to 9 months and there are delays.
        And one of the things you said is, obviously, there are
    different things, but also you need technology, we need to
    invest in it if we want to improve it.
        Can you just give us a quick highlight of what you think
    the improvements will be and how they will actually affect the
    artists? Because we also hear from a lot of the artists who
    have frustrations as well, and they are counting on us to make
    reforms. And they are even asking us to do reforms, maybe, that
    even the Library doesn't agree with.
        So I want to know how you see this going in a way that we
    can assure the artists and those using this service that,
    ``Hey, we are getting this right. Just give us some time to
    invest and fix this.''
        Dr. Hayden. And Ms. Temple has been wonderful during this
    time with the IT modernization and working with Mr. Barton,
    with Copyright. And it includes working on the backlog.
        This year's request is 15 more copyright examiners. That is
    to address part of the backlog. This goes with the 15 positions
    that were in last year's request. So there are about 30. You
    are getting to the level that Copyright had before. So these
    are the people who are determining what is eligible for
    copyright.
        Also, the IT modernization, we are past stabilizing and
    optimizing what we have to developing a new system similar to
    what people are used to with tax, filing automatically there.
        A lot of the backlog has to do with the process that is not
    automated like people are expecting in other parts of life
    where it stops you and makes you go back. If it is a paper-
    based system, that is difficult. It takes time.
        So using technology to really modernize. And also the
    people that can help with the backlogs. I mentioned the 25
    percent reduction in the registration, the recordation. Think
    of car transfer of title. That is entirely paper-based and
    manual. So IT modernization is going to really help with
    recordation.

                           COPYRIGHT PROCESSING TIME

        Mr. Yoder. And as that backlog is resolved, do you see a
    typical turnaround time? Is there a way to estimate what that
    might become?
        Dr. Hayden. Ms. Temple might be able to give you what we
    hope. We are working on the development of the system.
        And, Karyn, do you want to just estimate?
        And this is with, as we move forward, with the system going
    totally----
        Ms. Temple. Yes. Obviously, we wouldn't actually be able to
    give you the specific time now. We would expect, though, that
    the time would be reduced significantly once we actually have a
    truly modernized system. It would go from the 7 to 9 months,
    for example, that we have for online filings that don't trigger
    correspondence to much less.
        Mr. Yoder. What does that look like? I know you can't say,
    ``Look, we can put a guarantee in front of this committee that
    we will have it done in 10 days.'' But what would you think
    would be an appropriate turnaround time that would be the right
    speed, if you could get there?
        Ms. Temple. Well, I would say it would have to vary because
    it is going to depend on the complexity of the particular claim
    that we get into the office.
        And in terms of how long it actually takes us to fully
    process the claim, that is actually also really largely
    affected by the quality of the application that we get in, if
    we have to correspond with the user who is actually filling the
    claim.
        Mr. Yoder. I understand, because 7 to 9 months, as you can
    estimate now, with all these factors included.
        Ms. Temple. Right.
        Mr. Yoder. We are investing in all of this. We are adding
    personnel, we are adding dollars. And if your response is,
    well, it still might be 7 to 9 months, it could be less, we
    can't give you----
        Ms. Temple. No.
        Mr. Yoder. What do you think we could get to?
        Ms. Temple. Yes, I would be reluctant to give you a
    specific, ``We will be able to do it 24 hours.''
        Mr. Yoder. I understand.
        Ms. Temple. Because then you will hold us to it.
        Mr. Yoder. Right. Right. I understand. That is why I am
    asking the question.
        Ms. Temple. But I would say that we do expect a significant
    reduction from the 7 to 9 months. That is something that we
    think is beneficial to the overall copyright system as a whole.
        And so without saying a specific time that you would hold
    me to, I would expect that there will be a very significant
    reduction from that 7 months to something much less. And if we
    can get it down to weeks, of course, we will always be aiming
    for that.
        Mr. Yoder. Right. We are always going to be aiming to make
    it more efficient and quicker while doing our jobs and
    protecting artists, because that is part of the whole purpose.
    You want to make sure they are not stealing someone else's work
    in the process, right? It is about protecting the artists.
        Ms. Temple. Right. We want to make sure that the record,
    itself, is accurate to facilitate licensing in the system. So
    we don't want to do it so quickly that we are actually causing
    problems.
        Mr. Yoder. Speed is not the only factor, we understand
    that.
        Dr. Hayden. And patents are different from copyrights in
    terms of how they can be automated in that sense, too. And that
    has been something that we are really looking at. We are
    learning from the patent experience, but also taking in the
    unique----
        Mr. Yoder. Okay. Thank you for your testimony.
        Ms. Temple. Thank you.

                           Chairman's Closing Remarks

        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Ryan, good?
        Everybody good?
        All right. Well, Dr. Hayden, thank you.
        Dr. Hayden. Thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. And Mr. Sweeney and everyone who works hard for
    the Library. Thanks for attending today. And we look forward to
    a new visitor's experience and improved technology with the
    Copyright Office and so many other things you are doing to
    strengthen and preserve the great treasure that is the Library
    of Congress.
        Dr. Hayden. Well, thank you for your support.
        Mr. Yoder. Thanks for your good work.
        All right. With that, committee, we are going to recess for
    a minute in order to bring on our next hearing, which is with
    the House of Representatives.
        [Questions for the record follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                             Wednesday, April 25, 2018.

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                   WITNESSES

    HON. KAREN L. HAAS, CLERK, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    HON. PAUL D. IRVING, SERGEANT AT ARMS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    HON. PHILIP G. KIKO, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, HOUSE OF
        REPRESENTATIVES

                Opening Statement of Hon. Kevin Yoder, Chairman

        Mr. Yoder. I call the hearing back to order.
        This afternoon, we will hear testimony from the officers of
    the House on the Fiscal Year 2019 budget justification for the
    House of Representatives. This is our ninth and final hearing
    on our Fiscal Year 2019 budget justifications, and I want to
    take a minute to thank my good friend and colleague Mr. Ryan,
    the Ranking Member; Members of the subcommittee; and staff for
    their hard work that goes into preparing for all these
    hearings.
        Going into this appropriations season, we felt it was
    important to expand the number of hearings the subcommittee
    held in an effort to hear directly from more agency heads, as
    well as other Members of Congress and outside witnesses.
    Although demanding on the schedules, I do think the additional
    hearings were valuable and were important towards our oversight
    responsibilities.
        Now, I would like to welcome the Officers of the House: the
    Honorable Karen Haas, Clerk of the House; the Honorable Paul
    Irving, Sergeant at Arms; and the Honorable Phil Kiko, Chief
    Administrative Officer.
        The fiscal year 2019 budget request for the House agencies
    is $1.257 billion, which is $57 million above currently enacted
    levels. Much of the work each of your offices do on a daily
    basis is behind the scenes and, when done seamlessly, often
    goes unnoticed.
        Collectively, you are responsible for the services that
    truly keep this place running: the IT network that allows us to
    communicate, the financial system that pays our bills and meets
    our payroll, the voting system that helps authenticate the
    legislative process, the issuance of IDs, and, more recently,
    several initiatives to keep our district offices safer, just to
    name a few.
        Without the services of the House officers, we could not
    carry out our constitutional duties as Members of Congress. And
    although the three of you probably like the fact that most of
    your operations are behind the scenes and go unnoticed, I want
    to take a moment to recognize the amazing work your
    organizations do and thank the dedicated staff in each of your
    organizations for the work they do on behalf of Members of
    Congress, our staff, the guests in the Capitol, constituents
    who come to see us. All are made more efficient and effective
    because of your work.
        I look forward to working with each of you on the
    challenges facing us in Fiscal Year 2019.
        And, with that, I would like to yield to the man from Ohio,
    Mr. Ryan, for his opening statement.

               Opening Statement of Hon. Tim Ryan, Ranking Member

        Mr. Ryan. Mr. Chairman, let me just echo your thanks, and
    let's get on with the hearing.
        But we appreciate it. And we saw you in action just today
    with a beautiful speech, and I think it shows the importance of
    how deep your work goes in connecting ourselves, our democracy,
    with the world and their leaders. So thank you for everything
    that you do.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Let's get into the nuts and
    bolts here.

                         Chairman Outlines Proceedings

        Mr. Yoder. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
        Without any objection, the entire statements from each of
    you will be made part of the record. And I will ask each one of
    you, the Clerk, Sergeant at Arms, and Chief Administrative
    Officer, to summarize your remarks and highlight your efforts
    of the past year. And after opening statements, we will move to
    the questions and answers.
        So, with that, Ms. Haas, we will start with you.

                    Clerk of the House Abbreviated Testimony

        Ms. Haas. Thank you.
        Chairman Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan, Members of the
    Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before
    you regarding the operations for the Office of the Clerk and
    our Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request. Thank you for providing
    the resources and guidance to allow us to continue to carry out
    our duties and responsibilities for the legislative and
    institutional operations of the House.

                          CLERK PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS

        I would like to provide you with a brief update on current
    projects, along with upcoming activities. Testing continues on
    the new vote stations for the Electronic Voting System with a
    planned August installation. If all continues to go well, we
    will issue new voting cards when Members return from the August
    district work period.
        We continue to release updates to the alpha version of our
    new Clerk website. The site has a more robust vote search
    capability along with additional Member profile information. We
    anticipate a complete conversion to the new site for the 116th
    Congress.
        As of December 2017, we have completed the requirements
    under the new Comparative Print Rule, as required by House
    Rules. Today, the House Office of Legislative Counsel, in
    conjunction with the House Rules Committee, can display
    publicly changes to current law that will be made by a bill
    prior to House consideration.
        With the support of this Subcommittee, we were able to meet
    the condensed time schedule and are now finalizing requirements
    for Phase II of this project. Our eventual goal is to have a
    tool that can be easily used by Members and staff.
        We have purchased and configured equipment to transition to
    the Redstone Data Center as our backup data center later this
    year. With the support of the Chief Administrative Officer, we
    look forward to continuing our efforts to find further
    efficiencies in contracting and technology.
        Work continues on the space at GPO designated to receive
    House and Senate records later this year. Due to modifications
    from the original construction plans, the project is slightly
    behind schedule, but we do not anticipate any delay in
    processing records at the end of this Congress.
        Our curatorial team has been busy with exhibits in the
    Capitol and House Office Buildings highlighting the history and
    artifacts of the House. Next month, we will complete
    installation of an exhibit dedicated to the Congressional
    Baseball and Softball Games.
        None of this work would be possible without the highly
    professional men and women that work in the Office of the
    Clerk. They strive to provide innovative legislative services
    and support to the House while protecting the integrity and
    traditions of this institution.
        I would like to thank my fellow officers for their support
    as well as our many legislative partners. Together, we try to
    maintain a high level of service to Members, staff, and the
    public. Thank you for your support. I am happy to answer any
    questions.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Yoder. Thank you for your testimony.
        We will now turn to Mr. Irving, Sergeant at Arms.

                     Sergeant at Arms Abbreviated Testimony

        Mr. Irving. Good morning--or good afternoon, Chairman
    Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan, and members of the committee. I
    appreciate the opportunity to present the Office of the
    Sergeant at Arms Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2019.
        The expectations of House leadership and Members of
    Congress are very different from when the first Sergeant at
    Arms was elected in 1789. Modern security needs to protect
    Members of Congress have transformed the mission and character
    of the office.
        The events of last June, coupled with the unprecedented
    number of threats and threatening communications the Members
    have received within the last year, has required an increased
    level of safety and security in Washington, D.C., as well as in
    Members' districts. In response, we have enhanced the
    capability at the Capitol with the creation of an operations
    office and created and staffed and enhanced a district office
    security program.

                          ENHANCING SECURITY MEASURES

        I work closely with the Capitol Police Board to support the
    Capitol Police in its mission to protect and serve the Capitol
    community, proactively seeking to implement new security
    initiatives and to stay ahead of new and emerging threats. As
    noted, the increase in threats, both to the campus and to
    individual Members alike, has challenged us to deploy enhanced
    security measures and adjust our tactical response.
        Among other countermeasures, the Capitol Police Board has
    been working to identify options for exterior screening at the
    most heavily used entrances throughout the Capitol complex.
    This is a measure to address security concerns at key exterior
    checkpoints, points of entry, in order to identify and mitigate
    threats before they enter or reach the interior of our
    buildings.

                       SECURITY INITIATIVES AND PROJECTS

        With regard to security initiatives for Fiscal Year 2019, I
    am proposing the continuation of our district office security
    outreach program with Member offices. Thanks to this committee,
    we have the funding for the installation of security system
    equipment at one district office per Member, which includes a
    basic intrusion detection alarm system, duress buttons, and an
    intercom system.
        Upon request, we will also pay the monthly alarm system
    monitoring fees at district office locations. In addition to
    physical security enhancements, the District Security Service
    Center was established to serve as the primary point of contact
    for the coordination of all staff requests and issues.
        We have also expanded our law enforcement coordinator
    training to prepare district staff to effectively manage crowd
    control, coordinate security for events, and handle potentially
    threatening situations. These briefings serve to bolster the
    education already provided by the law enforcement coordinator
    program.
        On the Capitol complex, several projects have been
    completed thanks to our partnership with this committee. The
    successful transition to the O'Neill House Office Building
    resulted from continued coordination between the Capitol Police
    and the Architect to maintain, update, and integrate the
    O'Neill security systems, such as cameras, prox cards, and
    alarms, to be consistent with other House Office Buildings.
        We are also working on the expansion of the House Child
    Care Center and will continue to keep the committee advised of
    the screening and other security protocols as the Child Care
    Center expansion space is retrofitted.
        In addition to the successes of these projects and
    programs, the garage security enhancement project is on track,
    designed to move the entire Capitol complex closer to 100
    percent screening by bringing the House Office Buildings into
    the secure perimeter and in line with the Senate Office
    Buildings in the Capitol.
        Because of the enhanced support operations of the Sergeant
    at Arms, the Sergeant at Arms staff, and these new and ongoing
    initiatives, I am requesting a funding increase in FTE for
    several of my divisions. Employees of the Sergeant at Arms are
    our strongest asset and essential for the successful execution
    of these numerous special events, projects, and programs in the
    upcoming years.
        Thank you, once again, for the opportunity to appear before
    the committee. I want to assure you of my deep commitment and
    that of my entire office to remain vigilant and focused on
    security and preparedness, striving to adhere to the strict
    level of fiscal responsibility entrusted to us by the House of
    Representatives. As always, I will keep the committee informed
    of my activities. And I am happy to answer any questions you
    may have.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Yoder. And, last but not least, Mr. Kiko, the Chief
    Administrative Officer.

               Chief Administrative Officer Abbreviated Testimony

        Mr. Kiko. I don't mind being last. Good afternoon, Chairman
    Yoder, Ranking Member Ryan, and Members of the Subcommittee. I
    thank you for the opportunity to present the CAO's budget
    request.

                    CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER INITIATIVES

        Since last year, the CAO has made significant progress with
    the initiatives it prioritized for Fiscal Year 2018. The
    organization has advanced major ongoing initiatives to improve
    the many services it provides.
        I would like to give a shout-out to our Office of Employee
    Assistance, as they were recently presented with the Medal of
    Merit by U.S. Capitol Police Chief Verderosa for their
    outstanding counseling service to Members of Congress and
    employees after the tragic shooting last June.
        The CAO is continuously looking for ways to adopt and
    expand cost-saving technology solutions for D.C. and district
    offices. For example, the CAO developed and hosts 76 percent of
    the nearly 500 Member and committee websites.
        Our popular online service tool, MyServiceRequest, has
    expanded to include 95 services and has grown from an average
    of 350 requests per month in 2014 to 2,500 requests per month
    last year.
        We are working on initiatives to improve our own business
    processes for financial services and asset management and on
    other projects, including the upcoming congressional transition
    and the Cannon Renewal Project.
        The House has asked the CAO to take on many new
    responsibilities like the implementation of the newly required
    workplace rights and responsibilities education, which provides
    in-person training for as many as 12,000 individuals through
    376 educational sessions in D.C. and 184 sessions in 92
    locations across the country, all before July 2.
        We have also been tasked with standing up a new House
    Office of Employee Advocacy, and we are also going to be doing
    a survey on this issue as well. All of these initiatives serve
    as the basis of the organizational budget request for Fiscal
    Year 2019, which is $152 million.

                CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FY19 BUDGET REQUEST

        Seventy-seven percent of the requested increase is for
    nonpersonnel expenditures, including cybersecurity programs,
    annual maintenance, and licensing of contracts for the House,
    contractor support, equipment, and training.
        Twenty-two percent is for personnel and is requested to
    support cost-of-living adjustments and longevities for current
    staff and additional support for House information resources
    and the newly-formed business unit. Of the requested increase,
    $7.2 million, or 36 percent, is dedicated to cybersecurity.

                                 CYBERSECURITY

        Cyber attacks against the House average 300 million to 500
    million each month. Between July and December of 2017, we
    blocked 9.4 billion unauthorized probes, scans, and connections
    from the House network, and this year, the CAO has deployed
    nearly 200,000 security patches for servers and workstations
    for Members. Every day, we need to employ the best security
    platforms because failure is not an option.

                  CHIEF ADMINISTRATION OFFICER STRATEGIC PLAN

        I would like to highlight the continued implementation of
    our strategic plan. Since implementation was initiated, the CAO
    has undergone some major changes, most significant has been the
    creation of an entirely new business unit called the Customer
    Experience Center, or CEC.
        Based on our conversations at the beginning of this
    strategic planning process, focus groups with Member offices,
    and surveys, offices can find it difficult and frustrating to
    navigate the CAO's multitude of services. To be frank, when I
    first started, I spent most of my time putting out fires from
    dissatisfied Members, and that is unacceptable.
        We need to do better. The CAO needs to better understand
    the complexities and challenges of Member office operations and
    become experts in service delivery, not the other way around,
    which is why we created the CEC.

                           CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE CENTER

        The CEC is designed to help connect our customers with our
    technical, administrative, and operational experts to improve
    access to our services. Included in the CEC are Customer
    Advocates, full-time staff assigned to specific Member offices
    to facilitate services and remediate problems when they arise.
        Last fall, when we introduced our Advocates, they were well
    received, and we are in the process of expanding the program. I
    expect reliance on the advocates to grow exponentially when we
    expand the program to all Member offices in Fiscal Year 2018
    through the upcoming congressional transition. And they have
    been well received by our Members that were the subject of
    special elections this year.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Yoder. Thanks to all three of you for your testimony.
    We will now move to questions and answers.

                                   POSEY RULE

        I have a question for Ms. Haas to start out with. On the
    opening day of Congress, a new House rule was adopted, known as
    the Posey Rule, and it requires a Comparative Print of proposed
    amendments. This is something that, when I was in the Kansas
    legislature, every amendment would have a comparative print,
    and you were able to see sort of what was being changed, not
    just the changes.
        Your office plays a critical role in implementing this new
    requirement, and I know you had a December 2017 deadline to
    implement the first phase. How is the implementation going, and
    what are the next steps?
        Ms. Haas. So implementation is going well. We were able to
    meet that timeframe. And, currently, with work from House
    Legislative Counsel, working collaboratively with the Rules
    Committee, that information is available publicly prior to
    bills coming up on the House Floor. For example it is available
    on the Rules Committee website.
        Phase II, though, is to make this easier for Members and
    staff to use and not to have to have the professionals at Rules
    and Leg Counsel have to use the product.
        We are in Phase II of the requirements. We expect to have
    the requirements completed next month, and by the end of the
    month, we hope to have an RFQ out on the street to move forward
    with Phase II. So we are moving expeditiously, and we want to
    get to what you are used to from the State legislature.
        Mr. Yoder. And that will be accessible to the public? It
    already is on the Rules website?
        Ms. Haas. So the information is already available, correct.
        Mr. Yoder. Right.
        Ms. Haas. But the tool itself will be used for internal
    purposes for Members and staff to be able to run several
    different options.

                           GARAGE SECURITY INITIATIVE

        Mr. Yoder. Okay.
        All right. And then, Mr. Irving, the status of the garage
    security initiative, that is something we have talked about
    here, the changes that we are making to garage security.
        Mr. Irving. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Yoder. Would you update the committee on that, on the
    timetable?
        Mr. Irving. Indeed. It is moving along well in parallel
    course with the garage rehabilitation project. The largest
    portion of the garage security initiative, frankly, is the
    Rayburn. We have already got, you know, the Ford House Office
    Building.
        We have the East and West Undergrounds, what we used to
    call the HUGs, but the Cannon and Longworth Underground is
    done. We still have the Rayburn and then the Cannon. The
    Rayburn is the biggest chunk because of the size of the garage.
        We are on phase 2 of the garage rehabilitation, which has
    also built out many of the--what will be the secure--the
    vestibules for our magnetometers, X-rays, and other screening
    equipment. So we are on track.
        What was missing were the FTE, Capitol Police FTE, which,
    thank you to this committee, we now have those funded. We are
    about a year out. It takes about a year to recruit, hire,
    train, and get those boots on the ground.
        So we are at about a year away from implementation in at
    least an interim phase. We will be done with phase 2 moving
    into phase 3 of the rehabilitation project to continue the
    build-out of the other vestibules, but we should be on track to
    begin garage security in earnest probably around this time next
    year.
        Mr. Yoder. One of the points we have discussed on this
    before is how Members might be able to move through security
    through doors that are going to be closed under this
    initiative. I know Members will have concerns about, you know,
    a door they can go through now that takes them up to their
    office, and now they are going to have to go a different route.
    And we talked about giving them sort of key cards or something.
        Mr. Irving. Yes.
        Mr. Yoder. Is that still part of the process?
        Mr. Irving. Indeed. Members, as you know, they do not go
    through security and bypass security. So, at the entry points,
    the five main entry points, they will obviously not go through
    screening. And for those access points that we have closed down
    that may be closer to where they park, we will provide them
    prox cards so they can access those doors so they can get to
    where they need to go a little bit quicker.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay.

                              HOUSE FOOD SERVICES

        Mr. Kiko, I know that you did a study of food service
    feedback in the last 6 months or so, sort of getting
    information from customers, their pros and cons, what they like
    about the food service. Any of that information that will be
    useful to share with the committee?
        Mr. Kiko. We did a survey of all the employees. We got
    2,400 responses back. People wanted branded options, and they
    also wanted cafeteria-style food, and so we have moved forward
    on that. We have been trying to have more branded options. We
    have been working with the Architect. We have been working with
    the committee on moving forward.
        Au Bon Pain is going to be opening up in the Cannon
    Building. We have had some people that are now in the Longworth
    Building as well, Boar's Head and a couple of other ones. We
    have plans for more in the future, but we are trying to move
    very aggressively on that.
        Mr. Yoder. When does Au Bon Pain open up?
        Mr. Kiko. At the beginning--I think in January--of next
    year.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay. And Boar's Head already is in Longworth?
        Mr. Kiko. They are already there.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay.
        Mr. Kiko. There are long lines, you know. They are very
    popular.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay. And you already have a Subway in Rayburn?
        Mr. Kiko. Yes.
        Mr. Yoder. And there is the Dunkin' Donuts?
        Mr. Kiko. Yes.
        Mr. Yoder. And those are pretty popular as well?
        Mr. Kiko. Yes, they are. I think that is one of the largest
    Dunkin' Donuts in this area as far as volume of food.
        Mr. Yoder. We eat a lot of doughnuts here.
        All right. I will yield to my friend Mr. Ryan.

                             HOUSE CHILDCARE CENTER

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to talk a little bit about the House daycare
    center. We have been talking about parking. And one of the
    issues I am most concerned about over there is--we have toured
    it a couple times--is how we can best handle the influx of the
    expansion.
        Mr. Ayers referred to parallel or maybe slanted parking on
    one block, which obviously wouldn't be enough to address it.
    And I have since heard that maybe the front row of the big
    parking lot across the street might be reserved for daycare
    families. Can you give us the latest of what is happening over
    there?

                         HOUSE CHILDCARE CENTER PARKING

        Mr. Kiko. Well, I know the Sergeant at Arms--and you can
    talk to this too a little bit--was working on a study. And I
    know the Architect is working on this. I think there are 36
    spots right now. I just think that anything less than that is
    unacceptable.
        We need to have parking. We need to have even more parking
    for people to drop their kids off. I think we will find an
    acceptable solution for everybody. I don't really know what
    that is yet because we have a lot of different moving parts,
    but we will have to get this done. We can't have people walk
    too far or drop people off in a dangerous situation.
        But I do know, and we are looking at it. I am very involved
    in it. I know Paul is very involved in it. And we are going to
    grind it out until we find something that is acceptable, not
    just to get it done but to get an acceptable solution.
        Mr. Yoder. Yeah.
        Mr. Kiko. That is all I can say right now because we don't
    have everything totally worked out yet on the studies and
    everything.
        Mr. Irving. I will certainly echo what Phil said, and we
    are working very closely with the Committee on House
    Administration as well on identifying all the spots that we
    need. Since we control pretty much all the parking in the area,
    we should be able to figure it out, but we are certainly
    working on it. A work in progress, but I am confident, as Phil
    said, we will get to the spaces that we need.
        Mr. Ryan. Okay.

                              REDUCING FOOD WASTE

        Phil, before I move on, one of the things we have been
    talking about was food waste at the Capitol, and I think it is
    a significant number. And I know we have put language in recent
    bills talking about how are we going to reduce the food waste,
    and I want it to be more than just we are putting language in
    the bill talking about food waste. So can you talk to us about
    what we are doing?
        Mr. Kiko. Well, I will get back with the finer, specific
    points of what Sodexo is doing. I know that they are very, very
    involved in reducing food waste. They are very involved in
    portion control. For them, it is not beneficial from a profit
    and loss statement to have a lot of food waste.
        But I will get back with you. I know that they donate food
    to nonprofits as well, but it is done anonymously, and they
    don't want to take credit for it. But they do, and I will get a
    little more detail on all that and report back to you fairly
    fast.
        Mr. Ryan. Okay. That would be great. So the portion control
    is implemented, and then we go to Dunkin' Donuts and get the
    doughnuts. Story of our lives, isn't it?

                        SECURITY AT MULTI-MEMBER EVENTS

        Mr. Irving, we, obviously, had a tragic experience last
    year with a multi-Member event with the baseball practice. Can
    you talk to us a little bit about some of the changes maybe
    that you have made to address some of our concerns with multi-
    Member events?
        Mr. Irving. Yes. We have instituted robust outreach to all
    Member offices, committees, leadership. Any time any Member or
    group of Members are going to go off campus, we want to know
    about it. We will conduct a survey. I work very closely with
    the Capitol Police, and I appreciate very much the Capitol
    Police. Chief Verderosa and Assistant Chief Sund have done a
    great job stepping up and providing us the manpower that we
    need to staff all of these off-campus events.
        As you know, there are many events that we did not staff at
    one time, but we are doing that now. So, as the survey goes
    out, we will determine the degree of manpower that we need,
    depending on the site and depending on the exposure, and
    provide the requisite level of Capitol Police support at all of
    those events.
        So that is a big change. We have streamlined the way
    Members can contact our office. They can do so via the
    HouseNet. I receive many letters from Members anyway usually
    when they are going to have something off campus.
        But we want to make it as easy as possible for those
    requests to come in and staff those. And I also send a team out
    from my office as well. So that has been a pretty big change in
    the level of support that we provide to Members off campus.

                            DISTRICT OFFICE SECURITY

        Mr. Ryan. And you mentioned security back in the district
    office. Can you just kind of go over that one more time----
        Mr. Irving. Yes.
        Mr. Ryan [continuing]. And maybe let us know how many
    offices have taken advantage of this at this point?
        Mr. Irving. Yes. No, thank you. It has been very
    successful. Many, many Members' offices have taken advantage.
    We have done--we started last summer, you know, after the
    events of June. And, again, I appreciated very much the support
    of the committee.
        We have done over 260 different Member offices. We have
    done a little over 350 individual offices. So some Members will
    have more than one office done. We are monitoring--at about
    440, 450 offices, we are monitoring. We have picked up the
    monitoring fee.
        Some Members had other services from other companies other
    than our main service provider. So it has been very successful.
    So we have about well over half the Members that are now, you
    know, involved in the program. We know we can do better. So we
    are just continuing our outreach.
        With the transition now coming on, it has slowed down a
    little bit, but we are expecting it to certainly pick up once
    we do the--you know, get into new Member orientation for the
    next Congress.
        Mr. Ryan. Okay. Thank you.

                                CENTRAL CALENDAR

        Quickly, Ms. Haas, we heard a pretty practical proposal.
    Under the Chairman's leadership, we have invited numerous
    groups to come in and talk to us about some ideas that they may
    have as to how we could maybe run our institution a little bit
    better. And they asked that we put together--one of the groups
    asked that we put together one central calendar for all House
    committee hearings and markups with all the relevant details on
    one website.
        Is that something that you have looked into, and do you
    think there is some reason why we wouldn't be able to do that?
    We think it would be good for our constituents to know. We
    already know, as I said last time, that all of the hearings are
    at the same time, but maybe it is important for the public to
    know exactly where they are.
        Ms. Haas. Absolutely.
        Mr. Ryan. So have you looked at this?
        Ms. Haas. The good news is we have already done that. The
    calendar does exist. It is available through our current
    website. It is also available through Congress.Gov. I think the
    bad news, and the fact that that question was asked, is that we
    are not doing a good enough job at making it easily available
    and making people aware of it.
        So the calendar is available. We created it a couple years
    back. It is on docs.house.gov. It is prominent on our new
    website, which will be fully effective in January, but we will
    work with the Library to make sure that it is easily accessible
    to the public.
        Mr. Ryan. Okay. So, if our committee schedules a hearing,
    you will immediately know about it and immediately put it on
    there?
        Ms. Haas. Correct. That is right.
        Mr. Ryan. Okay.
        Ms. Haas. It is on there now. This hearing is on there
    today.
        Mr. Ryan. You are famous, Mr. Chairman.
        All right. I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Yoder. Mr. Amodei.

                               SECURITY SCREENING

        Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Of course, the bad news is the committee has got to tell
    you and us when they are going to have their hearings, right?
        Paul, I guess I need to talk with you and the chief
    offline, and it is kind of the same old subject, which is the
    screening to come into the buildings, as far as when you
    actually get there and somebody is putting you through the
    machine or they are wanding you or whatever, is okay. But it
    strikes me that we are in 110-year-old to 60-year-old buildings
    with vestibules that were made to do nothing other than walk
    through the door and walk into the building and so--and we have
    been doing that for a long time. And, obviously, we need to do
    that.
        But as you sit there, it is like--for a lot of these people
    that come to our offices, coming to the Nation's Capitol is a
    big deal. So, when you are queued up outside the building and
    on the sidewalk and if it is raining or whatever--it is hot or
    whatever it is--it is like coming and going out those doors a
    lot because--I mean, I don't need to worry about it, but you
    sense this frustration and this hostility, not with the actual
    screening process but--and it happens in all three buildings,
    because you know that I was on a jihad on, you know, Cannon is
    the third-class citizen of the buildings and all that other
    sort of stuff. But it is not even really about that anymore.
        And so it strikes me that as we are sitting here doing one
    building--and we have had discussions already in this committee
    about, you know, when is Longworth--and maybe Rayburn is in
    front of Longworth--it is like, hey, maybe part of that
    Architect of the Capitol thing is, how do we screen people in a
    way that just doesn't involve the way we have been doing it
    since before there were this many people and before we designed
    those buildings to just have people walk through the doors?
    Because--and this is--I am just saying, it is one of those
    things where you are like, well, you can add more lanes and you
    can do whatever, but it is like not in a lot of them because
    basically the space doesn't exist.
        So what I would like to do--and any other Member that wants
    to come--but it is like--and get the Architect of the Capitol
    too to say: Hey, we have been doing it this way for modern
    times, and, quite frankly, it is some days an awful experience
    just to wait to get screened. And then they come to your office
    or--well, I don't know if anybody comes to see Congressman
    Ryan, but anyhow, whoever's office--just wanted to see if you
    were listening down there, big guy.
        Mr. Ryan. Barely.
        Mr. Amodei. So, anyhow, I think we need to talk about that
    because, quite frankly, I know it is a source of some
    frustration for you guys too, but it is like, well, we kind of
    keep doing it. And so I think we need to start--and I don't
    know what the answer is.
        Mr. Irving. Yes. I made a passing reference of what we call
    the master plan. It is a security plan that was done a number
    of years ago that we are upgrading. And it is a collaborative
    effort of the Capitol Police Board, so it is the Senate
    Sergeant at Arms, the House Sergeant at Arms, and the
    Architect.
        And we are actually looking at proposing at some point
    the--and we are in the process of designing now--outside
    screening centers.
        Mr. Amodei. Super screening area?
        Mr. Irving. They would be screening centers. Those of us in
    the security business don't like screening inside buildings. We
    like screening to take place outside of the building. So this
    would help us with the paradigm that we would prefer, screening
    outside of the buildings, but also make it a far more
    pleasurable experience for those coming in out of the rain, out
    of the elements, maybe a seating area.
        I would have appointments desks there, so appointments
    could be served there. It would be a far better experience for
    everyone. The initial goal, as you know, way back for the
    Capitol Visitor Center was sort of to be that entrance, and it
    didn't necessarily turn out that way because of the locations
    of the various House and Senate Office Buildings.
        But having said that, I look forward to sitting down with
    you because we can show you some diagrams that we have already
    started to come up with to enhance the experience and make it
    better.
        Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Yoder. And as part of that, one of the proposals is to
    build a South Capitol door entrance, right, and to put that
    outside?
        Mr. Irving. Yes. In fact, there was one, a temporary
    structure at one time after 9/11 when the CVC opened that went
    away, thinking that most folks would come in via the CVC. But
    we would like to establish that once again, construct that
    again.
        So there would be just outside the--what is known as the
    south door on the House side of the Capitol would have its own
    separate structure which would be screening and, again, our
    appointments desk, waiting area, we feel would make the Capitol
    far more secure because we would take care of any issues, you
    know, outside of the Capitol before you get in.
        The Senate does have a structure now, but it is a small,
    temporary trailer I think that they do probably want to upgrade
    as well.
        Mr. Yoder. So the south door structure would look different
    than the Senate structure. How would it look?
        Mr. Irving. At some point, both would look the same.
        Mr. Yoder. But in terms of the current Senate structure
    that is a temporary trailer. That is not what your proposal is
    for the south door?
        Mr. Irving. No.
        Mr. Yoder. What does that look like?
        Mr. Irving. It would be, if you would imagine some of our
    kiosks that are stone, so they would more closely match the
    architecture of the building. And we have to work with the
    Architect to see if this is going to be a structure that is
    going to be a forever structure or something that will be a
    little more temporary. But certainly it would be more than just
    a trailer, than one of these--
        Mr. Yoder. And the idea is that if someone did have some
    sort of explosive device, they wouldn't be in the Capitol when
    they were getting screened, right? They would be outside.
        Mr. Irving. They would be outside.
        Mr. Yoder. And does that structure have some way to
    contain--is it built in a way----
        Mr. Irving. Yes.
        Mr. Yoder [continuing]. That might have--anticipate there
    could be a problem and have a structure that contains that?
        Mr. Irving. Yes. Not to get into some of the----
        Mr. Yoder. Sure.
        Mr. Irving [continuing]. Area that borders on classified--
    --
        Mr. Yoder. Correct.
        Mr. Irving [continuing]. But, yes, it would be designed to
    withstand certain issues and certainly be far more protection
    than what we have now. We have instigated a number of
    countermeasures in the meantime by enhancing our presence
    outside with what we call Vapor Wake or PBIED K-9s that will
    detect certain explosives.
        So we do our best to put as many personnel, law enforcement
    personnel, Capitol Police, at those areas where people come
    into the buildings. But it would be better to have a separate
    structure outside for full screening.
        Mr. Yoder. The tragic shooting and killing of, was it two
    officers in, what was that, 1998. I wasn't here in Washington
    at that time. The shooter then was able to access the Capitol?
        Mr. Irving. Unfortunately, yes. Again, that was a classic
    example of someone who came into the building and was in the
    building, and we want to avoid that.
        Mr. Yoder. And that would be also preventable somewhat if
    the screening was happening outside?
        Mr. Irving. Yes, absolutely.
        Mr. Yoder. Okay.

                           HOUSE FLOOR VOTING SYSTEM

        Ms. Haas, the voting system that you spoke about----
        Ms. Haas. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Yoder [continuing]. I am sure lots of Members will have
    questions for me and Mr. Ryan about that if, you know, it
    happens and they don't like parts of it. So I just want to make
    sure I understand. So all of the voting boxes on the floor will
    be replaced?
        Ms. Haas. Correct.
        Mr. Yoder. And they are being replaced with boxes that look
    similar but have modern technology?
        Ms. Haas. That is exactly right.
        Mr. Yoder. One piece of that is there will be a little
    digital readout that will tell you what your vote is?
        Ms. Haas. Well, there is going to be--a screen.
        Mr. Yoder. Screen, uh-huh.
        Ms. Haas. At this point right now, the screen is very
    small, and when you put your card in, your name will come up.
    So, initially, that is what it is going to have.
        Mr. Yoder. So you know you have your right card.
        Ms. Haas. Correct. And it has some basic things in there.
    It will restate what your vote is after you voted. So it is
    another way for you to check your vote.
        As you may recall, this new system will allow visually
    impaired Members to submit their votes, if we have any folks
    that are visually impaired, it has technology for that built
    into the new cards that we are going to be distributing. So
    those are the real changes.
        From an operational standpoint as a Member, you are going
    to see very little difference on the screens.
        Mr. Yoder. And what is the benefit to the institution to do
    this?
        Ms. Haas. Sure. So, first of all, the current boxes are
    more than 20 years old. We are moving from what was a custom
    technology to a technology that is more commercially available.
    We will be able to support the systems ourselves.
        I mentioned the display. They are going to have--they are
    new LED. So everything is really modernized in the new voting
    boxes. But the biggest----
        Mr. Yoder. The voting board will work the same? The
    functionality is the same?
        Ms. Haas. No changes to the board at all; that is right.
        Mr. Yoder. How much is this costing us?
        Ms. Haas. The whole--do you know, Bob?
        Mr. Reeves. It is a little over $300,000.
        Mr. Yoder. Over $300,000. And will the cards look any
    different?
        Ms. Haas. The cards will look the same. The new cards that
    we are going to distribute right after the August break, the
    one change is we have put a Capitol Dome on there just so you
    will be able to know the difference from the earlier card
    provided at the beginning of this Congress. But if you try to
    use your old cards, they will not work in the new system. So we
    will be aggressively communicating to Member offices over the
    August break.
        Mr. Yoder. Will we need like a training session for certain
    Members--
        Ms. Haas. No.
        Mr. Yoder [continuing]. To be able to explain to them how
    to use this, or are they going to be able to--old dog, new
    tricks kind of issue here. But you think we will be okay?
        Ms. Haas. I think you will find it very simple.
        The other thing is, during the April break, we did bring
    out the 50 boxes, and we tested them on the floor, and
    everything is continuing to go well.
        Mr. Yoder. And there will be more boxes, right, than we
    have now?
        Ms. Haas. That is correct. We will have two additional
    boxes on each side where Leadership designated where those
    boxes should go.
        Mr. Yoder. Got it. Okay.
        Mr. Ryan. Did you say earlier you are going to do a
    baseball/softball display?
        Ms. Haas. That is right. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Ryan. So the chairman and I would just like to
    recommend for that display the picture over here----
        Ms. Haas. Okay.
        Mr. Yoder [continuing]. Of two of the finest athletes that
    ever played the game.
        Ms. Haas. We will take that under consideration.
        Mr. Yoder. What we still don't know is whether you caught
    that ball, right?
        Mr. Ryan. All I know is I couldn't walk the next morning.

                           Chairman's Closing Remarks

        Mr. Yoder. And, with that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
    We will reconvene at 1:30 tomorrow when we will meet for our
    subcommittee markup for fiscal year 2019 Legislative Branch
    Appropriations bill.
        With that, thank you, all three, for your work and for your
    team and look forward to a great rest of your year.
        [Questions for the record follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   I N D E X

                                  ----------

                          United States Capitol Police

                                                                       Page
    Ammunition and Weapons Replacement Budget........................    21
    Event Security...................................................    13
    Increases in Overtime............................................    23
    Metro Safety, K-9 Budget and Retirement Waiver...................    16
    Opening Remarks of Chairman Yoder................................     1
    Opening Remarks of Ranking Member Ryan...........................    12
    Opening Statement of Chief Matthew R. Verderosa..................     3
    Partnerships with Local Law Enforcement..........................    14
    Prescreening Strategy............................................    25
    Retirement Age Waiver............................................    12
    Safety Measures at District Offices..............................    18
    Screening Technology Advancements................................    15
    Testimony of Chief Matthew R. Verderosa..........................     5
    Training, Backfilling Attrition and Retirement...................    20
    .................................................................

                          Government Publishing Office

    Building Space at GPO............................................    45
    Changes to Title 44..............................................    44
    GPO and Passports................................................    47
    GPO's Budget Request.............................................    27
    GPO's Data Centers...............................................    46
    GPO's Online Information System..................................    48
    Impact on Transparency...........................................    44
    Modernization of the GPO.........................................    43
    .................................................................

                         Architect of the Capitol (AOC)

    Cannon House Office Building Renewal.............................    67
    Capitol Visitor Center Tunnel Repair.............................    73
    Chairman Remarks.................................................    59
    Child Care Center................................................    67
    Cyber Security...................................................    70
    Elevator Signage.................................................    74
    Energy Reduction.................................................    69
    House Hi
    storic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund........................   75
    House Recycling Program

    Lead in Water Testing............................................    74
    Legislative Language.............................................    71
    Members Representational Allowances..............................    73
    Parking..........................................................    69
    Prepared Statement of Stephen T. Ayers...........................    62
    Questions for the Record.........................................    79
        AOC/CAO Service Consolidation................................    82
        Baby Changing Stations.......................................    82
        Child Care Center............................................    79
        Congressional Accountability Act Settlements.................    80
        Data Center..................................................    81
        Energy and Sustainability Program............................    83
        O'Neill Building.............................................    85
        Rayburn Garage Renovation....................................    85
        Restoration and Renovation of the Cannon House Office
          Building...................................................    84
        Tree Accident................................................    79
        Victory Gardens..............................................    83
    Ranking Member Remarks...........................................    60
    Summary Statement of Stephen T. Ayers............................    60
    Tour of U.S. Capitol Grounds.....................................    78
    Tree Management..................................................    77
    .................................................................

                              Office of Compliance

    ADA Inspections of Member Offices................................   233
    Attorney Need....................................................   232
    Case File Security...............................................   240
    Confidentiality and Informing Members of Staff Conduct...........   241
    Confidentiality and Statute......................................   233
    I.T. Needs.......................................................   231
    Library of Congress Costs........................................   232
    Library Visitor Safety...........................................   238
    Opening Statement................................................   216
    OSH Recommendations..............................................   238
    Questions for the Record.........................................   247
    Reform Implementation and Transition.............................   236
    Settlement Payments..............................................   236
    Training.........................................................   230
    Training Demands.................................................   240
    Training Development.............................................   239
    Travel...........................................................   231
    Witness..........................................................   215
    Workplace Climate................................................   229
    Workplace Rights Poster..........................................   231

                          Congressional Budget Office

    Impacts of HealthCare Prevention.................................   266
    Outlook of Economic Forecasts....................................   267
    Prioritization of Cost Estimates.................................   264
    Questions for the Record.........................................   272
    Scoring on Preventative Healthcare Bills.........................   269
    Statement of Chairman Yoder & Ranking Member Ryan................   253
    Statement of Dr. Keith Hall, Director (CBO)......................   254
    The Prepared Statement...........................................   257

                     U.S. Government Accountability Office

    Accomplishments..................................................   277
    Cyber Security...................................................   321
    Disaster Assistance..............................................   320
    Duplication and Cost Savings.....................................   318
    Electronic Docketing Protest System..............................   314
    GAO Testimony--Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request...................   278
    Healthcare.......................................................   311
    High Risk List...................................................   315
    INTEL............................................................   310
    Medicare and Medicaid............................................   307
    Opening..........................................................   275
    Opening Statement................................................   276
    Questions for the Record.........................................   313
    Statement Continued..............................................   305
    Statement from Congressman Newhouse..............................   324
    Technology Assessment............................................   311
    Technology Assessment............................................   313
    Veterans Affairs.................................................   308
    Work Initiated by the Comptroller General........................   313

                              Library of Congress

    Accessible Collections...........................................   353
    Chairman Yoder's Closing Remarks.................................   359
    Congressional Dialogue...........................................   348
    Congressional Dinner Appreciation................................   352
    Copyright Mandatory Deposit Rulemaking Proposal..................   349
    Copyright Office:
        Copyright IT Modernization...................................   357
        Copyright Processing Time....................................   357
    Cross-Referencing Terminology....................................   352
    Congressional Research Service:
        CRS Inquiries................................................   354
        CRS Workforce................................................   354
        Congressional Research Service Workforce.....................   350
        Progress on Making CRS Reports Public........................   355
    Funding Impacts..................................................   347
    Hands-on History.................................................   349
    Increasing Access................................................   354
    Library's Young Readers Room.....................................   348
    National Library Service's E-Reader Program......................   356
    Opening Statements:
        Chairman Yoder...............................................   325
        Ranking Member Ryan..........................................   325
        Librarian of Congress........................................   326
    Questions for the Record from Chairman Yoder:
        Visitor Experience...........................................   360
        Civil Society................................................   361
        CRS Reports..................................................   362
        GAO Recommendations..........................................   362
    Primary Computing Facility.......................................   362
        E-Reader Investment..........................................   363
    Subject Headings.................................................   351
    Visitor's Experience.............................................   346
    Visitor's Experience Timeline....................................   347
    Visitor's Experience Clarification for the Record................   347
    Written Statements:
        Librarian of Congress........................................   329
        Director, Congressional Research Service.....................   333
        Acting Register of Copyrights................................   338

                         U.S. House of Representatives

    Central Calendar.................................................   405
    Chairman Outlines Proceedings....................................   366
    Chairman's Closing Remarks.......................................   409
    Chief Administrative Officer Abbreviated Testimony...............   387
    Chief Administrative Officer FY19 Budget Request.................   387
    Chief Administrative Officer Initiatives.........................   387
    Chief Administrative Officer Strategic Plan......................   388
    Clerk of the House Abbreviated Testimony.........................   366
    Clerk Projects and Programs......................................   366
    Customer Experience Center.......................................   388
    Cybersecurity....................................................   388
    District Office Security.........................................   404
    Enhancing Security Measures......................................   379
    Garage Security Initiative.......................................   401
    House Childcare Center...........................................   403
    House Childcare Center Parking...................................   403
    House Floor Voting System........................................   408
    House Food Services..............................................   402
    Opening Statement of Hon. Kevin Yoder, Chairman..................   365
    Opening Statement of Hon. Tim Ryan, Ranking Member...............   366
    Posey Rule.......................................................   401
    Prepared Statements for the Record...............................   424
    Questions for the Chief Administrative Officer...................   410
    Questions for the Clerk..........................................   417
    Questions for the Sergeant at Arms...............................   420
    Reducing Food Waste..............................................   403
    Security at Multi-Member Events..................................   404
    Security Initiatives and Projects................................   379
    Security Screening...............................................   405
    Sergeant at Arms Abbreviated Testimony...........................   379
    Statement of E. Wade Ballou, Jr., Legislative Counsel, U.S. House
      of Representatives.............................................   425
    Statement of Hon. Karen Haas, Clerk, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   368
    Statement of Hon. Paul Irving, Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   381
    Statement of Hon. Philip Kiko, Chief Administrative Officer, U.S.
      House of Representatives.......................................   389
    Statement of Michael Ptasienski, Inspector General, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   445
    Statement of Ralph Seep, Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   437
    Statement of Thomas Hungar, General Counsel, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................   442