[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
TIM RYAN, Ohio, Chairman
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
ED CASE, Hawaii MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Steve Marchese
Subcommittee Staff
_______
PART 2
FISCAL YEAR 2022 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
PART 2 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 2022
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
TIM RYAN, Ohio, Chairman
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
ED CASE, Hawaii MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.
Steve Marchese
Subcommittee Staff
_____
PART 2
FISCAL YEAR 2022 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-270 WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, Texas
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
BARBARA LEE, California JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota KEN CALVERT, California
TIM RYAN, Ohio TOM COLE, Oklahoma
C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DEREK KILMER, Washington DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
GRACE MENG, New York MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin CHRIS STEWART, Utah
KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
PETE AGUILAR, California DAVID G. VALADAO, California
LOIS FRANKEL, Florida DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan BEN CLINE, Virginia
NORMA J. TORRES, California GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida MIKE GARCIA, California
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
ED CASE, Hawaii TONY GONZALES, Texas
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
JOSH HARDER, California
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
SUSIE LEE, Nevada
Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
House Wellness Center and Office of Employee Assistance.......... 1
Health and Wellness of Employees and State of Damage and
Preservation as a result of the January 6 Insurrection......... 33
U.S. Capitol Police and House Sergeant at Arms, Security Failures
on
January 6...................................................... 81
Open World Leadership Center..................................... 141
Congressional Budget Office...................................... 161
U.S. Capitol Police.............................................. 187
Library of Congress.............................................. 249
Government Accountability Office................................. 295
House Officers................................................... 367
Architect of the Capitol......................................... 457
Government Publishing Office..................................... 484
Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Hearing_Office of Congressional Workplace
Rights......................................................... 503
(iii)
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022
----------
Thursday, February 18, 2021.
HOUSE WELLNESS CENTER AND OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE
WITNESSES
BRYAN WEISS, MANAGER, HOUSE WELLNESS CENTER
PAUL TEWKSBURY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE
Mr. Ryan. All right. Well, let's call this meeting to
order. All right. Thank you. As this hearing is fully virtual,
I want to make sure that we get some of the housekeeping
matters out of the way. So, for today's meeting, the chair or
staff designated by the chair may mute participants'
microphones when they are not under recognition for the
purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
So members are personally responsible for muting and
unmuting themselves. If I have noticed that you have not muted
yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to unmute
you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will unmute
your microphone.
I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
still applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to
the next member until the issue is resolved, and then you will
retain the balance of your time. You can see it up there on the
screen.
You will notice a clock on your screen that will show how
much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock will
turn to yellow; at 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the
gavel to remind members that their time is almost expired; and
when your time has expired, the clock will turn red and I will
begin to recognize the next member.
I did hear a little background noise so somebody needs to
make sure they mute their microphone.
In terms of the speaking order, we will follow the order
set forth in the House rules, beginning with the chair and
ranking member, then members present at the time the hearing is
called to order. They will be recognized in order of seniority.
And, finally, members not present at the time the hearing is
called to order.
Finally, the House rules require me to remind you that we
have set up an email address to which members can send anything
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or
markups, and that email address has been provided in advance to
your staff.
Now, with that out of the way, I am pleased to welcome
everyone to our first Legislative Branch hearing for the fiscal
year 2022 cycle. We have 14 hearings planned for this year with
11 consisting of traditional budget hearings. The first three
hearings will focus predominantly on the events of January 6,
2021, the security failures, physical damage, and the state and
health of wellness of the Capitol workforce.
While I am excited to start the 2022 cycle, it is with a
heavy heart that I remind us all of the losses we endured at
the hand of a mob of insurrectionists that attacked our
representative democracy. It is clear there were many failures
on that faithful day, and sadly lives were lost, including
Officer Bryan Sicknick and Officer Howard Liebengood.
I hope we can use these first three hearings to examine the
events of January 6, fix what went wrong, adapt and evolve to
ensure that the House and its Members, staff, and campus
workforce can safely continue to work and carry out their
duties. We are going to have some tough decisions to make over
the next 2 months.
And while the subcommittee is small in size, it is a very
important function, and I am proud to be working with all my
colleagues to address any physical changes needed to ensure the
Capitol complex is safe for Members of Congress to carry out
our constitutional duties, provide resources to our Capitol
Hill community, to heal from this traumatic event, maintain a
safe and open campus as much as possible for people to express
their First Amendment rights so that visitors from across the
country and around the world can witness representative
democracy in action.
So let's get started. Today our hearing is going to focus
on the Office of Employee Assistance, the House Wellness
Center, and the ways these offices are working to support the
Capitol community through stress and trauma of not only the
January 6 attack on the Capitol but throughout the COVID-19
pandemic this past year.
Our witnesses are Mr. Bryan Weiss, the Manager of the House
Wellness Center, and Mr. Paul Tewksbury, the Director of the
House Office of Employee Assistance.
Mr. Weiss and Mr. Tewksbury, thank you for being here today
to discuss the programs of support your office provides to the
House community.
I also want to take a minute to thank Ms. Herrera Beutler
for her support for the Office of Wellness, which we created a
couple of years ago.
And in a year full of trauma and hurt, with the apex being
the insurrection on January 6, our human resources entities
within the Capitol complex have adapted to the evolving and
increasing mental health needs of our campus. And we are
interested today in exploring the response--sorry, we get a
cameo from Buckeye every now and again in our Zoom calls.
We are interested today in exploring the response to staff
members and our Capitol Police force since January 6, and the
start of the COVID-19 pandemic as well, accessibility of
services and outreach plans, how OEA and Wellness are providing
virtual or hybrid care, what interagency partnerships are they
utilizing to support themselves during this increased time of
need, and how OEA and Wellness are accessing the long-term
mental health and wellness on Capitol Hill beyond the traumatic
events of the past year.
So we are very thankful for your leadership and the staff
of both your organizations who work so hard to help Members,
staff, police, and all those who work so hard to make the House
run. I look forward to your testimony today and working with
you to continue building support for individuals and teams
through stressful and traumatic times.
And, with that, I would like to yield to my colleague from
the great State of Washington and a great partner, our ranking
member, Jamie Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to say thank you both to Mr. Tewksbury and Mr.
Weiss for being here today and for sharing with us your
firsthand testimonies to us, to Congress, to the Members, on
the services you provide to our staff, to the Capitol Police
officers, and the rest of the leg branch community.
I also want to recognize the recently retired director of
the Office of Employee Assistance, Liz McBride, who recently--
or who spent nearly 30 years building the office into what it
is today. Liz positively touched lives of a lot of House
Members and staffers and should be really proud of the work
that she accomplished.
Workplace wellness programs have evolved a lot in recent
years. Employers around the country are offering more than just
retirement, paid time off, and healthcare benefits to retain
their workers. It is a really competitive market for them.
Congress must continue to evolve our employee services to
ensure that Members can hire quality staff and retain quality
staff. I think we all have the experience of losing a really
valued member of our team because they had to, because they had
to move on for life, quality-of-life purposes, and for their
family.
So, in today's incredibly high-stress workplace environment
in Congress, I want to make sure that we are requiring--that we
are addressing the, I want to say, the holistic needs that we
all have because it can build a good work/life balance. It can
promote that overall well-being and increase productivity.
Honestly, it is a better bang for the buck for the taxpayer,
quite frankly.
So OEA and the Wellness Center has a wealth of services,
like personal counseling, which, I think the chairman alluded
to, is probably more critical than ever right now, physical
activity and mindfulness training for Members, our staff, and
other personnel in the House complex.
This past year has thrown a lot of challenges our way, and
your supportive services that the OEA and Wellness Center
provide are important now more than ever--shhh, baby, shhh--the
COVID pandemic has obviously upended everything, like--oh,
look, in my notes, it actually says, upended our
professionalism and personal lives--that is an understatement--
forcing us to work from home and alter our day-to-day
operations.
That was well timed, Abigail.
We endure, I think we are still all attempting to make some
sense of how to--what we lived through in the last month and
what that means, certainly, you know, the threats to staff, to
Members, to Capitol Police officers, the death of Officer
Sicknick. I really--to say that it has decimated the morale
with the Capitol Police officers, that is an understatement.
So I think we are still struggling with that, and I do find
us fortunate. OEA and the Wellness Center have quickly and
effectively adapted to ensure we are going to be able to
provide the best services possible. OEA was well equipped to
pivot, I think, to that supportive virtual environment when the
pandemic forced everybody home. And, obviously, the telework
opportunities that were prepared to offer I think proper mental
health counseling for staff, especially in the aftermath of the
riot, have been key.
The Wellness Center also added significant enhancements to
their work/life services, including emergency backup childcare,
which has been a hot button for me for a while, and eldercare.
And these programs have been really helpful. So I look forward
to learning more about your offices and will continue to
support--and how they are going to continue to support our
congressional community as we hopefully will get back to
normal.
So, with that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
I appreciate it and your timely example of the complexities
of what is going on here.
I also want to take a half a second to thank former
Chairman Yoder, who chaired this committee before I did, who
was very instrumental and aware of the needs of a lot of the
office--the techniques and the approach that the Office of
Wellness is providing, and he was very, very supportive and
helped us get this off the ground. So I think it is appropriate
to mention him.
Now we recognize the chair of the full committee,
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, who has been extremely supportive
of this approach and the needs of the people on Capitol Hill.
Chairwoman DeLauro.
The Chair. I want to thank all of you today. And I do want
to recognize both you, Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Herrera
Beutler, looking at what you have done in the past, it didn't
take the chaos of January 6 or an insurrection for you to
understand the needs of, whether it is Members or Capitol Hill
Police or employees, no matter who it is that works within the
Capitol, to understand that wellness is critical, that a
person's environment is critical and their mental health needs
are as important as their physical needs. So I thank you both
for your emphasis in this area.
And a thank you to Mr. Weiss, Mr. Tewksbury, and we thank
you for being here to testify. I am so proud to join with you
today because, as I understand it, this is the first
congressional hearing dedicated to an open conversation about
mental health in the Congress. The subject is critical,
especially now.
In the midst of the constant and relentless heartbreak of
the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, many of us are still reeling
from the events of January 6 when the cradle of our democracy
was viciously attacked. I won't tell my story, but I was in the
gallery and evacuated, and we keep reliving that day in so many
ways. We had a mob of violent protesters storm the Capitol.
Five people lost their lives. Many more hurt. Many sustained
serious injuries, head trauma, facial injury, and even losing
fingers.
But the physical wounds sustained that day are only a part
of the story. From custodians to congressional staffers,
Capitol Police, contractors, there is not one person who works
on Capitol Hill who has not been touched by the events of that
day. In the aftermath of this tragedy, a Capitol Police
officer, a District of Columbia Metropolitan Police officer
have died by suicide. Others on the force have turned in their
guns. They have turned in their guns for fear that they might
hurt themselves.
And even as we continue to work in a place now surrounded
by fencing, protected by the National Guard, the nearly 30,000
employees who serve in the legislative branch have been working
around the clock to serve the American people. Support staff,
many of whom are people of color, cleaned up the Capitol
complex just days after a noose appeared on the Capitol grounds
and White nationalists waved Confederate flags. Meanwhile, our
district and our constituent service staff have been pushing
themselves to the limit as they work to meet the increasing
needs of those affected by the pandemic.
One of my constituent service staff said that this past
year has, quote, felt like drinking from a fire hose while in
free fall. For many staffers working directly with
constituents, the panic and desperation from those seeking
assistance compounded with the personal fear of getting sick or
losing loved ones has taken a very deep emotional toll.
In turn, the Office of Employee Assistance, OEA, and the
House Wellness Center, has also been working nonstop to meet
the increasing emotional needs of those who work on Capitol
Hill.
You know, as we celebrate the Congress and its diversity,
its strength, all of its--the opportunities here, the OEA and
the House Wellness Center have become a one-stop-shop for
mental health services on Capitol Hill. These are essential
resources for the Capitol Hill community. It is critical that
we provide them the resources to support the well-being of all
who serve here.
This is a hearing that is long overdue. It is a step in the
right direction. But it is important, I think, for all of us to
talk to one another, to check in, to cultivate a more free and
an open dialogue about the importance of mental health and just
make people understand that they are not alone in the feelings
that they have, and, in fact, yes, there is a place where we
can go for help and that the resources are there to be able to
provide that help.
And I thank you very, very much for this opportunity. And I
will just say, I will try, as the full committee chair, to make
as many of the meetings as possible with the time schedule
because I think the issues that we are undertaking and
especially here in this subcommittee are critical to our moving
forward. So thank you very, very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Chairwoman. I appreciate your passion and
energy behind this. It is definitely needed now more than ever.
And we are excited about also connecting with a lot of the
work that is done in your district at Yale and a lot of other
areas around the country that Bryan and I have talked about on
numerous occasions of people I have met over the years who
provide these kind of services. They do it for veterans. They
do it for police officers. They do it in, you know, war-torn
areas. And, you know, unfortunately, now, today, in this
environment, everybody needs access to these kind of
approaches.
So, with that, we are going to have Mr. Weiss begin. And we
are going to--without any objection, we are going to put the
written testimonies a part of the record, if you can summarize
your statement, highlight your efforts to the committee. We
will have, as I said, Mr. Weiss go first and then Mr. Tewksbury
for his statement. Once the statements are complete we will
move to the question-and-answer period.
So, Mr. Weiss, you have the floor.
Mr. Weiss. Good morning, Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member
Herrera Beutler, and members of the Legislative Branch
Subcommittee. It is an honor to testify before this
distinguished panel, and I thank you for the opportunity to
discuss issues of great importance to the Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the House of Representatives.
I also want to thank you and all the members of this
subcommittee for the unwavering support provided to the House
Wellness Center since its inception.
Over the last 28 months, the House Wellness Center has
grown into a holistic well-being program for the entire House
community, serving the House, U.S. Capitol Police, Architect of
the Capitol, and the Congressional Budget Office. Our programs
and resources are offered on a variety of platforms ensuring
every employee has the same level of access and care intended
to positively impact individual and organizational well-being,
productivity, and workplace culture.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, we increased the
promotion of our stress management and resilience-building
application, supported employees in their dietary goals with
two nutrition applications, hosted a six-part monthly
mindfulness webinar series, while concurrently launching an
application to help employees establish their daily mindfulness
practice.
We created a COVID-19 toolkit web page with a curated list
of available tools and services, including exercise, nutrition,
and mental acuity worksheets. We hosted a month-long virtual
well-being fair in June and launched a wellness coaching
platform offering one-on-one lifestyle and behavioral change
support for employees.
Considering the environment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic
and the increased stress and demand placed on employees, we
added emergency backup child- and eldercare, as well as an
online academic resource center and educational tutoring
services.
These services are in addition to the personalized guidance
employees can receive in areas such as childcare and parenting,
senior care and caregiving, legal assistance, financial
guidance, and house and home needs. Employees can also access a
discount marketplace to shop for everything from technology to
movie tickets, receive life event kits to tackle life's
emergencies and milestones, and other resources.
During this past health benefits open season, the House
Wellness Center launched a benefits plan, transparency, and
comparison tool to help improve health literacy so employees
can make the most informed decisions when it comes to their
healthcare.
The turbulent times caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have
recently been compounded and magnified by the tragedy of the
January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol violence. With the strategic
placement of the House Wellness Center under the Office of
Employee Assistance, we have been able to provide
administrative support and resource awareness on behalf of the
OEA while they valiantly manage the critical incident response,
mental health, and emotional well-being of the House community.
The House Wellness Center is working closely with the OEA
to identify additional opportunities and resources to support
employees during these extraordinary and unprecedented times.
The unfortunate reality is that, while the House community
continues to deal with the aftermath of the violence, the other
stressors caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and life obligations
in general do not go away. It remains the responsibility of the
House Wellness Center to provide day-to-day well-being support
for the House community to help them achieve work/life harmony
and improved quality of life.
In 2021, the House Wellness Center will continue to work to
identify population health disparities, increase outreach and
awareness efforts, and work closely with key stakeholders to
better understand House community well-being needs. The House
Wellness Center will begin offering regular House communitywide
health enhancement programs, population-specific offerings, and
partner with its vendors and business partners on improving
health outcomes through education, engagement, and empowerment.
The House Wellness Center will continue to benchmark its
resources and services against other Federal wellness programs
while staying up-to-date on industry trends and best practices.
These efforts and those detailed further above coupled with
leadership's commitment to employee well-being and positive
culture change will help the House of Representatives remain an
agency and employer of choice.
Again, I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to
testify on these important topics, and I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ryan. Great. Thanks, Bryan.
Mr. Tewksbury.
Mr. Tewksbury. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Ryan,
Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, members of the subcommittee,
and Chairwoman DeLauro. It is an honor to testify before this
distinguished panel.
For the past 6 years, I have served with the Office of
Employee Assistance, the OEA, recently assuming the role of
director. Since its launch three decades ago, the OEA has
provided a range of professional and confidential support
services designed to enhance the personal and occupational
well-being of the House community, the Congressional Budget
Office, and employees of the U.S. Capitol Police, as well as
all employees' immediate family members.
Our confidential counseling, supervisory consultation and
coaching, trainings, office retreats, trauma response services,
and job transition assistance have positively impacted the
well-being and work productivity of generations of Members and
staff.
Our counselors use a variety of evidence-based techniques
drawing from cognitive, behavioral, mindfulness, and strengths
based perspectives. Our trauma response services are informed
by the dominant models in the employee assistance field. While
situations such as the Capitol attack have required a timely
and reactive response, OEA services strive to be as proactive
as possible educating individuals, managers, and work teams on
resilience-building practices.
Thanks to the generosity of the Committee on
Appropriations, Members of Congress, and the support from the
Chief Administrative Officer, the OEA significantly expanded
its staffing in 2018 and helped establish the House Wellness
Center. This has allowed us to continue to meet the needs of
individuals seeking counseling while also enabling the OEA to
increase its delivery of staff retreats more than fivefold in
2019.
The COVID pandemic of 2020 brought about immediate and
sweeping changes in OEA service delivery. While accustomed to
providing face-to-face services to individuals and work teams,
the OEA rapidly and effectively met these changing service
demands while addressing the increased support needs stemming
from the pandemic.
Our decades of experience providing telephonic counseling
to district House staff enabled us to smoothly shift all of our
counseling services to this model without any lapse in service.
During the first 6 months of 2020, OEA counselors had more
than 3,000 contacts with employee clients. Additionally, the
OEA facilitated numerous virtual training sessions during 2020,
reaching over 3,000 individuals through these events.
I join you and your colleagues in recognizing the
importance of meeting the emotional needs of the congressional
community today and beyond. The violent attack on our Capitol
on January 6, 2021, generated an extraordinary amount of
reactivity and concern.
Allow me to highlight the monumental efforts that our team
has taken in response to the horrific events that transpired
that day, which include immediately deploying our critical
incident response posture to engage the full capacity of our
24/7 services, both in person and remotely; leveraging existing
contracting mechanisms to secure additional counseling
resources both for the House community and for the U.S. Capitol
Police specifically, providing an unparalleled level of support
services to individual employees and managers. Individual
interactions with employees and managers since January 6
totaled 1,150, which includes 760 counseling sessions and over
300 individual onsite interactions with USCP personnel thus
far.
Issuing numerous House-wide messages and communications on
coping with the aftermath of trauma and the availability of OEA
services; conducting over 40 live webinars for members, staff,
and supervisors on trauma and resilience, which are now also
available in our on-demand format; partnering with the Office
of the Speaker and the Office of the Attending Physician to
conduct trauma and resilience briefings and outreach regarding
OEA services for Members of Congress; and actively developing
promotional strategies to highlight the culturally competent
nature of all services that OEA provides and how to portray
this essential messaging most effectively.
Additionally, our OEA team promptly contacted companies
that employees the Capitol complex during attack and learned
that employers were already providing EAP services to their
employees who were onsite. In some instances, these services
include bilingual counseling. The OEA team has been providing
help and guidance to anyone who has reached out since 1/6
including House contractors. And as a practice providing
customized resources upon request, OEA is able to connect
employees to bilingual support services.
The CAO ensures our team recruits and hires talent from a
variety of backgrounds. Currently, 50 percent of our full-time
counselors are African Americans. In addition, the entire OEA
team is professionally trained in and regularly delivers
culturally competent mental health services to a highly diverse
workforce.
Recent increases to our budget allow us to hire more
counselors, expand service, and enhance outreach. We are
working with the CAO structure to fill a vacant manager
position and add two new staff this year. We are also using
available funds to supplement our full-time counseling staff
with onsite counselors for Capitol Police and three additional
contracted counselors within the OEA.
We are so grateful for your consideration and appreciate
your support now and into the future. I welcome any questions
you have. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ryan. I appreciate it, Paul. Thank you very much for
that comprehensive review. We are going to go right to
questions, and we are going to go to the ranking member to
begin with the question-and-answer period.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. All right. Thank you very much for
that. I wanted to actually start with--I mean, everything you
talked--everything that you both just shared, I have so many
more questions, but let me start with talking about our Capitol
Police officers. Obviously, many are still suffering some
significant trauma. I think the chairwoman brought that out in
her opening remarks.
Can you detail services that are--you are providing for--
specifically for officers to ensure they have the support they
need, and are you collaborating with Congress and the Capitol
Police leadership to ensure the officers know about these
services and have the ability to access them, given the fact
that they have been working 21 hours, like they have been--they
have had no breaks. They have gotten no time off at all, to the
point where their spouses are reaching out and raising
significant concern about their mental health. Let's start with
that.
Mr. Tewksbury. Yes. Thank you so much for that question.
And I can speak to specific response efforts that have taken
place and continue to take place for the U.S. Capitol Police
specifically. Within our internal OEA team and additional
assets we promptly secured in the form of four professional
crisis counselors who have been working around the clock in
each division of the Capitol Police onsite since shortly after
January 6 to provide one-on-one trauma response drop-in
services and group support and also information about services.
We have worked closely with the Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer and Capitol Police to do a lot of
outreach. We have been featured in numerous Capitol Police
bulletins. I had an opportunity within the past couple of weeks
to actually write a letter that was distributed through a
bulletin to all Capitol Police personnel as another way to
engage personnel and support, educate them on what is
available, how to access it.
And, literally, we have been serving the Department around
the clock and continue to do so. And so other ways our services
have been promoted beyond the bulletins is messaging from our
onsite contracted counselors at many roll calls at shift
change--yes?
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Can I just jump in really quick----
Mr. Tewksbury. Please.
Ms. Herrera Beutler [continuing]. On that front? So there
is four round-the-clock, constantly available counselors, and
these are counselors who have dealt with, like, I would assume
like trauma in the sense of war, and they work with police--
there are different types of counselors, and I am forgetting
the term. But these are specific counselors who specialize in
this, and they are constantly available, like if someone is on
a shift and they just are like, ``You know what, man, I needs
10 minutes,'' and they can just drop in?
Mr. Tewksbury. Yes, that is absolutely correct. And all of
these counselors are professionally trained in contemporary
workplace-based and law enforcement specific critical incident
and trauma response services, as are our internal staff who
were initially providing these services directly after-hours
and on weekends. And, yes, 24/7 four staff available in various
strategic locations throughout the Capitol complex.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Can I ask, how many are taking you up
on it? Like what are the numbers of--that you are seeing?
Mr. Tewksbury. We have had over 300--the numbers keep
growing, but certainly well over 300 one-on-one contacts
between our onsite counselors and Capitol Police personnel. We
have had a couple hundred more receive information and support
in a group setting and a lot of interaction with managers to
educate managers on reaching out to impacted personnel to lead
them to services.
And that is on the onsite contracting side. In addition,
our immediate office in the OEA, and, again, we are providing
telephone services, we have seen numerous individuals for
counseling sessions. We have done several roll calls ourselves.
And one of our colleagues, I think this was a little earlier,
some discussions on, you know, kind of race issues and concerns
in that dimension for Capitol Police, several discussion
sessions of that nature.
So we are very cognizant that this is a very heavy lift for
the department. We continue to stay in touch with the Office of
the CAO there, and we are working on ways to keep the onsite
support in place in addition to the internal services our
office provides.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Can I ask, so then you--it sounds like
with--so what are you going to need from us to maintain that
level of care of the force? Because obviously nothing has
dialed down for them. In fact, they are all on heightened
alert, again, in the next, what, couple weeks. So do you have
what you need from us? What do you need from us?
Mr. Tewksbury. Well, I really appreciate that
consideration, and it is something that if I could respectfully
get with some of our CAO leadership and certainly let you know,
there may very well be a need. We do have resources between our
office and the Capitol Police to have financed this thus far
and to continue to do so for a period of time, but that is a
real consideration. We will certainly want to follow up with
you, and I thank you for that offer very much.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Keep in touch. Keep in touch.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Tewksbury. We will. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Jamie. Good questions.
Next, the chair of the full committee, Congresswoman Rosa
DeLauro.
The Chairwoman. Hello? Okay. Just very, very quickly
because I don't want to take time from others. Are the Capitol
Police being vaccinated? So many that I have talked to, as--
now, I have heard that that is a direction we are going in. Are
they now being vaccinated for their own safety and for the
safety of their families?
Mr. Tewksbury. Ma'am, I can address that from just an
anecdotal perspective of what I have been hearing through
various Capitol Police personnel that, yes, I understand a
vaccination is underway. I am not exactly sure how fast that
has moved or how it is organized. I know that they have like a
COVID response----
The Chairwoman. Well, let me just say this because, again,
I don't want to take from others: I think one of the things in
order to provide some--lessen anxiety and lessen the mental
health issues, not only for the Capitol Police officers but
also for their families, that we ought to then begin the
process of vaccinating all of our Capitol Police and have that
on a timeframe, let them know that so that they get a sense
that their well--we are watching out for their well-being and
we are going to make that happen.
I will leave that there, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,
because I think that is one of the first things that needs to
get done for Capitol Police.
Thank you and I yield back. I know others have questions,
so----
Mr. Ryan. Great. Thanks, Rosa.
Representative Clark, you are up.
Ms. Clark. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Herrera Beutler. I just wanted to follow up quickly on
the ranking member's question about the number of Capitol
Police. Is the 300 number you cited, is that an increase over
what you would typically see?
Mr. Tewksbury. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question. That
is certainly, historically speaking, a significant increase in
one-on-one consultations, counseling sessions, trauma response
drop-ins and the like, given the short period of time in which
it has occurred, which really speaks to the magnitude of the
event and the needs.
We do have a long history as an office serving the Capitol
Police since 2000 and responding to a lot of other critical
events, the last notable one unfortunately being the Capitol--
the baseball shooting in 2017. But this is a--at a larger
scale. So, yes, that is a notable increase and, you know, was
necessary to acquire that additional asset of our onsite
counselors. But we think that, statistically speaking, that is
a very engaging number when we consider the size of the
department and growing every day and night literally.
Ms. Clark. Yeah. And I am sure we haven't begun yet to meet
the full need. But one question I have for you that certainly
applies to the Capitol Police but to other staffers as well:
There is still lingering concerns about reaching out to OEA and
how that could potentially affect employment. What would you
tell a staff person or anybody looking at OEA with that
concern?
Mr. Tewksbury. Thank you for the question. And that theme
is not unfamiliar to us historically as an Office of Employee
Assistance, a mental health-related service, and some of our
cornerstone language in promoting the service is and has been,
it is highly confidential, and I can certainly speak to details
on that. Your supervisor, for example, will never know anything
about you connecting with us unless an employee provides
written permission and a compelling reason, and even in that
case, it is a limited release of information.
Another thing about our services is they are supportive,
collaborative, easy to access, and cost-free. And all of these
are things we put in all our promotional materials, outreach,
e-Dear Colleagues, literature, online presence. In
presentations, we always highlight this because we know people
have different perceptions of mental health and help seeking in
general. So, yeah, confidentiality is really a cornerstone
because if people don't think it is confidential, they won't
come.
Ms. Clark. Yeah.
Mr. Tewksbury. So we are very meticulous about it at every
level, and we always highlight it in our promotional offerings.
Ms. Clark. And, you know, with the pandemic combined with
the events of January 6, how do you handle clients that need
medium- to long-term counseling or medication-assisted
treatment? Do you refer those patients to outside services, and
how does that process work?
Mr. Tewksbury. Yes. Great question. And the answer is we
are not only a supportive counseling service directly, but one
of our key core services to individuals is just that, is
comprehensive assessment, immediate short-term support, which
can vary in length, and referral to specialized resources as
needed.
And so, as a generalist practice, we see all types of
individuals from all walks of life with any type of presented
concern, and we make it our business to be aware of community
resources, what is available in individual's health plans, and
to make quality, reputable referrals in the domain specifically
of mental health and wellness.
So some of the most common referrals we make to people
needing long-term or specialized care are to outpatient
therapy, to psychiatry and medical, you know, med management
for medication, to facility-based care if that is indicated for
mental health or serious substance abuse needs and things of
that nature. So, yes, it is not merely a referral service. A
lot of the issues we see are amenable to a short-term solution-
focused counseling model, but we very much do refer people out
as indicated, as appropriate to their needs.
Ms. Clark. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Clark.
Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. Hey, Mr. Chairman. How are you doing today?
Mr. Ryan. Good. Thanks for getting up early for us.
Mr. Amodei. Hey, it was a pleasure. And especially after
hearing that a bipartisan unity that I brought to the committee
in the meet-and-greet with derogatory comments about my
personal appearance, it is a good thing I don't have feelings
as we talk about the subject matter of today's meeting. And
they have probably been hurt, but all is good in mental
healthville for the instant for me.
Mr. Ryan. You have the floor.
Mr. Amodei. So I want to--thank you. I want to expand a
little bit on the chairwoman's remarks because I think there is
part of--and this definitely plays into mental health, and it
may not be specific to the 6th, but it is in terms of the
general sense, and that is I--and maybe I am wrong. I hope
somebody gets on and says you're wrong about this, but so far
it doesn't look like it, and that is this: When you go to the
other jurisdictions in this country regarding vaccinations,
first responders have all been vaccinated.
And so I was a little surprised to hear the response that--
I am assuming that the Capitol Police as first responders, law
enforcement types, have been vaccinated. And if they haven't,
that is probably a unique circumstance in the Nation.
But I want to expand it even a little bit beyond that, Mr.
Chair, because when we talk about mental health stressors and
stuff like that, I want to point out another circumstance that
I think needs to be dealt with, and it is not all in these
folks' bailiwick, but it is something that they need to be part
of, and that is this: My district's staff in Nevada gets
vaccinations because they are, you know, public servant,
essential employees providing services.
That stuff may all vary from State to State, those
criteria, but they are vaccine eligible and scheduled in the
tiers that are applicable in this jurisdiction, but yet nobody
is talking about--or at least if they are, I haven't heard it--
nobody is talking about staff in the District.
And so when you talk about mental health and getting stuff
back to order and performing key continuity of government and
key public service functions, I think we need to kind of
confront that issue because, quite frankly, at least in my
jurisdiction, if I put all my D.C. staff on a plane to Nevada,
they could get jurisdiction--they could get vaccinations.
And so that is one of the things I think that maybe in--you
know, it is not like there is nothing to do these days, but I
think it is something that needs to be focused on because it is
like, well, the Members have been vaccinated and you have got a
couple extra vaccines for your staff for continuity purposes.
The committee folks have gotten four extra ones.
But it is like, hey, we need to kind of, I think, make sure
that we are taking care of business in our own house, not
changing the rules, not making people--but, quite frankly, I
think the States have dealt with this, and probably your folks
in Ohio, I would assume, probably are eligible or already have
their vaccines based on continuity of government and the key
public service functions that they provide.
So I don't expect to solve that in this meeting, but I do
want to let these folks know we are going to be following up in
terms of going, hey, what is the plan, what isn't the plan,
where are we at on this stuff, because, quite frankly, it is
something that needs to be taken care of, not only for mental
health but for operations and certainly in the case of first
responders.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. I appreciate that, Mark. That is a great point.
So let's keep that on the table for further discussion. I
appreciate it.
Now we are going to go either further west and deeper into
the early morning with Congressman Ed Case. Your--you have the
floor.
Mr. Case. Good morning, all. And to both of you, thank you
so much for your own service in a difficult time.
You know, there are a lot of tragedies from January 6, but
to me one of the most tragic were suicides of our officers and,
I assume, potential suicides by others in our Capitol 'ohana,
as we call it here in Hawaii, family, because somehow one feels
that those were avoidable and actually somehow one also feels a
sense of personal responsibility for making sure that doesn't
happen to anybody else.
So let me ask you to get a little bit more into suicide
prevention efforts. I serve also on the MILCON Veterans
Affairs' Subcommittee on Appropriations and, of course, suicide
and suicide prevention has been a major issue in our armed
services and our vet communities for a long time.
And one thing is very clear, and that is that if you simply
assume that people are going to come to you if they need help
that may lead to suicide, that is not the way to approach it.
Certainly you want the door to be open, but you have got to go
out and try to find folks and try to get at the game a little
bit and also just change cultures that may not favor going in
for counseling.
And so, in that spirit, I would ask you, I assume that
there are many parallels from this perspective with most
directly our U.S. Capitol Police but not exclusively, and so
what are you doing to affirmatively outreach and especially in
the suicide prevention area?
And I would follow up on the ranking member's question, you
know, what do you need to do that? Because, you know, to me,
part of this hearing is what do you need to deal with the
realities of January 6 and its aftermath? And I am not sure
which one of you is the right person to ask, so, Mr. Weiss, why
don't you try it, unless that is clearly over on the other
side.
Mr. Weiss. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Case. Yeah, that is
primarily the office of responsibility--Office of Employee
Assistance. They are our mental, emotional, well-being subject-
matter experts on the Hill. So I will defer to Paul to answer
that question, but thank you.
Mr. Case. Thank you.
Mr. Tewksbury. And thank you, Congressman, for the
question. One of the very significant accomplishments along
those lines that the OEA undertook and completed just within
the last couple years is a comprehensive suicide awareness
training that was delivered to the entire force, at least all
uniform personnel. Over 1,800 officers and personnel were
trained in a suicide awareness program that was done in person
over a period of months.
And it was very well received. The information was
delivered by a couple of my colleagues and delivered in a way
as to be very practical, very normalizing, and really helping
educate people in the department, not only how to take care of
their own needs but how to look out for colleagues and involved
in that managers to look for certain signs without putting them
in a counseling role, but to look for certain signs to lead
employees to help.
So this was a, we thought, a pretty significant
undertaking. We are very aware and very pained by the tragedy
of the suicides that have taken place this year, and working
with the office of the CAO and Capitol Police, keeping people
on site, you know, it is not only to get a lot of people to
interact, I spoke with--about some pretty impressive numbers
of, you know, hundreds of officers using the one-on-one
support, but the rationale is, even if you can save one life,
it is essential to have support in place and make it inviting
and appealing enough or to cope with it, enough willingness
that people will reach out. So----
Mr. Case. Can I just ask you--
Mr. Tewksbury. Yeah.
Mr. Case [continuing]. For a quick followup because my time
is just about up? Are you affirmatively going back out there
now, post-January 6 with, you know, an update refresher
extension of that program that you did a year ago?
Mr. Ryan. And, Paul, take your time. You can give an
extended answer here. It is an important question.
Mr. Tewksbury. Okay. Thank you very much. We are exploring.
We don't have a lot of details, but if I could respectfully
share more as soon as I have them, we are exploring ways to do
just that. We have had refresher trainings following the
training for all personnel. I can get back to you with details
on, you know, when/how that is happening and at what level as
soon as they are available.
But I want to assure you that, as professionals in employee
assistance and mental health, we are acutely aware that this is
a concern, this has been a tragic occurrence and not only
within our internal team but the folks who are on the ground,
at the four locations, 24/7 are looking out for officers and
kind of working the floor, so to speak, to connect with
managers, supervisors, to not invasively but appropriately
reach out with people who seem to be struggling.
So we are very much, you know, working towards suicide
prevention, and then we move on to, you know, other types of
well-being. But that is absolutely essential and has certainly
been something the OEA has been trained in and has dealt with
over the years, not just with Capitol Police but with, you
know, anyone who we serve. And we have training and practical
techniques to provide more awareness and----
Mr. Case. Okay----
Mr. Tewksbury. For everybody on that.
Mr. Case. Thank you very much. And just quickly, as you get
back to the committee on that, again, the question is, what
resources do you need to do what you feel needs to be done?
Because I would hate the answer to be: We didn't do something
because we didn't have the resources.
Mr. Tewksbury. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Case. Thank you.
Mr. Tewksbury. I so appreciate that, and we will reach out
with additional needs so we can do even more of what we are
doing. It is so important.
Mr. Ryan. I appreciate it. Great questions, Ed.
You know, Paul, I think, you know, to me and Bryan and the
Capitol Police and the Sergeant at Arms and really all of us,
you know, around the idea of really reaching out and not being
afraid to ask people how they are doing because I think any of
us who have been around somebody who has taken their own life,
you know, the questions, you know, a lot are, why didn't I say
more? We didn't know, you know, that they were in this much
pain, they were hurting this much.
So, you know, I just think we are talking about a culture
shift not only, you know, in the country, but what can we do in
our local community here on Capitol Hill to really shift that
culture. And I hope that, as your trainings and what Bryan is
doing, like we can really figure out a way to have that
permeate all of the different, you know, approaches and group
meetings and all of that to really, you know, hopefully shift
the culture. So I appreciate the questions there, Ed.
Congressman Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, for
this opportunity.
I want to thank both Bryan and Paul for their presentation.
My question is on a diversity angle. Given the nature of
the attack and the fact that it was perpetrated with a racist,
White supremacist tone and the Confederate flag was paraded
around the Capitol, it has been reported that African-American
Capitol Police officers stated that they have never been called
the ``N'' word as much as that day, and a noose was, you know,
put outside the Capitol. That is symbolic of--we know what that
is symbolic of.
I am just concerned that people of color that work in the
Capitol that cannot blend in by simply taking off their pin
will be in a very difficult position. And I just wanted to know
what you are doing about that, what kind of resources you have,
do you have a diverse staff that will be--that is culturally
sensitive that will be able to address this as we move forward?
There is a lot of chatter underneath the pain that has not
come out yet but is there. I mean, the Congress is more diverse
now than ever, and so are our staffers. And so there is a lot
of chatter going on about what happened that day. I think there
is a lot of pain that has not been manifested yet, and I wanted
to know, what is your plan to address that and if you have the
tools and if you have the resources available to effectively
address that?
Mr. Tewksbury. Thank you very much, Congressman, for that
question, and let me start by saying that our staff at the OEA
is highly diverse. Fifty percent of our full-time staff are
African American. We are diverse also in the age range of our
staff. We are diverse in the gender identification of our
staff, being three-quarters female.
And diversity is--and respect for and working with
diversity of personnel of socioeconomic status and so many
kinds, too many to mention, is really the essence of what we do
in our training and, you know, just our spirit as people truly.
So, while we cannot say we have walked in everyone's shoes,
been in every situation a client has been in, we are culturally
competent in our approach. And what that means is we try to be
aware and are aware and we learn from the community around us
on a daily basis of what the concerns are.
The concerns that you mentioned, sir, are certainly things
that I am aware of and that our team is aware of and issues
that people are already bringing to our office at every level,
staff and people at every level in the House and the Capitol
Police. This is very real. We honor this. We try to provide
practical strategies for people to navigate that.
And, yes, we are accustomed to connecting people with other
resources, whether they are focused on, you know, certain
cultural preferences that people have or just certain, you
know, care needs people have or both. If we are not the direct
service to meet their longer term or specialized needs or
preferences, it is our business to connect people with other
resources and stay informed on that.
But the concerns that you portray are certainly things that
are coming to our attention, and we are working with a lot of
individuals and, you know, some work groups to allow people
safe space to process this. And we have seen some of the
reactions move from just raw trauma, life at risk on January 6,
now to recovering from that, but all of these undertones,
right. We understand this is much more than just a one day
where people's safety was at risk situation.
So, you know, we are counseling professionals and I think
caring people, so we very much, if we haven't walked in their
shoes, can connect with them and appreciate the depth of these
concerns and create this kind of therapeutic alliance around
that to build trust and understanding.
And if people have preferences with, you know, which, like,
cultural background of a counselor they would like to work
with, we honor that, you know, when employees ask us that.
Additional outreach, just briefly, that we are already
doing in the form of multimedia videos and some other things to
continue to engage more the workforce is going to highlight
diversity of our staff and services and approach even more, but
we have always been striving to do that. Thank you for the
question.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.
Mr. Ryan. Congresswoman Wexton, you are now live.
Ms. Wexton. Thanks, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
I think I am on the caboose of the committee.
So I think I just want to touch on some of the things the
other people of authority have brought up and hopefully get a
little bit more detail on a couple of things.
There is no question that this has been a really, really
challenging year for everybody. I know that everybody was
operating under very elevated levels of stress and anxiety and
depression and isolation, leading up to January 6, and then
January 6 happened, the, you know, violent attack on the
Capitol, and nobody was more affected by that than the Capitol
Police, who were literally on the front lines and fighting in
hand-to-hand combat.
And, you know, one of the things, as we are talking about
Officer Brian Sicknick and those who sustained physical
injuries, I can't stop thinking about those that are going to
have lasting mental health injuries and damage as a result of
that day, especially, you know, my constituent Officer Howie
Liebengood took his own life in the days following, and, you
know, I don't want that to happen to anybody else.
So one of the things that was brought to my attention when
it comes to the Capitol Police is that, after January 6, all
their friends and family started asking them: How did this
happen? How could this happen?
And what they heard was: How could you let this happen?
Right? So they felt very responsible for it, not to mention
the fact that, as more facts come out, it appears that
leadership had intelligence about just how damaging and how
violent this demonstration could become and left them out there
without any supports.
So I think that there is a lot of issues that the Capitol
Police are going to have to work through, as well as our, you
know, regular Capitol Hill staff and people at all levels of
the Capitol staff.
So, Mr. Tewksbury, you testified that there are four full-
time clinicians on staff at OEA. Is that correct?
Mr. Tewksbury. And forgive me. And thank you for the
question. The four refer to the current level of contracted
staff that are on site for Capitol Police round-the-clock
trauma response, but we have a full-time staff of eight at the
Employee Assistance Office and we also have three additional
contracted counselors with our immediate office and a graduate
student in mental health. So put that all together, there are
16.
Ms. Wexton. And those four that are contracted for the
Capitol Police, they are temporary employees. Is that correct?
Mr. Tewksbury. They are on a time-limited contract that
already has been extended, and we are actively exploring
strategies to extend that further.
Ms. Wexton. Are they specialized in law enforcement and
military PTSD?
Mr. Tewksbury. They have a lot of specialized training in
law enforcement and trauma response, using kind of the standard
best practices in employee assistance. So, yes, they are not
just generalists. Their organization, this contract company
specifically provides large-scale trauma response services.
Ms. Wexton. But specifically geared towards law enforcement
and PTSD?
Mr. Tewksbury. Yes, included in that, not exclusively, but
that is one of the areas of specialty, working with law
enforcement, identifying clinical concerns that could indicate
post-traumatic stress disorder, things of that nature.
Ms. Wexton. Now, it has come to my attention that you all
don't have the ability to do video conferences for your
sessions, for your clinicians. Is that true?
Mr. Tewksbury. Currently, that is correct. However, we are
providing a huge amount of telephonic services, and that is
something that is going to be----
Ms. Wexton. Are you attempting to get approval to engage? I
mean, sometimes having that face-to-face interaction, if you
can't literally be face to face, at least having video contact
and being able to look somebody in the eye is really helpful.
So are you in the process of getting approval, and what is it
going to take for that to happen, and how can we help?
Mr. Tewksbury. Okay. That is a great question, and I so
appreciate it. Our whole team does. That is something that,
again, is being explored, admittedly, in the early stages. And
it is our intention to move forward on that. One thing that we
are very cognizant of is the high level of confidentiality of
our services requires something beyond what is already in place
within House resources, but if I could respectfully kind of
determine what our needs are and how your subcommittee could
assist us with that and moving that forward, I would be very
appreciative.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. That is great. We are happy to work with
House Admin or whoever it takes to get you guys whatever kind
of technical assistance you need to make that happen. I just
want assurances that is something that is a priority and
something you all will actually explore. Will you provide those
assurances?
Mr. Tewksbury. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Fantastic. Great. I see my time has
expired.
So I will yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks. And we will make sure the staff follows
up on that, too, Jennifer. That is really important.
And some of the people that I have gotten connected to
Bryan and the Capitol Police, Center for Mind-Body Medicine,
Project Welcome Home Troops--they live in that space of veteran
trauma--police. I know Center for Mind-Body Medicine has done a
lot in the West Bank and, you know, helping some of our people
in the State Department, USAID, really who have functioned in
those areas where there is a great deal of trauma. I think you
are right. I think you hit the nail on the head. Those are the
kinds of experienced people we need helping. And, you know, I
think we need more, you know, more people with more experience
but also more bodies. And, you know, we are all dealing with
this together, Paul. So we want to be helpful and absolutely
provide some kind of, you know, communication where they can
get these services online, if necessary.
Bryan, what is your interaction with the Capitol Police?
How has that unfolded?
Mr. Weiss. Thank you, Chairman, for the question.
So the relationship I have had with the program coordinator
at the Capitol Police wellness and resilience division has been
very great. From the very beginning, we have had regular,
every-other-week phone calls, you know, talking about what we
are doing, existing programs, future programs, outreach
efforts, and just resource and service availability.
You know, from a general well-being perspective, we were
able to connect our two information technology and security
teams to make sure they had access to our mobile and web
applications. We worked alongside them to make sure they had
access to the House staff fitness center's mobile application
so they could have in-home, at-home workouts. We coordinated
and launched at the same time the emergency backup child and
elder care platform, as well as the online academic resource
center and education tutoring services. We launched those back
in November. We also shared information with them about the
benefits navigation and transparency tool to help improve
health literacy, you know, for those folks who need that type
of support.
So we have been working closely. We continue to look at,
you know, what the needs are within our mobile and web
applications. We have the ability to break out aggregate well-
being data so that way we can look at what the specific needs
are of not only the House community but the Capitol Police
organization so that we know how to better tailor our programs
and services, how we look at improving things and adding new
platforms.
So it has been a great working relationship, and, you know,
we continue to talk, and, you know, I am happy and excited by
what the future brings for that relationship.
Mr. Ryan. You know, I wasn't surprised, but, you know,
coming back after January 6 and just going around, talking to a
lot of the rank-and-file members, you know, it is just an
interesting experience to see how different people, you know,
there is, like, a scale. There is, like, a spectrum of how
people are feeling. One person, you know, I talked to, you
know, wanted to talk to somebody, and they were. And then there
was another guy who was, like: I just need a couple of good
nights' sleep. I just need to see my kids.
So I think we have got to, you know, figure out, again,
getting back to really changing the culture, you know, where
these cops are working 12-hour shifts, going back, some of
them, to December, going through everything, you know, the
experience of the 6th, teeing it right back up for the
inauguration, and not seeing your family, you know.
So, you know, the things that help you deal with, you know,
some mental health issues are connection, you know, the people
you love and care about. If you don't have that connection, you
start sliding. You mentioned diet and nutrition. You know, the
research is showing more and more the connection to your diet,
and, you know, mental health issues or issues of well-being,
depression are affected by how you can screw up your gut
bacteria, as crazy as that sounds. But it has an effect on your
mood and all the rest and sleep. The research on sleep over the
last, you know, 10, 15 years has been incredible.
So how do we, you, us supporting you but how do we build
out and shift this culture around all of these issues around
well-being? I mean, what is your outreach to new members,
Bryan? And I know you are trying to do a lot, and it has been
difficult. Maybe you could mention the storefront and all that
to really help shift the culture, 'cause I think that is going
to be the key.
Mr. Weiss. Yeah, sure. So, for us, it is, you know,
culture, you know, starts at the top right. It is a top-down
thing. So forums like this and this committee being invested in
the well-being of the program is super important, you know,
kind of walking the walk. So that obviously is an important
piece. But also from a bottom-up standpoint, you know, we
recognize that every individual is unique and have individual
needs that need to be considered. So we are going to be doing a
lot of research and work on that piece.
We are going to be conducting focus groups with key
stakeholders and member committee officer-eligible agency
offices to better understand what they need, what they need
from a health and well-being standpoint, how they access our
resources and services, what barriers or limitations there are,
and what they would like to see from our office so we can
provide greater organizational support. So that is kind of the
grassroots piece of it, kind of the bottom up.
And then, with that leadership support as well, you know,
we are going to be able to shift the culture and create a
greater level of individual and organizational well-being.
From a Capitol Police standpoint, you know, specifically
them, I mean, with a fairly new program, they are going to,
with their wellness program coordinator, they are going to be
the ones that are going to look at our umbrella of wellness
services. And as they get a better understanding of what the
individual needs are of that culture, they are going to be able
to pick and choose what makes the most sense from our
collective resources. And then also we can work together with
our vendors and some of our agreements that we have with
industry leaders to see how we can better tailor and update
platforms and services to really meet the needs of what this
workforce is.
So, instead of just throwing a whole bunch of stuff at the
wall and seeing what sticks, really, you know, talking to the
employees, understanding what the needs are, looking at, you
know, our population health data and then creating greater
efficiencies and effectiveness with our programming. That is
going to be the key to success to determine health and well-
being on the Hill.
Mr. Ryan. I appreciate that.
We had--I don't know if we got you connected yet but we had
a great conversation with a doctor out of Yale, and they do a
lot of screening around trauma with kids and others. And we
want to make sure that you get introduced to them, and Paul, as
well, to where we can have some level of screening. The way I
see this maybe unfolding is where we have a screening process.
We figure out where people are. I mentioned there is this
spectrum of, you know, where people are; and where you think
you are may not be where you are, you know. It could be
completely different.
But do the screening, and then, based on the screening and
the understanding, then the almost the smorgasbord of options
are then there with the different areas. You know, that is the
thing that I have learned a lot with veterans experiencing some
of these different programs. So some like things like the
Project Welcome Home Troops, where it is a bunch of really deep
breathing that really helps release a lot of the trauma that
you are holding in your nervous system. Other people like
mindfulness-based meditation where it is more of, you know, you
are following your breath. You are trying to get detached from
your thoughts. Other people like things like transcendental
meditation. Other vets, I have seen a lot of vets who have been
healed by that, where it is more of a you get a word that you
say over and over. I have seen vets, and we have talked about
this, really getting connected with some of the religious
community and the Office of Faith and Politics where, you know,
centering prepare and know religious-based contemplative
practices are very, very helpful.
So I think, as we look at this, it is the screening process
to figure out where people are and then have this, you know,
really buffet of options, which I think you are doing a hell of
a job, Bryan, in developing all of these. And, you know, we
want to make sure we continue to support you. I think, in both
instances here with both you and Paul, we have got to be
committed, and that means the resources have to be committed to
the well-being of the men and women who make this thing go. And
I think the American people would want that to happen. They saw
what happened on January 6.
But as I mentioned to Chairman Yoder, we started this long
before COVID, long before January 6 of 2021, and Capitol Hill
is no different than most American towns where there is a lot
going on for people, and there is a lot of anxiety, a lot of
stress, a lot of disconnection, a lot of issues around well-
being, physicality, mental, et cetera.
So I think we covered a good deal of what I wanted to cover
here today. I want to give each of you an opportunity, if there
is something that you want to add from a previous question that
you may have gotten and you didn't think of at the time, that
you want to share before we close things out.
Paul, do you want to take that first? Is there anything you
want to add?
Mr. Tewksbury. Oh, yes, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for that opportunity.
There are a couple of items I just wanted to clarify from
some earlier questions, so thank you. One is the vaccine issue
with Capitol Police. While I share just my [inaudible], I would
have to refer the subcommittee to officials at Capitol Police
to get certainly a detailed read on what their plan is to
vaccinate officers and where they are in that plan.
And also regarding the department, up to now, they have
been actually providing financing for the additional onsite
crisis counselors. So I can respectfully defer to them on some
of the details of how that has happened and what needs they may
have on that front. We are certainly working closely with
Capitol Police leadership about oversight of those services and
affiliating them with our office, but technically that is
something they have been handling.
Other than that, I just appreciate everyone's time and
attention, very insightful questions, and foremost the real
commitment to what we hold dear in wellness at OEA, which is
just that. It is well-being, work productivity, and the
exceptional amount of needs in our community right now. We are
beyond grateful for not only your attention but your offers of
support, and I owe the subcommittee some responses on some of
those offers, which we will get back to you very soon on. So
thank you.
Mr. Ryan. Bryan, any closing comments?
Mr. Weiss. Sure, yeah, I just want to thank you, Chairman
Ryan, not only for today's opportunity but also, you know, the
referrals that you send my way. I mean, we have ongoing
conversations. I have multiple today actually this afternoon.
So we are always looking at new and innovative ways to stay on
the cutting edge. You know, I know it is important that we not
only remain an agency of choice but an employer of choice. So I
do appreciate those. I will keep you posted as we move forward
with that.
But just to you, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and
members, Leg Branch Committee for this opportunities today and
just for your overall continued support, you know, we
appreciate everything that you guys do for us and the House
Wellness Center and the OEA. You know, we look forward to your
guidance and engagement and advocacy for years to come. So
thank you again. You know, I look forward to working with you
all.
Mr. Ryan. We appreciate it. Thank you so much. We are going
to be in contact.
I think we had a lot of great questions and a lot of great
followup that, you know, we are going to be following through
with it.
So, anyway, I want to thank Ranking Member Herrera Beutler,
Acting Ranking Member Mr. Amodei.
You are the man.
Congresswoman Wexton, thank you for sticking around. And
God bless. You guys take care. We will be in touch. This
committee is adjourned.
Wednesday, February 24, 2021.
HEALTH AND WELLNESS OF EMPLOYEES AND STATE OF DAMAGE AND PRESERVATION
AS A RESULT OF THE JANUARY 6 INSURRECTION
WITNESSES
BRETT BLANTON, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
FARAR ELLIOTT, CURATOR, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CATHERINE SZPINDOR, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order. As this hearing
is fully virtual, I have got to address a few housekeeping
matters. First, for today's meeting, the chair or staff
designated by the chair may mute participants' microphones when
they are not under recognition for the purposes of eliminating
inadvertent background noises.
Second, members are responsible for muting and unmuting
themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that you have
not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the
staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff
will unmute your microphone.
Third, I want to remind all members and witnesses that the
5-minute clock still applies. If there is a technology issue,
we will move to the next member until the issue is resolved,
and you will retain the balance of your time. You will notice a
clock on your screen that will show how much time is remaining.
At 1 minute remaining, the clock will turn yellow. And when
your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will
begin to recognize the next member.
Fourth, in terms of the speaking order, we will be
following the order set forth in the House rules beginning with
the chair and the ranking member. Then members present at the
time the hearing is called to order will be recognized in order
of seniority.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
Good morning to our panel. I am happy to welcome the
Architect of the Capitol, Brett Blanton; and Chief
Administrative Officer, Catherine Szpindor; and House curator,
Farar Elliott.
Today is our second of three hearings reviewing the
aftermath of the breaching of the Capitol by an insurrectionist
mob on January 6. None of us at this hearing will soon forget
that day, but how we remember it determines how we move forward
and collectively learn from the mistakes. If we do not adapt or
choose to only prepare for the last encounter, the Capitol
campus will continue to be vulnerable to unknown and unexpected
threats.
This building, the Capitol, which Thomas Jefferson called
the first temple dedicated to the sovereignty of the people,
stands for more than just us. It stands for tomorrow and the
day after that. It stands for a future for all people. And
while it may seem to be a leap to some, this very small
subcommittee is at the forefront as one of the protectors of
representative democracy.
But we cannot militarize the Capitol in response to an
attempted ransacking of representative democracy. This is not
what these first three hearings are about. The purpose of this
hearing is to dig deeper into what we are doing to support our
House employees during these turbulent times. It is to learn
from the CAO on the current and future security and COVID-19
related needs for the House. It is to receive an update on the
damages to the House, both physical and to collections, because
of the events of January 6.
And, most importantly, it is to continue the discussion on
next steps to ensuring the physical safety of our campus for
Members of Congress to carry out our constitutional duties,
provide resources to our Capitol Hill community, to heal from
the traumatic event, maintain a safe and open campus as much as
possible so that visitors from across the country and around
the world can witness representative democracy in action.
It is incumbent on all of us to talk to each other, and I
welcome our witnesses today. We are thankful for your
leadership and the staff of your organizations who work so hard
to make this House run.
At this point, I would like to yield to my friend and
colleague from the great State of Washington, Ranking Member
Jaime Herrera Beutler, for any opening comments she would like
to make. Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. I was going to put my other headphone
in, but I have only got the one. Hopefully you guys can hear me
okay.
Mr. Ryan. You are fine.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Blanton, Ms. Szpindor, Ms. Elliott, thank you so
much for taking the time to be here. It was a pleasure to
connect with you all before we got going.
You know, this past year with COVID-19 pandemic and the
Capitol 6th riot has placed a great strain on our Capitol Hill
community. It is more important than ever that Members and
staff have access to resources that help people endure the
high-stress work environment and access a holistic approach in
managing the high--really managing everything that we have been
going through.
Can you guys hear me okay? I see Chairman Ryan, but
everybody else looks like they are kind of frozen. Are you guys
frozen or am I frozen?
Mr. Ryan. You are fine.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Oh, okay. Everybody else is--all
right.
Last week, this subcommittee heard from the directors of
the Office of Employee Assistance and the Wellness Center on
their work to provide vital well-being and mental health
resources to the leg branch. These offices were well prepared
and well equipped to give the appropriate support to staff and
Capitol officers in the aftermath of the January 6 riot, and I
look forward to hearing more from Ms. Szpindor about these
services and how they continue to grow and to adapt.
For the Architect of the Capitol and the entire AOC team,
you all deserve credit for your hard work in cleaning and
repairing the Capitol Building and the grounds immediately
after the building was cleared by the Capitol Police--and I
know we have already talked about the costs that are going to
be associated with some of those things--and repairing--
basically getting the grounds ready again in such short order.
This includes the frontline workers who have also kept this
place running and sanitized even over this last year throughout
the pandemic. This was something I remember last year talking
about how--what were the enhanced cleaning procedures going to
be. And it took monumental effort to restore the Capitol and
the inaugural stands just 2 weeks after the attack. So it has
been a lot that you have all been--you guys have been inundated
with.
The AOC is charged with the stewardship of the Capitol
complex and its grounds. The Capitol functions not only as a
monument and a museum, I would say a living museum, but it also
is an office building where we do the people's work. With that
in mind, it is going to be important to balance the need of
both repairing the damages made from the riot with preserving
some marks from that day to mark the historical reminder of the
riot. I think it is something that we do need; we should not
forget.
The AOC, along with the House and the Senate curators, have
the challenge of determining how and what to restore and
preserve so that future generations can view and understand the
historical significance of January 6. It is my hope that the
AOC will work with the curators and the House community when
making these decisions.
And, with that, I appreciate everyone taking the time to be
here, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Without objection, your written testimonies will be made
part of the record. Please summarize your statements as we move
to Mr. Blanton.
We want you to begin, and after your statement we will turn
to Ms. Szpindor and then to the House curator. Once the
statements are complete we will move to questions and answers.
Please begin. We will start with you, Mr. Blanton.
Mr. Blanton. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member and
members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to
speak with you today about the Architect of the Capitol's
response efforts following the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol
Building breach. The events of this January 6 were difficult
for the American people and extremely hard for us on campus to
witness.
As we continue to deal with the shock and disappointment
over the actions of those who attacked the Capitol Building, I
remain proud of and encouraged by the professionalism displayed
by the AOC team in the face of this dangerous and stressful
event.
On the morning of January 6, my team were preparing the
grounds and the inauguration stage. Our artists were painting
the stands a bright white with a deep blue edge on the main
stage of the platform. About midday, as crowds began to appear
on the west front, our staff secured our equipment and was
moved indoors.
Over the course of a couple hours, the hard work of the
team was destroyed. The platform was wrecked. There was broken
glass and debris everywhere. The sound system and photography
equipment was stolen or damaged beyond repair. Two historic
Olmsted lanterns were ripped from the ground, and wet blue
paint was tracked across the historic stone balustrades and
hallways of the Capitol.
As the crowd began crashing through windows and prying open
doors, my staff undertook several unheralded actions in support
of Congress. AOC employees identified and sheltered
congressional staff in their shops to protect them from the
roving mob. Other members of the team raced to the roof to
reverse the air flow within the building to help clear the air
of chemical irritants, such as bear spray, repellant, and
pepper spray, while other team members rushed bottles of water
and eye wash stations to Capitol Police officers in need of
assistance.
In my opinion, we served as a light of hope that day and in
the days following insurrection. As soon as the security
officials cleared the building, AOC employees worked tirelessly
to clean up and begin repair work. Carpenters covered broken
windows and doors with plywood to secure the building. Laborers
began sweeping up glass and broken furniture to enable Congress
to continue its work. Our groundskeepers cleared a small
mountain of debris left on the west and east fronts, and our
painters carefully repainted the platform.
We were committed to, and ensured, the electoral college
certification process would continue on January 6. Furthermore,
we were sharply focused on ensuring the campus was prepared for
the Presidential inauguration without interruption to signal
our Nation's determination to support a peaceful transition of
power.
My team has worked nonstop. As an experienced combat
veteran, I am mindful of the stress that such an event has an
employees. I know that, in the next several weeks and months,
my team will continue to need counseling and support to process
this event. The safety and personal health of AOC employees is
my highest priority.
The agency provides support services through our Employee
Assistance Program, which is free, voluntary, and confidential.
Employees have access to trained staff counselors through our
EAP. They can also use TalkNow, which offers AOC employees
immediate 24/7 telephonic access to confidential, in-the-moment
counseling support delivered by quality behavioral health
professionals with no appointment necessary.
In addition to these services, many of the resources
offered by the House Wellness Center and the House Office of
Employee Assistance are available to AOC employees.
In the weeks following the building breach, we also hosted
an ``Office Hours'' employee session to provide a venue to all
employees to share their concerns, ask questions, and hear
directly from our director of EAP and the agency's ombudsman.
We also are planning proactive counseling sessions for our
tradesmen, support staff, and artists who were directly
impacted by the 6th.
Since becoming the Architect of the Capitol a little over a
year ago, I have been continually impressed and inspired by the
great work of this agency. We have been in pandemic operations
for nearly a year, we supported three lying in states or honor
ceremonies, and prepared for a Presidential inauguration all
during the pandemic.
I am honored to lead a team whose extraordinary efforts on
January 6, and the days that followed, helped Americans of all
walks of life take solace in seeing order restored to the U.S.
Capitol. We would appreciate your support to ensure that we are
positioned to address ongoing and future facility needs in
addition to the health and wellness of our employees.
Thank you, and I am prepared to answer any questions that
you may have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Blanton. We appreciate it. You
have had quite the first year here. We appreciate what you have
done.
Next, Ms. Szpindor.
Ms. Szpindor. Good morning, Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member
Herrera Beutler, and members of the subcommittee. As you know,
my appointment as Chief Administrative Officer began on Sunday,
January 3. Just 3 days later, the Capitol was under siege. Like
so many of the Members and staff, I was sheltering in place
along with several CAO employees as chaos ensued just outside
of our office here in the Capitol.
Although I will never forget those harrowing hours, I am
tremendously grateful for the dedication and rapid response of
so many of my colleagues and professionals from all House
entities, including Members, staff, and the U.S. Capitol
Police. The efforts to restore order and protect our democracy
were shining examples of the commitment we all share for this
great institution.
As the insurrection was occurring, our Office of
Cybersecurity took several critical actions to ensure the House
network, equipment, and technology infrastructure remained
secure. Over the following several weeks, we provided guidance
to the House community and responded to various Member
inquiries about the House's cybersecurity posture. Please know
that the House's Chief Information Security Officer and his
staff are prepared to brief any Member interested in discussing
the current state of cybersecurity at the House.
In response to the mental and emotional well-being needs of
the House community, our Office of Employee Assistance handled
over 1,150 individual interactions over the 6-week period since
January 6. At the peak of their workload, OEA had seven
additional contractor counselors to support an eight-team
staff. The supplemental contracting staff included four onsite
crisis counselors dedicated specifically to the U.S. Capitol
Police. Be assured, we will all continue to coordinate with the
Capitol Police to determine future consulting services needs
and how we can best support them.
I recognize the gravity of the moment we find ourselves in,
and, as such, I encourage any member or staffer of the House
community who is struggling with a personal issue to please
reach out directly to the Office of Employee Assistance. They
are poised and positioned to help 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week.
The House Wellness Center has been another integral
component in promoting the health and well-being of Members and
staff. And, Mr. Chairman, as a champion of this program, we
cannot thank you enough. The Wellness Center takes a holistic
approach to improve well-being providing resources and services
to the entire House community.
The solutions are offered on a variety of platforms
ensuring every member has the same level of access and care and
includes support for personal issues that may impact the
individual's overall mental or physical well-being. The growth
and popularity of the Wellness Center in just over 2 years is
highly impressive.
I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight the
CAO's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Less than a year ago
today, the CAO, along with our legislative branch partners,
rapidly responded to prepare offices for maximum telework. This
daunting and unprecedented challenge required coordination with
no prior roadmap to replicate.
Fortunately, the unwavering support from House leadership
made our transformation to our remote workforce possible. While
none of us could have imagined the full impact of this
pandemic, it is important to highlight that our migration to
Microsoft Office 365 in the summer of 2019 was critical to our
successful ability to telework over the past 12 months.
These proactive efforts have supported nearly 21 million
chat messages, 425,000 virtual meetings, and an average of more
than 6,000 House staffers who are able to connect on a daily
basis to do their work. As the Nation continues to cope with
the COVID-19 pandemic, the CAO stands ready to assist and
execute critical initiatives in support of ongoing operations
for the House of Representatives.
Thank you, Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler,
and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to
participate in today's hearing. I look forward to answering any
questions you may have. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Szpindor. We appreciate you and
your team.
Mr. Blanton had an interesting first year; you've had an
interesting first couple of months, and we appreciate your
rising to the occasion.
Next, Ms. Elliott.
Ms. Elliott. Chairperson Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera
Beutler, members of the subcommittee, thank you for your
ongoing support for the Office of the Clerk's work and for the
opportunity to testify today about the Clerk's response to
damage to the fine art collection of the House on January 6,
2021, and our budget request related to that damage.
The House Collection of Fine Art and Artifacts encompasses
the sweep of the institution's history, 13,000 objects that
tell the story of the people's House. As provided in U.S. Code
and under the direction of the House Collection's oversight
body, the House Fine Arts Board, the Clerk is responsible for
care of this collection.
219 objects from the House Collection were on display in
the Capitol on January 6. On January 7, I and the rest of the
Clerk's curatorial staff made a preliminary inspection of every
object on display. The Senate Curator and I also undertook a
walk-through of the entire building coordinating with our
colleagues at the Architect of the Capitol.
Our preliminary inspection identified eight House
Collection objects with potential damage, six sculptures and
two paintings. All of them are adjacent to the Chamber's north
doors, and they were covered in a fine powder. The Smithsonian
Institution's Museum Conservation Institute analyzed and
identified that powder as fire extinguisher particulate and
containing, among other chemicals, an oily yellow dye.
In the coming weeks, we will begin conservation treatment
to remove chemicals and accretions and dye before they cause
permanent discoloration and harm. Conservation of those eight
objects is significantly more than the unexpected damage that
we plan for every year. Our entire conservation plan for this
fiscal year is only six projects: annual treatment for delicate
treasures, like the silver inkstand in the Chamber; scheduled
treatment for other pieces that are stable but eventually need
work; and a plan to address one instance of emergency
intervention.
To enable us to conserve eight objects as emergency
interventions as well as continue the sound care of the entire
collection, we respectfully request the subcommittee's support
for a supplemental appropriation of $25,000 for conservation of
House Collection objects.
Thank you again for the subcommittee's continued support of
the Clerk's role as a steward of the House's heritage, and
thank you for the opportunity for me to testify about that. I
look forward to answering any questions that the committee has.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Ms. Elliott. We appreciate it, and thanks
for all the good work you do behind the scenes. We work in such
a special place, and I know, like most Members, we sometimes
take it for granted. We are always hustling to go get a vote in
or run to a meeting, but we really appreciate the work. And it
is such a magnificent space that you help preserve. So thank
you for that.
We are going to move to the question and answers, and we
will start with the ranking member, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you so much. Man, just hearing
that last piece, I mean, hearing from all of you was important,
but it just--you just--what the chairman said, you stop and
think about the fact that we get to work in this place, the
people's House. It is the most amazing thing ever. We do scurry
around a lot, get into our--getting our business done, don't
take the time to think about it. So thank you all because I
know that is a big part of your job is to think about it all
the time to preserve for the American people, and I so
appreciate it.
I am going to start with Mr. Blanton. You know, as a member
of the Capitol Police Board, you have insight into the events
and decisions made on January 6, and I am particularly
interested in the statement you released in response to Acting
U.S. Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman's testimony where
she stated that the Capitol Police may have requested the Board
for support prior to January 6.
You released a statement refuting Chief Pittman's assertion
that there were verbal or written requests prior to January 6.
And I guess, I think the question is, why do you feel compelled
to release that statement and expand on the assertion you made
in the statement? And could you detail, if any, formal or
informal meetings that were held by the Board prior to January
6 and what those meetings entailed? And then I have a little
followup if there is time. Thank you.
Mr. Blanton. Yes, I am happy to answer. There were two
points that I refuted. One was my attendance at our meeting on
January 3. And in that meeting, no individual from the
Architect of the Capitol staff nor I was at that meeting. It
was later learned that meeting may have been with a smaller
audience, but it did not include my staff.
The second point was that she mentioned that Chief Sund
asked the Capitol Police Board for additional resources. Chief
Sund, as he stated in his testimony yesterday and his letter to
the Speaker, went directly to both Sergeants at Arms and asked
for that, and I was refuting the point that I was not asked
specifically for those--for additional resources.
There was a meeting on January 5 that was hosted by then-
Chief Sund regarding the inauguration planning, and it was an
interagency meeting with the police forces throughout the
Washington, D.C. area that have a role in inauguration. During
that, there was--most of it was introduction of what the roles
and responsibilities were to the inauguration. There was a
little discussion about the 6th, most of it centering around at
that time there was no credible evidence, although there is--
was chatter for events that may occur on January 6.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you. With regard to the Board
specifically, and I know you have just detailed the meetings
that took place--and I apologize if you can hear babies
screaming in the background--are you aware of any discussion by
the actual Board members regarding the intelligence showing the
possible disturbance on the 6th, like in a more--like the Board
itself?
Mr. Blanton. As an entity, we did not have that. I
understand there was an intelligence assessment that was
released on the 4th by the Capitol Police. It went to the
Sergeants at Arms. And from what I have learned later is that
intelligence assessment says it was an improbable or not likely
that there would be violence on the 6th.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Are you aware of any requested changes
by the former House Sergeant at Arms, Paul Irving, to the
physical security plan prior to January 6?
Mr. Blanton. There was requested changes, and Chief Sund
alluded as to it by changing the--expanding the security
perimeter. He alluded to that both in his letter and in his
testimony yesterday in front of the Senate.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. So was your office asked to modify
positioning of any perimeter barricades, and if so, did you
find the request consistent with the direction given ahead of
previously planned protests?
Mr. Blanton. So, yes, our--my staff was asked to move
barricades, and that was a different footprint than we had in
previous--whether it was the MAGA or the protests that occurred
during the summer months. It was a different footprint than was
originally used then.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
I just want to follow up on one of those, Mr. Blanton. So,
just so the committee is clear on this, when the Chief was
asking the Sergeant at Arms for more support, that wasn't
necessarily a clear ask of the Board, correct? Or was it an ask
of the Board, and if it was, does the Board have to vote on
that, or how does that process work?
Mr. Blanton. Yes. So it was portrayed--and I am only
speaking from what I have seen in media. It was portrayed by
Chief Sund, or my interpretation of his portrayal, that was he
was asking for support from Sergeants at Arms. In order to have
gotten emergency declaration, there would have to be a Board
vote. So there was not an official ask at that time.
Mr. Ryan. And----
Mr. Blanton [continuing]. Go into his mind on whether it
was--he was asking because he wanted to see--just see if there
was an appetite for it or he was saying: Okay. I am going to
come ask for this in the future.
Mr. Ryan. Yeah. Just so--again, I want the committee and we
want the committee and the American people to know how this
works. So, if the Chief--is it two different things for the
Chief to say to the Sergeant at Arms, ``Hey, we need you to
declare an emergency, we need more help,'' okay, so that is one
way of doing it; is that separate from an official ask for the
Board? So does he have to have a written ask to the Board or
written ask to the Sergeant at Arms? And if the Sergeant at
Arms gets a request from the Chief of Police--or from the Chief
of Police, is he then required to bring it to the Board?
Mr. Blanton. Sir, what I would--any conversations with the
Sergeant at Arms and the Chief of Police when it comes to a
Board matter is just a conversation. In order for it to be
official, we would have an official request. Now, those don't
have to necessarily be in writing. We could follow that up with
the paperwork should it be an emergency, you know, an actual
quick-needed emergency.
And in this case, it seemed like he was, at least from his
testimony, was having conversations and feeling out the need
for additional resources because if there was a need for it, he
could have submitted an official thing where we had a Board
vote.
Mr. Ryan. That is some of our--that--and moving forward, we
need to completely understand the operation of the Board and
how the Board works and what that process is. And, you know, we
are trying to really determine how that works, and that will
help us understand how things went down.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Blanton. If I could be clear on one thing, just so--so
we can do a verbal vote on the Board. So, if he can't--if he
goes to the chairman of the Police Board and says, ``I want to
do this, we need to do it now,'' we can have a verbal vote and
get it done and then follow it up with the written paperwork so
there is nothing slowing anything down.
Mr. Ryan. So not at any time did the Sergeant at Arms, did
Mr. Irving say to you, ``Hey, we need to have a vote on this,
my recommendation is we, you know, we don't pass an emergency
order for whatever reason, ask the national--I asked the Chief
to ask the National Guard to lean in, but we are not going to
do anything here''? He never brought that to your attention and
said, ``Hey, should we do a vote on this, do you want to do a
vote on this,'' or obviously you didn't vote on it, correct?
Mr. Blanton. That is correct; it never came to the full
Board's attention.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Mr. Chairman? Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. And let me just----
Ms. Herrera Beutler. I just----
Mr. Ryan. Let me just let the committee know, we are going
to--because of the importance of this issue, we are going to
take some liberties, not just the ranking member and I but all
members, because we want to make sure we follow the line of
questioning and we are able to tease out all these answers. So
every member of the committee will have similar leeway.
So Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. I really appreciate it, and I will
make it brief, and it is just for consideration. I know we are
going to be hearing from the Board in different hearings over
the next few days, but everyone's going to be in a separate
hearing. It might--I don't know how changing this would be, but
it might be helpful to have everybody in the Board at once in
front of us.
But we can see how this goes. It is just for your
consideration. I know we are going to hear from the
individuals. But I think as this line unfolds, I just have more
of these questions, and it might be nice to be able to have
them all sitting together. I don't even know if we can do that.
That is my thought.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ryan. You are welcome.
Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Herrera Beutler.
And thank you to all the witnesses for coming today to talk
about not only the events of January 6 but how we keep this
citadel of our democracy safe and in a state of good repair.
And, Mr. Blanton, I want to return to you and this question
around these meetings in advance of January 6. My understanding
is, from your testimony, that you were not part of the meeting
on January 3, that you weren't involved until the meeting on
the 5th. Is that correct?
Mr. Blanton. That is correct.
Ms. Clark. And at that meeting on the 5th, was there a
discussion of additional security barriers?
Mr. Blanton. No. That meeting on the 5th's primary purpose
was for law enforcement entities that were involved in the
inauguration to brief what their planning is for the
inauguration and then also go over the overall national
security event chain of command for the inauguration.
Ms. Clark. Okay.
Mr. Blanton. There was some discussion on the 6th, but it
wasn't--there was no discussion about any changes to any
physical infrastructure or--and it was very minor discussions
about the threat, just saying that there wasn't likely an event
on the 6th.
Ms. Clark. But that is very different than what Chief Sund
testified to yesterday, that he did make the Board aware of his
concerns. And he also said that it was a regular practice to
only discuss these types of security issues with Sergeants at
Arms of the House and Senate, not including the Architect of
the Capitol. Do you agree with his statement that it is regular
practice that you would not be included and your office would
not be included in these type of meetings?
Mr. Blanton. So I would say, we do have these discussions
at Police Board meetings, and so then at--there I am included.
I do not know what conversations he had on a daily basis with
either the House or the Senate Sergeant at Arms. If that was
his regular practice then I think we found an issue with the
operational chain of command of the Capitol Police Board,
frankly.
Ms. Clark. So my understanding is that he asked for an
emergency declaration. Is it possible that that could have been
denied without your involvement?
Mr. Blanton. It could not have because the Police Board
would had to have voted on it. It never got to the point that
the Police Board was actually voted on the emergency
declaration.
Ms. Clark. So were you aware of that request or were you
not?
Mr. Blanton. I was not.
Ms. Clark. You were not?
Mr. Blanton. No.
Ms. Clark. Do you think that there are reforms we need to
make to the way this Capitol Police Board operates so that you
are not left out of these crucial conversations?
Mr. Blanton. I do believe there are reforms that need to be
made. I think they are broader than just the--what
conversations occur with the Architect of the Capitol or not. I
believe that as a member of the Police Board that there needs
to be more accountability and transparency on some of the
actions that we vote upon.
Ms. Clark. Can you go into a little more detail on how you
would like to see that accountability and transparency improve?
What are some specific things we should be looking at?
Mr. Blanton. Well, obviously, my area of expertise is in
the facilities.
Ms. Clark. Right.
Mr. Blanton. A lot of the stuff, when it comes to physical
security, we overclassify. So there is information that could
be of vital importance to members but is classified at a level
that can't be shared. And many of these, if you look in the
executive branch agencies, the classification isn't as high, or
they do an unclassified version so that they can get out
information so that members have--or interested parties have
the ability to digest what that information is so they
understand, have a better understanding of what the physical
constructs are in the area that they are working.
Ms. Clark. And what about around accountability? What
reforms would you like to see?
Mr. Blanton. I think, again, it goes to more a lot of
decisions are--end up being classified, so it is there are very
few individuals who actually have visibility of what decisions
are made by the Police Board.
Ms. Clark. And do you think that is the reason that you
were not included in these discussions between January 3 and
January 6 around these concerns?
Mr. Blanton. No, I do not think it was. I think it was--
well, I mean, I am speculating on why Chief Sund would have
done that, but I think it just was just this is the standard
for how they operated. Now, I can give them some deferences. We
had a vacancy as the Architect of the Capitol, so you had
acting people in there for over a year, and so it could very
well have been their standard practices evolved to a way that
they didn't include the acting people. But, again, that is a
speculation more than it is a--something where I would testify
as a fact.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Blanton.
I see I am over my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. All right. Thanks. Great line of questioning
there, Ms. Clark.
We are going to Mr. Amodei up next.
Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
If I had written a book, I would have it in the background,
but what the heck.
Mr. Ryan. My favorite.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
I would like to--I want to start with something, since
everybody we have heard from so far that are involved in the
community of the campus on Capitol Hill has been talking about,
you know, obviously physical stuff, emotional stuff, all that
other sort of stuff, so I want to start with Mr. Blanton.
Mr. Blanton, do you know, since your function here is
uniquely not able to be done from home, have all your folks
received COVID vaccinations?
Mr. Blanton. No. In fact, we have had a small distribution
of COVID vaccines for my staff.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. But they are still coming to the Hill
every day and doing what they do, and especially as increased
responsibility as a result of picking up the pieces from
January 6. Is that true?
Mr. Blanton. Yes, they still are, and we are still
following our COVID protocols that worked very, very well on
the Hill since the March/April timeframe of last year.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. So let me ask you this: As a result of
January 6, have all of your staff taken advantage of the
testing things that have been provided here on campus? Have
they all been tested post-January 6?
Mr. Blanton. I will say, not the entire staff, but anybody
who has felt symptomatic or has filled out the Office of
Attending Physician checklist and has marked one of them as
positive, they are afforded and do take the available COVID
test on campus.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. And I was listening as you were doing
your introductory remarks, and they were quite rightfully
complimentary of the mission that your folks have, the
criticalness of it in terms of keeping the citadel of democracy
functioning and stuff like that. I am assuming that you are
basically rock solid in terms of that analysis, and your folks
perform a function that is vital and was even above and beyond
the call on January 6?
Mr. Blanton. I can tell you, from myself and my staff, we
are at awe every day at the facilities that we work on, that we
work in, and that we support. The morale of my staff for the
work that they do, they love the work they do. They are truly
artisans, and they come to work saying: I like what I am doing.
I want to come and continue this work, so----
Mr. Amodei. Well, I don't disagree with you. I just find it
amazing that they are not important enough to also be somewhere
on the list of critical government folks that, quite frankly,
get the vaccine. But that is not your issue; that is mine.
Ms. Szpindor, same questions for you. Have your folks
received the vaccine?
Ms. Szpindor. A small portion of our staff that are
responsible for business continuity and a few of the staff that
have to be in the Capitol every day. Like Mr. Blanton's folks,
we have had people here that are onsite every single day,
working directly with the Members and their staff. And we would
love to have all of them who are--who do that vaccinated, but
as of yet, we have gotten enough to have our critical staff
vaccinated.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. So I am not trying to put any words in
your mouth, but is the answer to my question, has all your
staff received vaccine, the answer to that question is, no, you
have prioritized folks, but in terms of your staff and their
functions, no?
Ms. Szpindor. That is correct.
Mr. Amodei. Have you had any communication with the
Attending Physician's Office or House Admin about, hey, when
are we going to get around to getting the rest of these people
done?
Ms. Szpindor. We stay in direct contact with the Office of
the Attending Physician, and I know that he has looked into
requesting additional vaccine. I think that it has been hard
for him to obtain at this point, but we are waiting on him. We
are looking to the Office of Attending Physician to notify us
when he has any additional dosages.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. Fair enough.
Mr. Blanton, I want to go back to you on a subject that
deals directly with January 6, and that is: I have already had
a discussion with the Acting Sergeant at Arms that goes
something along these lines: Hey, listen, if we are going to
have metal detectors to go vote, that is fine. That is not my
hill to die for. But, quite frankly, with the resources
available or that can be available, can we do that in such a
way that does not look like an afterthought in an airport
lobby?
And so it is like, is there technology that exists to build
something tastefully, in keeping with the resource that we are
talking about, that basically people can walk through without
having to go queue up in front of something that is taking
space in hallways and stuff like that?
And, oh, by the way, can we set them so that shoes don't--
so it doesn't require me to go in barefoot to get around the
metal detector and then try to figure out, once I get in the
Chamber, as I am redressing, what shoe goes on what foot?
Has anybody approached your office about how we can perform
that security function in the least visually and physically
intrusive way in terms of the various and sundry entrances to
the Chamber, whether they be on the Speaker's Lobby, whether
they be on the hallways by elevator banks? Is there not some
more elegant thing available, or has anybody even checked into
that?
Mr. Blanton. So thank you, and I think that is a wonderful
question. I can say that nobody has specifically talked with
me, but my--if I was to presume this, the Sergeant at Arms
would probably deal with the superintendent of the House
building first before coming to me.
I think it is a very valid ask, and it is something that we
should look at, but it is also something that, frankly, we need
to look at in the construct of all the security and detection
equipment across the entire campus. And I know my staff has
looked at options for replacing metal detectors, and I can say
that we will definitely take this on as something that should
be looked at to find something that is--frankly blends more in
with the architecture of the Chamber than portable metal
detectors.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you. I appreciate that.
And, obviously, that is--Mr. Chairman, that is--obviously,
I will talk with you about that more, but I just think that is
something where it is like, that is fine, I think we can
achieve the security goals without basically doing what we are
doing now. And so I am--I will work with you on that offline to
see if that can't be something that the committee works on. And
I know my time is up, so I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. I appreciate it, Mr. Amodei.
Thank you for your questioning along the lines of the
vaccine. We have had a lot of work with--in trying to get it to
the Capitol Police where they had about 200 rank-and-file
members who had COVID-related issues, which put further stress,
and so we have had to go through great lengths to try to get
them their vaccinations.
But I appreciate your raising that issue and the issue
around the security. And maybe even Mr. Blanton could maybe get
one of the engineers or architects over there to help you
figure out, you know, what shoe goes on what foot. We are happy
to help you figure that out.
Next up is Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And to each and all of the three of you, I just want to
join the comments by the chair and the ranking member thanking
you and your teams for your service, for your commitment, and
for your honesty and candor as we try to sort through the
immediacy of January 6 as well as the broader issues, for
example, the tradeoffs between securing the Capitol and
guaranteeing access that we want to guarantee.
It seems to me that--I would like to step back just a
second, and, Mr. Blanton, I will direct this at you. It seems
to me that we have three broad questions dealing with January
6: Number one is kind of a past question, what happened and
why? Number two is a present question, which is, how can we
continue to deal with the lingering effects today of January 6,
for example, consequences to our employees? And then, number
three, how do we prevent this from happening again?
And we can't do much about the past because it already
happened, but we can take the lessons of the past. The present,
I think we have tried to address that. But it is more number
three that I am focused on, which is, how do we sort through
the lessons and implement those lessons?
And here is my question to you, and, again, the context is
that we have already seen division in politics, you know, leak
into this evaluation. We have got a debate going over, you
know, whether we should have a 9/11 Commission, and if so, what
kind of membership it should have.
I know that each and all of us has had the experience of
seeing division within our own communities over the continuing
security barriers around the Capitol with kind of, you know,
oversimplifying this, you know, one side saying it is necessary
to prevent, you know, further attacks, and the other side
basically saying: Take the wall down; it is not necessary. And
that has a political angle to it, and I think we are trying to
keep the politics out of this and just figure out what happened
and why and how to prevent it from happening again.
And here is my question: How do we actually best get to the
bottom of that question--those questions, what happened, why,
and how do we prevent it from happening again? And my question
has to do with whether we can do this internally adequately or
whether we really need objective, independent, outside
evaluations?
Good-meaning people that were there and present at the
moment can believe and hope that they have objectivity on it,
but sometimes that is not the case. Sometimes you are better
with an external, you know, independent, nonjudgmental,
nonpolitical view.
And I am asking, Mr. Blanton, what procedure do you think
is best for us to pursue the questions that are in front of us,
what happened, why, how do we prevent it from happening again?
To what extent do we need independent, objective, external
views?
Mr. Blanton. Thank you. That is a great question. So being
that my expertise is in the facilities side of it, what I am
proposing we have is a comprehensive facilities security
assessment, one that starts with threats. And in the past, if
you go to our [inaudible]--and this is in the entire Federal
Government, this is not just the legislative branch--have been
focused since the Oklahoma City bombing on protecting against
an explosive device of a certain size in a certain location.
And that is why we had things such as windows that were more
secure next to--right next to windows that were not secure
because they were addressing that certain threat with that
certain set of risks.
The other thing is, as we look from a broader threat, it
needs to be in conjunction with our partners within the
national capital area so that we aren't hardening ourselves to
the point that makes other entities soft targets, or they
aren't doing the same and making us a soft target.
And, frankly, from my perspective, in my job, I have to
look across the entire campus so that is all the House
Buildings, Senate Buildings, but it also includes the Library
of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Thurgood Marshall
Building; I want to make sure all of those are included and
accessible.
But the key to it is it starts with a series of threats
that we all agree. We can continue with the threats from the
past of the explosive devices but then bring into it even small
things like a lone gunman, a squad of six people who want to
invade, and then from that, what is the risk associated? And
the risk is the likelihood of it occurring and the consequences
if it occurs. From that, we come up with a set of mitigations,
and those mitigations will be short-term ways to implement to
help protect that. And then, finally, a long-term set of
solutions.
And one key to it in my mind is very important is that we
stay with the logistics tail it is going to be to this, because
many of these ideas that we have of doing security, they are
going to--if they end up having to increase the number of
Capitol Police officers that have to stand a post or have to be
in a certain area or have to--or are pulled off of a post
because of what we are doing to secure the area, we need to
have that identified so we know what the total ownership cost
is of these ideas, so that you as appropriators are fully
informed when we go and ask for these what the total cost is
over the years, not just for this specific project.
Mr. Case. Okay. I will come back in my second round, but my
question--you have identified, I think, the issues that we need
to sort through, but my question was more about, how do we get
the answers? Is that an internal process or is that an external
process? Do we need extra help?
The resources side of it flow from getting the right answer
to start with. I think we all want to provide the resources.
But I want to have the right answers so that I am personally
comfortable that I have done and resourced and directed what
actually has to happen, and I am fearful of an internal-only
assessment. So that was where my question was going.
Mr. Blanton. Yeah. So what I am proposing would bring in
outside experts. In fact, we are proposing using the Army
Corps, which has a Protection Center of Excellence that looks
specifically at that one for facilities.
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Case.
Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see
everybody. Let me also add my voice of appreciation and thanks
to the three folks that are in front of us this morning, all
have very important jobs and responsibilities.
And I really think that the big question in front of this
committee as it stands right now is how can we together ensure
that the institution literally of the Capitol Grounds
themselves can really continue to provide that catalyst for
public participation in our democracy but also at the same time
ensuring that those of us who work here certainly and those
members of the public that come can remain safe from those that
may wish to do us harm. So I look forward to working with all
of you toward those goals.
I would like to address my first questions to the--Mr.
Blanton, if I could, and kind of follow up with some of the
line of questioning other members have taken. Mr. Blanton, you
mentioned in your testimony that institutional biases and
action items taken out of sync, if I can use your words, with
actionable data resulted in poor decisions during the Capitol
attack.
So could you talk about what some of those specific biases
were that were detrimental to your office's response, and how
can we as a committee help you? If there is a disconnect, how
can we help you break that down so that you can provide
positive actionable actions with the data that you receive? And
I guess putting that into English, how can we help you make
that line of communication better?
Mr. Blanton. Thank you. And, again, I appreciate that
question. So I was hired to transform the Architect of the
Capitol. It was an entity that had a couple years of history
that were very troubling, and we have had in the past some
projects and programs that we did and we did not execute very
well. I am in the middle of transforming that, and I will say
that the AOC of today is not the AOC of last year. We are more
responsive. We are more open. We are more accountable, and I am
working to make sure that is even clearer on everything we do.
Part of what I talk about by institutional biases is I have
conversations with people and staffers, and they all say: We
don't believe you because a decade ago this is what happened,
or a project 4 years ago you guys messed up. It is those things
like that--and it is not just in staffers; it is across the
Capitol complex.
And I admit, we had issues years ago. And the staff
themselves are wonderful people who love their work, do
incredible work, but we fumbled a few things in the past. But
those fumbles aren't indicative of what the future is. And if
we continue to be judged by what decisions were made in the
past or areas where we could have done better in the past, then
we will never be able, as a Capitol complex, to advance. And so
that is what I was alluding to in those statements.
Mr. Newhouse. And so, in rectifying that, is there a role
that we can assist you with, or is this going to be, you know,
the proof is in the pudding, that you have to build your own
reputation and trust among colleagues and people that you are
responsible to?
Mr. Blanton. In many ways, the proof is in the pudding, but
also it is--I would say, come in with an approach that we are
trying to do things the most honest, ethical, and efficient way
possible. I mean, one thing that I have done that has been
really a sea change for my staff is when we talk about the
budgets, I say: It is not my money; it is the Capitol complex's
money.
So when someone says I am not going to allow you to do a
project, it is not my project. It belongs to you, sir, because
it is there to support you. I don't get benefit out of--I enjoy
supporting you. I enjoy that. That is my job is to support you.
But the project itself is there for Members and their staff.
The project is not for AOC just to have work to do. And I don't
want to have just work to do. I want to do stuff that has an
outcome.
Mr. Newhouse. Right.
Mr. Blanton. So, if you can look at it from that lens and
that perspective in how we are dealing with things, that would
be very helpful to our organization as a whole.
Mr. Newhouse. Well, thank you very much.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to, if we have another
round of questioning, also delve into some of the workings of
the Capitol Police Board, as well as some of the assessments in
where we go from here as far as the building is concerned. But
I appreciate the--appreciate you all being here this morning
and look forward to further conversation. Thank you.
Ms. Clark. You are muted, Tim.
Mr. Ryan. Ms. Wexton. I am in charge here, Katherine.
Ms. Wexton, you are up.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to add my
voice to the chorus of members saying thank you to all the
witnesses for everything that you have done before and since
January 6 to keep us safe and keep the Capitol running
smoothly.
Now, Mr. Blanton, I want to follow up a little bit more on
the Capitol Police Board and your involvement in the
decisionmaking leading up to January 6 because Capitol Police
Board, just to refresh everybody's recollection, it consists of
the two Sergeants at Arms, one for the Senate, one for the
House; consists of the Architect of the Capitol, that is you;
and then the Chief of the Capitol Police, but the Chief of the
Capitol Police does not get a vote. Is that correct?
Mr. Blanton. That is correct.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. So you testified that you had a meeting
with law enforcement, different agencies on the 23d of December
just generally talking about logistics for January 6. Is that
correct?
Mr. Blanton. No. I talked about on January 5, there was a
meeting of law enforcement, and the subject of it was in
preparations for the Inauguration.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. And was there discussion at that time
about requesting National Guard assistance?
Mr. Blanton. No, there was not.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Now, were you aware that at that time
that Chief--Acting Chief Pittman, that there had been a meeting
on January 2 where the DOD asked U.S. Capitol Police if they
would need the National Guard?
Mr. Blanton. I was not aware of that.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. And according to Chief Pittman's
testimony when she was before the subcommittee a couple weeks
ago, she testified that on January 3, the U.S. Capitol Police
changed their mind and Sund asked for National Guard and it was
denied, and apparently he asked maybe the Sergeants at Arms. Is
that--I mean, did you have--but you didn't have any knowledge
of that. Is that correct?
Mr. Blanton. I had no knowledge of that, and I still have
no knowledge of a meeting on the 3rd. There may have been a
meeting on the 4th that he talked about, but we have no record
of any meeting whatsoever, and later on, Chief Sund, in his
testimony, in his paper talked about the 4th. But there was no
formal meeting that I was at or nor anyone from my staff, on
the 3rd nor the 4th.
Ms. Wexton. So is it just majority rules in the Capitol
Police Board?
Mr. Blanton. Well, we try to get consensus, but if it is
down to--it is a 2-3 vote, then it would be that.
Ms. Wexton. Is it customary to leave one of the voting
members out of the decisionmaking process?
Mr. Blanton. Again, as I stated earlier, if he was
officially asking for it, then there would not be--then all of
us would have the opportunity to vote. I only can paraphrase
what I heard from Chief Sund's testimony and his letter that he
wrote to the Speaker that he talked to the Sergeant at Arms.
Now, I don't know if he was doing that to talk so that he is
seeing, testing the waters if we are able to do that, what the
Board feels like, but he had not officially asked for it from
the entire Board itself.
Ms. Wexton. All right. And have you previously been
consulted about additional security measures in advance of
protests and things coming to Washington, D.C.? For example,
during the Black Lives Matter protest over the summer, were you
consulted about additional hardening and security measures
around the Capitol at that time?
Mr. Blanton. So my staff was working in conjunction with
the Capitol Police before Police Board meetings in the past to
put up the bicycle rack barriers around the Capitol Police--
sorry, around the Capitol complex for every single event. And
as Chief Sund said, they approach every event from a very
similar construct, and so we do that when there is any known
protest.
Ms. Wexton. And that is what you did for the January 6
protest as well, right?
Mr. Blanton. Yes.
Ms. Wexton. Nothing further than the normal. And it was
never elevated----
Mr. Blanton. They did extend the police barricade--the bike
rack barrier for the January 6 event, as Chief Sund testified.
Ms. Wexton. Right. But there were no additional barriers
involved?
Mr. Blanton. Correct.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Now, have they been--has the Police Board
been in discussions as a committee of the whole talking about
hardening after January 6?
Mr. Blanton. We have had several discussions about that.
Ms. Wexton. And were you----
Mr. Blanton. Yes, I have been in----
Ms. Wexton. So you were privy to the discussions about the
temporary fencing as well as other options for the long term?
Mr. Blanton. Yes.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired, but I will have
more questions in another round.
Mr. Ryan. There we go.
Congressman Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
opportunity. I want to thank all of the folks that are
testifying here today about this horrific day in the Capitol.
As many of you know, the Capitol staff, particularly the
custodial staff is made up of many people of color,
particularly men of color who were targets, obviously, of this
racist, bigoted mob. The images of the Confederate flag, of the
gallows with the rope and noose, typifies the horrible history
of lynching in the South and throughout the country, set deep
fear among many of us workers.
I observed, myself witnessed, when I went down to the
Capitol at about 7:30, about two to three men of color mopping
the area, the blood where the shooting occurred right outside
the Capitol. And so I want to know what is being done with
these workers that are traumatized.
And, first of all, sending them down there right after this
horrific attack was somewhat troubling to begin with. I could
just imagine what they felt. When I saw them, I was terrified
myself. I didn't really capture the fact right away,
immediately that they were mopping up blood. And to send folks
that were clearly the target of this attack and couldn't take
their pins off and blend to then mop up the floor, I thought
was a little bit too much. I want to know what is being done
for these folks and what the AOC and the administrators are
doing to help the people that were traumatized during this
attack.
Mr. Blanton. Thank you. And I will say, my staff had great
pride in the work they did immediately following. They actually
were proud of themselves and the organization that they were
able to clean up. The people who were dealing with blood were
trained in biohazards, and so they had all the prerequisite
skills to deal with the biohazards.
The janitorial staff and the laborers who were vacuuming
and cleaning up the glass, they volunteered to do that because
they support the organization and they knew what was at stake.
What was at stake was the certification of the electoral
college. They have that sense of mission----
Mr. Espaillat. But allow me, we have heard from Capitol
Police that were called the n-word. We saw the Confederate flag
and the gallows with the noose and the rope out there. I just
think sending men of color to mop up the blood after this
horrific act is just a little bit over the top. Now, what are
you doing now to address any issues, longstanding issues that
they may have?
Mr. Blanton. Thank you, and I was just about to get to
that. I am sorry if I was taking too long. What we are doing is
they are actively involved in our Employee Assistance Program.
One of the things that we are doing is instead of having it be
where they feel like they have to call--because I know some of
the men and women of the Architect of the Capitol, we are a
tough group, and some of us want to internalize that. So we are
going to have--we are proactively taking it for each of the
trades who were there that day and having counseling sessions
for them to talk about it.
Additionally, in one of our--in our supplemental request,
we have asked for funds so that we could do an awards program
for these staff that were there that day so that they can get
recognized beyond what our standard awards are at the AOC
because I do feel like they went above and beyond the duty. And
that is why we are looking at them both mentally, and I want to
look out for them--we look out for their physical health and
making sure they are properly trained but then also some
economic benefit for what they did.
Mr. Espaillat. One last, quick question I want to ask the
Architect. Are the floor plans of the Capitol easily accessible
to the general public via the internet? Are they accessible to
Members, to anyone that wants access to them?
Mr. Blanton. No. It takes the House Office Building
Commission and Speaker to approve release of the floor plans.
In fact, it is even challenging to get my contractors who have
to use those floor plans to do work to get a hold of the floor
plans because they are very, very tightly held.
Mr. Espaillat. There has been allegations that the
insurrectionists had access to the floor plans of the Capitol.
Have you been able to assert whether that was true or not?
Mr. Blanton. I have only heard that in the media. I have
not seen any indication of that, nor has the FBI, who is
investigating it, given us any information that they have.
Mr. Espaillat. Do you have the records of anybody that
would have--let's say if I wanted to get the floor plans and I
instructed my staff to do it, would you have the records that
they attempted to get the floor plans or download the floor
plans?
Mr. Blanton. Well, there is no way to download them because
they are on a secure server, but we hand out hard copies if it
is deemed that it is needed for an individual to have the floor
plans. But that group of people is exceptionally small on the
Capitol----
Mr. Espaillat. Can your secure server get hacked?
Mr. Blanton. We have no indication of that. There is no
indication of any AOC server being hacked.
Mr. Espaillat. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you. Great line of questioning.
Ms. Wexton, great line of questioning as well.
I have got a couple followups, and then just for the
members, we are going to do a second round. We will probably
have a 2-minute round so everybody can get another question in,
and we want to be sensitive to everybody's time here with other
committees going on and the responsibilities of our witnesses.
Just a couple questions, Mr. Blanton. First, I just want to
say how much we appreciate you and how you have handled
yourself through this whole ordeal. You have impressed a lot of
people. Let me ask, you brought up the FBI, and there was a
report supposedly from the FBI that went to the Capitol Police
that Chief Sund said it never made its way up to him about, you
know, the threat level on January 6. Were you aware at all of
that FBI intelligence?
Mr. Blanton. No.
Mr. Ryan. One of the issues with the Capitol Police that,
you know, talking to Gus, who is the head of the union there,
and a lot of the rank-and-file members, was around the
equipment. Were any of these issues around shields and helmets
and batons and lack of equipment for some of the rank-and-file
members, did you ever hear that come before the Police Board?
Mr. Blanton. Not in my tenure here. Maybe prior to my
tenure, but I can say it is disturbing what I heard afterwards,
that limited amount of equipment and then some of the anecdotes
of people whose helmets are so old that the padding was rotting
out of it. That was heart-wrenching to me.
Mr. Ryan. Just out of curiosity, how many Police Board
meetings, official meetings were you in over your tenure here,
in the last----
Mr. Blanton. So it would have been 12 total.
Mr. Ryan. So you do one a month?
Mr. Blanton. Something like that.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. And what generally are the--again, we are
trying to really figure out how this Board is operating because
this is going to be, I think, at the heart of any reforms that
we start proposing. What is the general length of time for some
of those Board meetings?
Mr. Blanton. We schedule an hour and a half for the
meetings.
Mr. Ryan. Does it usually go that long?
Mr. Blanton. It depends on the agenda. Some months, when
there is less information, Congress is out of session, for
example, there is less stuff to pass, and so it won't go as
long. When there is larger events going on, then it is--they
are longer meetings.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. Have you talked to General Honore about----
Mr. Blanton. Several times.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. How many times?
Mr. Blanton. We have had--my staff has been in constant
contact with his staff. They have been working significantly
together. And I have had two direct meetings with him, and we
have another one once he releases his draft findings dealing
with facilities assessments.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. I would be interested in, since we have
you, and I know this is a longer conversation, and I think Ms.
Herrera Beutler touched on it, the issue of reforming the
Capitol Police Board. I mean, clearly if--you know, we want
your opinion as to how we would move forward with any reforms.
I mean, clearly, if the Chief of Police is saying to the
Sergeant at Arms, you know, in essence, you know, ``We are
screwed and we need help,'' and then the Sergeant at Arms just
kind of single handedly tells him no without bringing it to the
Board, which is kind of what we are gathering here, what kind
of reforms--you know, also being sensitive to the fact that,
you know, we need to respond in a timely manner, so we don't
want to, you know, create another bureaucracy like we saw, you
know, happening with trying to get approval through the
Department of Defense and all that. Any recommendations you can
share with us here on maybe how we can adjust the Board and how
we respond appropriately and timely?
Mr. Blanton. So what I think we should do is enlist in the
D.C. area likeminded entities. You have the Secret Service.
They have a command structure over them. You have Pentagon
Force Protection Agency, which has a command structure over
them, because obviously they are not--they don't make the
decisions independently, and really have them look at what we
are doing and propose best practices. I think an outside look
at us is worthwhile.
Mr. Ryan. Uh-huh. And so basically continuing what General
Honore is doing but in--more in depth over a longer period of
time, is that----
Mr. Blanton. Focused on--I don't--I look at--General Honore
isn't really looking at the command oversight of the Capitol
Police. That is not one of his areas, unless it has been--
unless it has been expanded since when he has talked to me. But
that is something that is a valid thing to look at, and it
would be valid to take entities who have been under significant
transition and had events and have changed because of those
events.
I mean, we have all seen events at the White House, events
at the Pentagon over the past 3 years, and those organizations
have changed dramatically. It is a good look to see how can we
change to support what--how to be more responsive than we have
been in the past.
Mr. Ryan. Well, we are certainly going to be leaning on you
for your recommendations.
We are going to go to a second round here, a little bit of
a lightning round where we will give each member 2 minutes to
be able to ask questions. And so we are going to start with Mr.
Amodei, if you want. You can certainly pass. I know there are
other committees happening right now so we want to be sensitive
to that.
All right. Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Blanton, if we could go back just for a moment to the
request that was made to expand the perimeter. At any point
after this request to move the perimeter was made, did you or
anyone at AOC deny any piece of this request, or did you have
the assets necessary to fulfill this request?
Mr. Blanton. So no one at AOC denied, nor would anyone at
AOC have the authority to deny the request, and we did have the
assets.
Ms. Clark. To the best of your knowledge, was there any
discussion or objection about those barriers in place because
of the optics of it?
Mr. Blanton. No. I will say, me personally, I had not heard
the word ``optics'' until the discussions afterwards dealing
with the National Guard and the Pentagon.
Ms. Clark. Thank you so much.
And very quickly, in my last minute, Ms. Elliott, as
Curator of the House, do you feel it is important that we keep
some of--some record, some artifacts of what occurred on
January 6? I know some Members have requested that broken glass
windows and doors be kept. What is your feeling as Curator of
the House?
Ms. Elliott. Thank you for the question. As Curator of the
House, look, I under the direction of the Clerk am responsible
for the House Collection objects. And our first duty to those
is to make sure the objects that already exist in the House
Collection are cared for as best we can.
So, in some cases, for us the most important thing is to
make sure that we first do no harm, that we make sure that we
conserve and treat and clean the objects that already exist in
the Collection, and then, after that, take stock of what are
the artifacts that tell the story of the people's House right
up through today.
Ms. Clark. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Clark.
Mr. Newhouse, interim ranking member.
Mr. Newhouse. Yes. I appreciate the increase in my pay
grade.
Ms. Szpindor, we understand that many of the rioters made
off with some of the technological equipment from some of the
offices they broke into, including, I think, I understand the
laptop of the Speaker. Are you confident that every piece of
equipment that might pose a future cyber threat has been
accounted for, and do you know exactly what was stolen and
whether or not they still pose a cyber threat to us?
Ms. Szpindor. Thank you for the question. I am aware
through briefings with Capitol Police that some of the PCs--it
is our understanding at this time it was only a few PCs from
some of the offices. We do believe that, based on what we know
about one of the PCs, it is a very low risk to the House
because of what we--know how it was used.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
Ms. Szpindor. The other PC, we--again, we know who had that
PC, and we feel like that it was a moderate to low risk. Of
course, this is still a continuing criminal investigation, and
I can't say too much more about it other than we took steps, as
you know, during the insurrection to begin shutting off areas
of the network that were impacted during the siege and feel as
though we did the right thing in doing that, protected any
additional equipment.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
Ms. Szpindor. And we are also looking to roll out some
additional security measures and are in process for that, to
protect us in the future, to enhance the protection in the
future.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
And back to Mr. Blanton, if I could real quickly, Mr.
Chairman, there was a substantial request for an increase in
appropriations having to do with security assessments. Could
you talk a little bit about the ongoing reviews that are--that
you have and the assessments of campus security and what
deficiencies these assessments have in order to warrant a need
for a more comprehensive review? I think the request is
something in the neighborhood of $30 million.
Mr. Blanton. Yes, thank you. So we did a transfer from my
Library of Congress budget for the book module 7 up at Fort
Meade to us, and that transfer was for--to cover historic costs
from January 6, the damage for January 6, for the immediate
repairs, the cost for supporting the National Guard and the
cost to extend the fence line until March 31.
We asked for an additional $10 million to do a
comprehensive security assessment, and this assessment was
meant to synergize the assessments that all other entities are
and should be doing. For example, Capitol Police is doing an
internal one. A lot of it is going to focus on what they do as
Capitol Police. Part of that may have some recommendations for
facilities changes.
General Honore has a study. He has got four key tenets. One
of those is dealing with quick facilities improvements. And
then there is going to be other studies probably on the Senate.
But there is one entity that looks across the entire campus and
that--and including the Supreme Court and the Thurgood Marshall
Building and can look at and can synergize all these requests
into one so that we have a consistent footprint across the
entire campus. And that is what I am looking to do.
Additionally, when we do it, when we do this, we need to
have executable projects that have budget-level data so that I
can tell you how much the project should cost and when we can
get it done. By just saying things like, we should put hardened
glass on all doors, all windows in the Capitol, that may or may
not be executable, and I say this because the Capitol was
built--was designed in 1790. It was first started construction
in 1793. It was never envisioned when they first laid the
foundation that there would be a 9.7 million ton cast iron dome
on top of it. It was expanded.
Now, if you put over a ton of glass on the windows, that
may cause structural problems, and we need to analyze that
before it is just a good idea of putting stronger glass on
windows. And that is what we do in our study is to make sure it
is actually an executable project.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much.
And thanks for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
it.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Thank you. Two comments and a question.
A comment to Ms. Elliott. Thank you so much for taking care
of our cultural heritage. I think you said you needed an extra
$25,000 in supplemental to complete some of the assessments and
damage repair, and I just wonder whether that is too low. This
is not the time to come in with, you know, lower requests. I
think we all want to do the right thing here.
And then, Mr. Blanton, I would--back to my initial line of
questioning on how we best get the answers to what do we do
going forward, I would strongly endorse your instincts to get
third-party best practices assessments from the DOD as well as
Secret Service, and I would further ask you to consider whether
further additional independent reviews may be necessary.
Because General Honore is, as you pointed out, going to the
facilities assessment and the securities issues, and what I
think we are about here right now is an understanding of what
broke down operationally, procedurally, and how to adopt an
operational procedural framework that we don't, you know, go
through the same mistakes all over again, and do we need
external assessment even at cost to get the right answers
there?
Ms. Szpindor, a very quick question following up on Mr.
Newhouse. Is there any indication that there was any
simultaneous or coordinated cyber attacks or cyber activity in
your shop or to your knowledge elsewhere in the Capitol around
the January 6 physical attack, which some claim was, you know,
a spontaneous combustion and, of course, associated
cybersecurity, cyber activity would indicate something other
than that? Is there any indication of that?
Ms. Szpindor. There really is not. We have had individuals,
other outside consultants that we use helping us check the
network. We were monitoring everything real time, both the dark
web as well as other areas of web activity. We did not see,
have not seen any penetration in the network at all, any
indication that anyone was trying to get into the network on
January 6.
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you very much.
Ms. Szpindor. Uh-huh.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Mr. Case. Great questions.
And I encourage all the members of the committee to--last
year I went over and visited the Cybersecurity Office over
there and House Administration, and I just--it is a neat place
to go, but it is that essential work that Mr. Case just brought
up.
And we have got to make sure--because I think moving
forward, it is a very important point. I mean, we are talking
about being aware of all the threats and being prepared with
all the threats. And we saw with the pipe bombs at the RNC and
the DNC, how that was coordinated, in addition to, you know,
what else is going on as a distraction. And so I think Mr. Case
rightly, you know, brings that point up about the issues around
a coordinated effort around cyber. So we appreciate that.
Mr. Amodei.
Ms. Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the witnesses again for all your great
answers and to my colleagues for asking a lot of the questions
that I had. So thanks for that.
You know, I still am so in awe that I get to work in this
place, you know, and the amazing history that it has, and I
never, ever want to lose that. And so January 6 felt like a
huge violation, you know, for I think all of us, seeing people
marching around in the Capitol and defacing it as they did.
And I have thought many times how just days before I was
present in the crypt when Virginia removed one of its statues
from the Capitol, which was our statue of Robert E. Lee. And
that was something that I spearheaded along with my colleague
Congressman McEachin, also from the Commonwealth of Virginia,
so--which, by the way, they do at 3 a.m. For those--you guys
probably already knew that, but I didn't until it was time for
you guys to move it.
So it was especially jarring to see the insurrectionists
marching through the crypt, you know, carrying the Confederate
battle flag, and I thought more than once how glad I was that
there was no longer that statute of Robert E. Lee there for
people to take selfies with.
So I was especially inspired to hear how staff was so quick
thinking on January 6 and moved to preserve the safety of
portraits like Congressman Joseph Rainey and Shirley Chisholm,
the first African-American Congresswoman, as well as the new
collections that honor Representative Rainey.
Ms. Elliott, I would inquire if you have any information
about whether any particular pieces or artifacts were
specifically targeted by the mob on January 6?
Ms. Elliott. Thank you. No. I don't have any information
that that is the case.
Ms. Wexton. Well, that is reassuring. Now, were there hate
symbols defacing any artifacts or property within the Capitol?
Ms. Elliott. No, nothing on the House Collection at all.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Well, I guess that is reassuring. So
thank you for all that you are doing, and I will yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Great. Thank you. Ms. Szpindor, I just have a
question. You mentioned--because I want to get some context.
You mentioned that the--I forget how you said it, but it was
the engagements or around the issues of some of the wellness
visits, or I forget how you said it, but there were 1,150 in
the 6 weeks from the January 6 event. Was that correct?
Ms. Szpindor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ryan. What is the context for that? So what is the--you
know, how many visits happen in a year? And if you don't have
that number, just----
Ms. Szpindor. I do. It is, typically, I think we see 3,000
visits on an annual basis. So, when you compare that to the
1,150, that is a critical percentage of what we normally see
and anticipate that we will continue to see some higher
numbers. However, over the past week, we see things beginning
to level out a little bit, probably about 50 percent of what we
have seen the week before.
But we are still providing the outreach and also literature
and publicizing everything that we have to encourage people to
keep coming like they always have. I mean, the Capitol Police,
we have been serving since 2000, and we will--we have a great
relationship with them, and we will continue to reach out to
them and make sure we are satisfying whatever need that the
community has here.
Mr. Ryan. And are you--do you guys--how integrated are you
with the House office of well-being and the wellness
initiatives? Is that--are you guys pretty much in lockstep on
how you communicate to the staff and members?
Ms. Szpindor. They are. And I think it is--certainly Brian
Weiss with the Wellness Center, he is doing a great job, but it
is a good thing that he works directly with Paul Tewksbury in
the OEA. And so that helps them stay in sync with one another
and make sure that they are supporting one another with
whatever items that one of them may produce, the other one may
be able to make use of it, and so it is a great relationship.
So we are continuing, I want to put a plug in for Brian and
his staff, what a great job they have done. And their
storefront location that is open now in Longworth. We encourage
staff to please go there and visit with them.
Mr. Ryan. Yeah. We want to continue to try to push that
out. You know, there is still a lot of people on the Hill that
don't know about it, and we want to make sure that they
recognize the resources that are there, both for mental health
promotion and fitness and financial literacy, financial help,
deals on all kinds of different programs. And it is really on
the cutting edge.
And that was the idea is to make sure that the employees
here--this was pre-pandemic and pre-January 6--but that in a
very high-stress environment, that our employees here, while
they may not make as much in the private--as they would in the
private sector, that they are offered the same kind of support
that improve their quality of life and the quality of life of
their families. And so we want to make sure we continue to
promote that so that the men and women who work here have
access to all of that.
And I just want to personally just say thank you to you,
Ms. Szpindor. Immediately after January 6, we saw, you know, a
number of the Capitol Police who were continuing to work 12- to
16-hour shifts, you know, the influx of the National Guard who
are here. And I think it is important for this committee to
know how quickly you responded to open the Dunkin' Donuts, to
make sure there was--in the evening for the midnight shift,
making sure there was food accessible for them, and how quickly
you made those determinations. And I just want to personally
thank you for that. That was--you know, it goes beneath, you
know, the radar for most people, but how quickly you responded
to make sure that they had what they needed, and that was very
impressive, and we continue to thank you for your support.
So we are going to wrap it up. Let me just say, Ms.
Elliott, thank you for all you do, again, much behind the
scenes. Much of what you do is behind the scenes, but it
clearly has made this such a special place, and we want to
thank you for your service and your commitment to preserving
this special building that we work in.
Ms. Szpindor, thank you again. And please thank your teams.
You know, we know that, as Members of Congress here, how
important the staff is for all of us, unknown and unnamed many
times, but please thank your teams for us.
Mr. Blanton, again, thank you for all your work. And, you
know, moving forward, as I said, we are going to rely on all of
you. But Mr. Blanton especially, when it comes to these issues
around security, we are going to be relying on your judgment.
And we appreciate you and your viewpoint because you have been
very helpful in helping the committee understand exactly what
transpired and I think exposed some of those flaws that are in
the system, especially around the Capitol Police Board that
seem wholly inadequate to addressing the needs that the Members
here had and the staff here had.
So I also want to just take a second to thank our team, our
staff, Steve and Anna, and the minority staff, Rachel on my
personal staff, and all the members of the committee. As the
panelists can see, we have a lot of intellectual firepower here
on both sides of the aisle that care deeply about the role that
this subcommittee now plays in protecting this institution and
really crafting a model for how we move forward from both a
security standpoint and taking care of the men and women who
are here. And hopefully they can be an example for how we
should treat our workers around the country, and that is the
goal of the committee.
So, with that, this committee is going to adjourn, and we
will see everybody tomorrow morning.
Thursday, February 25, 2021.
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE AND HOUSE SERGEANT AT ARMS, SECURITY FAILURES ON
JANUARY 6
WITNESSES
HON. TIMOTHY BLODGETT, ACTING SERGEANT AT ARMS
YOGANANDA D. PITTMAN, ACTING CHIEF, UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE
Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
As this hearing is fully virtual, I must address a few
housekeeping matters.
First, for today's meeting, the chair or staff designated
by the chair may mute participants' microphones when they are
not under recognition for purposes of eliminating inadvertent
background noise.
Second, members are responsible for muting and unmuting
themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that you have
not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the
staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff
will unmute your microphone.
Third, I want to remind all members and witnesses that the
5-minute clock still applies. You will notice a clock on your
screen that will show how much time is remaining. And if there
is a technology issue, we will move to the next member until
the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of your
time.
Fourth, in terms of the speaking order, we will be
beginning with the chair and ranking member. Then, members
present at the time the hearing is called to order will be
recognized in order of seniority.
Finally, the House rules require me to remind you that we
have set up an email address to which members can send anything
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings. That
email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
Good morning to our panel.
I am pleased to welcome Acting Chief of the Capitol Police
Yogananda Pittman and Acting House Sergeant at Arms Tim
Blodgett.
Today is our third of three hearings reviewing the
aftermath of the breaching of the Capitol by an insurrectionist
mob on January 6. The purpose of this hearing is to dig deeper
into the failures that occurred on January 6.
I and the members of this subcommittee will be asking some
very uncomfortable questions as we conduct a thorough review of
what went wrong. I want to emphasize at the outset that the
hearing is not a ``gotcha'' exercise.
None of us at this hearing can forget the events of January
6, but how we respond will determine how we collectively learn
from the trials of that day, not as Democrats and Republicans
but as Americans charged with the responsibility of being
caretakers of our Republic.
As we move forward, we do not want to fall into the trap of
preparing to fight the last war. We must be prepared to ensure
the next one never happens. And if we ignore the mistakes of
the past, the Capitol campus will continue to be vulnerable to
unknown and unexpected threats.
So I am going to start with the meeting I had on January 5.
I was briefed by then-House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving and
U.S. Capitol Police Chief Sund. During the briefing, both Chief
Sund and Mr. Irving provided assurances that the Capitol
complex had comprehensive security and there was no active
intelligence that groups would become violent at the Capitol
during the certification of the electoral votes.
I was later told by Chief Sund that his department did not
have intelligence that there would be an armed insurrection,
although we now know that there was, in fact, an intelligence
report from his own department released on the 3rd, which
states, quote, ``Unlike previous post-election protests, the
targets of the pro-Trump supporters are not necessarily the
counter protesters, as they were previously, but, rather,
Congress itself is the target on the 6th. As outlined above,
there has been a worrisome call for protesters to come to these
events armed, and there is the possibility that protesters may
be inclined to become violent. This, combined with Stop The
Steal's propensity to attract White supremacists, militia
members, and others who actively promote violence, may lead to
a significantly dangerous situation for law enforcement and the
general public alike,'' end quote.
But even putting the Capitol Police intelligence assessment
aside, how could the security planning, policies, and
procedures apparently be so lacking and ill-prepared? This
event was widely promoted on social media weeks in advance, and
your own report specifically shows the department was
monitoring these posts. There were numerous groups with a
history of violence known to be planning to attend, and these
groups were actively discussing their plans on social media.
I, for one, am at a loss to understand how your
intelligence report and then later, as the mob walked 16
blocks, growing in size and aggressive demeanor, failed to
impact the Capitol Police force security posture.
I also would like the panel to address the failures
regarding command and control and communication. I have spoken
to many officers who felt that, on that day of the attack, they
were left alone and unsure how to respond. How did command and
control break down so quickly? What needs to be changed?
It has been widely reported that senior leadership was not
reachable nor providing direction to the officers. Is that
true?
We have also been told that there was not a clear
understanding of the rules of engagement and the level of force
that officers were expected to use as the attack unfolded. How
could that have happened?
Once the Capitol was breached, was there a strategic plan
to secure the building?
Now I look forward. I hope you can provide updates to the
committee as to how the Capitol Police and Sergeant at Arms are
currently protecting the campus and its workforce and to talk
about the next steps to ensure the future physical safety of
our campus.
We need to know what you think are the major institutional
and cultural reforms and/or overhauls needed to maintain as
safe and as open a campus as possible so that the visitors from
across the country and around the world can witness
representative democracy in action.
I look forward to your answers to these questions and more.
I want you to know that we are very thankful for your service
and that of the staff of your organizations, who work so hard
to make this House run.
At this point, I would like to yield to my friend and
colleague, the ranking member, Jamie Herrera Beutler, for an
opening statement that she would like to make.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Acting Chief Pittman and Acting Sergeant at
Arms Blodgett, for being here today.
January 6, the whole world watched in disbelief as the
center of American democracy was assaulted. The very ideals of
democracy that make us the envy of the world were attacked. It
was the Constitution in action, it was the counting of the
electoral votes, it was the transfer of power that takes place
every 4 years, and it was literally under insurrection. The
very ideals were coming under fire.
And, that day, an angry mob with the intention to destroy
not just the symbols of our freedom but the people who took an
oath to serve and protect the Constitution--the assault on the
Capitol will forever be a painful reminder that democracy and
the rule of law are not guaranteed to us. We must continuously
fight to uphold them.
With that in mind, we have to take very seriously that it
is our job as both the American people and as Members of
Congress to make sure this never happens again. This starts
with a clear and candid assessment of what went wrong.
Here is the truth: Top officials either failed to take
seriously the intelligence received or the intelligence failed
to reach the right people. This meant that the Capitol Police
force was woefully unprepared for the attack.
To be clear, the United States Capitol Police force is not
meant to be an army. Expecting 1,600 officers to hold back an
unruly mob of 8,000 to 10,000 people, many of whom were armed
and had their own homemade explosive devices or came with
weaponized everyday items, is not a position we should ever
have to be in.
But we must understand what failed on that day, whether it
was the broken lines of communication, whether it was
inadequate training, not enough or the correct equipment,
decision-making processes, or everything in between.
Look, security is essential, and we all have a fundamental
need to feel safe on the Capitol Grounds. It is up to the
Capitol Police and the Sergeant at Arms to provide that
assurance so that we may work on behalf of the American people
without obstruction or fear of violence.
While we absolutely must do better to keep this place
secure, I have to say, it is also important that we try to keep
this institution as accessible to the public as possible. We
are the people's House. Sacrificing the openness of this
institution is not the only way to keep the Capitol secure. I
don't like that there is a fence around the Capitol complex
that makes the seat of democracy look like a military base, and
I don't like that it costs almost $2 million a week.
I hope we are able to find ways to secure this place
without such measures--a balance I believe must be and can be
struck. I look forward to working with the legislative branch,
with Chairman Ryan, and with the different agencies involved to
figure out what that balance is and to execute it as quickly
and efficiently as possible.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Ms. Herrera Beutler. Appreciate your
leadership on all this, and appreciate how you have conducted
this in a bipartisan manner. It has been a joy to work with
you.
Next, we will ask the chair of the full Appropriations
Committee, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, for any opening
statements that she would like to make.
The Chair. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and thank you, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and welcome to
our witnesses. I am so grateful to join with you as we dig
deeper into the security failures that occurred on January 6.
On that day, our Nation held its collective breath,
watching in disbelief as violent insurrectionists rioted in our
Capitol. We listened in horror as insurrectionists were spurred
on.
As the mob stormed the Capitol Building, aiming to disrupt
Congress--and, yes, they came for the Congress--members of the
U.S. Capitol Police and the House Sergeant at Arms valiantly
leapt into the fray, but they were overwhelmed.
These courageous women and men risked their lives to defend
our democracy. It is a testament to their bravery and their
dedication that no Members or staff were physically harmed. But
it breaks all of our hearts that so many Capitol Police
officers were injured in the attack, many quite severely.
We pray for the officers and their families as they have
dealt with the unfolding tragedy of that day, especially the
family of Officer Brian Sicknick. And our hearts are heavy for
the loss of Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood, who died
by suicide in January.
As we honor these sacrifices, we must take the hard look at
just what exactly happened on that dark day and what we need to
do to ensure such an alarming breach, such an alarming failure
of our Capitol security--this should never happen again.
The attack exposed weaknesses in our Capitol security
systems that are far greater than any of us would have ever
anticipated. And it has made it abundantly clear that the
Capitol Police and the Sergeant at Arms require major
institutional and cultural reform.
What went wrong on January 6? As the committee that funds
the security of the Capitol, today we hope we can gain a better
understanding of the problems that the Capitol Police and the
Sergeant at Arms must address, what resources they need to
reform themselves to keep Members, congressional staff,
employees, and their own officers safe. What are the solutions?
What should the role of the Capitol Police Board be?
I say a thank you to our witnesses for joining us today.
Acting Chief of Police Yogananda Pittman briefed members of the
Appropriations Committee last month, and I hope we can continue
to drill down on the issues that we discussed then. And Acting
House Sergeant at Arms Tim Blodgett brings an important
perspective from his office.
On January 6, 2021, our Nation gazed into the abyss. Our
democracy indeed is fragile, but the security of our seat of
government should never be. And that is why it is so immensely
important that we have an open and honest discussion to ensure
the events like those that took place on January 6 can never
happen again.
And I yield back and thank the gentleman.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Chairwoman DeLauro.
Next is the ranking member of the full Appropriations
Committee, Kay Granger, for any opening statements you would
like to make, Kay.
Ms. Granger. I would like to thank Chairman Ryan and
Ranking Member Jamie Herrera Beutler for holding this important
hearing today.
The January 6 attack on the Capitol was something I never
thought I would witness. In the face of great danger, U.S.
Capitol Police bravely fought to defend the complex and ensure
our Members and staff were safe.
In addition to making sure that the Capitol Police have the
support and resources they need to process and heal from the
traumatic events of that day, we must ensure that they have the
resources necessary to defend the Capitol against similar
attacks.
It was clear from our briefing last month that the failure
to protect the Capitol was not due to a lack of intelligence
but, rather, a failure to properly act on the intelligence.
There was also a clear lack of command and control, because so
many agencies were involved, yet their actions were not
coordinated. This is unacceptable and left our law enforcement
men and women on the ground unprepared for the very real threat
they faced.
At the center of this controversy is the Capitol Police
Board, which includes the Sergeant at Arms, Architect of the
Capitol, and Capitol Police. Serious questions remain about
their failure to approve the request from the Capitol Police
Chief to call in the National Guard and properly notify Members
and staff on the status of the threat through the emergency
notification system.
As we speak, miles of fencing still surrounds the Capitol,
and the center of American Government is now tarnished by
razor-wire and limited access. While we must take the necessary
steps to make the Capitol complex safe and secure, we must have
the ultimate goal of safely reopening the Capitol and its
grounds to the public.
The Capitol and its buildings belong to the American
people, not us. They need to be able to visit their elected
Representatives and know they will be safe while doing so. I
want the witnesses to discuss what changes have been made and
will need to continue to be made to ensure the Capitol complex
is protected.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ranking Member Granger.
We are now going to move to our witnesses.
Without objection, your written testimonies will be made
part of the record. We ask you to please summarize your
statement and highlight your efforts to the committee.
Chief Pittman, please begin. And after your statement, we
will turn to Sergeant at Arms Blodgett for his statement. And
once the statements are complete, we will move to the question-
and-answer session.
So please begin, Chief Pittman.
Acting Chief Pittman. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify before the committee.
On January 6, our strength, determination, and commitment
to the mission of protecting the democratic process was tested.
Fortunately, the USCP succeeded in its mission. With the
assistance of law enforcement partners like MPD, the United
States Capitol Police protected the congressional leadership,
Members, and the democratic process.
On January 6, I was the Assistant Chief of Police of the
department's protective and intelligence operations. Leading up
to January 6, the department gathered information about the
anticipated events of the day and released assessments that
analyzed the raw information received from multiple sources.
The department issued four assessments about the January 6
event. The final assessment indicated, amongst other things,
that militia groups, White supremacists, and other extremist
groups would be participating in the January 6 event, these
groups planned to be armed, the target of the demonstration
would be Congress, and the demonstrators saw this as a last
opportunity to overturn the results of the Presidential
election, and they were desperate.
The assessment was widely shared throughout the department.
And in response to the assessment, the department made
significant changes to its security posture. We increased the
size of protection details; deployed countersurveillance agents
across D.C.; increased our CDU platoons, including deploying
hard platoons; we deployed SWAT teams; enlarged the security
perimeter; and increased exterior and interior patrols, to
include the subways.
Since the 6th, it has been suggested that the department
was either ignorant of or ignored critical intelligence that
indicated that an attack of the magnitude that we experienced
on January 6 would occur. The department was not ignorant of
intelligence indicating an attack of the size and scale we
encountered on the 6th.
There was no such intelligence.
Although we knew the likelihood for violence by extremists,
no credible threat indicated that tens of thousands would
attack the U.S. Capitol, nor did the intelligence received from
the FBI or any other law enforcement partner indicate such a
threat. Indeed, the Secret Service brought the Vice President
to the Capitol that day as they were also unaware of any
credible threat of that magnitude.
The department also did not ignore intelligence that we
had, which indicated an elevated risk of violence from
extremist groups. To the contrary, we heightened our security
posture.
There is evidence that some of those who stormed the
Capitol were organized, but there is also evidence that a large
number were everyday Americans who took on a mob mentality
because they were angry and desperate. It is the conduct of
this latter group that the department was not prepared for.
The department did face some operational challenges that we
are addressing. For example, the Capitol lockdown was not
properly executed. Some officers were unsure of when to use
lethal force. Our radio communications to officers were not as
robust. And we are ensuring that our incident command system
protocols are adhered to going forward and re-implementing
training in those respective areas.
We are addressing those operational challenges, but I want
to make clear that these measures alone would not have stopped
the threat we faced. To stop a mob of tens of thousands
requires more than a police force; it requires physical
infrastructure or a regiment of soldiers.
Since the 6th, we have hardened the complex, and we know
that some of those temporary enhancements are not popular, but
these are necessary in the short term.
The department is beefing up its flow of information and
now holds daily calls with its intelligence partners.
I would like to thank the committee for their continued
support in ensuring the department has what it needs. I would
also like to thank the chairman for helping the department to
ensure that our officers have the mental wellness resources
that they and their families need.
As to the USCP officers that proudly serve the
congressional community, they fought bravely on January 6. They
are heroes.
I am ready to answer your questions. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Blodgett. Chairwoman DeLauro, Ranking Member Granger,
Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and the members
of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Leg. Branch, thank you
for the opportunity to testify today on the security failures
of January 6.
Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the debt of gratitude
we owe to the officers of the United States Capitol Police,
Metropolitan Police, and the law enforcement partners who came
to the aid of the institution and risked their lives so that
our Constitution and democracy could endure. I cannot thank
them enough.
I want to thank Congress for helping provide a fitting
tribute to Officer Sicknick. We mourn as a community for the
loss of his life, but the recognition rightfully bestowed upon
him hopefully served as a moment of healing for the Capitol
Police and for all law enforcement who make sacrifices on a
daily basis to provide for our safety.
And I want to acknowledge the sacrifices of Officer
Liebengood and Smith and their families. Their sacrifices will
never be forgotten.
And I, finally, want to thank the National Guard who have
come from near and far to keep our city on the hill safe. They
have left their families amidst a pandemic to work in uncertain
environment, and their presence makes us safer.
As I stated in my previous briefing to the Appropriations
Committee, the intelligence surrounding January 6 was
problematic. Intelligence requires finding needles in a
haystack. On January 6, there was a failure to either gather,
synthesize, or disseminate intelligence, and there were
indications that the intelligence was muddled or contradictory.
For example, the January 3 intelligence assessment from the
Capitol Police has been touted to include information that
makes it clear that January 6 would become violent. However,
the document also states that the protesters' rallies were
expected to be similar to the previous Million MAGA March
rallies in November and December of 2020, which drew tens of
thousands of individuals.
As we know now, the events of January 6 were not like the
previous marches or any other rallies that we have had on
Capitol Grounds. The intelligence provided to the Capitol
Police and other law enforcement did not anticipate a
coordinated attack.
Warnings should not be qualified or hidden. Bad
information, conflicting information, or missing information
leads to poor decisions.
In fact, when the Capitol Police presented this assessment
to the Sergeant at Arms, they simultaneously briefed on the
plan of action for January 6, and one would think that the plan
was developed taking into account the intelligence that they
were seeing at the time.
One would also expect the warnings to be reflected in all
subsequent intelligence reports. The Office of the Sergeant at
Arms received daily intelligence reports from the Capitol
Police following the initial assessments referenced on the 3rd.
On January 4, 5, and 6, the Capitol Police listed
demonstrations and categorized the probability of civil
disobedience or arrests as remote, highly improbable, or
improbable for each of those days and for every single
demonstration.
The characterization of the threat posed by these protests
only reinforced the notion and thinking that they were similar
to the two previous demonstrations and not the violent
insurrection that we experienced.
The Office of the Sergeant at Arms is a consumer of
intelligence products. We do not independently acquire or
analyze intelligence. We are dependent on the Capitol Police
and the intelligence community to provide timely, accurate, and
succinct intelligence to help guide our decisions.
And it pains me to say it, but the intelligence missteps
cascaded into inadequate preparation, which placed the health
and lives of frontline officers at risk. While frontline
officers did everything they could that day, the Capitol Police
was prepared for a First Amendment event but not adequately
prepared for the events of January 6.
For example, former Chief Sund noted in his letter to
congressional leadership that he had expedited the delivery of
approximately 104 helmets to officers. It was a good decision
to expedite the delivery of the helmets, but it also raises
question as to why the officers did not have the helmets on
hand. I support any efforts we can to acquire all gear for our
officers to keep them safe and to be able to keep the gear on
hand that express the support to the Capitol Police Board.
Proper planning before an event will provide the needed
support to the officers on the line and help ensure that the
event does not turn into a crisis. We must also prepare for
contingencies. The failure to prepare for contingencies can
result in greater difficulty in execution.
Security examinations are currently underway to make sure
that we are prepared for the next January 6. Lieutenant General
Honore and his task force have been working to not only examine
the security postures on the Hill but also the security of
Members traveling, as well as in their districts. My office has
worked in coordination with General Honore and his team to
support this critical tasking. This could prove to the valuable
input in how we better align the Office of the Sergeant at Arms
to provide security services to Members.
In the aftermath of January 6, I know the Office of the
Sergeant at Arms must provide more to Members and staff to keep
them safe. These better services will come with an accompanying
cost. I have committed to carefully stewarding the funds that
the subcommittee provides.
Funding is an important aspect, but just as important, if
not more so, is the right organizational structure. A new look
and perspective will help inform my own proposals this
subcommittee will see. I also support necessary infrastructure
improvements, support the changes to the Capitol Police will
propose to its FTE structures, equipment upgrades, and, more
importantly, the investment in its officers.
The Capitol Police and the Office of the Sergeant at Arms
will evolve to better secure Congress. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify, and I welcome your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Chief Pittman and Acting Sergeant at
Arms Blodgett. We appreciate it.
Chief Pittman, let me start with you. First, let me say
thank you to you for--the lines of communication have improved
dramatically over the past weeks, and I want to just say thank
you to you and your team, Chief Pittman, for making sure you
are staying in contact with the committee and the Congress.
I have a couple questions. So you were talking about
increasing the size of the dignitary protection, posting
dignitary protection agents, extending coverage of the
investigations division.
So, when you said you increased the size of dignitary
protection, how many people were increased there? How many law
enforcement people were increased?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. Thank you.
So we went from four-man protection details and increased
that to six-man protection details.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. So that is--I mean, that is not a
significant increase at all when you are talking about, you
know, what we went through.
How about some of the other things you mentioned? So you
embedded an analyst, deploying countersurveillance agents. So
how many countersurveillance agents did you deploy in the
morning of the 6th?
Acting Chief Pittman. So we deployed all of our
countersurveillance agents that we have available to us. We
also increased our open-source operations, if you will, to go
from a 16-hour day to--we separated our manpower to ensure that
we had open-source operations around the clock.
So all of our PSB operators, if you will, which includes
dignitary protection, the investigations division, as well as
intelligence, were operating on a 24/7 platform.
Mr. Ryan. No, I understand that. And my main point is that
this is not in any way a significant increase in the amount of
law enforcement that were out there. Moving a detail from four
to six, even if you did that multiple times, is not any
significant increase.
And I guess the question I have is that, if you felt like
and everybody felt like this was adequate, why was Chief Sund
trying to press the Sergeant at Arms for more help?
Acting Chief Pittman. So let me just be clear. As it
relates to dignitary protection, that is just a small portion
of U.S. Capitol Police. So there is a limited number of
dignitary protection agents that are specially trained in that
area. So increasing from a four-person team to a six-person
team essentially is all of the dignitary protection agents that
U.S. Capitol Police has available to them.
Mr. Ryan. No, I----
Acting Chief Pittman. So there was----
Mr. Ryan. I understand----
Acting Chief Pittman. So going from that four-person team
to six is every person that we have.
As it relates to the operational side of the house, that is
where the bulk of the agency is employed, by the Uniform
Services Bureau. So that is where the increase came primarily
from, as it relates to forming up those civil disturbance
units.
So, prior to that January 3 assessment, the operational
plan required for four platoons to be activated for the January
6 event. Uniform operations increased that platoon size to
maximize its strength to seven platoons. That is essentially
every available officer that we have to form up our CDU units.
That is 276 officers, approximately, with 40-person platoons
each.
Four of those platoons--excuse me--three of those platoons
comprise of hard platoons. Those are the officers that you see
in the hard turtle gear. And they have extra, if you will,
less-than-lethal options available to them as well as tactical
gear, sir.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. And I appreciate that. But my point is
that, clearly, Chief Sund didn't think that was enough, because
he was going to the Sergeant at Arms, Mr. Irving, and saying,
``Hey, we need more help.'' And so he knew--did you feel that
same way?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. So I have an accurate
account of the request that Chief Sund made to lean forward as
it relates to the National Guard. And I think that is what you
are referring to. My team, since January 6, actively pulled all
of the cell phone records from Chief Sund, and they show the
following:
On January 6, Chief Sund first reached out for National
Guard support to the House Sergeant at Arms at 12:58 p.m. He
then spoke to the Senate Sergeant at Arms to make the same
request for the National Guard at 1:05 p.m. And he repeated his
request to the House Sergeant at Arms at 1:28 p.m., speaking
again with them at 1:34, 1:39, and 1:45.
Chief Sund spoke to both Sergeant at Arms to request
National Guard support----
Mr. Ryan. Now, Chief Pittman, I don't mean to interrupt
you, but we are limited on time here a little bit.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ryan. I am talking about prior to January 6.
My main point here is that--we appreciate that you
increased dignitary protection and the platoons and all the
rest. That is still a limited number. I think it is important
that the committee and the Congress knows----
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
Mr. Ryan [continuing].--That that is a very limited number
compared to what the threat was and what we think the threat
assessment is.
And my question to you is: Chief Sund clearly was worried,
and he called Mr. Irving prior to the 6th----
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ryan [continuing]. And said, ``Hey, we need more
help.'' Mr. Irving said, ``No. Go ask the National Guard to
lean in.''
And, quite frankly, I don't even know what ``lean in''
means, if that is some kind of term that I don't know. But what
does ``lean in'' mean? It means, you know, shut up and don't
ask me for any more help, is how I take that.
And my question is--and we have a lot of questions here,
but my question is: Were you in agreement with--because you are
now the Acting Chief, and part of this enterprise here that we
are into is about moving forward. At that time, were you in
agreement with Chief Sund that you needed more support,
primarily from the National Guard?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. Thank you.
My time is up. And I just want the committee to know, like
yesterday, we are going to take a little bit of liberties with
the time to make sure that these questions get answered. We
have a smaller committee that allows us to maybe do some of
that.
So, with that, I am going to yield to Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Acting Sergeant at Arms Blodgett, if
we could, and then maybe scale back.
You know, when I talk about communications failures, I am
not necessarily talking about, like, the tweets and the texts
that came to Members while this was happening. What you and I
discussed on the phone and what I think is really important is,
I was standing next to officers, both Sergeant at Arms and
Capitol Police officers, as the insurrection was happening on
the House floor, getting to the House floor. It was very clear
that their headpieces, like, the communications pieces, they
were getting no actual real communication. They were getting no
leadership. They were getting no direction. There was no
coordination. And you could see the fear in their eyes. Like,
they literally--the brave men and women who were just kind of
left out on their own to defend did the best they could with
what they had.
You know, there is a video on YouTube where the woman who
was shot--there is a time, you know, with different armed
forces and different forces coming in from different angles.
And it was very clear that the person who shot didn't know that
there was a tactical team coming up the stairs. And they all
have earpieces in.
So, when I talk about communications failures, I am
literally talking about the leadership, no one owning the
frequency and giving direction. And that is the thing I want to
know. I want to know if you are fixing that.
I mean, it is great that you guys send out text messages
when there are, like, you know, closures and things, and that
is helpful. But the big communications failure, from my vantage
point and when I have talked to other Members, is--I have
talked to Representative Markwayne Mullin, who was on the floor
helping barricade the door with those officers who had their
firearms drawn, and he said he could hear the shouting and the
chaos in the earpieces of the officers who were trying to do
the defense. So they were on their own.
Are you fixing that?
And please be brief, because I have a couple more
questions.
Acting Sergeant at Arms, are you there?
Mr. Blodgett. I apologize. I was on mute. I have to
remember to unmute.
Yes, that is something we need to fix, and we need to fix
it immediately.
I believe the Chief acknowledged in her statement--and I
don't want to speak for the Acting Chief--but that
communication needs to be enhanced, either out of the command
center or the incident command post, wherever that is set up,
in terms of that.
In terms of the communications with my staff in the
Sergeant at Arms, we don't control the Capitol Police radios.
While we have the radios and can hear what is or is not going
on, we do not interject during a crisis. We communicate with
our staff via cell phone, text message. And we were in close
contact.
That situation you discussed where Officer Byrd (ph) was at
the door when Ms. Babbitt was shot, it was our Sergeant at Arms
employee who rendered the aid to her at that site.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Can I jump in there?
Mr. Blodgett. Sure.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. You guys are in charge, though, of the
security on the House floor, or are you just there to make sure
that we take our coats off when we are on camera?
Mr. Blodgett. We are there to enforce the rules of the
House, to work in conjunction with the Capitol Police to make
sure that it is safe. We had staff on the floor and in the
galleries as well.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. So can I ask--so, talking about what
happened on the floor, when the Senate was evacuated--and maybe
this will be a Chief Pittman question.
When the Senate was evacuated, it was several minutes--and
I don't have the timeline in front of me--before the House was
evacuated. Why were we locked in and left on the House floor
when there were known assailants in the building and the Senate
was being evacuated? Did we not have a plan for evacuation?
Mr. Blodgett. Yes, we had--the Office of the Sergeant at
Arms put together a plan for evacuating the House floor. The
tactical decision to evacuate would be left to the Capitol
Police, because at the command center they can see what is
going on throughout the campus. We don't have eyes on that.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Okay. Let me switch over, then, to
Chief Pittman.
Chief Pittman, can you speak to the lack of communication
to your officers on their radios? And can you also speak to the
reason that there was a decent time delay between when the
Senate was evacuated and the House was evacuated?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am.
So, as it relates to communications, U.S. Capitol Police
has practiced routine drills, if you will, for the incident
command system since the September 11 incident. On January 6,
our incident command protocols were not adhered to as they
should have.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Why?
Acting Chief Pittman. Basically----
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Yeah. Tell me in specific.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am.
Within an incident command structure, you have operational
order, if you will, and it designates who is in charge of what,
from your incident person, incident command structure on the
ground, as well as a lot of your leadership folks, to include
myself and several other--the other deputy chiefs, are posted
within the command center.
So you actually have a 1,000-foot view, if you will, and
then a boots-on-the-ground view. Those boots-on-the-ground
view, the persons in charge of our civil disturbance unit as
well as those operational commanders that are in charge of the
Capitol, are responsible for that implementation of that
incident command system.
So, when there is a breakdown, you look for those
commanders with boots on the ground to provide that
instruction. That did not happen primarily because those
operational commanders at the time were so overwhelmed. They
started to participate and assist the officers with boots on
the ground, versus providing that guidance and direction, if
you will.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Can I ask--so are you talking about
the officers who were--when you say ``boots on the ground,''
the guys and gals who were literally defending us against the
attackers, are you saying they were responsible for the
communications breakdown amongst themselves?
Acting Chief Pittman. No, ma'am.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. So I want to know why yourself and the
other leaders did not maintain or regain control of the comms
system, because you had a bird's-eye-view advantage.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. So the expectation is not that
those officers would be in charge of the communication, those
commanders would be in charge that were directly responsible,
that those officers reported to. Because they have the tactical
advantage and strategic lens, if you will, with those officers
on the ground.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. But you are saying those commanders
then somehow--and this is an honest question.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. So the commanders failed to regain
control of the comms systems and direct the officers who were
on the front lines?
Acting Chief Pittman. I think it is a multi-tiered failure,
if you will----
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Can I, really quick----
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. You just raised--this is something I
think is really important.
``The U.S. Capitol police union issued an overwhelming no-
confidence vote for the force's top leaders, including acting
Chief Yogananda Pittman `--yourself--'and a half-dozen other
agency leaders.'' ``Pittman drew a 92 percent no-confidence
vote,'' with 657 of the 1,050 union members participating in
the vote.
The vote is symbolic, obviously; it is not actionable. But,
of note, roughly half of the U.S. Capitol Police sworn officers
belong to the union.
So I am frustrated that what I am not hearing is, you know,
``Hey, I was sitting there watching this with a bird's-eye
view, and I tried to''--like, some--I am hearing a lot of
process and a lot of, like, almost explaining why there is a
problem, versus hearing how you are going to make sure that
there is a command center who speaks into the earpieces of the
officers and provides direction and leadership.
Part of the reason there was chaos was because each and
every one of these officers, boots on the ground, commander or
not, had to make a decision with no information. Like, there
was no incoming help, as far as they knew. They had no idea
what you guys were doing.
I mean, my hat is off to these brave men and women. They
saved our lives. And I am frustrated that I am not hearing,
``This is how we are fixing that right now. This is what we are
doing.'' And that is what I expect.
And I know, Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I will wait for a
next round, so I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Yep. Thank you, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Just quickly, as a quick followup before we go to Ms.
DeLauro, in line with what Ms. Herrera Beutler was just saying,
can you give us an explanation, like, about the preparation for
January 6? And was there any special training for the officers
to have them prepared for this?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. So a couple points of
clarification.
Explaining the incident command structure was just
basically to detail what the system was supposed to do. The
executive team here has taken a number of proactive steps to
ensure that incident command protocols are adhered to in the
future.
As it relates to the command staff that are giving
directions in the command center, that was forthcoming. I,
myself, directed the Capitol lock-down on the day in question.
With that said, there are many more improvements to be
made.
As it relates to the vote of no confidence, the numbers are
not totally accurate. Thirty-six percent of our sworn
population, less than half of available officers that could
have voted, said that they vote ``no confidence'' for the
Capitol Police leadership.
With that being said, I think that one vote is one vote too
many. February 11, on the day of that vote, marked 1 month and
3 days since I was sworn in as the Acting Chief. Since then, my
team and I have been working around the clock and the entire
department has been working around the clock, and I think that
we have made some very important changes as well as
improvements.
We are working on the communications to improve that. We
have streamlined a number of items, to include the joint
emergency notification messaging system. We have streamlined
communications between U.S. Capitol Police and our law
enforcement partners. We have also streamlined communications
between the upper management and how that information is
delivered to the rank and file.
In addition to that, we have increased our wellness
resources and the delivery of vaccines to all of our employees.
Obviously, with that vote, we acknowledge that there is
more work to be done. I know that because I talk to the
officers. I have been here for 20 years, and I have grown up in
this agency. Many of those officers are not just my colleagues;
those are my friends. And their personal well-being is personal
to me.
As it relates to CDU training, all of our officers that are
coming out of the training academy receive 40 hours of training
as it relates to CDU.
In addition to that, our officers that have specialized
training, what we refer to as the hard gear or turtle gear,
receive an additional 27 hours of training--or 24 hours of
training for them to be trained on special equipment.
So, to answer your question, Mr. Chairman, there absolutely
is additional training for those hard platoon CDU officers.
Mr. Ryan. Well, I don't want to take up too much time, and
we are going to come back to that. But there wasn't any special
training specifically about January 6, to have them prepared
for that. You are talking about the standard training that they
get, not in particular for this moment in time with all of the
intelligence and everything else that we had. There was no----
Acting Chief Pittman. That specialized training carries
over with those officers. Those officers train on a routine
basis as it relates to hard gear platoons, that they are
prepared for civil disturbance riots. So those officers are
trained specially for those types of events, yes, sir.
Mr. Ryan. Okay.
Ms. DeLauro.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to direct my attention here, if you will, to
the role, the function, the relevance of the Capitol Police
Board.
Can you, either or both--both of you, what does the Capitol
Police Board do? What is its mission? What is its authority?
Mr. Blodgett. Thank you, ma'am.
The Chair. Somebody?
Mr. Blodgett. Yes. Yes, thank you, ma'am.
The Capitol Police Board acts as a policy, kind of, board
of directors over the Capitol Police. There are some statutory
authorities that they do have with vehicle and traffic, and the
Capitol Police enforce those on a day-to-day basis. There is
obviously the emergency and request for executive branch
assistance, protection of leadership overseas, and deployments
are just some of the direct statutory inputs that the Capitol
Police Board does have.
I see the role of the Capitol Police Board as to provide
the policy guidance to the Chief, support the Chief in the
needs that she has to both your committees and then, obviously,
on the Senate as well, and then to take your concerns with the
police and work with the Capitol Police to correct those
concerns that you have, as well as personally providing a House
perspective to the policing of the grounds.
The Chair. And, Chief, what is your view of the role of the
Capitol Police Board?
Acting Chief Pittman. I am sorry, ma'am. You were breaking
up. Could you repeat your question?
The Chair. Oh, sure. Your view of the role of the Capitol
Police Board.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. So the Capitol Police Board, in
my view, provides direct oversight to the United States Capitol
Police. When there are huge or special events that are
occurring on the campus, the United States Capitol Police
develops an operational plan, and they share those plans with
the Capitol Police Board.
As it relates to an intelligence perspective on any types
of events, the Capitol Police Board is kept apprised of any of
those things as well.
But the Capitol Police Board works in close collaboration,
if you will, with the Members of Congress so that they can make
their security needs known. And then that information is kind
of like a two-way communication. The Capitol Police Board would
then share those requirements with the Capitol Police as it
relates to security.
The Chair. With regard to January 6, was the Capitol Police
Board functioning? Did it function? What operational plans were
being reviewed? Is it not the fact that, when there was a
request for National Guard, the Capitol Police Board said that
the optics wouldn't be good or we don't need this or the
request was denied?
There doesn't appear to be--what is its real role? Does it
have a role in oversight of the Capitol Police? I know it does
a lot of ceremonial things, and I appreciate that. Everybody
has to be taken care of. But this board and its--where was the
board, and how did it function prior to January 6 and on
January 6?
Acting Chief Pittman. So, ma'am, if I could answer that
question as it relates to Capitol Police, prior to January 6, I
think it is important to note that, by statute, in order for
U.S. Capitol Police to have the National Guard on its grounds
in a law enforcement capacity, the Capitol Police Board must
first declare an emergency. So, in order for us to----
The Chair. The Capitol Police, your responsibility was to
declare an emergency before the Capitol Police Board could
respond?
Acting Chief Pittman. No, ma'am.
The Chair. No? Okay. Help me.
Acting Chief Pittman. So, by statute, in order for the U.S.
Capitol Police to have the National Guard on our grounds, the
Capitol Police Board must declare an emergency----
The Chair. The board has to?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am.
The Chair. Was there any emergency declared either prior
to, with intelligence information that determined that they
were coming for the Congress, and, quite frankly, in the
midst--what--where were they? Where was this board prior to and
during this insurrection?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am. So it is my understanding
that Chief Sund did make the request to the Capitol Police
Board to declare an emergency----
The Chair. When?
Acting Chief Pittman [continuing]. So that----
The Chair. When?
Acting Chief Pittman. Prior to January 6.
The Chair. Prior to January 6.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
The Chair. And the response from the Capitol Police Board
was----
Acting Chief Pittman. Was that this request was denied.
The Chair. Right.
And the issue was--and I don't have all of my quotes in
front of me here--but that it was the optics of the National
Guard being on the complex that was the concern?
Acting Chief Pittman. Ma'am, I don't have--I was not privy
firsthand to those conversations----
The Chair. Okay. Fine. Got you.
Acting Chief Pittman [continuing]. To say whether or not
they said optics. But I know the request was denied.
The Chair. The request was denied. The request was made
prior to January 6 that we have National Guard on the premises,
and that request was denied by this board.
And it would appear that this board has--I can't get a
delineation, and we will find it, of where its authority
begins, where it derives from, what it is. And does it rule by
fiat? They make a decision and it occurs?
Mr. Blodgett
Mr. Blodgett. Ma'am, I believe that----
The Chair. You are on the board.
Mr. Blodgett. Yes. I am currently on the board, yes. I was
not on the board on January 6.
However, my understanding is it was brought up at the
December board meeting--I would have to go back and check--that
Chief Sund brought up the National Guard to Mr. Irving on the
4th. Mr. Irving, I believe, testified the other day that he did
not take that to be an ask for an emergency declaration. He
talked to Mr. Stenger. I do not believe that the Chief ever
spoke to the Architect of the Capitol prior to that. I believe
that is what Mr. Blanton testified to yesterday, who was also
on the board. So the ask would have to come from all three.
The Capitol Police Board issued a verbal declaration of
emergency to give authority to National Guard deployment on
2:10 on the 6th.
Mr. Ryan. Rosa, if I could just----
The Chair. Please. Go ahead.
Mr. Ryan. Rosa, if I could just follow up here, because I--
--
The Chair. This board seems to be obsolete.
Mr. Ryan. Yes.
The Chair. This board seems to be nonfunctioning.
Mr. Ryan. And I think we are getting to the point here.
So, whether it is Tim or Chief Pittman, it sounds like
there was an official denial in the December meeting for the
emergency order?
Mr. Blodgett. No, no. I apologize. The demonstrations were
discussed. There was no request at that time for an order that
I recall.
Mr. Ryan. There was no request [Inaudible]. And there was
never a vote by the board. And I think this is what is really
important about getting to the bottom of this.
So it sounds like Mr. Irving was taking all of the
authority that the board should have had and was basically
denying Chief Sund's request without even bringing it to the
board.
So that brings up two questions that this committee has,
that I think a lot of us have, is that, who the hell gave Mr.
Irving the authority to not bring requests by the Chief of the
Capitol Police who wants more help?
Mr. Irving makes a decision, a unanimous decision, all by
himself, to deny that request, and then to go say, tell the
National Guard to lean in. That is problem number one.
And problem number two is, why didn't Chief Sund push back
and demand--I think this is a question for all of us--and
demand that he brings that to the board for a vote? So now you
bring in the Architect of the Capitol. You maybe build an ally
to help make this happen.
So it sounds like, Chairwoman DeLauro, that the Sergeant at
Arms took the liberty of making this decision without bringing
it to the full board.
Mr. Blodgett. Sir, if I may, I don't think that Mr.--I
can't speak for Mr. Irving, but he did testify that he did not
take that January 4 conversation with Chief Sund as an ask for
an emergency declaration.
But you have hit on a historical tension on the board.
There was a report in 2002 from GAO and a subsequent report to
Congress by the board at that time in 2003 which talks about,
you know, emergencies and the board and how the structures need
to be tightened and they need to be forward thinking.
And I am happy to provide that report to the committee as
well. But it sums up the tension and it talks about some of the
issues that you raised.
Mr. Ryan. Chairwoman DeLauro, do you have any further
questions?
The Chair [inaudible]. It is critical. Whether it needs to
be revamped, what kind of authority does it have. At the moment
I view it as a vestigial--it is just there. It doesn't appear
to do a hell of a lot nor did it do a hell of a lot to deal
with this situation on January 6.
It is like your appendix. It is just there. It doesn't have
any real function.
So the question is the photos of--footage of Capitol Police
posing for photos with insurrectionists. There are ongoing
investigations, is what my understanding is. How many officers
are under investigation? What is the rationale? When will the
investigation be concluded? When can we get a report?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am.
So right now we have 35 officers that are under
investigation, and we do have 6 police officers that have been
suspended with their police powers being revoked. So those
investigations are ongoing at this time.
The Chair. What was the rationale--what is the rationale
for the investigation? I mean, on what premise are you
investigating them?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am.
If there is an allegation of misconduct, Capitol Police has
what is called a rules of conduct, and it is basically a code
of conduct that governs our behavior as police officers. If
there is a violation of that rules of conduct based on those
violations we make decisions to investigate those officers and
proceed accordingly if discipline is warranted.
The Chair. When is the investigation going to be concluded?
When can we get a report? The investigation is going to be
concluded when?
Acting Chief Pittman. The investigations are concluded
based on typically a 60- to 90-day scale.
The Chair. No, no--okay. Okay.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am. And as soon as we have
that information, we will report it out.
The Chair. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
indulging me the time for going over.
Mr. Ryan. Yes, of course.
Ms. Granger.
Ms. Granger. Thank you.
What I am seeing is--what I was hoping to hear are
important changes and lessons learned and where we go from
here.
What I am hearing is the same old stuff and pointing
fingers and it looks like protecting jobs. And having faced
something as serious as we faced and know that this could
happen again, this is very, very disappointing at the least and
frightening at the most.
And it seems as if, particularly in the communication in
the days leading up to the 6th or whatever, then we have a
system that failed at every level.
And even at the time when we were seeing very, very
serious, dangerous things happening and we were watching--or
participating in the case of Members of Congress--I think that
this has to be looked at and go back and have proof of the
communication and then why in the world could action not be
taken at that time, when there was time to do something.
I would also like, having sat through another meeting where
we listened to testimony, I would like the testimony at the
other proceedings of the Acting Chief and the testimony today
in a comparison of how the explanations have changed.
I think we have got a lot of work to do on this committee,
but I think we have to start with looking at the system and
saying what should happen and who should have the authority to
say, yes, we must have extra help right now, immediately, or,
no, can say, no, you can't have that, because that happened all
up and down and I think we really need to understand that
before we meet again.
Thank you. No more questions.
Mr. Blodgett. Ma'am, I agree that there needs to be more
robust communication, both leading up to an event as well as
during an event.
As we move into the communication realm, we tend to send
out very short, concise, nontransparent messaging for fear of
sending out incorrect messaging. That was something that was
obviously apparent on the 6th, and that needs to change.
And I talked about that at the Appropriations briefing and
I have asked my staff to work on that, because in a big event
like that we have to give you more information, not less.
The canned messaging may be good if there is a barrier that
doesn't go down and you need to go in through another entrance,
but not when it is a considerable life safety event. You need
to have the information available to be able to make the best
decision to protect yourself, and I agree with you that that
needs to be looked at and corrected.
Ms. Granger. In my situation--in some situations the--I
know in my situation I was at Hill House and I was
quarantining, so we were, of course, under threat of a bomb. So
we ran out in the street.
And then what happens out in the street, I had a situation
where a police officer recognized me and said, ``Where can you
go to be safe?'' And I couldn't go back to where I lived. So he
helped me get to where my office was.
We got inside the building, but the security person said,
``No, she is not allowed to go in her own office and be locked
in her office to stay safe.''
So there is a communication problem from the lowest level
to the top level of what is important, what is immediate, and
who has the authority.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am, I agree.
Capitol Police is acknowledging that there are numerous
lessons to be learned from the top down. We are leaning
forward. We are actively working with the task force that the
Speaker has at the request of Lieutenant General Russel Honore.
So we are leaning forward with those recommendations, really
conducting several assessments from the Office of the Inspector
General, our own internal assessments.
But really acknowledging what can we do in the short term
to acknowledge those failures and make sure that those things
don't happen again and then leaning forward to say what are
those long-term projections that we can implement over time as
it relates to training, policies and procedures, equipment, and
things of that nature.
We put a number of requests in the fiscal year 2022 budget
so that we can ensure that our officers have the proper tools
and resources needed so that something like January 6 never
happens again.
We are leaning forward to improve our communications, not
only internally with our officers and leadership, we have also
leaned forward--and I think that Mr. Blodgett and I recognize
the failures of the previous Capitol Police Board as it relates
to communications and we have a robust communications. Tim and
I talk daily, multiple times a day.
So we acknowledge that there are a lot of things that
should have been done differently. But this is an opportunity
for us to make change, and we are making that happen.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Ms. Granger.
I mean, that is the question, Chief Pittman, that I was
getting to about the training and particular training.
Now, here you have the ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee and the officers weren't properly trained to be able
to even know where to take her in that situation, and we find
that unacceptable.
Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks to both of our witnesses and in particular to
Acting Chief Pittman.
I want to thank your department and you for the valiant
efforts to protect us, the Capitol, and our democracy during
the January 6 insurrection and also for the work you do every
single day.
And on a personal note, I want to thank you and your
department for the recent efforts to bring to justice an
individual who threatened me and my staff.
But if we are going to ensure the safety of the Capitol and
our democracy going forward, we must get to the truth and a
complete understanding of what took place.
My goal is to honor those officers who gave their lives, to
honor everyone who was injured, terrorized, and traumatized.
And I cannot get past a glaring discrepancy between
intelligence received and preparation.
So I want to start with the Special Assessment of January
3.
You testify in writing that the U.S. Capitol Police were
aware that there were militia members, White supremacists, and
other extremist groups who were coming to DC on January 6, that
they were armed, that they were targeting Congress and the
joint session certification process, and that they were
motivated by seeing this as the last opportunity to, quote,
``overturn the election.''
That is some ``who, what, when, why'' listing. And you
testified that this Special Assessment was widely distributed
through the U.S. Capitol Police and to the Sergeant at Arms,
including that there was responsibility of sergeants and
lieutenants to ensure that the rank and file got this vital
information. Is that correct?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. That is correct.
Ms. Clark. You also testified that this Special Assessment
was discussed at the January 4 multi-agency meeting. Is that
correct?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. That is correct.
Ms. Clark. And, again, it was brought up on January 5. Is
that correct?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. That is correct.
Ms. Clark. Mr. Blodgett testifies that on January 4,
January 5, January 6 the U.S. Capitol Police listed the
probability of civil disobedience as, quote, ``remote, highly
improbable, or improbable.''
Your own testimony today says that that January 3
assessment, quote, ``foretold of a significant likelihood for
violence on the Capitol Grounds.''
How do you rectify these two polar opposite analyses of the
likelihood of violence?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. So those documents that you are
reading from that state that some groups were going to be
improbable or less likely to incite violence is not even an
assessment. It is a document that is provided by one analyst.
So, for example, there are several, there are hundreds of
documents that are combed through by our task force agents. We
receive information through open source and from a number of
sources, that we have analysts that comb through that
information to put together the assessment.
So if I could explain it as being tiered, the Special
Assessment is the highest tier of assessment rating. That is
the document that you are going--that we are going to use as a
department to make operational plans for any type of
demonstration.
Ms. Clark. So let me follow up on that.
So your testimony is that to make operational plans, you
were going with this assessment that you had that there were
armed militia members coming, targeting Congress, and that was
a significant likelihood of violence. That was your position.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
Ms. Clark. Okay. On January 5, the Norfolk FBI sends
intelligence that says, in part, comments picked up online that
Congress needs to hear glass breaking and doors being kicked
in, blood from their BLM and Antifa soldiers being spilled,
that there were maps being shared of the Capitol tunnels and
facilities, and rallying points for groups traveling to D.C.
It is disputed who saw this report, but you do not dispute
that it was received by the U.S. Capitol Police. Is that
correct?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am. And if I could just
follow up with some additional on that Norfolk document.
That document was sent the evening of January 5. We know
that it was received by task force agents with U.S. Capitol
Police.
But I think that to put it in its proper context, that FBI
document also stated that this is an information report, not
finally evaluated intelligence. It was being shared for
informational purposes but has not been fully evaluated,
integrated with other information, interpreted, or analyzed.
Receiving agencies are requested not to take action based on
this raw reporting.
So I think that I would consider that an additional
document that would feed into the assessment that was
consistent what Capitol Police already knew. We knew the White
supremacist groups and militia groups were coming, and we did
anticipate those groups being violent.
Ms. Clark. In fact, you said there was a significant
likelihood and you had already looped that into the fact that
this was going to be different and targeted at Congress and at
interrupting the electoral college process.
So now we have some disagreement about whether Chief Sund
actually asked for a declaration of a state of emergency. Mr.
Blodgett says his understanding from the former Sergeant at
Arms, Irving, that he says this never happened.
But, boy, does this look like we have a violent situation
brewing. And you sent counterintelligence officers to the rally
that day. You must have seen the crowds that were gathering.
You must have been gathering that intelligence back. That is in
your testimony.
Yet still we come down to this failure to be ready, that
there is, you know, 140 helmets that are ordered, maybe 126
National Guard might be able to come help, when we are at a
significant likelihood of attacks. And however we tier that FBI
report, it fed right into what you knew already.
So my question is in the end of this--and I see that I am
out of time--we had White supremacy that is fueling the
violence, White supremacy that fueled the big lie about our
elections.
Do you believe that institutional racism, that a culture of
White supremacy--and I am not saying any specific person or one
action--do you believe that played a role in the discrepancy
between the intelligence received, the assessment of the
likelihood of violence, and the preparation that left our
officers really at the mercy of the mob?
Acting Chief Pittman. So as the first Black and female
chief of this department, I take any allegation of inequitable
policing extremely seriously. I can assure that you under my
command the USCP will continue to police equitably.
With that said, I have no evidence whatsoever that suggests
that there was any discrepancy based on our security posture
and as it relates to making enhancements or not based upon
race.
Ms. Clark. Do you believe that part of us moving forward on
this--there are many things we have to do, technical and
otherwise.
But how are you going to plan in this new position, with
the morale being so low, and especially for those people of
color in, you know, our Capitol community on your force who see
all of this through a very different lens and life experience,
how are you going to address this and get to addressing
institutional racism that exists in every institution we have
here at the Capitol Police to ensure that this does not play a
role in the decisions that we make?
Acting Chief Pittman. Absolutely.
As the granddaughter of civil rights activists, a proud
graduate of an HBCU university, and the mother of two African-
American sons, I know all too well about the differences as it
relates to policing and institutional racism.
After the Black Lives Matter movement during the summer, I
spearheaded townhall meetings for the first time at U.S.
Capitol Police where I provided a platform for officers to
express their concerns with law enforcement as it relates to
race. We brought in speakers, chiefs from all over the country,
and we provided an opportunity for officers to speak freely so
that we could address some of those morale issues that occurred
after the Black Lives Matter movement.
I am proud to say that from those townhalls we were able to
identify themes, working with our training services division,
as well as the employment assistance program, to ensure that
our officers have the tools and resources that they need to
address things like institutional racism.
We will be leaning forward with the executive team to
continue to ensure that our officers remain trained up on
things such as unconscious bias, implicit bias. But we will
also be providing new platforms to address those themes that
were identified in October of 2020, last year, as it relates to
policing and institutional racism.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Chief Pittman.
Thank you, Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. Hey, Mr. Chairman. Thanks.
I want to start with Tim Blodgett.
Tim, are you there?
Mr. Blodgett. Yeah, I am here, sir.
Mr. Amodei. Hey, listen, first things first, before we move
into where we are going from here, because there are plenty of
people paying attention to the 6th and I get that and I
appreciate that, but in the background of your shot you have a
Buffalo Bills helmet.
And I am just telling--I am not giving you political
advice. I am just saying, quite frankly, the committee chairman
is from the State of Ohio and I don't think they play there.
If you need something, try this book that the chairman
wrote. It is not a page-turner, but the chairman did write it.
So as we go forward, just a thought.
Now let's go to the topic at hand, huh? Hey, I want to
concentrate on where we are heading as a result of lessons
learned from this. And the first thing I would like to do is, I
hope that as we are looking about security examinations and
going forward, that we are taking a holistic look.
And so I want your response to this, which is, listen, I
know equipment is part of it, I know procedures are part of it.
Chief, this applies to your folks, too.
I know training is part of it. I know communication is part
of it. I know standard operating procedures in the future are
part of it.
I want your response to, as we decide what role barriers
play--and in case anybody is missing it, it is temporary prison
fences with razor wire--that we can mold all this stuff
together and say, in a holistic way, okay, so barriers play a
part of it, but we don't want the maximum barrier, you know,
like we are not doing other stuff. It is, like, let's take a
look at what our posture is in terms of how we operate, how we
train, how we talk with the National Guard, how we whatever.
And so I would like, if it is possible, to have you put
something on the record that, as we talk about what the
holistic way to go is, that we evaluate all these tools at our
disposal in a lessons learned sense and don't just go back to
we want to do the maximum of everything.
And the first thing is, it is kind of like working in a
minimum security prison right now. And I am not trying to be
judgmental on anybody. I am just saying, quite frankly, fences
and razor wire are--and by the way, the Architect of the
Capitol should be involved. But, I mean, in terms of placements
and effectiveness as opposed to stark, visual sadness.
So, holistic approach, what do you think, Mr. Sergeant at
Arms?
Mr. Blodgett. I agree there has to be a holistic approach,
sir. The General Honore study, as well as studies that Security
Services Bureau is doing, and any that the Architect may do at
some point will take into account the security hardening that
has to come around the campus, look to a future state. By
future state I don't mean looking at necessarily barriers, but
what new technology can we implement to keep the openness of
the Capitol.
The Chief has a plan for--to attempt to draw down the
Guard, the wire, and the fencing. It won't be as fast as some
people want and it will be longer than other people want.
But we will be working with the committee and leadership on
that, as well as any structural items that have to be done,
especially the big-ticket structural items. Your committee is
going to be fully engaged and your staff. So, we are going to
be looking to you, too.
Mr. Amodei. And I appreciate that, too. So expect that to
be a continuing line of questioning in terms of transitioning
away from the penal institution look for the Nation's Capitol
campus.
I am not putting that at anybody's doorstep. I am just
saying, as we get farther away, we should be able to transition
to something that once again is nonpenal.
Chief, a couple of things for you.
First of all, I am going to ask you this question. I don't
expect you to have the answer right off the top. So you can
just return to us and the other members of the committee.
But I was listening to your testimony and you said tens of
thousands. And I am looking at the documents available to me
and I know that there were approximately 30,000 at the rally
and that DOJ has estimated approximately 800 people entered the
building.
I would just like to know what the source for the data,
unless I misunderstood you, that the statement that there were
tens of thousands of people, and obviously, I am talking about
the Capitol.
And so maybe I am wrong, but I was unaware of the fact.
When you say tens of thousands of people, that means 20,000 or
more to me that were basically outside the Capitol, north,
south, east, or west. And so I would just like you to get back
with us and give us the authority for that statement.
Along those same lines, when you said you had all of your
surveillance people deployed, I want to know what that number
was. And so that is fine for online.
For purposes of my limited time today, there are some
pedestrian issues that are current. And I will give you an
example of the one at I think it is C Street and behind Cannon
right there by the Madison Building where the fencing has been
deployed in a way that for pedestrian people that are entering
that after being screened, they basically put the fence all
over the sidewalk. So you either have to traipse through a
flower bed or kind of see how you can shimmy through on that.
So I would appreciate it if there is someone our office
could contact for purposes of fencing placement and just walk
the perimeter so that if it is something where it can be
relocated so sidewalks are actually conducive to pedestrian
traffic for those who are cleared to enter the campus, that
that can actually take place.
Mr. Blodgett. Sir, I believe we have opened up some
pedestrian accesses as of this morning based on some feedback
we heard yesterday. So if it hasn't been opened, please let us
know and we will look into that.
Mr. Amodei. Well, don't misunderstand me. It is open. You
just have to be able to walk through a flower bed to use the
access point. And, by the way, that is the Metro access, which
has always been open.
It is unacceptable that you have people queuing up to get
through a gate for pedestrian access but the fence has rendered
pedestrian access difficult, to be generous.
Mr. Blodgett. We will take a look at that, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Amodei. Okay.
And then finally I would like to know--that is not you,
that is the Chief and you.
But finally I would like to get a briefing a little later
on what the coordination is between both of your offices and
the AOC in terms of fence design, evaluating the proper places
for whatever those barriers are as we go forward.
And, listen, I am not suggesting an answer. I just want to
know that issue is being worked as opposed to, yeah, yeah, we
will get that later on.
And the final one that I want offline is this. Who has
operational control over the National Guard troops on the
Capitol campus right now?
For example, if there is an incident at that area where I
told you that the gate where the sidewalk is, it is like so, if
something happens there and we have got an incident and stuff
is going, who is in charge? How do they handle that, at least
in the first 30 minutes?
I am hoping that the communication issues that we have been
hearing about are not communications issues in terms of using
those resources in, quite frankly, a coordinated chain of
command if something pops up.
And I will take all those offline later on. I am mindful of
your time, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Amodei.
I would like to just kind of follow up and ask Chief
Pittman if she could answer the question about the tens of
thousands of insurrectionists, what that exact number was of
people on the Capitol complex that were pushing through to get
to the Capitol.
If you could get us that--do you have that number handy,
Chief?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, I do.
So we base that number off the numbers that were screened
down at the Ellipse from the Secret Service. We know that they
screened over 15,000. I believe that number was closer to
20,000. And there were 15,000, approximately, that were outside
of the Ellipse that were unscreened. We know that those groups
left there from our camera footage and came to Capitol Hill.
So that is where those numbers are primarily based off of.
We know what they were able to screen down at the Ellipse.
And then as it relates, a couple of follow-up, if I may,
sir.
First and foremost, there was a question previously as it
relates to evacuation routes. So I am willing to provide that.
I know that some of that information is sensitive, if not
classified, if you will. So I would like to provide a follow-up
answer as it relates to why we evacuated some of the Chambers
in the manner that we did.
As it relates to infrastructure, we are actively working,
as I said, with the task force. And I know that I speak for
everyone here in the leadership when it comes to the fencing
that is surrounding the campus, as well as the National Guard.
We have no intention of keeping the National Guard soldiers or
that fencing any longer than what is actually needed.
We are actively working with a scaled-down approach so that
we can make sure that we address three primary variables. One
is the known threat to the environment. Two is the
infrastructure vulnerabilities. And then that third variable
being the limitations that U.S. Capitol Police knows that it
has as it relates to human capital and technology resources. So
we are actively addressing those.
If I may just add one more point. With that said, we know
that the insurrectionists that attacked the Capitol weren't
only interested in attacking Members of Congress and officers.
They wanted to send a symbolic message to the Nation as who was
in charge of that legislative process.
We know that members of the militia groups that were
present on January 6 have stated their desires that they want
to blow up the Capitol and kill as many Members as possible
with a direct nexus to the State of the Union, which we know
that date has not been identified.
So based on that information, we think that it is prudent
that Capitol Police maintain its enhanced and robust security
posture until we address those vulnerabilities going forward.
Sir, as it relates to the fencing and the problems with the
pedestrian access, I will reach out to your office today and
make sure that I will lean forward by taking action, working
with the House Sergeant at Arms, to ensure that pedestrian and
staff that need to traverse the grounds are able to do so in a
safe and efficient manner.
And one more side note for the chairman. You said that you
were from the great State of Ohio, and we gave Mr. Blodgett a
hard time about his Bills. I can tell you that my husband is
from the great State of Alabama. And we are avid Roll Tide,
Crimson Tide, national champions and fans. So I just had to put
that plug in there for my Roll Tide fans on the call. Thank
you, sir.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Chief. That will get you nowhere with me,
I will tell you right out of the gate, as an Ohio State
Buckeye.
If you could, Chief, again--Mr. Case is next. Just let me
slide this in because I think Mr. Amodei's questions were
important. What was the number outside the Capitol? We know
that it was 15,000 maybe plus at the Ellipse. How many made
their way down to the Capitol at the bike fencing right after
that?
Acting Chief Pittman. We don't have an exact number. Like
we didn't implement screening that day like Service. But based
on the estimates that we saw from our TV camera, we could tell
approximately who was coming from the Ellipse to the Capitol
grounds. So we know that there were excess of 10,000
demonstrators that traversed the campus on January 6.
Mr. Ryan. So you think it was 10,000 that came to the
Capitol, left the Ellipse, walked down to the Capitol, and then
forced their way in.
Acting Chief Pittman. I think that we were well in excess
of 10,000 that traversed the grounds. But as far as the number
that actually came into the building, we estimate that that was
approximately 800 demonstrators.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. Well, that brings about a lot of questions
around use of force and other things.
Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Blodgett, Chief Pittman, I want to go back to a line of
questioning that I pursued yesterday with the Architect of the
Capitol. And the gist of that is, how do we best figure out
what happened, why it happened, and how to move forward?
The observation that I have is that we need some
independent, objective, outside review and advice. I think even
the best of us in circumstances such as this are hard-pressed
to evaluate ourselves, to evaluate where we ourselves made
mistakes.
Chief Pittman, you were there at the time, so you are not
objective in that sense. And you may have done everything
exactly right, but the issue is that you were part of it. And
so, therefore, the question is, how can we get to the right
overall answers?
And so in that spirit what I would like to ask is, first of
all, just for clarification, exactly what investigations of any
kind do you know are underway right now, aside from obviously
the oversight function of Congress itself, including this
subcommittee?
My understanding is that we basically have at least three
that I know of.
The first, of course, is the General Honore study, which is
focused on the physical security of the Capitol complex.
The second is the Architect of the Capitol, which is
similarly focused on physical security in which he at least has
some outside input through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
their area of expertise.
I also believe, Chief Pittman, that you have referred to an
internal U.S. Capitol Police review. And so I will just go with
you, Chief.
First of all, is that correct? Do you have your own review
underway?
And are either of you aware of any other, more formal
active reviews?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir.
So Capitol Police does house what we call the Security
Services Bureau. It is primarily responsible for securing
national security documents, as well as our physical security
implementation of equipment and/or procedures.
So Security Services Bureau is conducting an internal
assessment. The Office of the Inspector General is also
conducting an assessment. That would be considered external to
Capitol Police.
You already mentioned the task force that is being led by
General Honore. They are conducting an assessment primarily as
it relates to infrastructure, as well as some of our policies
and procedures.
And then, lastly, the GAO is also conducting an assessment
of the January 6 event.
Mr. Case. Okay. So let me just go to those.
So when you refer to the Office of the Inspector General,
just for my own clarification, what are you referring to there?
That is not the GAO. It is who?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. So the Office of Inspector
General is independent of Capitol Police. They provide
oversight typically to the Capitol Police Board and some of our
appropriators as to the operations, if you will, to Capitol
Police.
They not only do this for incidents like the January 6
event, this is an ongoing independent review that is routinely
analyzing Capitol Police's policies and procedures.
And then, once they make those analyzations, they then turn
that information over to the board and make recommendations
that Capitol Police must adhere to, to ensure that we are
adhering to the best practices for a Federal agency.
And I would just turn it over to Mr. Blodgett in case he
has any additional as it relates to the OIG.
Mr. Blodgett. Thank you, Chief.
The inspector general is going through and investigating
various points along the January 6 timeframe, the different
units, and will be coming out with a series of reports on that.
Other than the reviews that the Chief has spoken of, I am
unaware of any other independent review, other than the
criminal cases that are going on.
Mr. Case. Well, there is certainly the overall review by
the FBI, which we haven't really made reference to, but,
obviously, that is underway.
So going back to the question of adequate independent,
objective review and advice, you know, it strikes me that the
physical infrastructure side of this, that is a very difficult
question with a lot of difficult decisions to be made at the
end of the day. But it is more about a physical structure to
protect the Capitol and its inhabitants.
What we are really at in these hearings, I think, far more
is the organizational structure of the Capitol, whether that
structure worked, which I think we all have concluded it
didn't, whether the failures were failures of people under
difficult circumstances or failures of systems or exactly where
those failures occurred, and how can we correct for those to
ensure that they don't get repeated.
And so, Chief Pittman--and I would also observe the
Architect of the Capitol yesterday observed the possibility of
engaging other parts of our Federal Government who have dealt
with similar crisis management situations and have come up with
their own best practices. For example, the Architect mentioned
the Department of Defense, also the Secret Service.
Chief Pittman, I have got ask you pretty straight, because
I am concerned about your objectivity, not you personally,
Chief, but somebody in your situation who, again, was, you
know, there, have the responsibility and obligation and, as you
said, friendship with many of your colleagues.
I am concerned about the ability in that context to develop
that kind of independent, objective review that I think any of
us would want. I mean, it would be comparable to asking a
Member of Congress to investigate and conclude ethics
investigations against him or her. So that just doesn't happen,
right?
So what do you think? Do you think that we have the right
processes in place to get to the bottom of this and to make the
corrective judgments that we have to make going forward? Do you
see a need for any further review or structure, or what do you
think about the possibilities of the DOD and/or the Secret
Service or some other structure?
I think I would add to that--excuse me, Chair--I would add
to that that Mr. Amodei's line of questioning was resonant with
me in terms of looking at a more holistic view of this, meaning
an across-the-board review, where we are not thinking in terms
of stovepipes.
My observation here is that there is a lot of stovepiping
going on and not a whole bunch of communication across the
board, and that structure broke down. And in that way it is not
all that dissimilar to some of the critical and tragic, in
retrospect, mistakes in systems that occurred around 9/11.
So how do we crack through all of this, Chief? What is your
thought on it?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. So I know that there are the
three independent after-action reviews, if you will, in
addition to U.S. Capitol Police's internal assessment by the
groups that I identified.
It is also my understanding that at the Speaker's request
there is going to be a 9/11-style commission, if you will,
similar to what occurred after the 9/11, September 11, attacks.
So I believe that those groups of independent evaluators
will come in and advise things that we can do in addition to
what the external evaluators will provide as well.
So I think that is going to be key and prudent going
forward, soliciting those from outside of even the
organizations that we have named, that would come in and
provide that independent assessment and review to state how we
would go forward, particularly in the long term.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Chief.
Thanks, Mr. Case.
Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate both of you being here with us this morning.
Kind of along the same lines as Mr. Case's questions, both
of you are members of the Capitol Police Board where--you
weren't at the time of January 6, but, as the structure is,
your positions are. And you receive information from different
agencies about threats to the Capitol, et cetera. We have heard
that process.
We learned earlier this week from testimony given in the
Senate that the Capitol Police Board did not receive an FBI
threat report warning that there were people traveling to
Washington to commit acts of violence.
Ms. Pittman, you on January 6 were the Assistant Chief of
Police of the Department of Protective and Intelligence
Operations. I hope I have that title correct. This morning I
believe I heard you say that the Capitol Police did, in fact,
receive this said report on January 5.
So, I guess, kind of like I said, along the lines of Mr.
Case's questioning, tell me what should have happened or what
you did to make sure the police board got that very important
information. Or they say they didn't. So why didn't they, and
what happened? What broke down to where a critical piece of
intelligence was not shared with the decisionmakers that maybe
could have allowed a better preparation prior to January 6?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir.
So that FBI document that was shared on the evening of the
5th, it was shared with task force agents that are embedded
from Capitol Police with the FBI.
They, in turn, sent that email that they received to a
lieutenant within the Protective and Intelligence Operations
side of the House. That information was not then forwarded any
further up the chain.
So that is a lessons learned for U.S. Capitol Police. And I
have put in corrective measures to ensure that going forward
information is shared in a timely fashion and it is shared
appropriately going up the chain of command.
With that said, we do not believe that based on the
information in that document we would have changed our posture
per se. The information that was shared was very similar to
what U.S. Capitol Police already had in terms of the militia
groups, the White supremacist groups, as well as the extremists
that were going to participate in acts of violence and
potentially be harmed--armed, I should say--on the campus.
So moving forward, we have put in corrective internal
controls to ensure that information is shared in a timely
fashion, because we understand that that was a breakdown in
communication. We own that and we have taken protective--
corrective measures to change that going forward.
Mr. Newhouse. But you just said, if I understood you, that
even if it had moved up the chain, you wouldn't have done
anything different.
Acting Chief Pittman. That is correct, sir. We do not
believe that that document in and of itself would have changed
our posture. We believe it was consistent with the information
and intelligence that we already had, that those groups were
going to be violent and they were expected to participate in
unlawful activity on the campus.
The one thing that we were already leaning forward and
asking for was additional resources as it relates to the
request for the National Guard. That request at that time had
already been denied. And we made that request repeatedly after
January 5, to include several more denials before the National
Guard were actually on campus. So that would be the request
that we did make after the fact.
Mr. Newhouse. Well, I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, would it be proper to ask for the committee
to be able to see firsthand copies of some of these reports
that are being referred to? That would give us better
information and context as to what they were seeing.
Mr. Ryan. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
One more question. I know my time is running short, but I
appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
While I was on the floor of the House as the building was
being broken into, my staff was in Cannon, in my office in the
Cannon Building, and at that time there was a pipe bomb that
had been discovered near the Cannon Building. So we received--
but let me just try to recount that day as accurately as I can.
My staff received an emergency notification from the
Capitol Police about an evacuation of the Madison Building. I
believe that was at 1:10 p.m. The next communication that they
received from the Capitol Police were officers running down the
hallway, banging on doors, and yelling to people to evacuate
immediately, not identifying themselves. So there was a little
bit of vagueness as who was telling people to come out of their
offices.
And then it wasn't until nearly 15 minutes later, after
they had evacuated, that they received official notification
about the evacuation of the Cannon Building. That was at 1:23.
So, I guess, as an Appropriations Committee, my question
has to do with, despite substantial resources that we have
appropriated to your department, at the request, obviously, of
your predecessors, the emergency notification system seems to
continue to have issues.
And so, Madam Pittman, I would just like to ask the
question, under your management now, what kind of changes are
you looking at to rectify the notification system?
Acting Chief Pittman. Sorry. I was having a little trouble
with the mute button.
Yes, sir. So we have made a number of changes going forward
as it relates to our communications, one primarily being those
canned messages that the department refers to in our Joint
Emergency Mass Notification System. I believe that Mr. Blodgett
referred it to earlier as well.
We understand that those pre-prepared messages, if you
will, do not give the congressional community in times of
critical incidents enough information to proceed accordingly on
the campus. So we are working with our Command Center staff to
make sure that they are not just pushing out those pre-prepared
messages, but actually providing more accurate, timely
information to the community.
We are also leaning forward, working with our law
enforcement partners, as well as community partners like D.C.
HSEMA, to make sure that our community notifications and
improvements are coming from the U.S. Capitol Police's Command
Center.
We have also implemented several daily calls as it relates
to intelligence and the information that we are able to share
in a timely fashion by embedding not only our agents and some
of the known law enforcement leaders as it relates to
intelligence--for example, the FBI--but we also have the law
enforcement intelligence leaders embedded now here at Capitol
Police. We believe that that will help to streamline the
relaying of that information.
And also to piggyback just on one of your other questions
as it relates to the FBI document, and it ties right into how
we are streamlining communications, the FBI already has a Joint
Terrorism Task Force executive committee, if you will, that is
responsible for sharing all important communications with law
enforcement leaders.
We believe that that intelligence document, if it had been
priority--and as I stated before, it states on the document
itself it wasn't for action--we do understand that that
executive committee would have streamlined the communication
with law enforcement leaders, if you will, not just hearing it
at the lowest level.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Newhouse. Let me just observe about the notifications.
The substance of the message, that wasn't the issue. My
conjection is that if there is a 15-minute delay in emergency
notifications, then really there is not an emergency
notification.
And by the way, those other notifications you are talking
about are helpful, but they are kind of like the boy that cried
wolf. If we get six or eight notifications for one incident in
a building on campus, pretty soon you stop looking at them,
just to throw that out there.
And, Mr. Chairman, I know I am over my time, but would you
allow me one more question?
Mr. Ryan. Yes, since I love you. Go ahead. Make it quick.
And let's have a quick answer, too, from Mr. Blodgett.
Mr. Newhouse. I will make it really quick.
This is to Mr. Blodgett. And I know you have heard this
question before, but I didn't hear it this morning so I wanted
to bring it up.
You said at a briefing the other day that it is your
decision here. But I just want to ask about the magnetometers
entering the Chamber of the House.
Tell me what the security rationale there is for placing
those there. You know, as Members, we don't have to pass
through these devices to enter any other location on campus. So
I am just curious as to what causes the threat to be imminent
right there on the House floor.
And then, to your knowledge, is there any exceptions to
Members who--whether or not they have to pass through there?
And this is not meant to be a political dig, but this was
an observation on the 4th of this month that Speaker Pelosi was
observed entering the House Chamber without going through the
metal detectors that she, herself, I believe, have ordered to
be in place.
So could you reflect on those questions for me?
Mr. Blodgett. Thank you, sir.
After the briefing, my attorney slapped me in the head and
reminded me that the House voted H. Res. 73 and directed fines
for complete screening security at the entrances to the
Chamber. So the screening at this point is within the House
rule and we are there to enforce the rule.
In terms of putting up the magnetometers, we had Members
stating that they were carrying on the House floor. 40 U.S.C.
5104 states that firearms aren't allowed in the Capitol.
However, the Capitol Police Board can have regulations to
deal with that. There is a 1967 Capitol Police Board regulation
that states that firearms are not allowed on the House floor.
So I have to protect all the Members. I have to protect
them anywhere. Congress is particularly suited to change that
if they don't want me to enforce the statutes that they enact.
And in terms of enforcement, I rely on the Capitol Police,
who are the experts in the screening, to tell me if a Member
has not adequately gone through security screening.
Once I receive the report from the Capitol Police, that is
when I impose the fine, not because someone said, hey, they
didn't do it. They are not the experts. The Capitol Police are
the experts.
Mr. Newhouse. Are there exceptions to the usage of this--to
the requirement to go through?
Mr. Blodgett. No exceptions. There may be someone with a
medical exception card, which will be consistent with the
Capitol Police screening. There are methods that the Capitol
Police have to deal with that. So, if there is a medical
exception, that will be different, but that will be consistent
with the Capitol Police policies.
Mr. Newhouse. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
Chief Pittman, I just want to follow up on something that
Mr. Newhouse brought up, and this has been kind of a theme
throughout the hearing here. You are saying the FBI document
wouldn't change anything. And, you know, the average person
sitting in Ohio right now is saying, ``Wait a minute. You got
this information through the Capitol Police. The FBI was saying
the same thing.'' It is a whole other issue that that didn't
make its way up to you or to Chief Sund. That is a whole other
issue about communication and all the rest.
But when we are sitting here having this conversation the
average person is saying, ``You are getting all this
information of threats. You know these groups are going to be
down there. What is your definition of a credible threat?''
And it is not that you would necessarily have to do
something super-, like, proactive and go after anybody, but,
knowing all that, knowing the tone and the tenor in the
country, knowing the rally was happening, why wouldn't we have
been prepared for the worst-case scenario? That is what the
average American is sitting home thinking about.
So, in a pointed way, can you tell us very clearly, what is
your definition of a credible threat?
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Acting Chief Pittman. Absolutely.
So a credible threat is a threat that can be acted upon.
What is the intention? Is there an opportunity for the
individuals to actively engage in this threat? Do they have
access to the means of making that happen?
As it relates to U.S. Capitol Police changing its posture
because of that FBI document, I believe that the clarification
should be that we were already leaning forward based on that
January 3 assessment. So we were already leaning forward to
increase those CDU platoons, we changed the security perimeter
plan, and all of those things that I mentioned as it relates to
how we beefed up what we had.
With that said, I agree with you, Chairman. Hindsight is
20/20. There are numerous lessons to be learned. If we were
planning for a level 6, I believe that Chief Sund, if he could
get that day back, would have planned for a level 10 security
posture. We would have had assets and resources on the ground
prior to. We would have changed from bike rack to the global
fencing that we have in place now. But all of that is lessons
learned.
And we still have a lot more to learn. But I think that it
should be acknowledged that we were already preparing for what
we knew was going to be violent acts and civil disobedience for
that day, bringing in essentially every employee we had
available to us and reaching out to our law enforcement
partners to make sure that we had some pre-staged, if you will,
which is why we had the immediate response from the
Metropolitan Police Department. We are so thankful for them, as
well as the U.S. Secret Service.
With that said, there were those additional requests for
the National Guard. So there were several security enhancements
that were requested, but, with that said, it wasn't enough. It
was not enough.
Mr. Ryan. I don't understand why Chief Sund and yourself
weren't pushing for a full vote at the board. That, to me--if
it was such a priority for you, then why wouldn't you say, ``I
want to force a board vote, let's bring in the Architect of the
Capitol, you know, we want to know exactly''--I mean, to me, it
is, you know--and you are right, hindsight is 20/20. But, given
everything going on, and there are going to be 15,000 people up
the street, you know, to me, you adding two more dignitary
protection people here or there and a couple people to go into
the crowd, that is fine, and that is needed, but the reality of
it is, even if you got to the National Guard, it was just a few
hundred. We needed the whole thousand at the D.C. and Maryland
and Virginia and all of that.
And so, to me, it is--you took the intelligence and I feel
like you didn't put it all together and synthesize it in a way
and go, ``Holy cow, I mean, something really bad can happen
here, and, given everything else going on, we need to be ready
for that.''
And I don't think saying that, well, the Secret Service,
you know, didn't see a threat either--that, to me, doesn't cut
it either, because who cares? So they got it wrong too.
Like, I mean, that is the underlying issue here. And really
just trying to understand--moving forward, I think it is going
to be important for us to really understand what is a credible
threat in this new reality that we are living in.
Ms. Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the witnesses for appearing today and for
everything that you do to keep our community safe.
And I want to thank you also for acknowledging the officers
who died as a result of the events of January 6 in your written
testimony and in your testimony here today.
Chief Pittman, I just want to be absolutely clear for the
record, do you acknowledge that the death of Officer Brian
Sicknick was a line-of-duty death?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am, I do.
Ms. Wexton. Do you acknowledge that Officer Howard
Liebengood's death was a line-of-duty death?
Acting Chief Pittman. I can't speak to that at this time,
ma'am.
Ms. Wexton. So you are not going to acknowledge that it was
as a result of the events on January 6 that Howard Liebengood
is no longer with us?
Acting Chief Pittman. I cannot speak to that at this time.
Ms. Wexton. Why can't you speak to it at this time?
Acting Chief Pittman. Because it is still under active
investigation.
Ms. Wexton. Well, do you acknowledge--I know that he is not
your officer, but would you acknowledge that Officer Jeffrey
Smith, who was MPD, that his death was a line-of-duty death?
Acting Chief Pittman. I am sorry, Officer Jeffrey Smith is
not a U.S. Capitol Police officer.
Ms. Wexton. So you are not going to acknowledge that his
death was a line-of-duty death either?
Acting Chief Pittman. I am sorry, ma'am. He is not our
officer, U.S. Capitol Police.
Ms. Wexton. So I am kind of concerned--and I know that the
ranking member brought up, you know, that there was a vote of
no confidence for you in the union. And I am kind of concerned
because you are not standing by your officers. I think it is
very clear that Officer Liebengood would still be with us today
but for the events of January 6. And the fact that you are not
willing to stand by him today is very concerning to me.
Now, the Capitol Police does offer death gratuities for
survivors of all officers. Is that correct?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am. As I stated before, I
have been on this organization for over 20 years now. I do
stand with my officers, and there is a large number of officers
that have expressed that they stand with me----
Ms. Wexton. Ma'am, the question--Captain, the--Chief, the
question was----
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wexton [continuing]. Does the Capitol Police offer
death gratuities to survivors for all officers for any reason
that they may have passed away?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am, we do.
Ms. Wexton. And can you confirm whether this has been--at
least been processed for the family of Officer Liebengood?
Acting Chief Pittman. I am sorry, could you repeat the
question?
Ms. Wexton. Has that death gratuity been processed for the
family of Officer Liebengood, that his survivors will receive
that payment?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am, it has.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Thank you.
Acting Chief Pittman. You are welcome.
Ms. Wexton. Now, I want to talk a little bit more about the
logistics and the number of officers that were on duty on
January 6 and what you did to prepare.
Now, on an average Sunday when Congress is not in session,
what would the staffing levels be at the Capitol grounds with
Capitol Police? About how many would be on duty?
Acting Chief Pittman. So, on an average day, our manpower
is driven by whether Congress is in session or out. During the
COVID-19 pandemic, Capitol Police lean forward with an
aggressive ready reserve posture. So we typically----
Ms. Wexton. So, I am sorry, the question was, what would
the number of officers be on, let's say, an average Sunday when
the Congress is not in session?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. So I would say less than 700.
Ms. Wexton. And how about on an average Wednesday when
Congress is in session?
Acting Chief Pittman. So those numbers, upward--pass 1,000.
Ms. Wexton. So that is just an average Wednesday when----
Acting Chief Pittman. It depends on a lot of--I am sorry.
It depends on a lot of factors, but that is kind of average.
Ms. Wexton. So over a thousand?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. And how many would be on duty for some
sort of special dignitary event like a State of the Union? How
many officers would you have on duty for that?
Acting Chief Pittman. That would pretty much be our full
complement, with the exception, we would adjust shifts even for
our midnight officers; they would come in early.
So it is not as cut-and-dry as ``we have X number of
people.'' It just depends on the timing of the event. But that
is typically a full-hands-on-deck, if you will, for lack of a
better term.
Ms. Wexton. And can you give us some sort of ballpark
number of about what all-hands-on-deck would entail in terms of
numbers?
Acting Chief Pittman. U.S. Capitol Police's full strength
right now is over 1,800 officers.
Ms. Wexton. Okay.
Acting Chief Pittman. But, with that said, there is a
complement of officers that would come and relieve those who
had worked, let's just say, a 16-hour shift, because we are a
24/7 operation.
Ms. Wexton. And how many did you plan to have on duty prior
to the January 3 assessment? So, prior to getting that
assessment and making the adjustments that you outline in your
testimony, how many did you plan to have on duty?
Acting Chief Pittman. So the adjustments were made
primarily to our civil disturbance units. A civil disturbance
unit is comprised of what we----
Ms. Wexton. I am just asking you for numbers, Chief
Pittman. I am just asking you for numbers. So----
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, I am just----
Ms. Wexton [continuing]. How many did you plan to have on
duty?
Acting Chief Pittman [continuing]. Giving it context. We
went from approximately four platoons to seven.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. And what do those----
Acting Chief Pittman. A platoon is----
Ms. Wexton [continuing]. Numbers mean?
Acting Chief Pittman [continuing]. 40 officers.
Ms. Wexton. I am sorry?
Acting Chief Pittman. We went up to 276 officers for civil
disturbance units.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. But the other officers stayed the same.
Acting Chief Pittman. No, ma'am. We also--we were prepared
for a 24-hour session, if you will, based on the number of
challenges that would be allowed as it relates to the electoral
votes being counted. We knew that there were a number of hours
that each State could contest those electoral votes, so we
prepared for going over 24 hours with our officers. So our
officers were strategically positioned so that we would have
coverage from 0800 hours on the 6th all the way through January
7, so over a 24-hour period.
Ms. Wexton. So between 1,000 officers on an average day and
1,800 officers on a State of the Union-type day, how many
officers were you expecting to have present for January 6?
Acting Chief Pittman. So we had 1,200 officers at
approximately 12:00 p.m. On that day.
Ms. Wexton. Okay.
Acting Chief Pittman. And then by 1600 hours we had 1,400
officers on the campus on January 6. But the full----
Ms. Wexton. But even before you got that intelligence, you
knew that you were going to have the first, second, and third
officials in line for the Presidency all in the same place at
the same time, correct?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. So you would think that you would make it
more of a security--more along the lines of a State of the
Union than, you know, an average day. And it sounds like, even
with the threat assessment, it was kind of still treated like
an average day.
Acting Chief Pittman. No, ma'am. There----
Ms. Wexton. Now, there was--I am sorry. My time is----
Acting Chief Pittman. Okay.
Ms. Wexton. I don't want to waste my time.
There has been some talk about this January 3 Special
Assessment from your office, which went out on that Sunday. Is
that correct? Sunday, January 3, right?
Acting Chief Pittman. I am sorry?
Ms. Wexton. That Special Assessment from January 3, that
came out on a Sunday and was disseminated to staff within the
Capitol Police, right?
Acting Chief Pittman. That was widely distributed within
the department, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Now, in your written testimony, you said
it was emailed to all officers above the rank of sergeant.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
Ms. Wexton. Does that mean sergeant and above or
lieutenants and above?
Acting Chief Pittman. Above the--lieutenants and above.
Ms. Wexton. So isn't it the sergeants who handle the roll
call and have the most contact with the day-to-day officers on
the street?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Wexton, I apologize;
that is sergeant and above.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. So it did include sergeant.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wexton. Good.
And then there was some discussion from Representative
Clark and Representative Newhouse about these daily
intelligence reports that came out in the days following. Is
that right? You acknowledge that those exist, right?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
Ms. Wexton. And that they were disseminated to the Sergeant
at Arms, the Architect of the Capitol, the various folks within
the Capitol Police as well?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. Wexton. And you acknowledge that the threat assessments
in those were down to remote, highly improbable, or improbable.
Is that right?
Acting Chief Pittman. That is a separate assessment from
the report that was issued on January 3, but that is correct.
Ms. Wexton. Right. But they were subsequent reports that
went out and were disseminated by the Capitol Police. Is that
right?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. And you are going to provide those to
this committee. Is that right?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. Absolutely. Yes, ma'am, I will.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Very good.
I want to follow up very briefly on a question from the
ranking member about the command and the communications.
Who made the call for the commanders to leave the incident
command center and assist officers under assault? Is that a
protocol? Is that a fail-safe? I mean, what do you do when that
happens?
Acting Chief Pittman. Leave the command center?
Ms. Wexton. You were talking about the communications
center and that is why the officers on the ground were left to
fend for themselves when it came to communications.
Acting Chief Pittman. No, it is referred to as the incident
command system, not the command center itself.
Ms. Wexton. Okay, the incident command system.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
Ms. Wexton. Who made the decision for that center to be
abandoned, that incident command system to be abandoned?
Acting Chief Pittman. No, it is not a physical place. It is
a policy and procedure that we have, that we train to for
critical incidents, if you will.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. So that you will have one line of
communication coming from the top down to all the officers on
the ground? Is that what the purpose of it is?
Acting Chief Pittman. It doesn't align one communication
down from the top. It is a structured system. It is tiered. The
person with boots on the ground has certain responsibilities.
And then it defines each of those persons in the incident
command structure, what their role and responsibility is.
Ms. Wexton. So is it safe to say that that structure failed
on January 6?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Thank you.
Now, the United States Capitol Police is notoriously
opaque. You guys have had zero public press conferences in your
department in the nearly 2 months since the attack.
Now, having this kind of a news vacuum creates a community
where conspiracy theories and misinformation can spread easily.
That is obviously something that is very concerning to all of
us.
Why haven't you had any public press briefings?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am. So U.S. Capitol Police
has issued a number of press releases. But, with that said, we
felt like the primary responsibility after an attack like
January 6 was really to focus on our employees, their health
and well-being, as well as providing the necessary information
to our oversight committees.
So we have streamlined those communications, set up regular
calls with oversight and core leadership. So we make sure that
we communicate with them on a regular basis.
Ms. Wexton. But it has been almost 2 months. Will you
commit to having public press briefings in the future, from
this point going forward?
Acting Chief Pittman. No, ma'am, not at this time.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. And I know that you are Acting Chief
right now. If you become the full-on Chief and you are
confirmed as Chief, would you agree to have them at that point?
Or is it just this is not something that you are interested in
doing ever?
Acting Chief Pittman. My priorities would still be my
employees, first and foremost. And I know that I am to respond
appropriately and timely to the oversight committees that
govern not only the U.S. Capitol Police but the Capitol Police
Board.
Ms. Wexton. All right. So you will answer our questions but
not those of the press. Is that what I am getting from you?
Acting Chief Pittman. No, ma'am, I am not saying that I
would not answer questions of the press. But leaning forward,
as we go forward, my priorities still would remain with the
workforce and to the committees that provide oversight, as well
as our appropriators.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Thank you.
And I just have one final question. As a Member who
represents a chunk of the national capital metro region, you
know, looking at all these fences and having these fences
around what really is a beautiful public park on any other day
is disturbing and not sustainable, in my mind.
Chief Pittman and Mr. Blodgett--because I don't want you to
feel left out, Mr. Blodgett--can you reassure us that the
fencing around the Capitol is not permanent?
Mr. Blodgett, we will start with you.
Mr. Blodgett. In my mind, it is not permanent, no.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Thank you.
How about you, Chief Pittman?
Acting Chief Pittman. No. The temporary infrastructure is
only to address the vulnerabilities after the attack of January
6. Our priority is to make sure that the Members of Congress
are safe and that democratic process is protected.
Once we have appropriate infrastructure and human assets in
place, we will lean forward with the removal of the fencing.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much.
And, Mr. Chairman, I am confident that my time has expired.
I didn't see the timer going off, but thank you so much for
your indulgence, and I will yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Yeah. Appreciate it. Great questions.
And let me just say, Chief, I think, you know, we can do
both. We appreciate your communications with us, and that has
improved dramatically, but we also think the American people
and the press need to hear directly from you.
So I would just encourage you to take some time, you know,
in making sure that--the residents of Capitol Hill, Washington,
D.C., the people around the country, after having watched what
happened, would benefit from hearing from you directly.
With that, our final member, Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you.
Right now, I am sort of like the Mariano Rivera of this
committee. A lot of the questions have been asked. But, Chief,
I want to thank you, and, Sergeant at Arms, I want to thank you
for coming forward today.
I want to ask you, Chief, was there any sweep of the
Capitol or the premises around the Capitol ordered for
explosives during the days leading up to January 6?
I ask that question because, as I came to my office that
morning, early in the morning, I was walking on the sidewalk by
Rayburn with some of the protesters. So, obviously, they were
in the vicinity of the Capitol and around the compound,
perhaps, of the Capitol much before the actual insurrection
occurred or the breaching of the Capitol occurred.
So I wanted to know whether you had ordered the sweep of
the office buildings and the Capitol compound for any potential
explosives.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. So U.S. Capitol Police does
daily sweeps of the congressional campus. But, specifically on
large events that are planned for the day, we have K-9
detection dogs as well as additional bomb, HDS units, hazardous
device section. But those officers go out and conduct sweeps,
and they do what we call ``button up the premises'' when we
implement what is restricted to Members and staff.
But to answer your question, yes, sir.
Mr. Espaillat. Yeah, but I am referring--for example, I am
on Rayburn, and as I was coming up Rayburn by the horseshoe
area--are you familiar with that area?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir, very familiar.
Mr. Espaillat. Okay. So you know the area. And there are
green areas there. And, of course, it is a drive-through
horseshoe-shaped entrance to that part of Rayburn. And there
are green areas all around Longworth and, of course, Cannon as
well. And people were just--members of this insurrectionist
group were walking around there very early in the morning.
Was there any sweep whatsoever of those areas for any
potential explosives?
Acting Chief Pittman. So the Capitol itself is what was
closed off. Of course, we had the inaugural platform that had
been closed for a period of time on the west side of the
Capitol Building and then the east front. But the areas that
you are referring to outside of the Longworth and Cannon were
actually open to the public. But those sweeps [inaudible] At
the Capitol Building.
Sorry, I think my system cut off.
Mr. Espaillat. Yeah. So no sweeps occurred around Cannon,
Longworth, or Rayburn, where most of the Members obviously were
before the protest, the insurrection came to the Capitol
Building.
Or nothing occurred, also, the day before, in preparation
for the assault on Congress?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. So U.S. Capitol Police--and
probably I just was a little confused as it relates to your
question. Specifically for the Capitol Building and/or for the
congressional office buildings, House or Senate side, U.S.
Capitol Police conducts daily sweeps, not just for this major
event. But for the event itself, we closed off a portion of the
grounds over at the Capitol.
But, to answer your question, that is daily that we conduct
K-9 sweeps. We have specialized trained dogs, if you will, that
do a sweep of the premises, and that is on a regular basis.
Mr. Espaillat. So that was done on the day and the prior
days?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
Mr. Espaillat. How extensive was that, given that you were
expecting some level of protests in front of the Capitol and
the surrounding areas? How extensive was the sweep effort that
you conducted? Was it as you always do it on a regular basis,
or did you intensify it?
Acting Chief Pittman. We sweep our grounds, yes, sir, like
I said, on a daily basis. So we use a number of deployments of
K-9 capabilities. But I think that if we want to go into more
granular details we probably should talk more in a classified
setting.
Mr. Espaillat. Okay.
Now, you also, obviously, coordinate with local law
enforcement and the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. And
the RNC offices and the DNC offices are relatively close to the
Capitol area. In fact, you know, I walk to the DNC offices. It
is a two-block walk from where I am right now. And there have
been reports that pipe bombs were found near those offices,
near the RNC and the DNC offices.
Were there any sweeps for explosives in those areas prior
or during January 6?
Acting Chief Pittman. No, sir, no sweeps were done at the
RNC/DNC prior to January 6. Those areas are off our Capitol
Grounds proper. It is not in line with our primary
jurisdiction, if you will.
Mr. Espaillat. So was there any communication with local
law enforcement? And since you conduct sweeps on a regular
basis here, as you testify, in Longworth, Cannon, and Rayburn,
was there any conversation with law enforcement about potential
sweeps for explosives in those two sites?
Acting Chief Pittman. So, no, sir. We conduct daily
intelligence briefs with our law enforcement partners. Right
before the 6th, there was a call with all the law enforcement
in the region. But as it relates to them doing sweeps of the
extended jurisdiction, there was no conversation specific to
that.
Mr. Espaillat. I mean, it may be an extended jurisdiction,
but this is just a block away, basically. So it is within eye
view of the Capitol, of Rayburn and Longworth.
The reason why I ask this, Chief, is because a potential
next attack may not necessarily be the way it occurred on
January 6. And so I am concerned that your sweeping operations
for explosives may have to be improved and increased
dramatically to keep us all safe.
I think that it is important that you come back to us at
another point with more detailed information about your
capability to do this and whether or not, in fact--how
extensive was it done on January 6 or the days before the
seditious insurrection. I think it is important that we have
that information and that you have the capability to do that
kind of work.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Acting Chief Pittman. Thank you, sir. Yes, we----
Mr. Ryan. Go ahead. Go ahead, Chief.
Acting Chief Pittman. I am sorry, sir.
Yes, we will evaluate that. I know that the task force that
has been assigned has already leaned forward in making
recommendations in that area.
With that said, while there were no sweeps done of the RNC/
DNC prior to the 6th, we have coordinated routine patrols,
posting officers in a marked unit outside of those areas, to
ensure the safety of the community.
But as it relates to K-9 specifically, we will lean forward
with those recommendations and look forward to hearing what
those assessments suggest and, you know, proceed accordingly.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat, for doing that.
So just a couple quick followups, Chief.
My understanding was that the K-9 units weren't sweeping.
Are you clear on that?
Acting Chief Pittman. We are not sweeping----
Mr. Ryan. You were saying, we were leaning in, all hands on
deck. My understanding was that there were a lot of dogs in the
K-9 unit that weren't being used. Is that true?
Acting Chief Pittman. I will follow up on the number of
dogs being used, but I can tell you right now that we did
conduct sweeps of the campus on January 6. There is no doubt
about that.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. But it was, like----
Acting Chief Pittman. As to the number of dogs that were
used to participate in the sweeps, I would follow up on the
specific number. But as far as the sweep of the campus, those
happen daily.
Mr. Ryan. Yeah. No, I am just saying, the previous answers
that you gave were ``all hands on deck,'' ``leaning in,'' all
of that, and if there were not enough sweeps happening, not
enough dogs happening--because the pipe bombs, were they called
in or were they the spotted? How did you find that information
out?
Acting Chief Pittman. The RNC owner notified us.
But going back to what you said about the sweeps, no, we
are very clear on that, as far as them sweeping the campus.
Mr. Ryan. Okay.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ryan. You are saying that--I just want to be very
clear, because your position has been throughout the last 2\1/
2\ hours--and we thank you for all your time--that it was all
hands on deck. And I remember yesterday, I think it was Captain
Mendoza was saying she was on her way home and had to get
called back. So what does that mean? I mean, that, to me,
doesn't seem like all hands on deck if people were----
Acting Chief Pittman. Absolutely, and thank you, Chairman
Ryan, for providing us the opportunity to clarify.
``All hands on deck'' doesn't mean that they are all here
at the same time. ``All hands on deck'' means that we were
preparing for an operational period that would exceed 24 hours.
So we bring in the bulk of the workforce during the heightened
periods that we expect demonstrations, but we do understand
that our workforce is human. They can't just continually work--
--
Mr. Ryan. Sure.
Acting Chief Pittman [continuing]. Exceedingly past 24
hours. So there is a contingent of the workforce that comes in
to provide relief for those that have been here in excess of 20
hours, sir.
Mr. Ryan. I gotcha.
We have gotten a lot of information here. I want to ask one
final question. I will just say--and I want to thank all of the
committee members for great questions on both sides of the
aisle.
You know, a lot of disappointments here with the
information flow not getting to where it needs to be, but also
the response. Again, what is a credible threat? Many of us
would think that that information that was being presented was
a credible threat.
The lack of pushing from you guys, on your side, both Chief
Sund and yourself, to push the board to have a vote, to push
harder and harder, because, you know, the end result is the
rank-and-file men and women ended up, you know, being put in a
situation that we believe they shouldn't have been in. The lack
of equipment.
Clearly, there wasn't a review of the training. I mean, I
was here years ago when the Governor of Kentucky's plane
started flying in the airspace coming towards the Capitol, and
the evacuation from us was, ``Run like hell,'' you know? We
were all just running out. So that was, I can't remember, 10-
plus years ago, if not more.
So there are all these issues that we absolutely need to
deal with moving forward.
The one question that I get most when I am home in
northeast Ohio is the issue around the use of force. Because it
was clear that the men and women on the front lines weren't
sure what to do as far as how to respond to what was happening.
And, again, that tells me that there wasn't the level of
training beforehand or clarity coming from command throughout
the incidents, which we have heard on multiple occasions from
many of the rank-and-file members.
So what was the use-of-force rules-of-engagement policy for
the rank-and-file members on January 6?
Acting Chief Pittman. So the U.S. Capitol Police use-of-
force policy has not changed. Based on the type of event that
we are responding to, our officers are required to use the
amount of force that is necessary in any given situation.
However, as it relates to lethal force, our officers are only
permitted to engage in lethal force for the protection of life,
either their own or to protect another person's life. As it
relates to the protection of property, our officers did use
less-than-lethal force, which is what they are permitted to do.
Based on that, though, I acknowledge that there are
additional resources that this department needs. There is
additional training that is needed for our officers. I, too,
have been posed those same questions as it relates to use of
force.
So, at this point, I have directed specific commanders,
those persons in charge of the training services bureau, to
work along with the CAO, as well as our general counsel, to
provide that specific guidance to our officers.
So we are leaning forward with the direction that those
persons in charge of those areas of responsibility will lead
the charge in making sure our officers have the training that
they need going forward.
Mr. Ryan. Well, I hope you understand our frustration. And
you weren't in charge, but you were one of the leaders at the
Capitol Police on that day and the days leading up. And it is
really frustrating for us, who have become friends with so many
of these rank-and-file members who take care of us every single
day here, to watch them be put in a position where they are not
told clearly what they can do to protect themselves. And they
have kids, and they have spouses. And, as you said, they are
your friends too.
But, you know, we have to make sure that the leadership of
Capitol Police is operating and functioning at a very, very
high level, especially in this current environment. And I know
you can tell from the committee here and rank-and-file Members
of Congress who don't sit on this committee are extremely
disappointed, extremely concerned that these guys, men and
women that we love, were put in this position.
And you look at the lack of communication, you look at the
lack of--you guys didn't even see the FBI threat assessment.
You know, so it is one thing to say, ``Look, I mean, you know,
we didn't see it, but even if we did, it wouldn't have changed
things.'' Well, that is fine, but you need to see that stuff. I
mean, what is the information flow over there? And how does it
not make its way--because you said you didn't even see it,
right, that you didn't see the FBI report, and nor did Chief
Sund. That is mind-boggling to us, how, given everything going
on, the FBI issues some kind of report that confirms your
intelligence, and it never makes its way to the Chief of Police
or never made its way to you? I mean, what is going on?
You know, I mean, these are legitimate questions. And I
know you are doing daily calls and all of that, but I think, at
some level, it is about judgment. And it speaks to being able
to run an efficient operation that allows for the kind of
information flow in this day and age where we are picking up an
enormous amount of intelligence, making sure that the right
intelligence gets to the right people in a timely manner and
then the response is appropriate.
That is the key there, is to get the intelligence and have
the guts to tell Paul Irving or the Sergeant at Arms, like, you
know, ``I am not leaning in. I am leaning in to you to have a
vote with the police board.''
And, look, it takes a lot of nerve to be in a leadership
position today like the one you are in. And we commend you for
your service and your leadership and, you know, everything you
bring to bear. But this is--you know, minute by minute, things
can go sideways here. And we have to be pushing you and the
Department to run and function at a very, very high level,
because mistakes made at your level lead to what happened here
on the 6th.
And, you know, we are here to support you. That is our job
on the Appropriations Committee, is making sure you have the
resources that you need. But, you know, you have to be clear
with us; you have to make sure you are executing. I mean, these
issues around equipment, it is hard to believe that the men and
women of the Capitol Police didn't have the equipment that they
need.
And so I have made my point. We have taken up a lot of your
time today. You know, please know that we appreciate your work
and we know how difficult it is. But we have to expect the
best, and that is what the American people tell us that we have
to do, and that is our mission here.
As I said in my opening statement, we are just caretakers
here. You know, we come in and we come out. And, you know, your
position, too, people come in and out of. We are caretakers.
And so we have to make sure that, in this moment, with
everything going on, we have to rise to the occasion. And the
American people deserve that.
So I want to thank you, Chief Pittman. I want to thank Tim.
Thank you so much. We are going to continue to be in dialogue.
Again, I encourage you, Chief, to make sure you are trying
to communicate to the press the best you can.
I want to thank our staff on the committee and all the
members of this committee for a good hearing.
And we will continue to be in very, very close touch.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
Tuesday, March 2, 2021.
OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER
WITNESS
JANE SARGUS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER
Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
This hearing is fully virtual, so we need to address a few
housekeeping matters first for today's meeting.
The chair or staff designated by the chair may mute
participants' microphones when they are not under recognition
for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
Second, members are responsible for muting and unmuting
themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that you have
not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the
staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff
will unmute your microphone.
Third, you will notice a clock on your screen that will
show how much of the 5-minute clock is remaining. If there is a
technology issue, we will move to the next member until the
issue is resolved and you will retain the balance of your time.
Fourth, we will be beginning with the chair and ranking
member. Then members present at the time the hearing is called
to order will be recognized in order of seniority.
Finally, the House rules require me to remind you that we
have set up an email address to which members can send anything
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings. That
email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
So let's begin. Today we have Ms. Jane Sargus, the
executive director of the Open World Leadership Center.
Ms. Sargus, thank you for being here today to discuss the
budget request for the Open World Leadership Center. I also
understand that you are also requesting to be called the
Congressional Office for International Leadership and that this
name change is intended to reflect the mission and the
congressional affiliation of the agency more accurately.
This year you are requesting $6 million in fiscal year
2022. This is the same as the fiscal year of 2021 funding.
Although the budget for your organization is small as
compared to the rest of our legislative branch agencies, it has
had a real impact in increasing understanding of and
appreciation for United States democratic values and democratic
institutions in an area of the world where Russia's malign
influence stands firmly opposed to our democratic principles
and national security interests.
Your small but influential organization does this by
facilitating visits to the United States on a geographically
and professionally broad cross-section of emerging leaders from
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Mongolia, North Macedonia, Russia,
Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan, who
might not otherwise have the opportunity to visit the United
States.
And I think that was an opportunity for my staff to try to
get me to screw up one of these countries' names. They tried
but failed miserably.
I understand the center continues to use the strength and
expertise of local volunteer organizations in cost-sharing and
grant proposals to maximize savings. This is a benefit to the
taxpayer, visiting countries, and local communities, a win-win
for everyone involved.
International exchange programs are a proven and cost-
effective way for the United States to remain internationally
competitive, develop leaders friendly to our American
interests, and promote American values worldwide. These
programs support global engagement that is critical to our
prosperity and national security.
We are thankful for your leadership of the center, its
staff, and the many volunteers across the United States who
have worked hard to ensure the success of Open World, or the
Congressional Office for International Leadership. And I like
the new name.
I look forward to your testimony today and working with you
to continue building global relationships.
At this point, I would like to yield to my friend and
colleague from the great Northwest, Ranking Member Jaime
Herrera Beutler, for any opening comments she would like to
make.
Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr.--can you hear me? Yes.
Mr. Ryan. Yes, you are fine.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Chairman Ryan. I am really
happy to begin the fiscal 2020 budget hearing process for the
leg branch agencies. And due, obviously, to the ongoing
pandemic, all 10 of our hearings are going to be virtual this
year, which is unfortunate, but that is what we are dealing
with.
I am really looking forward to working with you, Chairman
Ryan, to put together a bill that includes member priorities
while exercising the fiscal restraint that we can, and that
also means we are going to get this job done.
Ms. Sargus, it is really good to see you again. Now I am
going to screw up and say the old name that is supposed to be
the new name, so please excuse me. But the Open World
Leadership Center has requested $6 million for fiscal 2020, the
same as the fiscal 2021 enacted amount.
So the center provides the opportunity for Congress to
foster diplomatic relationships with leaders throughout Eurasia
and Europe, and in a typical year the center will be conducting
several exchange programs, bringing leaders to the United
States to engage and interact with Members in their districts
in person.
Obviously, the COVID pandemic has forced a bit of a change,
but it is not a permanent one. And despite the pandemic, the
center has successfully adjusted its operations to allow
foreign leaders to connect virtually with Members and their
staff.
In fact, a delegation of national park and national reserve
officials, which were obviously supposed to visit my neck of
the woods to experience the natural beauty of southwest
Washington--and it is unparalleled--but, obviously, this has
been a year of curve ball.
I would like to note that the center's Board of Trustees
have chosen the name of the Open World, to change it from, as
Chairman Ryan said, the Open World Leadership Center to the
Congressional Office of International Leadership--you are not
going to call it COIL, right? I will get good at that--to
better reflect the mission and congressional affiliation of the
agency.
The new name solidifies the vision--I think it is really an
appropriate name--among Members of Congress and clearly
represents what your mission accomplishes.
Finally, I am pleased to see that the center has already
hired a grant writer--whoo--we have talked about that a few
times in the past, to help the agency secure nonappropriated
funds for its mission.
So with that, I look forward to hearing more about the
agency and what you are doing and how you are going to continue
to adapt and grow.
And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan [inaudible]. DeLauro is here or Ranking Member
Granger? Is that correct?
Staff. They are not present, sir.
Mr. Ryan. All right. Thank you.
So without objection, Ms. Sargus, your written testimony
will be made part of the record. Please summarize your
statement for the members of the committee. Once you have
finished your statement we will move to the question-and-answer
period. Please begin.
Ms. Sargus. Thank you.
Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the Open World Leadership Center's
fiscal year 2022 budget.
The budget request, as you say, is for level funding in
2022 that will continue to provide support for operating
expenses of the center.
There is an additional item of note in the budget. As you
say, the Board of Trustees did vote to change the name of the
center to the Congressional Office for International
Leadership, a name that more accurately reflects the mission
and congressional affiliation of the agency.
As a unique congressional center and resource, is a dynamic
catalyst for hundreds of international projects and
partnerships that constituents have developed with emerging
leaders throughout the countries of Eurasia and Europe.
More than 8,000 volunteer American families in all 50
States have hosted more than 29,000 young professionals. Our
dedicated hosts immerse these professionals in American life,
values, and practices, while contributing an estimated $1.5 to
$2 million in cost shares and in-kind contributions annually.
Americans from all walks of life have had to adjust the way
they conduct business because of the global pandemic. The
Center began by asking the question: How does an exchange
program reinvent itself in the time of COVID when there is no
international travel?
The program came to a complete halt and sent us all home on
March 18, 2020. However, the challenges brought on by the
pandemic created opportunities to bring delegates into the
homes of Americans across the country virtually.
As we settled into teleworking, the staff rallied to create
a vibrant and extensive virtual Open World program. Using Zoom,
because of its unique ability to accommodate simultaneous
interpretation, each tele-delegation was introduced to their
future program organizers and their local families that would
host them.
In less than a year, staff designed, developed, and
implemented more than 120 virtual programs with nearly 8,000
people participating from all Open World countries. This
programming engaged Members of Congress and their staff, as
well as hundreds of American host families and program speakers
and presenters.
Unexpected benefits emerged from our virtual programming as
our efforts to utilize teleconferencing revealed the strength
of the relationships Open World has helped to form. From every
country, every region, every walk of life, our alumni from all
Open World countries joined in virtual reunions.
The impact of congressional participation in all these
virtual events was significant and memorable, especially for
the many American hosts who joined in.
Constituents throughout the country are proud to be a part
of the Open World brand of citizen diplomacy. They know that
they are building bridges between Main Street America and
countries in transition.
In fiscal year 2022, we plan to increase the number of
visiting delegations substantially. New delegations will follow
the preexisting groups delayed by the pandemic. To the extent
that circumstances permit, we plan to increase the depth and
breadth of our programs, including pilot programs in Poland,
Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria.
And, finally, in our efforts to stay up to date
technologically, the center embarked on a project that involves
the digitization of our records.
A digital archive will allow the center to demonstrate its
effectiveness and tell its success story. With advanced
analytics, the Center will leverage data to make a more modern
and effective agency.
The archive will not only showcase this unique example of
cooperation between the Congress, that branch of government
closest to its citizens, and the countless American communities
that have partnered with the center, but also to document the
Center's nimble, peer-to-peer approach to exchanges.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today.
Your interest in and support of the Open World Leadership
Center is paramount for our continued success.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Sargus. We appreciate it.
I always get excited hearing about the programs and all the
great work that you are doing. And given everything that has
happened in the country and the world in the last year plus,
these kind of programs and relationships are really essential.
So thank you for that.
We are going to go to question and answer, and I am going
to yield to my distinguished ranking member, Ms. Herrera
Beutler, for the first questions.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I am interested, Ms. Sargus, to hear about the grant
writer and how that is starting and what you see happening.
But I also kind of wanted to understand a little bit better
how in the world you adapted an exchange program in the middle
of a pandemic--I can't believe it has been a year that we have
all been kind of fighting through this--and what challenges
that may have presented in garnering private support, because
that is obviously something we have encouraged you in.
Additionally, I would love to hear about the kind of
changes in the--you were talking about the data--the only word
that is coming to mind is archiving, but digital archiving in
order to better share and expose--I mean, people from southwest
Washington don't always get to come to the Capitol to see and
hear what is happening. But having access to that digitally is
really important.
So those are some of the things I would like to hear about.
And I will turn it back over to you.
Ms. Sargus. Great questions.
We appreciated the language and have taken steps that I
believe will please the subcommittee. Our legislation does
permit us to receive extra budgetary resources. We are doing
this already with the funding we receive from the Department of
State for programs that we have deemed appropriate to undertake
at their request.
We recently hired a staff member who is investigating what
grant money is available to us and will explore, when the
pandemic is over, in a more open fashion ways to make those
connections.
The pandemic did set us back a bit on that effort, but we
are drafting a strategic plan for fundraising and development,
as well as a strategic plan for the future of the Center.
The pandemic's impact on our program was fairly obvious,
and we tried very hard to adapt quickly. But it took us a few
weeks to understand what hurdles existed. We like to call them
challenges, not problems. It did not take long for staff to
figure out that the virtual platform was the only way to go.
We did that by immediately setting up tele-delegations,
such as they are, with the ability to meet their future hosts
and perhaps become engaged with some of the presenters. We
invite the relevant Member of Congress to participate or a
staff member often will participate in these tele-delegations,
and it is a very meaningful experience for the delegates.
We also tried to enhance and grow our alumni program, and
that is where the Zoom platform worked really well, and we have
been able to engage so many of our alumni in all of our
countries. In fact, it has gotten to the point where our alumni
are asking us for engagement.
Our staff has been very busy working on that and hoping to
grow our alumni engagement.
The interest in follow-up is very strong, and when our
alumni are meeting again with their host families it is like a
family reunion. It is very warm. I wish you could see how happy
they are to see each other again. Many of our delegates refer
to their American hosts as their American parents. It is that
kind of relationship. It is very well received and very many
people are happy to have that opportunity.
Thank you.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ryan. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Sargus, let me talk to you about the Indo-Pacific.
You have been so successful in kind of looking to the east
of where we are today, and your mission statement does include
Asia. But the Asia that you really encompass today is really
those countries that Chair Ryan mispronounced, didn't really
include Northeast Asia or Southeast Asia or the countries of
the Indo-Pacific.
I think we talked about this in some prior hearings, about
some further extension of your success to the Indo-Pacific, the
broad Indo-Pacific. I think the other half of the world
deserves that attention as well.
So I know that in the fiscal year 2021 approps bill we did
include language really discussing an orientation towards
Australia as just kind of a foothold perhaps in that area,
putting in the potential of a reverse exchange program. I
certainly would like to see that extended to other critical
countries where we might have the same means and have the same
effect.
Some of the ones that would occur to me would be India, the
Philippines, Malaysia, some other countries that certainly we
could stand some strengthening of ties with and in the spirit
of what you have pursued for over two decades.
Do you have thoughts of whether that is on your agenda? And
do the resources that you have permit you to do that?
Ms. Sargus. Thank you for that question.
The Center considers new countries by a process, via the
Board of Trustees, which is made up of Members of Congress and
other ex-officio Members, who has to consider the capacity and
the resources available to the Center in order to approve the
additional countries.
We prefer to receive requests that are bipartisan and
bicameral, if possible, because the board then considers that
an interest from Congress that permeates both sides, and that
is an important part of their ability to consider any new
country.
Australia came up last year because of a request from the
Senate, but it was not bipartisan, and it didn't exactly fill
the needs of the board who wanted to see a bipartisan request.
Also, when we consider adding countries, we need to
consider funding. It is, and we have some countries of Eastern
Europe now in our wheelhouse, and we can do those countries,
but in the course of a year, in a normal non-COVID year, we can
bring a thousand people.
In that planning, which we do many months out, there is a
certain level of attrition. So when we get the attrition and we
fall below the 1,000, we try to supplement it with pilot
programs in the countries that we have been asked to do.
We have managed to keep the numbers at around a thousand,
but it is generally through the course of the year when we are
able to accommodate additional requests and additional
countries.
Mr. Case. Okay. So I think what I am hearing you saying is,
in order to consider some of the countries in the Indo-Pacific,
you would want a bipartisan, bicameral request to you, number
one. And, number two, you would have to find some extra
resources in the current allocated resources for the current
countries. Is that about right?
Ms. Sargus. That is correct.
Mr. Case. Okay. And specifically as to Australia, since
that seems to be where you are farther along, is that now one
of your countries? Are you still taking a look at it? And what
about the possibility of a reverse exchange program?
Ms. Sargus. That is a good question. The Australia case has
been tabled for now, but we are developing an idea for a
reverse program.
A reverse program would cement relationships between the
professionals in the United States who are meeting with their
peers from Open World countries.
We are also drafting a whole program outline for that. I
would be happy to share that with you when we finish.
There are lots of things to consider with a reverse
program, and I would say the most important one to consider is
how are individuals in the United States nominated to travel.
It is tricky, and Open World does not want to be a travel
agency, so we don't necessarily want to be a part of the
logistical effort. But we are exploring some options about that
because we feel it is important that we manage the outcomes and
not so much the process and logistics of bringing--of taking
people abroad.
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ryan. Mr. Amodei. Mark.
All right. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
Ms. Sargus, I appreciate you being with us this morning.
Thank you for taking time to share with us your plans for the
coming year.
Let me, first of all, compliment you for not asking for an
increase in your appropriation. We have gone through a
difficult year as a country, obviously, and a lot of
unanticipated challenges. And I just wanted to say it has not
gone unnoticed that you are managing and being able to do so
with the same level, budget level.
And just to expand on that a little bit, could you share
with us the process that you went through? I am not sure
whether to call you Open World or the Center, I think, yet. But
could you share with us how--the process you went through to
reprogram funds from the way you used to do things until how
you do them now? Could you enlighten us on that?
Ms. Sargus. Sure.
In a typical year, we provide grants to a number of
independent NGOs around the country, and the grants are the
mechanism by which delegates are brought to the U.S., with the
programs are written for them or set up for them.
Under COVID, of course, without travel, we had to think
about how to implement the program within the parameters of the
existing grant amount, and we encouraged our grantees to come
to us and offer suggestions and proposals for engaging with
delegations.
It was a remarkable response from all the grantees. It got
to the point where the local hosting organizations were also
very interested in participating in the Open World program.
We had a number of requests just for the alumni to meet
with their host families, but we decided that we wanted to have
professional programs, not just open world program alumni
reunions. So we engaged speakers and presenters, and with the
help of our logistical contractor we were able to manage these
events on a Zoom platform.
We are able to do multilingual programs now. In fact, we
had one this last week that had four languages. So Zoom creates
an interpretation channel, which is really important.
We provide full interpretation and all kinds of other
support for these tele-delegations. We participate in them. I
greet every group and let them know how much we appreciate
their participation and their coming back to join us. We get a
lot of questions about: When can we come? When is travel going
to resume? Nobody knows that.
My challenge is not only will we start implementing
programs again when international travel starts, but
understanding that many of our host families are empty-nesters,
there will be a bit of a reluctance to host again for a while.
We are watching all the moving parts carefully, and we hope
to have programs resume certainly by next January, but possibly
in the fall. It depends on each country's vaccination program
and all kinds of things going on. But we hope very much to have
groups on the ground again in the fall, late fall, maybe
October.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Thank you.
And with new challenges come new opportunities sometimes.
Ms. Sargus. Well, exactly.
Mr. Newhouse. So you have had operations in my district in
Washington State, but, frankly, not unlike a lot of rural areas
in the country, some of my constituents lack adequate broadband
to conduct video calls.
Have you had any issues with people who want to participate
but just have had difficulty because they don't have a good
connectivity? Or how do you deal with that?
Ms. Sargus. We do have that problem, especially when we are
talking about Russian participants from the Far East, for
example. There are some connectivity issues. People will fade
in and out occasionally.
But generally the people that choose to participate have
managed to overcome those hurdles generally. We don't have many
dropped participants. And because we have the account that we
have, we are able to accommodate large, large alumni
gatherings.
We do multicountry programs, which are very interesting,
especially if we decide to use a theme like conservation or
national parks, and we will bring alumni from several countries
who traveled on that theme to discuss it together. And the
result is that they are beginning to form their own network in
Eurasia of Open World participants who come from different
countries.
That is another unexpected benefit of these Zoom calls, we
can invite anybody and everybody.
Mr. Newhouse. I am guessing some of these new ways of doing
things may become more permanent.
My time is up, but I do appreciate you being here this
morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for that.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Mr. Newhouse. Always thoughtful
questions.
Ms. Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Ms. Sargus, for joining us this morning.
So I also serve on the State and Foreign Ops Subcommittee,
and so we hear a lot about the executive branch democracy-
building programs. So it is good to hear we have some within
the legislative branch as well.
And it sounds like you guys were able to transition to a
virtual program pretty seamlessly and well. But how are you
measuring success metrics with a virtual curriculum?
Ms. Sargus. That is being developed as we speak, not having
any past experience with measuring a virtual program.
I would say that one of the main things is we are able to
learn more about what people are doing as a result of their
Open World experience. Somebody would open up a shelter for
abused women, victims of domestic violence. That might be a
result that we consider very important. Another will hold a
conference on forest management or conservation or something
like that.
We hear about them, especially during COVID, because we
have so many interactions with our alumni now in person
virtually that we learn quite a bit about what they are doing
and what they are up to. And they are committed, very
committed. I mean, we even had a Russian delegate who traveled
outside her village to a library to have access to internet.
That was how strong the interest in staying in touch is.
It is very important that the network of alumni that we
have--in Russia alone we have more than 20,000 alums--it is
important that we stay in touch with them and they tell us what
is going on. It has been very refreshing.
Ms. Wexton. So that actually segues nicely into my other
question, my next question, which is, what happens when a
participant finishes a program? Like, how do you develop your
alumni programs, and how do you find alumni to help with those?
Ms. Sargus. Well, we have in our logistical contractor the
ability to conduct alumni programs. We work with the American
embassies in our countries, and they often will host an alumni
event where people will gather at the ambassador's residence.
It is a very nice way for the group to see each other again and
also to meet new participants on the program.
That network will continue once the pandemic is over, but
we are going to continue with the alumni virtual program
because the outreach capacity on the virtual platform is
phenomenal, and we will continue to use that.
Ms. Wexton. And one of the things I was pleased to see was
that my hometown of Leesburg, Virginia, is a host city or host
town.
Ms. Sargus. Yes, it is a host city.
Ms. Wexton. And I was kind of surprised actually because it
is a little town, but it was very nice to see.
So how do you ensure a diversity of participating towns and
localities?
Ms. Sargus. Well, there are two ways--the grantees
themselves have a network of hosting clubs around the country.
For example, Rotary International is one of our grantees, and,
of course, they have Rotary Clubs in every State. But there are
also sister city relationships that want to host, and
Friendship Force, which is another service club of sorts. We
rely on them to expand the network and change up sometimes.
It is a matter of capacity for some of the local hosting
organizations, but we are able to host in all 50 States, maybe
not every single year, but almost every year we have 47, 48, to
50 States.
Ms. Wexton. A mixture of urban and suburban and rural as
well?
Ms. Sargus. Absolutely. One of the favorite spots in the
United States is Big Canoe, Georgia. Go figure. But it is a
very popular destination for our delegates.
Ms. Wexton. Great.
And then my final question is, I saw that you have some
pilot programs slated for 2021-2022 in Bulgaria, Hungary,
Poland, and Romania. Can you talk a little bit about those,
what the pilot programs are going to be?
Ms. Sargus. Well, I believe that in Poland and Hungary the
focus will be on civil society or perhaps local legislators,
like mayors or council members. And in Bulgaria and Romania, it
will be a rule of law program.
Ms. Wexton. Very good. Thank you so much.
I see my time is up, so I will yield back.
Thanks for all you are doing.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Ms. Wexton.
Mr. Amodei. Yeah. Mark, you are up.
Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. Hey, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Sorry you had to
double clutch on that.
I think that you are doing such a great job that I am going
to yield back my time in the interest of moving right along.
Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Amodei.
Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Director Sargus, for joining us today.
I am so impressed with your transition to virtual
programming. And I wonder if you have thought about, when it is
safe for international travel again, are you going to
incorporate the virtual programming into your ongoing
programming?
Ms. Sargus. Great question. We talk about this quite a bit,
and we plan to definitely keep the virtual platform as part of
our program.
In our countries the normal procedure has been to have a
pre-departure orientation. The delegates arrive at the U.S.
Embassy in order to receive their visas, and then our people
organize an orientation for them to explain to them what is
going to happen, how this will be, where you will go, and what
you will do.
We decided to use the virtual platform so that that pre-
departure orientation will include the host families and the
local organizing host. That way people will be meeting who they
are staying with and there will be perhaps a settling down of
nerves when they know who they are meeting and who they are
staying with.
The virtual platform will not disappear from Open World. It
has been a real boon to making and keeping connections.
Ms. Clark. That is what you are all about.
Ms. Sargus. Exactly.
Ms. Clark. Are there any other challenges that you have had
arise during the pandemic that we should be aware of on the Leg
Branch Committee or can assist with?
Ms. Sargus. Thank you for that question.
I believe that we worked out most of the hurdles. We think
we have all our bases covered at this point. We don't have too
much left to explore, except how do we resume a normal program
again.
At this point we feel very confident in implementing our
virtual program., but as we segue into real travel again, there
will be parts of what we are doing now that will remain part of
the future programs and the delegations.
In fact, we plan to bring not double, but maybe one and a
half times the number of people we normally bring. We are
thinking 1,400 to 1,600 people in the 12 months of travel as
soon as it is resumed, and that is to make up a little bit for
the lost time of travel.
By the time we shut down last year, we had already brought
166 people on the program, and we had 1,020 on our agenda. So
we have a lot of backup plans we need to work on.
Some people will not be able to travel anymore, but others
will. We are going to work it out. I talked to the staff, the
program staff in particular, and they are very confident they
could manage 1,500 in a 12-month period.
Ms. Clark. That is great.
I was also pleased to see that one of the national grantees
is a sister city association with Cambridge in my district and
Armenia's capital city.
Many Armenian Americans have expressed concern about
Azerbaijan's military actions against Armenians in Artsakh last
year. Have these recent hostilities between two Open World
countries had an impact on your programming? And how do you
address the situations where there are geopolitical
considerations between participating countries?
Ms. Sargus. Well, that is a great question. Considering
that there is always that tension between Russia and Ukraine
and also Georgia, this is not a new thing for us.
We address each country uniquely, and we intend to make
available to them the ability and the opportunity to talk about
what concerns them. And if an Armenian delegation wants to talk
about Azerbaijan, we are able to do that.
We allow those conversations to take place because one of
the things that happens when our delegations meet with Members
is that their concerns are brought up. Those are the things
they tell you about. Those are the things they want help with.
It is important that we still do virtual programs with both
countries, no problem, but we certainly don't have them
traveling together at the same time, obviously, we wouldn't be
in the future.
Ms. Clark. Thank you so much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Clark.
Ms. Sargus, thank you so much. You are always so
impressive, and we love having you before the committee every
year. And especially thankful for your ability to navigate the
tumultuous waters of 2020 and now 2021.
As you mentioned to Ms. Herrera Beutler's question with
regard to the grant writer, we are sorry you had a little bit
of a setback here, and, obviously, no fault of your own. But we
just want to continue to encourage you to pursue that. We think
that you make such a compelling case, especially in the world
we are living in, that I think there are going to be ample
resources out there for you once you are able to articulate and
tell the story to those other NGOs and foundations.
And, of course, we think expanding this program is in the
best interests of the country, and we think we could maybe do
that with some private funds.
So we are very, very thankful for you continuing to do
that.
Ms. Clark stole my question about the virtual. I figured
you had some plans to keep and amplify the virtual
opportunities that you discovered this year, which I think says
a lot about your organization.
You know, we see it in telehealth and telework and
telemedicine and tele-education and everything else, that
everybody is saying, okay, you know, maybe we don't want to do
this all the time, but there are some opportunities here for us
to take advantage of. And I think that speaks to your
leadership in being so adaptable.
I just have a couple of quick questions.
The expansion into Hungary, which I find very interesting,
I just want to know what kind of reception. You are talking
about Poland and Hungary. In Hungary it is obviously a very
complicated political situation there. I am just interested in
the response you are getting there and how the rollout is
happening there.
Ms. Sargus. That is a great question.
We start on a pilot program, we start by working being with
our embassy partners in that country, because they know what
and who and how to form a program with a delegation that would
be able to travel. It is tricky sometimes.
We work very closely with them because we don't want to
upset their apple cart, but we need to do an Open World program
that, in fact, still represents what we consider our core
values. It will be homestays. It will be looking at rule of law
or the legislative process, which is something that we talk
about quite a bit with every delegation. Understanding how laws
are made is part of what we show.
We work with embassy personnel, particularly the public
affairs and political officers usually at the Embassy to help
us craft that program.
It is tricky. But we plan to have a virtual program as soon
as travel resumes and a regular program. We are going to try,
and I think we will be successful.
Mr. Ryan. Great.
Final question. We know you were talking about another
full-time employee in the request. Can you just tell us what
that full-time employee's responsibilities will be?
Ms. Sargus. Yes. Well, nobody in Open World wears one hat.
So not only will this person be tasked with proposal writing
and pursuing grant opportunities, but also be part of our
strategic planning initiative and our congressional relations,
which we consider to be very important.
Mr. Ryan. Great.
Ms. Sargus. I am still the budget officer, but I am also
the director. Everybody has to wear more than one hat. That is
why we are so good with money. We make everybody do many
things.
Mr. Ryan. Yeah, that is great.
Well, we can't thank you enough. We appreciate your time.
Keep up the great work. We will continue to work with you. And
if there is something you may need along the way, we are here
to help.
Ms. Sargus. That is great to hear. Thank you so much.
I want to give a shout-out to my outstanding staff. They
are simply the best. I don't think we could have done this year
without their wits, coming to the table with good ideas and the
ability to implement like that. They did a great job, and I
don't think I could ever express my appreciation enough.
And also I want to say hi to all my relatives in Ohio and
West Virginia who are watching today. I appreciate that, too.
Mr. Ryan. All right. Where in Ohio are they?
Ms. Sargus. Belmont County, and also in the Columbus area,
and Akron and Canton. I actually have family in a lot of
different places in Ohio, Groveport, Bellaire, which is where I
am from. So the eastern part mostly.
Mr. Ryan. Gotcha, gotcha.
Well, we can't thank you enough. Thank your staff.
And I thank all of the members of the committee for great
questions.
With that, the committee is adjourned.
Ms. Sargus. Thank you.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, March 2, 2021.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
WITNESS
PHILLIP SWAGEL, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
This hearing is fully virtual, so we need to address a few
housekeeping matters.
First, for today's meeting, the chair or staff designated
by the chair may mute participants' microphones, when they are
not under recognition, for the purposes of eliminating
inadvertent background noise.
Second, members are responsible for muting and unmuting
themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that you have
not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the
staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff
will unmute your microphone.
Third, you will notice a clock on your screen that will
show how much of the 5-minute clock is remaining. If there is a
technology issue, we will move to the next member until the
issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of your
time.
Fourth, we will be beginning with the chair and ranking
member, then members present at the time the hearing is called
to order will be recognized in order of seniority.
And, finally, House rules require me to remind you that we
have set up an email address to which members can send anything
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings. That
email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
Dr. Swagel, thank you for joining us this afternoon to
discuss the $61 million budget request for the Congressional
Budget Office.
Phillip, we spoke a little over a week ago where you
briefed me on your fiscal year 2022 request and what the 3.7
million, or the 6.4 increase, would be for. Specifically, the
increase is mostly intended for salaries and benefits to
increase for your full-time equivalents by 11 positions to 275.
Plus, the increase is intended for software and information
technology to make CBO even more responsive to the analytical
needs of all the Congress.
CBO is a nonpartisan office that plays a vital role in
helping Congress effectively exercise our duties enshrined in
Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution, known
colloquially as the power of the purse.
You have become such a part of this institution that we may
take it for granted. CBO's role remains vital for the
legislative branch to have our own independent economic
analysis and cost estimate of proposed legislation so we do not
have to rely solely on the Office of Management and Budget
within the executive branch.
I should note that the Appropriations Committee are the
source of some of CBO's heaviest workload. We employ CBO's help
in making sure our bills add up to what they are supposed to,
and we need CBO cost estimates at each stage of legislative
action.
The committee appreciates all that the staff of CBO does,
as I am certain other committees similarly appreciate CBO and
all the work you do for them.
Even though we are one of your biggest customers, we
understand that all of Congress are your clients and that, last
year, you had increased workload because of legislation
surrounding expanded healthcare coverage, drug pricing, and the
COVID crisis.
Additionally, I know that this year you are preparing for
an increase in legislation involving infrastructure, climate,
as well as the continued focus on healthcare, as well as
reconciliation, regular and potential supplemental
appropriation measures.
We do keep you busy, and we are thankful for all of the
work that you do. I look forward to your testimony today.
And at this point, I would like to yield to my friend and
colleague from the State that produces more apples than any
other State in the Union, Ranking Member Jaime Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. More potatoes, more potatoes, too,
than Idaho, Mr. Chairman, but less well-known.
Mr. Ryan. We will bring that up at tomorrow's hearing.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Okay.
Mr. Ryan. That will be your new introduction tomorrow.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Potato lady?
Thank you for that.
And welcome to our witness, Director Swagel, Director of
the Congressional Budget Office.
The CBO's fiscal year 2020 budget request is 60.953
million, which represents a 6.4 percent increase from last
year's enacted level. I am looking forward to hearing a little
bit more about the needs there.
The Congressional Budget Office obviously provides
incredibly important information. I do like having our own
independent budget analysis separate from the executive branch,
and even from private entities, just because it allows us that
direct access.
And I recognize you do preliminary cost estimates on a lot
more than you even are able to put out, and you provide direct
assistance, technical assistance, to Members, committees and
staff, ad nauseam. So we are really grateful. The tireless work
of and your staff is really appreciated and incredibly
necessary.
So ensuring that all offices have equal access to the
information that CBO produces continues to be a top priority
for me. I recognize that big pieces of legislation put in place
by leadership are obviously going to take time and attention,
but I think it is incredibly critical that, once things are
made public in any way, that the CBO produces that information
to all of Congress, because we are all your constituents, as it
were.
Congress has appropriated additional funds in the past
funding bills to allow CBO to implement a plan to improve your
responsiveness and transparency, and I encourage your office to
continue this focus, especially on those big, major pieces of
legislation that we all are working on.
So I look forward to hearing more from you on your agency's
work and your ideas on how to help CBO improve.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Mr. Swagel, without objection, your written testimony will
be made part of the record. Please summarize your statement for
the members of the committee. Once you have finished your
statement, we will move to the Q&A period.
So please begin, Mr. Swagel.
Mr. Swagel. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman Ryan,
Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to present the
CBO's budget request.
I am privileged to work with my colleagues at CBO as we
support the Congress in these challenging times. Our chief
administrative officer, Joe Evans, and chief financial officer,
Mark Smith, they are both on the Webex as well, and they lead
an outstanding group of financial professionals who handle the
CBO budget.
So as you said, the purpose of my testimony today is to
request an appropriation of $61 million for 2022. And as you
said, that is an increase of $3.7 million, or 6.4 percent, from
the amount provided in 2021. And I thank the entire committee
for your continued support of our agency.
CBO's proposed increase reflects the expectation of
continued intense interest in our analysis. So let me first
briefly explain how our budget request would support that goal
to be even more responsive to the needs of the Congress, and
then I will explain, again briefly, what it would mean for
CBO's outlook.
So with the request, CBO would maintain its staffing level
and then hire four new staff to address issues for which we
anticipate significant legislative initiatives. So, since 2019,
before I was Director, the Congress has increased CBO's budget
to bolster our capacity to make our work more responsive and
transparent.
We have been working hard to accomplish those objectives.
For example, expanding staff in high-demand areas, such as
healthcare, but organizing staff to work on broader shared
portfolios.
Now, about half of the requested $3.7 million increase for
next year would be for added staffing. So this would cover a
full year's worth of salary and benefits for the seven new
staff members hired in 2021, who will come on board later this
year.
And then the increase would allow us to hire four new staff
members, focused on analysis of infrastructure and energy and
climate change, as you said, and these are the areas in which
we are already making investments and we expect heightened
legislative activity.
I think we all understand infrastructure spending is
coming, and we want to be ready to analyze that, including the
effects of infrastructure on the economy, the broader economic
effects.
CBO is also working to improve our capability to analyze
the effects of legislation on people in different demographic
groups and different income groups.
Now, the remainder of the increase would largely cover the
normal increases in personnel costs, and also IT enhancements.
Let me very briefly highlight our work over the past year,
and then how CBO's budget would support the high volume of
output we expect in the coming year.
Well, 2020 involved extraordinary circumstances, and we
continued to analyze the economic and budgetary developments
for the Congress, analyzing the legislation that responded to
the pandemic under tight timetables and with our staff working
from home at all hours also. I am thinking back to the work on
the CARES Act last March. It was just routine to have
conference calls after midnight. And of course supporting the
Congress as the Congress developed the legislation.
In response, we provided more frequent updates of our
budget and economic projections to make sure that the Congress
had timely information on the impacts of the pandemic.
And at the same time, we produced reports on a wide range
of topics, so about people who lacked health insurance even
before the pandemic, what mechanisms to reach universal health
insurance coverage. We had a report on single-payer healthcare
as one way to reach universal coverage.
We had a variety of defense-related issues covering all of
the armed services. We had reports on student loans, on
veterans' income, and other topics.
And, importantly, we incorporated the impacts of climate
change in the budget baseline for the first time and published
a report explaining how we did it.
So looking ahead briefly, the requested funding would allow
us to provide about 700 cost estimates, mostly to the
authorizing committees; fulfill thousands of requests for
technical assistance from committees and Members of Congress,
including before they introduce legislation; produce about a
hundred scorekeeping reports and estimates supporting the
appropriations process; and then produce about 70 analytic
reports and papers, some required by law, some in response to
requests from chairs and the members; and then provide a
variety of other products.
So in summary, to achieve our goal to be as responsive as
possible, CBO requests an increase of $3.7 million. And with
your support, we look forward to providing timely and high-
quality analysis to the Congress.
Thank you again. I am happy to take questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Thank you for
your testimony.
We are going to go into the question and answer period now,
and I will yield to the ranking member, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In your written testimony, you mentioned that CBO devoted
extensive resources to analyzing legislation that responded to
the pandemic, and you have also highlighted things that are
upcoming, transportation and others, that are going to continue
to take a lot of analysis.
These pieces of legislation, like the CARES Act, more
specifically on the healthcare side, have huge effects on our
economy. Would you be able to elaborate more on the challenges
you and staff faced in analyzing those--and they were fast-
moving as well--large pieces of legislation and how you
addressed those challenges?
Mr. Swagel. No, that is right. I mean, the dollar figures
were large, and then the economic effects were large.
The provisions that are mainly appropriations, we have to
figure out--such as the spending of outlays--sort of how much
money is available, how quickly can the money go out for the
purposes described by the Congress.
As you said, the economic analysis is, in some sense,
harder. So as an example, the legislation enacted last year to
respond to the pandemic broadened and extended the unemployment
insurance system. And so we knew that had multiple effects. It
meant money for people to support their spending and support
the economy.
On the other hand, that meant that some people--it would
have different effects for working, different incentives for
working. And we had to do that analysis, balancing the
increased demand and increased spending and the positive
effects that would have on the economy, and try to figure out,
well, what would it mean on the incentive effects for the labor
supply, people to take jobs.
And our views changed as the economy progressed, as the
virus progressed. When the economy was locked down the
incentives to work were just not, you know, sort of not there,
but as the recovery proceeded and the economy opened, that
changed, and we had to do analysis along those lines.
So this is just one illustration of the sorts of
complicated analysis resulting from the pandemic.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you. You know, it brings to mind
just your--even the ability to kind of update, because that is
such a dynamic situation, based on opening and closing again.
Are you providing updates on that, more of like a dynamic
analysis or an ongoing, or is it just you did the bill and you
are done?
Mr. Swagel. So within CBO, we have a group that is
continuing to track this. So we have a virus team that is
looking at what is happening with the virus and the effects and
the interactions with the economy.
We did an analysis in September of the effects of the CARES
Act on the economy, and looking at the different provisions of
the CARES Act. And I expect we will do the same thing with the
CAA that was enacted in December. And then, if legislation is
enacted in the next couple of weeks, I expect we will do the
same thing, analyze that, analyze that as well.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Last year, one of the difficulties CBO
had in completing reports and analysis in a timely fashion was
the delay in receiving data from the Federal executive
agencies.
Do you still believe this is an issue? Is there something
that we need to do to help speed that process up to ensure CBO
is getting the information it needs in a timely manner?
Mr. Swagel. On the whole, we have good working
relationships with the agencies that provide us data. This year
was especially challenging as we moved essentially into the
cloud.
On the whole, the agencies were incredibly helpful as we
get data on healthcare and for Social Security, a long-term
analysis from the IRS. And they were incredibly constructive
with us in moving to a secure environment in the cloud. The
Joint Committee on Taxation also provides us with some data,
and they also were constructive.
So the past year the delays have been mostly
understandable, mostly working on security.
We also get a lot of data from OMB, for example, on the
budget execution, and that comes with the President's budget.
And obviously, with the transition this year, the President's
budget is delayed. So we are waiting for those data.
But, again, we work well with OMB on the staff level. We
will get it when it is ready. So it is not a complaint. It is
not a problem. It is just saying, look, there is a natural
delay there.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. And you have mentioned working in the
cloud--and I will make this quick--but that is part of what
your increase is for, for nonpersonnel costs that include
improving your ability to detect cyber threats and continue to
shift staff to workstations on the cloud.
Have you encountered actual, like, significant cyber
threats in recent years?
Mr. Swagel. You know, I mean, just like everyone, we have
intrusion attempts and surveillance activities. I think all of
the staff, including me, there is attempted phishing attempts
and things like that.
We have not had a particular attack on us or particularly
something targeted, that we know of, that is specifically at
us, but of course we are still enhancing our ability to detect
and respond.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you.
Yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am proudly coming to you from the State that produces
more macadamia nuts than Ohio, Washington, New York, Virginia,
and Nevada combined. I know this because none of you produce
macadamia nuts.
Mr. Ryan. Mr. Case, you are muted.
Mr. Case. Doctor, is that increase enough for you given--
you know, I am just thinking back over the past year and what
is in front of us. I mean 2.2 trillion, CARES Act; 900 billion
in December; 1.9 trillion in front of us; probably more bills,
more complexity, infrastructure, healthcare reform. I could go
down the list.
Most of the increase that you are asking for is actually an
increase in salary and benefits for existing staff. The number
of new positions is minimal compared to the scope of all of
that, it seems to me. And at the same time, we have asked you
to be kind of more responsive.
And, as I recall, responsiveness, really, if you look at
the priorities of committees first and kind of Members last,
individual Member requests still, unless they are linked to
some committee request, don't get done. I think that is
effectively the answer there.
Is it enough? I mean, I don't want to be penny-wise and
pound-foolish about this.
Mr. Swagel. Right. No, no, it is a good question. And maybe
I should start at the end and just acknowledge what you said,
that one of our challenges is that individual Member requests,
we just don't have the ability to do those. And it is,
generally, if a Member wants something from us, they will go to
the chair or ranking member, and the chair will tell us to move
it up the priority stack. So for sure that is a challenge.
The request this year, there is four new positions. There
is the seven that we are hiring this year. Those people will
come on board starting in the middle of this year and then
through the end of next--through the end of this year. So there
is a sense in which the request would support all 11 of those.
So it is--I am not--I don't think I am asking for too much,
or at least we are not trying to, but also not for too little,
in a sense, since we are trying to make sure we fund this
entire--the seven this year, and then the four we hope to add
next year.
And then, in terms of the kind of is it enough, the
principle here is that we are trying to look ahead and see
where Congress is going and just be ready, and that is when we
are at our best. And, here, that is like infrastructure and
energy and climate, and I know that is where the Congress is
going, and Members have told me, and that is where we are
building expertise.
We are pretty good on health. We have ramped up. We are
ready. And so things like a public option and expansion of
coverage, we have been working on those for the last year, and
some of that is in the reconciliation legislation that the
Congress is considering now.
So I think we are in good shape for health, for
immigration, macro. And building on energy and climate, I
think, is the right approach for us.
Mr. Case. And given that, what about the responsiveness,
which has been a concern with the workload? And we have asked
you formally and informally to respond to and get on top of the
responsiveness. I mean, do you think that, with that addition,
you can--are you going to be slipping on responsiveness, or
getting ahead of the game, or just treading water?
Mr. Swagel. Yeah. I think we will maintain the
responsiveness in the areas that we have been busy on this
year. And so I just think of the reconciliation bill. It is on
health, it is on income security, unemployment insurance, on
pensions, where we have worked especially intensively with the
committees of jurisdiction--it was the Ways and Means, E&L, the
Finance Committee in the Senate--and providing technical
assistance to them while the committees are developing the
legislation.
I think we have succeeded in doing what we need to do to
support them with their legislation. And we will continue that
and those sort of requests. We will continue in that.
And so I think we will--in some sense, it is not--treading
water, I guess, is technically right--but continue, I would
say, at a high level in those areas.
Mr. Case. Okay. And then expert consultants. I notice you
really don't utilize all that many. It looks like you do much
of it in-house. Not that many expert consultants, not that big
a part of your budget. And it seems to be confined to just a
few of the specialty areas.
Is that just highly specialized analysis, or are those
areas where you have difficulty competing with other sectors of
our economy to get folks into CBO?
Mr. Swagel. Okay. No, no, thank you. It is an important
issue for us.
So we have essentially two different types of expert
consultants. One is we have two groups of advisers, one on the
overall economy, both macro and micro, and then a specialized
group of health advisers. And so we pay them very modestly.
This is, I don't know, $500 a year, each of them. So this is
just a token for most of them. Mostly they are academics, some
from industry. And we rely on them pretty intensively, and this
year, pretty intensively, we have.
The other one is the more expensive one, as you said, and
that is on, as you said, on specialized knowledge, you know, on
some legal, some environmental expertise especially, where
there it is more expensive. And so that is the second half of
it.
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Swagel. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Case.
Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. It is the button that says ``mute'' on it. When
you hit it, it will turn green, and then you talk. And, when
you are done, you hit it, it will go red, which means stop, and
then you can't be heard anymore.
Mr. Amodei. Well, I cannot thank you enough for reaching
out to me on a personal technical basis, because, as you know,
I need all the help I can get.
Mr. Ryan. The gentleman has 5 minutes.
Mr. Amodei. So under the category of let's walk before we
run with my technical ability, I would only say this, that from
the State that produces more silver and gold than Hawaii and
every other State, I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Dr. Swagel, for coming to testify before us
today.
So I saw in your request that you asked for some
nonpersonnel costs, and a part of that is to help CBO's ability
to mitigate cyber threats and improve remote work capabilities.
So I want to follow up on some of that.
How many employees does CBO currently have working
remotely, and what proportion of your workforce is that?
Mr. Swagel. Right now everyone is working remotely. We have
a couple of people at the Ford Office Building. Two in
particular are there regularly, one supervising some of the
renovation of our conference rooms to facilitate hybrid
operation and one a computer engineer.
The rest of us are remote, and you can see my office turns
back into my dining room on Friday nights.
Ms. Wexton. So you are working remotely. Basically your
entire workforce is working remotely full-time. Is that right?
Mr. Swagel. That is correct, yes.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Now, did CBO update any of its network
infrastructure to support this remote work, or are you just
able to rely on the network infrastructure that you already
had?
Mr. Swagel. No. We had the ability at the beginning. And
so, when the pandemic made us go remote, actually our
information tech people had already licensed some of the remote
access software. So we were in good shape, and about 30 percent
of our staff were already working in the cloud with
workstations that were virtualized. The rest of us shifted
right away.
And then we have put more resources into it, making some of
the data that was only available inside the Ford Building,
pushing that out to the cloud and making sure it was secure.
So we have put more resources into it. I think we were
basically effective from day one, but now we are doing better.
It is smoother in a sense.
Ms. Wexton. And have you trained your workforce about
avoiding those phishing attacks and other sort of cybersecurity
training, how to log into their VPNs, keep it secure, those
kinds of things?
Mr. Swagel. We have. I mean, I guess CBO, we are an agency
of, in a good way, of rule followers. That is the way we work.
We go by guidelines and rules. And so we have a pretty good
approach, I think, in keeping us safe.
Ms. Wexton. And is that mandated, that training mandated to
be taken by 100 percent of your workforce?
Mr. Swagel. It is, yes. We have computer security training,
we have ethics training, and we have diversity training that is
required as well.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Very good. And what is your current
assessment of your capabilities right now with hardening
against cyber attacks?
Mr. Swagel. I think we are doing pretty well. Again, the
move to the cloud, I think, has helped us on the whole, just
because the individual workstations--the more we move away from
individual workstations, we are reducing sort of the number of
aspects in which we are vulnerable.
Of course we are vulnerable to something going wrong in the
cloud. We had a fiber optic cable that was sliced at our data
center, and we were down for a couple hours. So things like
that.
But in terms of security--things like that happen--but on
security, I think the move to the cloud on the whole has been
beneficial for us.
Ms. Wexton. Good. And do you think you will maintain that
sort of option for your workforce even after the pandemic is
over?
Mr. Swagel. It is exactly the question we are trying to
think about now. We are serving the staff and what people, in
some sense, want. And of course there are some people who just
want to go back to the Ford Building as soon as possible. Some
people envision working remotely more.
I suspect we will have a mix of it, and we are going to try
to figure that out. We will try to make sure--of course we will
make sure we are effective. I think we have been effective now.
I sure would like to be back in person to meet with people in
person. So I look forward to that.
And obviously a large number of our staff are your
constituents, and I know they are really looking forward to
summer camps and schools and all the--those sort of--that part
of life reopening.
Ms. Wexton. Yeah. I am sure that some proportion of them
really are eager to come back, and some proportion are like,
``I am very delighted not to have this commute.'' So, as long
as you have that flexibility, I think that everybody will be
happy.
Great. Well, that is all the questions I had. Thank you so
much.
Mr. Swagel. Okay.
Ms. Wexton. Yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Wexton.
Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the
opportunity.
And in the spirit of competition, just wanted to say that
the State of Washington produces more hops, more cherries, more
blueberries, almost 300 other crops that we produce in our
State. And who knows, with climate change, we may be coming
after macadamias soon, too. So just wanted to get that out
there.
Mr. Swagel, thank you very much for your presentation
today. Always a pleasure to see you. You are a very important
part of the work that we do around here.
Several of the members have talked about your efforts to
decrease response times. And you may have answered this and I
just didn't hear it. I understand it is not an easy yes-or-no
type of answer. But, overall, talk about the--I guess tell me
just quickly the progress that you feel you have made in
decreasing those times with the increased appropriations that
we have given and now you would like a little more as well.
Mr. Swagel. Okay. No, absolutely. And I can give an example
on the health side, which is where we have built up our
capacity over the last several years with the appropriations
that you have provided us. And there, in a sense, I think we
have decreased our response time by preparing.
And so the legislation that the Congress is considering now
in reconciliation has provisions that expand and extend the
subsidies in the Affordable Care Act. Everyone calls them the
Underwood provisions.
And we have been working on those provisions for months,
probably more than a year, since even before the pandemic. And
as the Congress adjusts and changes those provisions, we are
ready, and we are sort of instant--not instantly, but we are
ready to work with Congress.
So that is the sort of progress that we have made.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
Last March Congress came together and, as you recall, we
were able to pass an unprecedented spending bill. I think it
was the largest ever. I could be wrong about that. But
Americans and small business needed support during the COVID
shutdowns.
The bill was signed into law on the 27th of March. Congress
didn't receive a CBO cost estimate, I think, it was until the
middle of April.
And so you talked about what goes into creating that kind
of an analysis. But would you care to comment and discuss the
potential ramifications of Congress passing large spending
bills, such as what we did last year, without the critical CBO
analysis?
Mr. Swagel. Right. Thank you. It is an important question.
It is something we think about.
And so, with the CARES Act, we were essentially focused on
the technical assistance, knowing that that meant that the cost
estimate would be delayed. And so the committees were working
on the UI provisions, the healthcare provisions, and others,
and we were providing technical assistance, PPP and others,
knowing that, whatever was enacted, we would then have to take
a step back and analyze it, and that would just take some time
after.
And so that was a--I mean, it was a decision by me and by
the senior CBO management, just knowing that the cost estimate
would come a little bit later as a result, just to respond to
the needs of the Congress.
Mr. Newhouse. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Well, that is something
that we all have to think about, I think, how do we best deal
with that kind of a scenario, because most of us want to know
the potential results of what we do.
Mr. Swagel. Congressman, can I just--I am sorry--can I add
one more thing? That, in a sense, with the reconciliation
legislation now, we were able to provide the cost estimates--I
mean, there was over, I don't know, 100 pages of cost
estimates--so before the House voted on the reconciliation
bill.
Mr. Newhouse. I see.
Mr. Swagel. So you are right. For the CARES Act, we
couldn't do it. And this time we were able to do it.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Good. Good. Well, I appreciate that,
and appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much for keeping
us up to date on what you are doing, and always look forward to
your reports.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Swagel.
I believe you said that the CBO's IT security system has
not been breached or hacked. Is that correct, Mr. Swagel?
Mr. Swagel. No. Well, I was--well, I have been Director
since June. I know, in the past, before my time, there was a
very serious attack on CBO. I actually don't know offhand when
it was. I just know there was in the past.
2000. I am sorry. One of my colleagues just sent me a
message. It was in 2004. So it was 17 years ago.
Mr. Espaillat. And so are you working on ways to address
instances where CBO will have to fulfill its duties to Congress
in a situation where they cannot operate in the Capitol
compound, for example, the campus?
Mr. Swagel. Yes, sir.
Mr. Espaillat. You have the ability to do that, right?
Mr. Swagel. Yes, sir, we have. And right after we went
remote when the pandemic took hold in the U.S., we still had
some people who had to go into the Ford House Office Building,
because there was certain data that we could only access
physically on the site for confidentiality reasons, and that is
some of the work we have been doing over the past several
months.
And by--I guess it was by December is when we had the
ability for everyone to work fully remotely.
Mr. Espaillat. Okay. And what measures are you taking to
prevent any potential breach of your IT infrastructure?
Mr. Swagel. So we have worked very closely with the data
providers. And so on the confidential data, the IRS has an
important--actually, it is very involved in a good way--
information security regime that we adhere to and that they
monitor us, and it is a whole process that, every year, we
certify. And so that is on the tax data side.
On the individual workstation side, we have training for
our staff. And then we have taken steps essentially to
virtualize our computer systems, so that the individual
workstations our staff don't have the control over, those are
actually operated in the cloud, and so we have central control
over them.
And about 30 percent of the workstations are in that
situation now, and we are going to move, I don't know if we
will get to 100 percent, but mostly in the cloud, so we can
maintain that kind of data security.
Mr. Espaillat. I know that in your increased funding
request for new staff you tried to address some of the issues
that are relevant, that are important to Congress, or that we
may be taking up, such as some of the health-related challenges
that we have.
I know that we will be taking up an immigration reform
effort, and I was wondering whether you are requesting--you are
requesting additional staff for that area.
And would that lead for your--the increased capacity to
evaluate, for example, the impact of any proposal that may come
up regarding immigration reform? How would that translate into
some real life numbers or analysis of how it would impact the
economy or how it would impact our States?
Mr. Swagel. Okay. No, no, good. I can talk to that.
And some of the investment we have made over the past
several years that I talked about in healthcare, the second
area has been immigration. And I didn't say it just for reasons
of time, but that actually is the second area in which we have
built up.
We have also realigned the internal structure of CBO, just
slightly, but in a way that allows us to focus--one group is
focused on healthcare. There is one group focused on energy,
infrastructure, climate, other, you know, microeconomic issues.
And then there is a new group focused on labor issues,
including immigration, including inequality.
And so the buildup that we have done over the last several
years has put us in position to do this quick--to be
responsive.
And then just the last thing on this I will add, that we
will do the analysis, as you have said. A major immigration
reform would have an important effect on the economy. The labor
supply would be larger. Our society would be larger, more
innovative. And that will affect the economy, and that, in
turn, will have fiscal consequences.
And that is work that CBO has done in the past. When Doug
Elmendorf was Director, the CBO did that work as well, and we
will do that again.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Mr. Espaillat.
So my colleagues have covered, I think, a large swath of
the questions that I had personally, Mr. Swagel, so I want to
say, first, thank you to all of them and to you for your
answers.
I do have one question that I just wanted to ask you about.
We have the Office of Employee Assistance, which serves the
staff at the CBO. And I know just you talking about the--sounds
like a level of exhaustion within your own ranks over the last
year and all the hard work that you have done and late nights
and early mornings and a lot of time put in for the cause here.
Are you guys accessing and using the Office of Employee
Assistance, the Wellness office, the office of well-being, that
we have stood up a couple years ago? Are you interfacing with
them at all?
Mr. Swagel. Yes. Yes, sir, we are. Just to try to maintain
the sense of connection and community, we have been holding
regular online townhalls. And the Office of Employee Assistance
and Wellness, twice they have sent really excellent staff to
talk to CBO employees just sort of broadly, but then also
specifically about the programs that are available. And so that
has been very helpful.
The kind of burnout, it is a challenge. And, look, we
have--we know we have a couple more weeks of sprinting, and
then hopefully we will do that, and then maybe have a
slightly--a period to regroup, in a sense.
Mr. Ryan. Yeah. I appreciate that. I mean, we are
consistently on calls. Those of us, especially in the
Appropriations Committee, we talk about staffing. We talk about
salaries and benefits and retirement and really us trying to
compete across the board with the private sector in which many
positions pay more on the outside, as you know. They
potentially could be in areas of the country that are less
expensive than Washington, D.C., less stress that comes with a
job like working at the CBO.
So one of the things we have been committed to doing is
really trying to create an environment and a culture here on
the Capitol that addresses some of those needs, that maybe
provide some of those benefits around quality of life, and we
hope that you all take advantage of that.
But, again, we just want to say thank you for your service.
Please thank your entire team. It doesn't go unnoticed. We know
we can be pains in the butt a lot of the time, and we just
appreciate you being there for us. And we look forward to
supporting you the best we can in the budget cycle here, in the
appropriations cycle here.
But thank you so much.
And with that, this committee hearing is adjourned.
Mr. Swagel. Thank you.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 3, 2021.
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE
WITNESS
YOGANANDA D. PITTMAN, ACTING CHIEF OF POLICE
Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order. This hearing is
fully virtual so we need to address a few housekeeping matters.
First, for today's meeting, the chair and staff designated by
the chair may mute participant's microphones when they are not
under recognition for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent
background noise.
Second, members are responsible for muting and unmuting
themselves. If I notice when you are recognized that you have
not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the
staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff
will unmute your microphone.
Third, you will notice a clock on your screen that will
show you how much time is left on the 5-minute clock. If there
is a technology issue, we will move to the next member until
the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of your
time.
Fourth, we will be beginning with the chair and ranking
member, and then members present at the time of the hearing is
called to order will be recognized in the order of seniority.
Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
set up an email address to which members can send anything they
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings. That email
address has been provided in advance to your staff.
Acting Chief Pittman, thank you for joining us this
morning. Before we get started talking about your budget needs
for fiscal year 2022, I want to say thank you to you and to all
the officers and civilians of the Capitol Police who work
tirelessly to ensure the safety and security of the Members,
employees, visitors, and facilities, both here and within our
districts. The Capitol Police have a unique role as the only
law enforcement agency responsible for protecting the Congress
and the U.S. Capitol complex. The Capitol Police is an
essential agency of the legislative branch. The men and women
of the Capitol Police put their lives on the line each day to
ensure Congress can operate efficiently.
You do your jobs so that we can do ours.
Threats to the Members and to the facilities are not new.
We saw that on January 6, and last year, your predecessor,
Chief Sund, testified before this subcommittee that, since
calendar year 2017, the number of threats the U.S. Capitol
Police has investigated has increased by more than 75 percent.
We have already had three hearings on the events of January
6. And while this is the budget hearing, I hope you will
address how this increased budget request reflects the Capitol
Police's response to the attack on the Capitol and the Members
of Congress, and how the more resources will positively impact
the security planning, policies, and procedures that were
lacking on that day.
As you know, safety, security, and wellness remain the
subcommittee's top priorities. Currently, resources for Capitol
Police are almost 10 percent of the entire legislative branch
budget, totaling $515 million. For fiscal year 2022, the
Department has requested $619.2 million, which is a 20-percent
increase, or $103.7 million, over the fiscal year 2021 enacted
total. I think January 6 made clear that increases are needed,
but we need to understand what the increases will be and what
they will be used to accomplish. We need to understand the plan
for this year and the next year and how the increases provided
will be regularized.
I hope you can address how the requests will impact
command, control, and communication. You are seeking a 91-
percent increase in screening technologies, 131 percent-
increase in security systems, a 43-percent increase in training
services. I hope you can explain to the members of the
committee the rationale for these increases. I look forward to
your testimony today.
And, at this point, I would like to yield to the ranking
member, my friend and colleague from Washington State, a State
that has more glaciers than the other 47 contiguous States
combined, Jaime Herrera Beutler, for any opening comments she
would like to make.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. And
now I am going to have something for you in the next hearing if
you just give me a minute.
Acting Chief Pittman, thank you so much for joining us
today. And welcome to your first actual regular budget
Appropriations hearing.
The Capitol Police force and your fiscal requests this year
for fiscal year 2022 is, as the chairman noted, a 20.96-percent
increase over the fiscal year 2021 enacted level. The U.S.
Capitol Police's mission to protect the Congress, its Members,
its visitors, employees, and the facilities, it is just
crucial, and you do it so that we can fulfill our
constitutional role and our legislative responsibilities. And
we are really grateful to you and to the force for being
willing to do that, especially, I think, more than ever now.
As you know, the Capitol Police's core mission is now
really front and center. Your success and the success of those
that you command means that Congress can conduct their business
in an open and secure and acceptable manner.
As we discussed last week, January 6 should serve as a
wakeup call that the Capitol Police must make major changes in
the leadership organizations and operations to refocus the
mission. Intelligence gathering practices, I believe, need to
improve. Lines of communication between the Capitol Police and
other law enforcement agencies need to be strengthened.
Training programs must adjust to prepare officers for the new
threats that they face, and officer wellness programs must
adapt to the increased stress on rank-and-file members. And, at
some point hopefully soon, the fence surrounding the Capitol
complex will come down, and the National Guardsmen will return
home. And, over the coming months, the reviews by the U.S.
Capitol Police inspector general, third parties, congressional
oversight committees will provide recommendations to improve
the U.S. Capitol Police operation. But it is up to you and to
your leadership to start preparing now, to strengthen your
operations so that your officers feel like the changes that
need to be made are being made and they feel supported and
strengthened and empowered to do their jobs. I want to make
sure that they are adequately prepared to protect the Capitol
as we move forward.
I greatly appreciate the sacrifices of the men and women of
the Capitol Police force, that they make to keep us safe. I
look forward to hearing detailed testimony on how you plan to
accomplish your mission this year.
With that, I yield back. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Chief Pittman, at the beginning of your
testimony, please introduce any colleagues who will be joining
you for the presentation today.
Without objection, your written testimony will be made part
of the record.
Chief, please summarize your statement for the members of
the committee. And once you have finished your statement, we
will move to the question-and-answer period. Thanks again,
Chief Pittman, and the floor is yours.
Acting Chief Pittman. Thank you and good morning. Chairman
Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the U.S.
Capitol Police budget request for fiscal year 2022. The
department greatly appreciates the subcommittee's continued
support, as well as Congress providing the resources needed to
support our mission.
Joining me today is the department's executive team: Acting
Assistant Chief Sean Gallagher, Chief Administrative Officer
Richard Braddock, and General Counsel Thomas DiBiase, as well
as members of the USCP Executive Management Team. As you said,
USCP has a unique role in policing. We are the only law
enforcement agency responsible for protecting Congress and the
U.S. Capitol. We detect, investigate, and prevent threats made
against Congress and Washington, D.C., and around the Nation.
The department's personnel are resilient, highly trained in
specialized fields, and deeply committed to our critical
mission. Our mission, however, has become more difficult.
In the first 2 months of 2021, there has been over a 93-
percent increase in the threats to Members compared to the same
period last year. And from 2017 to 2020, there has been over a
118-percent increase in the total threats and directions of
interest with overwhelmingly a majority of those suspects
residing outside of Washington, D.C.
On the Capitol complex, the level and complexity of those
threats to the Capitol are increasing as well. This was
abundantly clear on January 6 when insurrectionists tried to
stop Congress from certifying the 2020 electoral college. But
due to the heroic actions of USCP officers with the assistance
of MPD, the National Guard, and many of our law enforcement
partners, the violent rioters were prevented from accomplishing
their goal. We do realize that the possibility of a similar
incident occurring in the current environment is a very clear
and present danger. The events of January 6 demonstrate that
USCP must quickly assess and adjust to successfully carry out
our mission. And this will require a significant investment in
staffing, training, tools, and information gathering resources
needed to meet the ever-changing security challenges, including
the threat of domestic terrorism.
USCP employees are our greatest assets. Therefore, our
budget request focuses on our employees and on meeting
mandatory salary requirements, overtime for critical training,
and securing capabilities within the general expenses to
increase resources available to our personnel. Salaries and
general expenses combined for the fiscal year 2022 annual
budget request is $619.22 million, which is an increase of
20.96 percent over the fiscal year 2021 enacted levels.
The fiscal year 2022 salary budget request includes the
budgetary authority and resources to fund 2,112 sworn and 453
civilians. This includes funding for 212 new sworn officers for
mission-critical requirements, such as a quick standby force,
threat assessment agents, and dignitary protection agents. The
main drivers of these costs are for the mandatory increases and
benefit rates that were not reflected in the fiscal year 2021
enacted levels, as well as overtime, COLA adjustments, and
within-grade increases.
USCP is also requesting $2.5 million for its student loan
repayment program. This is a critical component for employee
recruitment and retention. The fiscal year 2022 general
expenses portion of this budget request places an emphasis on
providing mandatory and specialized training, investing in
tools, equipment, technology, as well as wellness initiatives
we need to maintain our workforce at the highest levels of
readiness. It also includes protective items, such as travel,
support, hiring, outfitting, and training new sworn personnel,
making sure that they have security equipment, and providing
uniforms, and weapons, in addition to our wellness programs.
Again, I want to reiterate that our officers who are on the
job 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, are our greatest asset in
helping preventing and responding to threats.
The 1998 shooting and the 9/11 and anthrax attacks have all
been historic pivotal moments that have forced the department
to evolve rapidly. January 6 will no doubt be another pivotal
moment in time in history.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our fiscal
year 2022 budget request, and I would be pleased to answer any
questions that you have at this time.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Capitol Security Posture
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Chief Pittman.
I have a couple of questions out of the gate here. What is
the current security posture at the Capitol?
Acting Chief Pittman. Thank you, Chairman Ryan.
The current security posture for the Capitol is enhanced.
We are working with our law enforcement partners, as well as
the National Guard, to provide a robust security posture around
the campus. Of course, that security posture is layered. We
have an outer perimeter, as well as an inner perimeter. We have
CDU units on standby, and we work with the National Guard to
practice training and drills so that we can address any of the
known threats to the security environment and address any gaps
that we know that still have not been addressed on the campus.
Identifying Credible Threats
Mr. Ryan. And one of the questions we had in the last
hearing was distinguishing really what a credible threat is,
and this is all of course in the context of the budget and, you
know, the request for more officers and all the rest. How do
you distinguish--we are hearing all the stuff about March 4 and
all of that. How do you distinguish between chatter that is on
the internet and an actual threat?
Acting Chief Pittman. Absolutely. So we know that
intelligence is more than just what we see and hear on the
internet. We have intelligence directors, as well as analysts,
within the department that are required to look at all of the
information that we see on the internet from open sources. We
routinely meet with our law enforcement partners to ascertain
what is credible, what is actionable versus what is just
chatter and noise out in the community. We use that information
that we obtain from working with our law enforcement partners.
We gather information from fusion centers in the national
capital region, as well as from across the country. We take
that information, and our analysts are then required to sift
through the noise and provide us with an actionable assessment:
How should we posture ourselves on the campus? What of the
internet chatter is actually credible? What intent does the
group have? And can they act on this nefarious intention to do
harm to you all, to members of the congressional community? We
use all of that information to combine what we call a special
assessment. That special assessment is then shared with the
members of the department. We share it internally. We share it
with those who have a need to know externally. And we have
routinely updated--one of the questions in the previous briefs
was, how do we communicate that? We know that it is important
not to only communicate that intelligence information up the
chain of command to you all, the oversight committees, as well
as the Capitol Police Board, but it is also important for those
intelligence directors, analysts, and assessors to create a
product that is valuable to our officers, the rank and file
standing on posts. So we have increased those communications,
making sure they get that valuable, credible intelligence
information as well.
Mr. Ryan. Yes. Clearly that needs to be improved from the
6th, as you know.
How many analysts do you have reviewing the intelligence?
Intelligence Staffing
Acting Chief Pittman. Thank you for that question. And if I
could just put a little context on it versus just giving you a
number, I would like to do so. Prior to me coming on as the
Acting Chief, I did serve as the Assistant Chief for Protection
and Intelligence Operations. When I went there, I immediately
assessed the staffing for intelligence. Within a matter of
months, I put out a vacancy, and I brought on a new
intelligence director. His name is Jack Donohue, and Jack has
over 30 years of experience in the intelligence community. I
also brought on an assistant director from the Department of
Homeland Security to provide a Federal lens.
And Jack did a strategic assessment of U.S. Capitol
Police's intelligence capabilities. We currently have 13
members on staff that provide anlysis. They do our assessments.
They work with our law enforcement partners. We knew it was
important prior to this fiscal year 2022 budget. Even in fiscal
year 2021--I had only been there a year--when Jack provided
that strategic assessment, one of the things we realized is
that staffing has to increase. Some of the numbers that you
reported regarding the threats to our Members of Congress have
increased over 118 percent. Ninety percent of that increase is
just in the first couple of months of 2021 alone. I have been
briefing over a year on these threat increases. So we had to
take action on how we are going to deal with those increases.
So those numbers are in context. We were making sure that the
intelligence director came up with a holistic strategic plan on
how we can mitigate those threats to Members such as yourself.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. Let me ask you one--because I know the
committee members here all have a lot of very good questions--
let me just ask two quick ones if you could give me two quick
answers. One, the budget for this year, the increase for
analysts, so we have 13 now; what would that number be if we
pass this budget as you request it?
Acting Chief Pittman. That would be an eight-person
increase.
Mr. Ryan. An eight-person increase.
Acting Chief Pittman [continuint]. Alone. Twelve of them
would be contractors. Yes, sir, an additional 12 contracting
staff.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. So what would the total be? So 13 plus 8
plus 12?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ryan. Okay.
Acting Chief Pittman. A total of 33.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. Thank you for doing that math for me.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ryan. Lastly, just real quick, so let me make a brief
comment, and I am sure we will get to this throughout the
hearing. I know you have 212 new personnel that you want and 47
civilian. To me, looking at each shift, right, so there is
three shifts in a day usually, right?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. That is correct.
Mr. Ryan. I know you have been doing 12 and 16s, but you
divide each of that by 3, and I don't know what the specific
number would be per shift and how that meets the needs of the
current threats that are out there, plus a lot of these threats
are to district offices, so this number won't necessarily, as
we look forward into a new reality and we wait for General
Honore's recommendations, this number just at first blush for
me doesn't seem quite adequate enough. Again, we have got to go
through this with a fine-tooth comb, but we want to figure out
how you got to that number of 212.
Recruitment and Retention
All right. We will go to Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few
different questions, and it is along the line of recruitment
and retention. Your budget justification noted that the
challenge that the Capitol Police has when finding highly
qualified applicants who can meet rigorous employment
suitability standards of the department. In fact, your budget
is requesting over $100,000 for recruiting and advertising.
Could you explain what some of those, really specifically, what
some of those challenges are and, in detail, what steps you are
taking to recruit and retain qualified officers?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am. Capitol Police prides
itself on recruiting the best officers that we can. We know
that we are competing heavily against other law enforcement
agencies in Washington, D.C. We also know that we have
extremely high and rigorous hiring standards, and our
suitability standards make sure that we weed out the things
like cultural bias, any discriminatory practices of those that
we are trying to hire. We make sure that those persons not only
undergo a criminal background check, but we thoroughly
investigate them and whoever their associations are frontwards
and backwards. We make sure that we do a thorough
investigation.
We also know that COVID has severely impacted our ability
to recruit. Our officers train down in FLETC Georgia. The
COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted us because FLETC Georgia
was forced to close.
Where we normally screen for officers, it takes about 18
persons for us to have one good qualified candidate. We also
know that we had to double up the number of classes down in
FLETC Georgia. Usually within a year, we just had a couple of
classes, but we are now running five classes of 24 officers so
that we can make up for those differences that we lost due to
the COVID-19 pandemic.
For some of the more granular details regarding recruiting
and hiring practices, Mr. Richard Braddock will be able to
provide some more of those details. Richard is well versed. He
has been here 16 years doing just that. So, Mr. Braddock, I
would like to turn to you for some more specifics in regards to
hiring. Thank you.
Mr. Braddock. Thank you, ma'am. I will make this quick
because I know you have other questions, but the majority of
where this money is going is centered around processing more
applicants. We are having to process more polygraphs, medical
evaluations, more psychological processes, and then we are also
in a virtual environment now, so we are paying to tap into
things, into Handshake and other kinds of technology that
allows us to recruit.
We still have a focus, though, on making sure that we are
recruiting females and underrepresented populations, even when
we are trying to bring in larger populations of applicants.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. How many of your officers right now
are, a percentage, are at or near retirement?
Mr. Braddock. So that is a very good question. Because of
the post-9/11 hiring surge, we have about 400 people in the
next year that could look at retiring.
Mr. Herrera Beutler. So----
Mr. Braddock. And that is something we have been working
towards.
Improving Top-Down Communications
Ms. Herrera Beutler. So, just in talking with different
officers in and around the Capitol complex, I know there are
some whom I have known for a while--I have been here for about
10 years, and I was a staffer before that. And I have heard
several of them say that, because of the challenges just around
the culture and the perceived inadequacies, real or I am sure
you guys will have a different opinion, but around the
leadership, there are people who have said: I have a few more
years, but I am going to look at retiring because it doesn't
feel worth it.
And one of the things I think would be helpful in
retaining--and that was another part of the question--retaining
employees is for I think a change in the culture between the
leadership and the frontline officers. I think one of the
things I wanted to ask you, what efforts are you, Chief
Pittman, making to ensure you are more visible and accessible
to the folks that you serve? And when I say ``serve,'' I mean
lead, same thing in my mind.
Acting Chief Pittman. Thank you for that question. I take
my leadership role seriously. I have come up through the ranks
of this agency--I have been here for the past 20 years. I have
a number of friends; some of them I consider my family.
Since being sworn in after January 8, I have attended all
of the roll calls of my officers. I have engaged with them. I
have listened to their concerns. I know some of the concerns
they have about leadership. I provided a platform for them to
express themselves. I also opened up communications with them
more robust than we have ever done before. For example, with
our K-9 officers, they expressed concern over their safety,
having marked vehicles. I immediately implemented that they
take those markings off so those officers could feel safe at
home.
We knew, after January 8, we had a big mission to
accomplish; we were planning for the inauguration. We knew the
officers were working long hours, and they were extremely
exhausted. We provided over 20,000 nights of hotels for all of
our workforce. We also knew that they had limited access to
getting food working while around the clock. They work 365
days, 24 hours a day. With the COVID pandemic, restaurants up
on the Hill have very limited hours. Myself and the leadership
team provided hot meals to all of our staff. Over 90,000 meals
were provided. I also ensured that command staff was getting
information that they could relay same day in regards to
intelligence. I now host a daily command brief with all ranks
but primarily focusing on the captains, inspectors, and deputy
chiefs.
In addition to that, I heard from my officers from visiting
all of those roll calls, from management by walking around.
They still weren't getting the intelligence information. I
directed that my director and some of those intel analysts
start attending those roll calls to provide those briefs
directly to the rank and file. It gave them an opportunity to
ask questions about intelligence from the intelligence experts.
I also meet regularly with the FOP chairman. I had a meeting
last week with the chairman, and I also brought in the
intelligence director to provide them updated communications.
This leadership team has made sure that we have put in place a
number of action items to communicate with our workforce. We
know that our workforce----
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Let me jump in really quick because my
time is up. But I just want one more, just yes or no. So you
feel like you have the confidence of most of your officers? I
realize you can never make everybody happy. Do you feel like
that is an accurate assessment?
Acting Chief Pittman. I do believe that is an accurate
assessment.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I will stop taking the time. I appreciate it.
I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
The chair of the full Appropriations Committee, Ms.
DeLauro.
The Chairwoman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member.
Aligning the FY2022 Budget With Security Review Findings
I just would like to follow up on the personnel and
recruiting and the increased numbers. Have you had
conversations with General Honore and his team about what the
department needs in order to move forward, especially in light
of what happened on January 6?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, ma'am. I have had several
conversations with General Honore and his team. We worked
closely together for them to provide that draft report to the
Speaker. So every level----
The Chairwoman. Let me just--I am delighted that you are
talking with the general. But is the general--his
recommendations, are there any of his recommendations with
regard to the officers or the numbers, et cetera, that are
reflected in your budget? Has the analysis and the evaluation
that the general is making, how is that reflected in your
budget?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. To answer the question directly,
when I met with the general, his recommendations directly align
with the requests that are in our budget. This fiscal year 2022
budget focuses on Member protection. We want to ensure that we
provide our workforce the absolute best so that they can
provide, the Members, the absolute best, not only here in
Washington, D.C., but also districts when you are at home. The
budget directly aligns with his recommendations.
The Chairwoman. I appreciate that a lot because we know we
are going to hear from General Honore, and this full committee
will be looking at what the supplemental request is. So what I
want to do is to make sure that we are looking at what we have
here, which is the annual budget, obviously, and that what in
addition we will need. I want to see where the trains are going
to meet here.
Let me then ask you quickly about, if you can get to us, I
want to know about your training protocol. And you don't have
to lay this all out today, but I would very much like to know,
what is the--who are you working with? How are these officers
trained? What does the training curriculum include? What is the
length of time for training? All of those questions as to
looking at where you are as a highly professional law
enforcement team here. So, if you could lay that out for the
committee, I think it would be enormously helpful. And if you
can tell us if there are any changes being made of what
happened prior to--is there a new regime, a new protocol for
training, what that is, where it is going, and how it is going
to be implemented. So that would be enormously helpful to us.
Mental Health Services for Officers
And I just have one other, and I don't want to--I want to
ask you, are all of the officers able--and do you have within
your budget the kinds of mental health services--and I know
this is an issue that the chair is very concerned about--the
mental health services, is that part of your budget? Is there a
special line item that is dealing with whatever counseling
services are there and not part of the officers being part of
general counseling for everyone else but specific to Capitol
Police and to their families?
And attached to that--and maybe I will leave it this way,
Mr. Chairman--I really think we need to know what that protocol
is on the mental health services and how is that going to be
implemented and what are the costs and where are they within
the budget so that we can address some of--look, I have talked
to a number of officers and, you know, their concerns about
their own psyche and what is going on for their families. I
think this is critically important. So I want to see where it
fits in the budget, what is the line item, how is that going to
be implemented, and how we move forward with those efforts. And
I know about your concern for the officers and so forth. But
what we need to do is see in dollars and cents and
programmatically and implementation what is going to be done in
this direction. And that, coupled with the training and the
vetting of officers, we really need to understand and know that
protocol so that the officers are safe and we begin to build
back the trust, both internally and externally, about the
Capitol Police force. So I want to just say, you know, thank
you. If you can get that to us, then we can go from there.
And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take up more
of your time, but I yield back.
Officer Wellness and Training
Mr. Ryan. That is okay. Thank you, Chairwoman DeLauro.
Chief Pittman, those are two questions I think every member
of this committee would like an answer to. And I am happy to
give you some time to give us at least a snapshot on both the
training end and the mental health promotion, mental health
services, and how you communicate that and try to reach out to
the rank-and-file members to make sure that they know the
opportunities that are available. So take a few minutes and
please share that with us.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, absolutely. I am going to
address the wellness question, what are we doing, how have we
included that in the fiscal year 2022 budget. And I will turn
it over to Mr. Braddock to answer the training question. And I
am willing to come over and provide a more indepth brief so we
are not limited to that 5-minute window.
Mind, body, and medicine is something that we know is
important after a traumatic experience like what our officers
experienced on January 6. I have talked to a number of officers
and commanders out in the field as well, and I know that they
are dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder. There is no
end--specific date that those types of disorders, that type of
trauma is going to end. So we know that we need ongoing care
for our workforce. We, along with the congressional leaders,
have been able to bring on numerous peer-support teams,
specialized trauma counselors.
Chairman Ryan, I have to thank you for the recommendation
that you gave for Dr. Gordon. I know that Mr. Braddock is
working with him, and we have developed a program. But if I
could even go back to fiscal year 2021, that is when we first
made the request to have a wellness and resiliency director. We
have recognized the need long before January 6, but it has been
exacerbated because of the events on the 6th. We have phone
applications. Everybody right now has an Android or an Apple
iPhone; the young people, as well as some of our seasoned
officers, are able to access apps that address nutrition, apps
that address physical fitness, apps that address their
finances. We know that policing is a stressful job. It is
around the clock. Midnight officers have stress just because
they work midnights, in addition to being a law enforcement
officer dealing with critical incidents. We also know that
their physical well-being directly affects their health. We
have our gyms back open following COVID-19 protocols. We know
that if our officers address health and nutrition, it helps to
reduce diseases like heart disease, hypertension, diabetes. And
if we can reduce that, we can have a healthier workforce. It
drives down the need for preventative care and we have our
officers on staff, available to us when needed.
Working in a COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge. I am
thankful to the Speaker that we have had onsite COVID testing.
After the 6th, there were concerns expressed by our officers.
And due to the efforts of the Speaker and Lieutenant General
Honore's task force, we were able to secure COVID-19
vaccinations for all of our staff. By the end of March, 80
percent of our staff will have taken advantage of those COVID-
19 vaccinations. We anticipated about a 30-percent rejection
rate, and right now we are at just about 40 percent, with some
folks changing their mind. But we know that it is important
that we address mind, body, and medicine for all of our
employees.
We have in this fiscal year 2022 budget, budgeted for
$900,000 directly related to wellness and resiliency, and we
want to bring on three additional civilians in addition to what
we already had from fiscal year 2021 so that we can expand
those capabilities.
We also are working closely with Mr. Bryan Weiss of the
House Wellness Program to make sure that our efforts aren't
redundant. Our employees can go there to get assistance, but we
have peer support and counselors onsite that USCP is pushing
and funding so that they have what they need. We know it is a
long road ahead for our staff. And we appreciate the
congressional community support.
Richard, I will turn to you for a quick response, if we
can, on training.
Mr. Braddock. Yes. Just to mention, we will provide to the
committee in writing the training overview protocols and our
hiring process and then answer any questions you have with
that.
One of the things we are looking at right now is the need
for an enhanced refresher training in CDU for supervisors. In
addition, we are looking at our recruit training to see what
changes or shifts we need to be making there as we are training
new officers to come in based on the threats we are seeing.
The budget contains additional training for intelligence
specialists, for threats, and advanced cyber threats,
protection intelligence countermeasures, and insider threats.
We have really stopped and took a look at what needed to be
added on top of what we were reviewing to enhance our training
across the platform.
The Chairwoman. Mr. Chairman, just for one second. Included
in that training, it is also social and emotional determinants,
as well as some of the items that you have laid out. I would
very, very much like to know what then kind of training is
engaged or involved in? Who are the trainers? Are we
contracting out for training? If we don't have the answers now,
I really want to see--I believe it would be important to the
committee to know what the dimensions of the training protocol
regime that you are putting together and again the dollar
amount attached to that, the various pieces that have to do
with the overall, the intelligence, all that, and what are the
qualifications for that in terms of your recruitment to people,
but, also, as I say, the social and emotional and determinants
which then go into the mix of your recruitment and your hiring.
So thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Do you have anything you want to add, Richard?
Mr. Braddock. Just to say, ma'am, we definitely will follow
up. To do it justice, we would want to package it up for you so
you can see it holistically.
Mr. Ryan. Great.
Chief Pittman, with regard to rank-and-file members coming
to access whether its Dr. Gordon's program at the Center for
Mind-Body Medicine or any of these other opportunities that
they may have, can they do that without any fear of being
disciplined or labeled or stigmatized as somehow unfit then for
service?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. We support our workforce
100 percent. We know that that specialized trauma counseling
and peer support is critical to them being able to do their
job. We know that we have had firefighters from the association
from New York come down. We have had Warrior's Rest from
Oklahoma City. We have had peer support from professionals who
are outside of U.S. Capitol Police.
I have heard from a number of officers that expressed
concern with going to the Employee Assistance Program. They
want to make sure that the information they are sharing is
confidential and will not be shared with the leadership, their
supervisors here on the department. So we have made sure that
we provided them with outside peer counselors so that they know
that they have a level of confidentiality that the leadership
doesn't even know or have a personal relationship with those
outside folks so that makes them comfortable. And they are
comfortable with the internal peer-support program that we are
standing up. Because they are talking amongst their peers, they
know that information won't be shared with their command staff.
Mr. Ryan. Okay.
Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Rightsizing in the New Threat Posture
Hey, Chief. Thanks again for sitting in the fun seat.
I get that everything is going forward in terms of how do
we go forward and what are the lessons learned and all that
other sort of stuff. But the one thing that I am hoping that is
part of this process is that we are not doing silos. And you
say, well, what the heck do you mean by not doing silos?
What I mean, Chief, is when you talk about how we need to
staff up going forward in terms of operations, I am hoping that
that is with an eye toward, what does the campus as it is
defined going forward look like in terms of the physical
security? Because I know the Police Board and the Architect of
the Capitol and the other involved folks are all talking about
how we go from 4 miles of temporary fencing, which is costing
$1.9 million a week, to something that is more permanent and in
keeping with the facility and the security requirements so that
when we talk about staffing going forward, it is in terms of
the changes that we have made, that fit harmoniously and
effectively with what we are doing to the Capitol Building
itself, what we are doing to the campus itself, what piece of
that is slowing people down or whatever, traffic patterns,
pedestrian patterns, points, video, all that other sort of
stuff so that we are not creating a physical force which really
wasn't blended with what we want the Capitol improvement of
what you are protecting looks like. So I know you are not going
to accomplish that in whatever time is left for me in this. I
am just going to say we are going to be reaching out to you
after the hearing to sit down, perhaps with you and an AOC
person or whatever, and say as this, which is clearly a work in
progress right now, develops, that when he we talk about what
your budget needs are, that they are for a force and an
operational posture which matches what the new physical plan is
going to look like in terms of individual buildings.
Can you give me an idea whether or not that has gone into
any of the requests that you have done now, which I assume
hasn't because you don't know what the heck it is going to look
like yet?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. I understand exactly what you
mean when you say ``operating in silos.'' Does the left hand
know what the right hand is doing?
We know that there are known threats to the campus. We know
that there is some concern with the fencing. We have heard from
the congressional community that this is the people's House. It
is all about finding that balance, that balance between
security and then how do we keep the campus open and accessible
to the congressional community, as well as all of the millions
of visitors that come here to exercise their First Amendment
rights. We know that there is a delicate balance there. And I
think that we have done a number of things to include in this
fiscal year 2022 budget to ensure that we are not operating in
silos. We are looking at infrastructure. There is a number of
technologies that we could leverage. The team has worked
closely with Lieutenant General Honore's task force so that
they are aware of our needs. We know some of the information
hasn't come out. Some of those reports are concluding quickly.
But for our own physical security assessment, I directed that
immediately after January 8 so that we were working on our own
internal process to say, what are the infrastructure
limitations? How can we better communicate with the physical
force that we have, the infrastructure, and make sure that it
is directly in line with the staffing requests that we are
making? So we have----
Mr. Amodei. And I appreciate that. So we are clear: What I
want to talk about offline is--none of my question is related
to your response after the 6th until now, until a while from
now. It is clearly when we get back to whatever the new normal
is for security on the Capitol campus; are we incorporating the
knowledge of the advances we have made in technology, the
advances we have made in metal detection, the advances we have
made in barriers, all that stuff so that when we say, ``We want
to size you with the appropriate operational assets,'' not that
everything is operations, but you know what I am saying. So
that is the discussion I want to have with you. It is not--I am
not trying to sharp shoot what you are doing now. I am not even
looking at that right now. I am looking at, when we get back to
whatever operations are going to be normal a year or 2 years
from now, that we have sized our Capitol Police on the ground
operations, undercover, K-9, patrol, whatever it is,
appropriately for the new threat posture improvements that we
have made in terms of barriers and all that other sort of
stuff.
My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. And, Mr. Chairman, I would just
respond by saying I would love to provide a more indepth brief,
but the short answer to that question is yes. This fiscal year
2022 budget is laying the foundation to build from now and
address how we see the vision going forward for this police
agency.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
Preparations for Potential March 4, 2021 Protest
Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Chief Pittman, for joining us again and for
going over your budget request.
I think most members of this committee would agree that the
Capitol Police need additional resources to respond to the
events of January 6. But I am hoping that you can briefly tell
me about tomorrow. And do you have what you need for the
security of the Capitol complex tomorrow, March 4? And what can
you share about the threat level?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. Thank you for that question.
I want to ensure everyone on this call that USCP is working
with all of our law enforcement partners in the D.C. capital
region to make sure that all of the intelligence we have and
threats to the campus, we are prepared to respond
appropriately.
We do have some concerning intelligence. That intelligence
is law-enforcement sensitive. And it wouldn't be prudent of me
to share it in a public hearing, a public format. But I would
love to come over. I am available at any time to provide an
additional brief to everyone on the call. But we have enhanced
our security posture. We have taken immediate steps to let the
National Guard, as well as our workforce, know what to expect
tomorrow and going forward. Other than that, I would be more
than happy to come over and provide you a brief.
Ms. Clark. Thank you for that offer. I am sure we will take
you up on it.
Balancing USCP Priorities
I want to talk a little bit about, as we talk about
security for the Capitol complex, I want to make sure we have
the right balance going forward. Traffic and drug enforcement
activities: Traffic incidents are--52 percent of your incident
reports involve traffic-related infractions; 14 percent are
drug-related offenders. Do you have the right balance? And do
you think that this is striking the right balance between these
activities and the safety of Members, staff, and the Capitol
community?
Acting Chief Pittman. I do believe that we are striking the
right balance. We have a patrol mobile response that patrols
the grounds that surround the campus. We know that a large
number of the staff that work here live around those grounds.
They also use the South Capitol Street Metro and Union Station
Metro to go back and forth to work. A lot of times when we are
patrolling the grounds, that is where that type of activity
comes from. But I, again, would be glad to provide you a more
indepth brief than can be explained in this 5-minute period.
Ms. Clark. Okay. I would love to understand the dollar
figure on it and what percentage of your budget is going to
traffic and drug offenses.
Civil Disturbance Unit Readiness
I would love to also follow up on your testimony of last
week that the department has seven civil disturbance unit
platoons but enough hard gear to only equip four of those
platoons. Unlike the D.C. Metro Police, you do not supply every
officer with even the minimum amount of hard gear, like hard
helmets. It is a pretty amazing statistic, given that you are
the 12th largest police force in the country. I did not see in
your budget proposal a request for funding to purchase
additional hard gear. Will you be doing that? Will you be
equipping the other three CDUs?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. And thank you for the question
and opportunity to provide some additional follow up and
context.
Those officers that were on the front lines on January 6
fought with everything they had. We are eternally forever
grateful for them. They are our heroes. We know that, because
of them, that electoral vote process was able to continue. We
know that we ordered CDU helmets prior to the January 6
incident. They were actually ordered in September of the
previous year.
Ms. Clark. Chief Pittman.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. Those helmets have arrived, and
we have already issued----
Ms. Clark. Any other hard equipment to equip our officers?
I think the best way we can honor their incredible bravery is
by making sure they have the hard gear they need.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. Over 1,300 of those helmets have
arrived. We do have several hundred that are still coming in to
be issued out. In addition to that, we have a number of other
equipment assets that are reflected in the fiscal year 2022
budget for our officers. We do want to honor them and make sure
that they are in the best position to protect themselves as
well as protecting you.
Ms. Clark. In my final seconds here, there is an inspector
general's report. It is one of the primary ways that we ensure
Federal dollars are being spent appropriately. Your office,
U.S. Capitol Police, does not make--your office does not make
the IG reports available to the public.
Do you support the release of those? Yes or no?
Acting Chief Pittman. That is up to the Capitol Police
Board. The Capitol Police Board has oversight over USCP, and
they determine whether or not we release the recommendations
from the Office of the Inspector General.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Chief.
I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Clark.
Chief, we are going to be reaching out to your staff here
immediately to see if we can put together a quick briefing
right after this committee, if you have time. We can just find
a room and we can all head over there, or whatever the
protocols are, or call, or we will figure it out. But I would
like to get that done right after the committee hearing, if
that is okay.
Acting Chief Pittman. I will work with your chief of staff
to make sure we get that scheduled ASAP.
Mr. Ryan. Great. Thank you.
Ensuring the FY 2022 Budget Addresses Areas of Weakness
Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would
appreciate that briefing as well. There is some questions that
I would like to ask that maybe this isn't the right setting.
But welcome back, Acting Chief Pittman. It is a pleasure to
see you again. And thanks for taking so much of your time in
the last couple of weeks and spending it with us.
I have got some questions still about January 6, Mr.
Chairman, but since this is about the appropriation request, I
will try to focus on that particularly. So maybe a follow-up
meeting would be good for those questions too.
But, you know, as appropriators, Chief Pittman, we want to
make sure that--you know, we want to help. We want to make sure
you have got all the tools that you need to provide the men and
women that serve in the Capitol Police force so that they can
do their job appropriately and safely. And so my questions are
in light of that. I want to make sure you understand.
It has only been, you know, less than 2 months since
January 6. That is not a--you have spent a lot of your time
responding to a lot of our questions, throughout Congress,
about what happened, and I guess I want to be certain about the
steps that you have taken, the processes that you went through
to come up with these numbers that you are asking. I want to
make sure we have confidence that we are just not throwing
dollars at the problem, that we truly are addressing the tough
questions that we need to in order to be better prepared into
the future.
In my humble opinion, I am not convinced that January 6
happened because of life cycle replacement issues or because of
software maintenance agreements and those kinds of things.
I think that there was truly a lack of communication, a
breakdown of command, and it seems like a failure to pass along
important reports to people in leadership so that decisions
could be made.
And so, like I said, I want to make--I want to have the
confidence that by providing the dollars to these areas, we are
actually helping to solve the problem, and I would like to hear
your response to give us the confidence that we are.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. And thank you for the
opportunity to provide clarity and context.
I hear your concerns about the fiscal year 2022 budget. Our
goal and focus has been to strengthen our intelligence
capabilities. Having intelligence in and of itself is not
enough. We know that we need to be able to convey and
communicate to the workforce internally, as well as to our
stakeholders externally, in a way that they understand that
those intelligence capabilities, vulnerabilities are being
plugged and they are being addressed in a manner so that they
drive operational security posture.
One of the things that you asked about in the previous
hearing was specifically about that FBI document, and I know
that this is a budgetary hearing, but I think it is important
that we address how intelligence information is gathered. The
USCP has----
Mr. Newhouse. So, Chief, I know we have a short amount of
time. Tell me then how the budget request addresses that and
the breakdown in command. That is what I am getting at, just
those simple--boil it down.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. For member protection, we know
that the threats are through the roof. We asked for 111
dignitary protection officers--dignitary protection agents
because right now we only cover the congressional leadership.
When we have things such as the impeachment hearings, we had
nine managers. We have to pull from those 10 leadership details
to cover those nine managers. If we have other threats that are
coming in, we are really dependent upon our law enforcement
partners. They do a great job, but these numbers in this fiscal
year 2022 budget give us a chance to address that from within.
We know that we are the best at protecting Members of Congress.
We also----
Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate--my time is just about out, but
my question is--
Mr. Ryan. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ryan. Mr. Newhouse, take your time.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I really want to--I am not trying to be a jerk about this.
I really want to understand--I think the committee does too--
that the dollars that we appropriate actually get to the root
of some of the problems that have been identified, and you have
talked about some of them. But I think the breakdown in command
and communication and leadership was a big contributing factor,
and so maybe that can't be reflected in a budget request. But I
am hopeful that it can be, and I am just--that is what I want
to understand from you this morning.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. I understand the
community's concerns with the Capitol Police leadership,
command, and control. I immediately came in after January 8 and
addressed a number of those issues. One of the issues that was
raised on the previous hearing was, why wasn't more direction
given? How come the officers couldn't hear? Why weren't
evacuation routes communicated one way on the House and a
different way on the Senate? I have addressed all of those.
I first started by addressing communication out in the
field for riots. I procured an LRAD system for those
commanders, deputy chiefs, with boots on the ground. It is a
communication system on steroids. It makes sure that if you are
dealing with large crowds, you can hear, you can give clear and
concise direction to your officers, how you want them to form
up, where you are going to draw your line in the sand, so that
we can prevent a January 6 from ever happening again.
I directed a review of the command center so that those
notification messaging systems that are going out to the
community, we make sure that they are clear and concise and
timely.
I also ordered that those commanders at the Capitol
immediately start training with those evacuation routes. We
want to make sure that we have the officers that are assigned
to those chambers in the chambers during a critical incident.
Some of the information is law enforcement sensitive, so I
can't go into the details of those evacuation routes, but I can
assure you, within days of me being assigned as the Acting
Chief of Police, I made sure that those communications went out
to those commanders. I made sure that we filled those
intelligence gaps, because we acknowledge that they do exist.
I acknowledge that there were failures of command and
control, but I have put in internal controls immediately after
being appointed to this position to address those gaps, sir.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. That is very helpful, and I
appreciate that.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your allowing me to go
over time, but I think that was a very important point that I
wanted to hear. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ryan. Yes. Thanks, Mr. Newhouse. I appreciate it.
And let me just add, with regard to the details and
everything else, I am not necessarily saying every Member of
Congress should have a detail, but if you are a Governor of a
State, you have a security detail. You have security at your
home. If you are chair of the Appropriations Committee or the
Ways and Means Committee or the Defense Committee, you know, it
is a much different story. So I think most of us would say we
have got to increase that, and it could be threat-based given
politics of the moment, and I think that is important.
And the information flow, just to reiterate what Mr.
Newhouse's question was, we appreciate those reforms. We want
to look closer at them, because the kind of information we are
getting that the FBI was confirming intelligence for the
Capitol Police and that intelligence never made its way up to
you in your old position or to Chief Sund is a breakdown in the
information flow that we need that has got to be organic and
integrated and then make its way up to the decision makers.
So we are going to be looking very, very closely at that. I
know we are the appropriations side of this, but if we are
going to be jacking up the budget by hundreds of millions of
dollars, or whatever the number ends up being, we want to make
damn sure that the information, the processes, the
communication, the command and control, the training, the
helmets, the equipment, all of that has got to be tops in the
country. This police department needs to be a model for all
immersion training, mental health, wellness, the whole 9 yards.
It needs to be a model for all other departments in the
country.
Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And just on a quick aside, I cannot let your opening
comments on Washington's preeminence with glaciers go
uncommented on because you spoke of it in terms of the
contiguous parts of our country, and this risks great division
and polarization as between the contiguous and noncontiguous
parts of our country. I just want to assure everybody that
Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Marianas, American Samoa, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands do not have glaciers. And so what
you should have said was Washington is far better than anybody
else other than Alaska. I think that sounds better all around.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Well, why don't you invite us to
Hawaii and we can talk about it.
Mr. Case. I am happy to do that. I am just trying to defend
Washington.
So, sorry, Chief Pittman. Very serious topic, but levity
never hurts.
Funding the Inspector General Independent Assessment
I spoke to you last week about my great concern, which is
actually getting to be a deeper concern, that in trying to
figure out as to January 6 exactly what happened, why, and what
we need to do to prevent it, we are not getting objective,
independent assessments.
I think we also established last week that as to General
Honore--and it is good news that you are in touch with him--his
evaluation is more about the physical infrastructure, the
physical protection, the physical, you know, attributes of
greater prevention and protection, to include what has gone
into your budget request in terms of increasing officers. But
as I think Mr. Newhouse was trying to get at, and Mr. Amodei,
we are just as concerned, or at least I am just as concerned
about the nonphysical human areas that went wrong, whether it
be command structure or flow of communication or whatever. And
I am very, very concerned that that is not yet at least being
subjected to an objective, independent assessment that is not
driven by the people that were there on the spot, because I
don't think that that results in either a good overall
assessment or in credibility and confidence in the result.
And so last week, I asked you who is actually doing that,
and you responded in part the inspector general, by which I
think you were referring to as the U.S. Capitol Police
Inspector General. But I don't see anything in your budget
request that would actually allow the inspector general to do
that job. I mean, you have got, if I understand it correctly,
10 FTEs and the inspector general, that you are not trying to
increase. If I understand correctly, only one or two of them
are actually investigators, and I assume that they have their
hands full in investigating kind of individual incidents within
the U.S. Capitol Police.
And so I just ask you straight out again, how are we going
to get that objective, independent assessment? And is your
budget request adequate for that kind of participation by the
inspector general's office to actually do the job?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. Thank you for your question. We
welcome all independent assessments and reviews of the U.S.
Capitol Police. We know that Lieutenant General Honore and a
couple of the others that you mentioned are doing an
assessment, and I understand that you are saying that is not
actually independent. We need to have someone outside of the
agency, someone who is not tied to government per se to come in
and do that assessment. We welcome those reviews, because I
believe that the proof is going to be data driven. How we build
out from fiscal year 2022 is going to be looking at those
independent assessments, taking that information so we can use
it to effect change on our policies, we can provide better
accommodations for our people, and we will evaluate our
processes to make this an opportunity to make things better for
the entire department. We----
Mr. Case. I am sorry.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
Mr. Case. Let me just, because my time is ticking down
here. I am not saying that General Honore is not independent. I
am saying that he is not looking at the totality of the
picture, at least as I understand it. I am talking about the
other half of the assessment, which is, you know, what
happened, what went wrong, what didn't go wrong, and what needs
to be corrected about the noninfrastructure part of this; so,
in other words, the human actions, the Capitol Board, you know,
all of the areas where you could have the best possible
infrastructure, the best possible police force and things may
well still have gone wrong. I am talking about the
organization. And so I am trying to get at, you know, where is
that coming from? And are we resourcing that effort then----
And I ask you very specifically, because your answer last
week was, it is coming from the inspector general. And I don't
know whether this inspector general under this budget request
has the resources to do that job. So I am focused very much on
the inspector general. Is the inspector general in that
business? And do you have the resources in your budget request
for that inspector general's office to take a look
independently, which is what inspector generals are supposed to
be about?
I accept that the inspector general is a good place to
participate in this independent, objective assessment, but I
ask the question whether they have got what they need to do
that.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. So we do provide funding to
the Office of the Inspector General for contractors, and that
request is in this budget.
And I would like to turn it over to Mr. Braddock. He can
provide some more details about the budget itself and the
inspector general.
Mr. Braddock. Yes, sir. I will make it brief.
They determine their own budget requests. That is what is
in the book that you see. That came directly from the IG. That
said, as a result of the events of the 6th, the department was
requested to provide additional contract resources to the IG,
which we did. We used some of our no-year reimbursable funds
that we get for things like the O'Neill House Office Building
security, and we moved that over to the IG so they could have
the resources they need to do this.
Mr. Case. Okay. But that is--excuse me, Mr. Chair, just a
quick one, if I could.
I don't see that in the budget request itself. I see a
level budget request here. So is that in a supplemental? Is
that a diversion of existing resources from one function to
another that is within the purview of your authority under the
current budget or what?
Mr. Braddock. So, sir, we don't make that decision on what
the IG asks for. We are literally a passthrough from the IG to
you in our budget book. That said, statute requires that if
they have additional needs, that the department is responsible
for resourcing that. So anytime they have a surge need that
they have that isn't in a budget cycle, we step in with the
resources we have and we do divert that to the IG. But any
request you see is coming directly from them.
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Braddock. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. Ms. Wexton.
USCP Intelligence Operations
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Chief
Pittman, for joining us here again today.
You know, like everybody else on this call, I really don't
ever want to see anything like January 6 happen here again,
but, frankly, it really did showcase to the world the
vulnerabilities here at the Capitol. And I share some of Mr.
Newhouse's concerns that we don't just throw a bunch of money
at the problem when the structural changes haven't been
implemented which we are going to need in order to move
forward.
I just want to talk a little bit about the intelligence
operations that you currently have at Capitol Police because,
Chief, prior to your current role as acting chief, you were the
assistant chief of the department's protective and intelligence
operations. Is that correct?
I am sorry, you are still muted, so you need to unmute.
Mr. Braddock. She is having a technical issue.
Acting Chief Pittman. Sorry about that.
Yes, that is correct.
Ms. Wexton. And in that capacity, you oversaw the
Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division, or IICD?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. Yes, I did.
Ms. Wexton. So who makes up IICD? You testified earlier
that you had 13 intelligence officers. And who else is on
there?
Acting Chief Pittman. We have a number of analysts, and we
have an intelligence director, a new director that was hired.
We also have a deputy director, and we have the open source
section.
Ms. Wexton. So about how many people total work within IICD
for Capitol Police?
Acting Chief Pittman. About 13 people.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. And are any of them assigned to the Joint
Terrorism Task Force within the FBI?
Acting Chief Pittman. Not within IICD, but we do have task
force agents that are assigned to the FBI in various task force
units. They are throughout the FBI but in different units.
Ms. Wexton. So how many of your officers are assigned to
the JTTF?
Acting Chief Pittman. We do have officers assigned to the
Joint Terrorism Task Force. We have eight of those officers
that are currently assigned.
Ms. Wexton. But none of them is with IICD?
Acting Chief Pittman. No. They are two separate entities.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. So how does intelligence flow from the
officers who are on the JTTF to IICD?
Acting Chief Pittman. The national JTTF is part of IICD,
and that information flows from the national level to those
IICD partners.
Ms. Wexton. So you don't have anybody who is a part of the
regional JTTF?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, we do have investigation
officers. So there are two different entities within Capitol
Police. One side is investigations, and the other side is
intelligence. They work within the same bureau.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. So if an investigator were to get
intelligence from the JTTF, how would they pass that on to the
right channels right now?
Acting Chief Pittman. They are responsible for reporting
that to their supervisors. U.S. Capitol Police has a chain of
command, just like any other law enforcement, but they push it
up through the chain of command. The chain-of-command sergeant
gives it to the lieutenant, and it goes to the intelligence
director who shares that information with the leadership.
Ms. Wexton. But that didn't happen with this January 5
bulletin that was shared with the JTTF, did it?
Acting Chief Pittman. That January 5 bulletin was given to
those task force agents that you referenced. They gave it to
their sergeant, and it stopped at the lieutenant. They did
report it to their----
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Very good.
So are you familiar with the U.S. Capitol Police's
strategic plan for 2021 to 2025 which was issued under Chief
Sund?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, I am.
Ms. Wexton. And you are aware of strategic goals 3.1 and
3.2, 3.1 being to evaluate the USCP capabilities and maximize
the use of information gathering across the department? Does
that sound right?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. I don't have the plan in front
of me to know, but it does sound right.
Ms. Wexton. 3.2 is to establish processes and implement a
department-wide framework for converting information and data
into actionable communications for the workforce.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, it sounds right.
Ms. Wexton. And the explanatory section for 3.2 says:
Establishes the communication channels that make it possible
for information to get quickly to those who need it without
unnecessary delay or confusion. Right?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
Ms. Wexton. The goal. So it is safe to say that as of
January 6, the Capitol Police was already aware that you guys
had communication issues and trouble--shortcomings when it came
to acting on information. Would you agree with that?
Acting Chief Pittman. I would say that there is always room
for improvement in the area of communications. That is why we
brought on the intelligence director. We realized that there
were gaps. Mr. Donahue has come in and developed a strategic
plan to help Capitol Police plug those gaps. Department-wide we
are always looking to improve our communications internally as
well as externally.
Ms. Wexton. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one more quick
question?
Mr. Ryan. Yes, of course.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you.
So is there now a comprehensive plan in place for how
information would flow from intelligence to Capitol Police
decision makers?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, there is. The Director of
Intelligence has been given specific direction to communicate
with those task force agents, and those task force agents also
know to communicate directly with him. We make sure that it has
gone up to a higher level, it won't just stop within that chain
of command at the lieutenant level.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Thank you very much.
I see my time has expired, so I will yield back because I
know everybody else has a lot of questions as well.
Thank you, Chief.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
One quick question before we go to Mr. Espaillat.
Communications Between the FBI and USCP
Chief, was there any contact from the FBI? We know the
bulletin got over, didn't make its way past the sergeant, which
is obviously very frustrating for all of us to hear that. Was
there a phone call? I mean, among discussions among ourselves,
we would say, well, wouldn't somebody from the FBI call Chief
Sund, or your counterpart with intelligence get a call from
somebody from the FBI? Did that happen at all?
Acting Chief Pittman. No, sir. Thank you for the
opportunity to clarify.
The FBI only sent the email. I know that Director Wray
reported out yesterday that that information was shared in a
roll call type of setting. But the FBI does have deliberate
ways if they want to communicate information that is
classified, if it is sensitive, if it needs to be communicated
at a high level, the FBI has the Joint Terrorism Task Force
Executive Committee.
If the FBI thought that that Norfolk document was the
smoking gun that many have alleged that it is not, in our
assessment, that information would have been communicated
directly to high-level executives, like Chief Sund, from the
Joint Terrorism Task Force Executive Committee.
And I think that Chief Contee said it best when he was on a
briefing hearing. If your house is on fire, you are not going
to send an email to someone's child to give a message to the
parent that a house is on fire. If that document was the
smoking gun that many have alleged it is--and we think it is
not--you are going to make sure that you have deliberate
communication so that quick actions can be taken and law
enforcement would have postured differently, not just U.S.
Capitol Police, but there are a number of law enforcement
agencies within D.C. that did not posture differently as well
due to that one document.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ryan. Well, just to be clear, that document basically
affirmed your intelligence as well. And I, for one, believe
that the leadership at the Capitol Police Department still
should have acted, whether they got the FBI or not. It was just
another example of, look, this is the intel that is out there,
and there wasn't a--you guys didn't push for a vote with the
Capitol Police Board. You know, we don't need to get into all
of that right now because, you know, we are doing a hearing on
the appropriations request. But that being the case that they
didn't call you is not a pass for the lack of leadership from
the Capitol Police, just so we are clear on that.
Properly Equipping and Protecting Officers
Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Chief Pittman, for your testimony.
Clearly, I think all of us, no matter which side of the
aisle we are on, can agree that Police Officer Eugene Goodman
is an American hero and, you know, he may have saved dozens, if
not hundreds, of lives.
However, my staff and I have had numerous off-the-record
conversations with rank-and-file officers since the
insurrection on January 6, and they have highlighted their
concerns and have come out giving us concerns about the lack of
preparedness in terms of deficient equipment or the lack of
equipment.
And seeing the film footage of Officer Goodman steering the
racist mob away from the Senate floor, it just jumps at us that
he perhaps didn't have all the equipment that he needed to
protect himself. I felt that he was unprotected there.
If you had it another way, Chief, what kind of equipment do
you think Officer Eugene Goodman should have had on that day,
on January 6, to be protected from that racist mob?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. Thank you for the question, and
thank you for acknowledging Officer Eugene Goodman. I have
known Eugene Goodman since he came on the department and have
talked with him several times. We thank you for acknowledging
his efforts. We appreciate his service.
Our department uniforms that our officers wear, you will
see different uniforms when you come in. The barricades, for
example, the officers have on BDUs because they work outside.
If they ride a bike, they wear a bike uniform. Eugene Goodman's
uniform for that day was indicative of where he works. Eugene
has been a Chamber officer for a number of years, so he wasn't
assigned to the civil disturbance units that were outside
fighting in that riot gear. I also----
Mr. Espaillat. Excuse me, Chief. You knew that there was
going to be a mob out there. Should have Officer Goodman wore a
helmet?
Acting Chief Pittman. I think the question is twofold.
Officer Goodman is assigned to Chambers, and the Chambers have
very specific uniform requirements, whether they are on the
Chamber floor or outside. But I do agree with you one hundred
percent that we have looked at the equipment for our officers
that are assigned to CDU. We have already put in this fiscal
year 2022 budget request a number of things that will address
those gaps regarding the officers' equipment. So there is
helmets--uh-huh.
Mr. Espaillat. Was he wearing a vest, a bulletproof vest?
Acting Chief Pittman. I am sure that Eugene was wearing a
vest, because all of our officers are required to wear a vest.
Mr. Espaillat. But you are sure? Do you know that he was
wearing one?
Acting Chief Pittman. I haven't talked to Eugene to ask him
that specific question, and I wasn't in the Capitol, but I have
no reason to think that he would not have been wearing a vest
on that day.
Mr. Espaillat. Were there any weapons confiscated from the
racist mob?
Acting Chief Pittman. We made a number of arrests. Along
with Metropolitan Police Department, arrests were made and
weapons were taken.
Mr. Espaillat. So if weapons were taken and you knew it was
going to be a mob of thousands of racist, bigoted people there
that were ready to storm the Capitol, shouldn't Officer Goodman
have worn a helmet, a bulletproof vest, and perhaps other
equipment to protect his own safety?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes.
Mr. Espaillat. Irregardless of whether he was in a category
that is not a riot-responding category?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, I agree. We have ordered helmets
for the entire department. And going forward, we know that our
officers need additional equipment. So I agree, they do need
that equipment, and it is reflected in this budget request.
Mr. Espaillat. I just saw him with the nightstick, and I
felt that he was overpowered, and he was--he is an American
hero. He was smart enough to steer this racist mob away from
Members. But I felt he was severely exposed and, as such, I
believe that you ought to reassess the kind of equipment that
Capitol Police, irregardless of what unit they are assigned to,
wear on a regular basis, including bulletproof vests, helmets,
other kind of protective equipment that can save their lives.
I think that he was exposed and felt somewhat, I believe,
overpowered by this angry mob, not that perhaps he could have
been in a better position had he wore other equipment, but I
think he could have been better protected.
Do you agree with that, that he could have been better
protected?
Acting Chief Pittman. I agree that we need to do an overall
assessment of our equipment and capabilities. That is reflected
currently in this fiscal year 2022 budget. We know that we want
to stop the threat before it ever reaches the building. We want
to make sure that January 6 never happens again. We want to
make sure that all of those officers that fought so heroically,
to include Eugene, but there were many others that are our
heroes, have the necessary tools and equipment that they need
so that we can prevent an incident like that ever again on the
campus.
Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask one final
question, I know my time is up, please?
Mr. Ryan. Sure. Take your time.
Mr. Espaillat. Yes. Thank you.
I see the Capitol Police today, when I went down to vote,
pretty much with the same gear that they wore that day on
January 6. Are they currently wearing helmets? Have you
upgraded their equipment to be better protected in case there
is another attack?
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes. So we have already issued
helmets to the majority of our workforce. We have additional
helmets that are coming, and we also have ordered additional
equipment that will be forthcoming as well, yes, sir.
Mr. Espaillat. Well, Mr. Chairman, just for the record, it
seems to me that they are still wearing the same equipment that
they wore on the 6th. I haven't seen any officers wear helmets.
I am not sure if they are wearing bulletproof vests, but I
think they should be upgraded.
Thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
Chief, we are going to go over everything that--the changes
that you have implemented and all of that, but I hope you
understand our level of frustration when we are having a
conversation right now about the Capitol Police not having some
basic level of equipment and how did we get to that point where
it was, you know, with the intelligence reports stopped at a
sergeant, the equipment wasn't where it needed to be, training.
I mean, this is all very troubling. And I am glad you are
making the changes that you have made since you have been in,
but you were also there, you know, in a high-ranking position
as well when this was going on. And as you heard from all the
questions here, you know, because it is--our colleagues come to
us and they say, you know, we, this committee, has a
responsibility to make sure that you have what you need, and we
need to know what you need.
And, you know, we don't need another--you know, especially
with the threats for tomorrow and all the other threats we are
getting. I am not going to beat a dead horse. You know how I
feel. But we appreciate you making the reforms that you have
made and, again, we want to try to support you to, you know,
fix these problems, whether they are budgetary, or as Mr.
Newhouse brought up, they are about process and structure and
information flows and all of that.
So, anyway, we appreciate your time.
Just for the committee, we have a 12:30 Library of Congress
hearing. There are votes at 12:15. So if we can run over and
vote and then come back. Ms. Herrera Beutler and I will go vote
and try to get back here and be here to kick off the 12:30.
And then we would like to, Chief, if you could accommodate
us at some point this afternoon to make sure we get this brief
on March 4.
Acting Chief Pittman. Yes, sir. Again, we thank you for
your support. We hear all of your concerns, and we are looking
forward to leading this agency forward with the requests in
this fiscal year 2022 budget. I will reach out this afternoon
to schedule that meeting and provide that brief.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ryan. Great. Thank you.
Thanks, everybody. The committee is adjourned.
[Questions, answers, and additional material submitted for
the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 3, 2021.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
WITNESSES
CARLA HAYDEN, LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
MARK SWEENEY, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY OF
CONGRESS
KAREN KENINGER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE FOR THE BLIND AND
DISABLED, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
BUD BARTON, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
MARY B. MAZANEC, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
SHIRA PERLMUTTER, DIRECTOR U.S. REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, U.S. COPYRIGHT
OFFICE
Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
This hearing is fully virtual, so we need to address a few
housekeeping matters.
For members, members are responsible for muting and
unmuting themselves. For purposes of eliminating inadvertent
background noise, the chair or staff designated by the chair
may mute participants' microphones when they are not under
recognition. If I notice when you are recognized that you have
not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the
staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff
will unmute your microphone.
We will begin with the chair and ranking member. Then
members present at the time the hearing is called to order will
be recognized in order of seniority.
We are using the 5-minute clock, which you will notice on
your screen. It will show how much time is remaining. If there
is some technology issue, we will move to the next member until
the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of your
time.
Finally, regarding adding extraneous or additional material
to the record, per House rules, we have set up an email address
where members can send anything they wish to submit for the
record after seeking recognition for its inclusion. That email
address has been provided in advance to your staff.
I would like to welcome the Librarian of Congress, Dr.
Carla Hayden, to present the fiscal year 2022 budget request
for the Library of Congress.
Dr. Hayden, it is always a pleasure to be with you. Thank
you for being here. At the beginning of your testimony, please
introduce your colleagues who will be joining you today, many
familiar faces.
The mission of the Library is to engage, inspire, and
inform. Even amid a pandemic, this has not changed. Over the
past few years, the Library has made significant strides in the
areas of modernizing essential technology and optimizing
operations to facilitate easier and robust access for Congress
and the public.
Considering the continuing restrictions of the COVID-19
pandemic, the strategic plan to expand access, enhance
services, and optimize resources is more important now than
ever.
Currently, resources for the Library of Congress are a
little over 14 percent of the entire legislative branch budget,
totaling $757.4 million in appropriated funds in fiscal year
2021. For fiscal year 2022, the Library has requested $801
million, which is a 5.8 percent increase, or $43.7 million,
over the fiscal year 2021 enacted level.
I hope you can expand on the budget justification,
descriptions, requests for programmatic increases in LCAP and
the Integrated Electronic Security System and how these
initiatives will position the Library to better adapt to
rapidly changing needs, ensure the safety of all the
collections and the Library workforce.
I hope you can also address security operations in the
cloud and the necessary upgrade to cellular connectivity in the
Library.
The Library of Congress is a treasure of the United States,
and it is our duty to protect the valuable collections and
preserve the Library's ability to chronicle this great Nation
and provide access to our history for generations to come.
I look forward to your testimony today, Dr. Hayden.
And at this point, I would like to yield to my colleague
and friend from Washington State, a State that produces more
potatoes than Idaho, the ranking member, Jaime Herrera Beutler,
for any opening comments she would like to make.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that kind
introduction.
I would like to welcome Dr. Hayden and Director Mazanec, if
I am saying that right--good--and Acting Director Strong here
today.
As the largest library in the world, the Library of
Congress boasts a remarkable collection of literature as well
as truly unique items in its collections. These collections
range anywhere from the contents of Abraham Lincoln's pocket
the fateful night of his assassination to a book smaller than
the size of a penny.
An important task for the Library is to make your
collection of historical documents and human knowledge
accessible to every corner of our country, even Hawaii for
Representative Case--although I am sure you won't mind making
it accessible to folks in Hawaii, Dr. Hayden.
This is especially important for folks who may not have the
opportunity to travel to D.C. to see firsthand the breadth of
the Library's collections and resources. And I want to make
sure that my constituents back home in southwest Washington and
citizens across this Nation have these resources that the
Library provides at their fingertips.
From the digitization of historical documents to providing
rich resources for students and teachers to access online, I
like that the Library is taking active steps to ensure that
those who seek the Library's resources have access to them. I
look forward to working with you to continue this important
mission.
The Library is also continuing progress on its Visitor
Experience initiative to transform the Thomas Jefferson
Building to further engage visitors, young and old alike. I am
pleased to see the third installment of the initiative in the
budget request and am interested to hear an update on the
project.
And despite the challenges presented with the COVID-19
pandemic, the Library has continued its excellent service to
Congress, while providing educators and students valuable
learning resources, as thousands of schools across the country
are forced to transition to online learning.
I think I can speak for all of us when I say I look forward
to the day when the Library does physically reopen its doors to
welcome the public.
Dr. Hayden, your total budget request for the Library is
$845.9 million for the fiscal year 2022, a 5.5 percent increase
from the fiscal year 2021 enacted. Included in that is $129.6
million for the Congressional Research Service and $98 million
for the Copyright Office.
The budget includes several IT modernization projects,
including updates to legacy systems that manage the entire
physical and digital collection, provide fundamental security
protection, and connect throughout the entire Library's
footprint. I am interested to hear how these initiatives are
prioritized.
So I appreciate all the work that you and your team do, Dr.
Hayden, and I look forward to meeting again in person,
hopefully in the near future, and hearing from your testimony
today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Dr. Hayden, you have the floor.
Dr. Hayden. Thank you, Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member
Herrera Beutler, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
the opportunity to provide testimony in support of the
Library's fiscal 2022 budget.
And joining me today, the Principal Deputy Librarian, Mr.
Mark Sweeney; the head of the CRS, Mary Mazanec; the new
Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter; Karen Keninger, the
head of NLS; and Mr. Bud Barton, our Chief Information Officer.
One year ago, when we had to close the Library's doors as
the pandemic began, we had to open other avenues that allowed
us to serve Congress and the American people in new and
innovative ways. And thanks to your support for our investments
in IT infrastructure, the Library's network was able to handle
an 800 percent increase in remote workforce, and essential
services, including CRS and the United States Copyright Office,
were able to maintain full productivity while working remotely.
In light of the challenges presented by COVID-19, the
Library has transformed our public outreach by pivoting to
virtual events and has developed new audiences for the Library
beyond those who could have visited us in person. And with
congressional support and private philanthropy, we remained on
schedule to unveil the Library's new Visitor Experience in
phases, beginning in late calendar 2022.
Worthy of special note is the National Library for the
Blind and Disabled, NLS, which utilized its network of State
and local libraries to circulate more than 20 million copies of
braille, audio, and large-print items to patrons.
I would like to recognize NLS Director Karen Keninger, who
joined the Library in 2012 and will retire at the end of May.
At the outset, her priorities for NLS leveraged advancing
technology and expanded content for all print-disabled persons.
Karen accomplished all of her goals and so much more for the
NLS.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your
support in the fiscal 2021 funding bill for high-priority
needs, such as cybersecurity enhancements, state-of-the-art
shelving for the law library, and enhanced science and
technology research capacity in CRS.
Thank you, as well, for your continued support for the
Library's new preservation strategy and collection storage
modules at Fort Meade as part of the Architect of the Capitol's
budget.
I come before you today to discuss the Library of
Congress's fiscal 2022 appropriations request for approximately
$846 million, a 5.5 percent increase over the Library's 2021
enacted appropriation.
This request includes $24.2 million in mandatory pay and
price level increases. The balance of the increase represents
critical program investments necessary to fulfill the Library's
role, continue modernization efforts, and ensure the safety and
security of the Library's collections and workforce.
The budget request seeks to modernize and replace the
legacy Integrated Library System that was installed in 1999 in
preparation for Y2K and is now at the end of its life. Just as
smartphones of that era are now obsolete in our current mobile
world, ILS no longer meets the Library's needs for collections
management.
The replacement will be a modern Library Collections Access
Platform that will be the heart of the Library's collections
management, physical and digital, for the next generation.
We are requesting funding to take the next step in
modernizing and optimizing financial management and planning in
the Library. We seek to stabilize our current accounting
activities and establish a new enterprise planning and
management program.
Our pandemic operations as well as heightened physical
security threats have focused attention on the safety and
security of our workforce and collections. We are requesting
funding to modernize the Library's nearly 20-year-old
Integrated Electronic Security System, used by both the Library
and the U.S. Capitol Police for physical security monitoring of
Library facilities and collections.
We are asking for funding to replace the Library's end-of-
life 3G cellular system that provides connectivity for only
about 50 percent of the Library and presents security issues.
We are also requesting funding to allow the Library to
implement the same advanced level of IT security across both
its data centers and cloud-hosting environments.
I would like to note that these two requests are important
life safety and security improvements for Library facilities
and would be good candidates for any additional fiscal 2021
funding the committee might consider as well.
In addition, to support Library employees with ``work
anywhere, anytime'' functionality and advance virtual
collaboration tools, we are requesting funding to speed the
transition to Microsoft 365, in alignment with congressional
adoption of the same.
And, finally, I am delighted to have with us today Shira
Perlmutter, the new Register of Copyrights. This budget
requests funding to fully implement the Copyright Alternative
and Small-Claims Enforcement, or CASE Act, with the creation of
a small claims court within the Copyright Office.
In closing, the Library's 2022 congressional budget
justification continues a sequence of strategically planned
modernization efforts across the enterprise, supports the
security of our vast collections, and enhances the safety of
our workforce and visitors.
Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and members
of the subcommittee, thank you again for supporting the Library
of Congress and for your consideration of our fiscal 2022
request. And I am happy to take your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Dr. Hayden. Appreciate that.
We are going to start the questioning with the gentlelady
from Washington State, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ensuring Safety and Security of Library Collections and Workforce
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was holding
my breath on that one.
Dr. Hayden, in your budget justification, the Library
introduces three new requests for fiscal year 2022 that all
involve critical modernization into its legacy systems, with
associated costs of over $15 million.
The question is, did the COVID pandemic or the January 6
assault on the Capitol play a role in identifying the need to
upgrade these legacy systems? And, if appropriated the funds to
upgrade these systems, what is the timeframe that you foresee
each of them being completed?
Dr. Hayden. The request for the two security systems were
actually already very important to the Library's security in
general and were especially important with recent events. For
instance, the security cameras that need to be replaced, that
legacy Integrated Electronic Security System (IESS), the 36
cellular system that is no longer supported--all of these items
were already part of what the Library needed to have.
And, with consultation with the Capitol Police and during
recent events, we were assured that our efforts and what we had
proposed for security in these two systems would greatly aid in
the general security of the Capitol and would be very much
supported by the Capitol Police.
And so, in looking at when we would be able to--and I am
going to put on my glasses to make sure that I give you the
correct information.
The Integrated Electronic Security System, the IESS, were,
as I mentioned, already involved with our security update. And
so, with the IESS, we will be able to have two physical
security specialists. And the work to replace the obsolete
hardware is scheduled to be completed during fiscal 2022. The
enhanced cellular network, the implementation will take place
over 2 years and will be implemented over more than fiscal
2023.
I just want to also add that the LCAP, the Library system
that is also going to be included with our modernization, will
be complete after 2 years.
Library's Legislative Information Services
Ms. Herrera Beutler. All right. Thank you.
And I wanted to ask if--sorry, I was trying to check my
time.
At the committee's encouragement, the Library, you convened
your first public meeting to discuss public input into the
Library's legislative information services. And I was just
curious if you have submitted that report evaluating the
requests made by the public at that meeting. And when is your
next meeting scheduled? Or are you planning to keep having
these?
Dr. Hayden. We are planning to have meetings. The report
was submitted this past January, and we have several
recommendations that are being considered. And we also hosted a
series of other smaller forums.
And so we plan to continue those types of public input. We
received a lot of good information, and we have groups that are
working on looking at how we could implement some of the
suggestions.
We had about 300 people participating in the forum that was
held in September of 2020. And the feedback has been--I have a
report with me. There are several things that we think we will
be able--the ideas and suggestions that are in development--for
instance, things like helping the public, more documentation to
help the public with the legislative information, consolidated
digests of email alerts.
All of these types of things are suggestions that the group
is working on, and we hope to be able to put some of the
suggestions into action.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. All right. Thank you.
And, with that, I will yield back to the gentleman from
Ohio, the State where Jerry Springer was actually a mayor
before he went on TV. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Very good. Judge Jerry.
Ms. Wexton.
Congressional Research Service Productivity
Ms. Wexton. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. And that is a
good reminder; I had forgotten that Jerry Springer was actually
a mayor in Ohio. Shots fired. So I don't know what you are
going to come up with to deal with that.
But thank you guys so much for joining us today, Dr. Hayden
and all the witnesses.
I want to direct my questions to you, Ms. Mazanec, because
I love CRS so much. Not a week goes by that I don't use some of
your resources. I was appointed to the State and Foreign Ops
Subcommittee, and I understand that there is something called
the International Development Finance Corporation which was
created under the BUILD Act. I didn't know anything about it,
but, thankfully, CRS had a memo. So I just got this yesterday.
So it is so wonderful. I love you guys. The work you do is
fantastic. And I am delighted to hear that, although everybody
has been on full-time telework since basically March of 2020,
you have been even more productive during that time and you
have enhanced your relationships and engagement with Congress
and productivity has increased.
So I think some of that is probably that, in this remote
environment, congressional staff are more able to reach out to
and attend some of the programs, but I know a lot of it has
just been the really heroic efforts of your workforce. So I
want to commend you on that.
Now, do you have a long-term plan to enable CRS employees
to continue working remotely, given how productive they are?
Dr. Mazanec. Thank you very much for your very kind
comments.
We have not made any decisions at this point because we are
in the middle of the pandemic, which is still evolving. So I
can't really say with certainty where we will end up with our
telework. It is currently the side article to our CBA. Our
bargaining agreement has been opened by our union, and we are
in discussions on telework.
While we have been very productive during the pandemic in a
virtual environment, there have been some things that we
haven't been able to do, such as in-person briefings, in-person
seminars, and confidential consultations. So I don't know
exactly where the balance will be when we get through this
situation.
Ms. Wexton. Hopefully you will find a happy medium in there
somewhere.
Dr. Mazanec. And it also depends on the expectations that
Congress has for us----
Ms. Wexton. Okay.
Dr. Mazanec [continuing]. And the availability they expect
from us.
Ms. Wexton. Great.
Now, what additional supports are you providing to the
employees who are working at home remotely? Are you giving them
extra things like dual monitors or other equipment? Or what
kind of supports are you providing?
Dr. Mazanec. So we haven't been able to do that, because
that definitely requires additional resources to equip home
offices with dual monitors, et cetera. We are working with Bud
Barton and our OCIO to really see how best we can facilitate
telework.
Congressional Research Service Diversity
Ms. Wexton. Very good.
Now, I was also pleased to see that your Diversity and
Inclusion Working Group met throughout 2020 and discussed
outreach strategies and improving the diversity of the
applicant pool. Is this working group a permanent one?
Dr. Mazanec. Well, right now, it is permanent in the sense
that, as long as we have challenges on the diversity and
inclusion front or as long as there is work to be done there, I
would like to have the Diversity and Inclusion Working Group
stay in existence. We are working with the Library of Congress;
they also have a Diversity and Inclusion Working Group that we
actively participate in.
Having a diverse professional workforce and an inclusive
environment is a top priority for me, and we have taken
measures to try to increase diversity in our applicant pools.
And you have already mentioned one. We have expanded our
outreach to professional societies and colleges and
universities that represent underrepresented populations in our
workforce.
Ms. Wexton. HBCUs and places like that, I would imagine,
right? So that is great.
Now, I would like to touch base to talk a little bit about
some data that was shared with me by your employees association
about the demographic makeup of employees at CRS.
And I was alarmed to see that, while women make up a
greater share of the CRS workforce, they tend to be hired at
lower grades than men. And that leaves them at a lower step
level and everything as they proceed throughout their careers.
Do you have any insights on why that might be?
Dr. Mazanec. I don't have anything specific, but I can tell
you, at the most senior grade, at the senior level, women make
up roughly about 43, 45 percent of senior-level staff. And that
percentage actually has been increasing.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Well, I am glad to hear that, but I think
that you might need to look at those disparities when they are
at the hiring stage. Because that is something that is going to
follow them throughout their careers and leave them with less
earnings and less retirement and everything.
Dr. Mazanec. Absolutely.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
Mr. Amodei, I believe, is next, but he may have stepped
out.
All right. Mr. Newhouse.
COVID Relief-Funding Impacts
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just so you know,
you are likely to invoke the wrath of the Idaho delegation onto
this committee, but I will accept that risk, because you are
absolutely right.
Dr. Hayden, welcome to the committee. Thank you very much
for sharing some time with us today. And, also, I just want to
thank you for reaching out--I am assuming you reached out to
all members, unless it was just me specially; I appreciate
that, but--last week to prepare for this hearing today so that
we had time to visit, and I appreciate that a lot.
I also want to thank all of your colleagues that are with
you today. Just like Congresswoman Wexton, I really do
appreciate the work of the CRS. Invaluable to Members of
Congress as a resource.
As far as your budget request, Dr. Hayden, I think I read
that you welcomed something over half a million visitors last
year prior to closing mid-March. And I just wanted to ask, what
is typical for the Library? How many people do you see over a
typical year?
And with that in mind, kind of along the lines that we were
talking about last week, were you able to realize any cost
savings because of the decrease in the number of visitors last
year? And show me where that would be reflected in your budget
request for 2021.
And then related to that--and I should know the answer to
this question, but I will expose my ignorance and ask you--was
the Library the recipient of any relief funds, coronavirus
relief funds?
Dr. Hayden. Yes, indirectly the Library received funds for
daycare operations.
And, in the last full year in fiscal 2019, the Library
welcomed--it was a banner year, actually--almost 2 million
visitors. And that included people who were coming from the
Capitol Visitor Center. There were quite a----
Mr. Newhouse. Last year.
Dr. Hayden [continuing]. Few groups. Yeah. Quite a few tour
groups and things like that. That was before the pandemic. The
Library closed its doors to the public in mid-March----
Mr. Newhouse. Right.
Dr. Hayden [continuing]. Almost a year ago this week.
And so, when the closures happened, the Library also had to
pivot quite a bit. And we have absorbed about $18.8 million in
COVID-related costs. We executed the enacted budget with no
furloughs of staff. And 65 percent of the Library's budget is
pay, and for CRS, for instance, 90 percent of the budget is
pay.
And we worked in a fully telework high posture. And major
projects were able to be continued, public events. Even though
they were closed in person, we did a lot of virtual
programming.
And so there were things like travel accounts that were
under executed but were realigned to contribute to the COVID-
related costs. And those costs included deployment of
technology and also additional sanitation and other related
things, like supplies for staff members.
So, as some staff members came back on site--we are in
phases of operation. We had a three-phase plan before the
recent security closure that restricted even more of our on-
site activities. That aspect of still being responsible for the
safety of staff members and contractors who were allowed to
come in contributed to additional maintenance costs.
Library Visitors
Mr. Newhouse. So you said over 2 million visitors last
year?
Dr. Hayden. 1.89.
Mr. Newhouse. Really.
Dr. Hayden. Almost 2. Yes. And that----
Mr. Newhouse. That is virtual visitors maybe. I don't
know----
Dr. Hayden. No, I am talking about the in-person.
Mr. Newhouse. Really.
Dr. Hayden. What I was trying to clarify, is what you were
saying, that about 500,000 people physically came into the
Library's facilities before March when the doors closed to the
public.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
Dr. Hayden. The time period before that, if we were
looking, we were on track, actually, to at least have the same
number of in-person visitors if the year had been completed.
Mr. Newhouse. I see. You were anticipating that many. Okay.
So there is----
Dr. Hayden. We were looking forward to it. We had special
exhibits that had opened--the Rosa Parks exhibit, women's
suffrage. We had a number of concerts. There were a lot of
activities that were going----
Mr. Newhouse. Sure. Sure.
Dr. Hayden [continuing]. And they were actually bringing in
people physically.
Mr. Newhouse. So that tells me, I guess, that, other than
travel and some other things--and I hate to be nitpicky, but--
the visitors themselves are not really a cost center or a----
Dr. Hayden. Well----
Mr. Newhouse [continuing]. Big part of the expense of the
Library. I am just trying to understand.
Dr. Hayden. They are.
Mr. Newhouse. Oh.
Dr. Hayden. Well, when you say ``big,'' the number--I
mentioned, for instance, we did not furlough any staff members.
So that expense, that appropriation and being fully executed,
still happened. That is 65 percent of the budget right there.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
Dr. Hayden. So that didn't go away. In fact, we were able
to reduce the number of staff members as time went on. We, like
everyone else, didn't know how long we would be in this
posture. So at first there were some administrative leave
costs, and then over time we were able to reduce those.
COVID Relief Funding
Mr. Newhouse. And then you did receive some relief funds,
coronavirus relief funds?
Dr. Hayden. Yes. And those went into recouping and trying
to make sure----
Mr. Newhouse. How much was that, approximately?
Dr. Hayden. In terms of what we received?
Mr. Newhouse. Yeah.
Dr. Hayden. I would have to get back to you on the exact
number of all of the CARES Act funding.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay. I appreciate that. And, again, just
trying to understand the full impact of the closing and where
the costs are as it relates to the budget request.
So I appreciate very much the information you provided.
And, like I said, I did appreciate your coming and meeting, or
virtually meeting, with me last week too. That helped me
understand much better.
Dr. Hayden. And I just turned to some of the additional
costs. For instance, our vendors. We were able to pay some of
the vendors under appropriated funding, because of some of the
work that had to cease when vendors and contractors couldn't
get on site. So we used some of the funding for that.
Mr. Newhouse. I see. Okay. Thank you very much.
I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Amodei.
Mark.
I want to, like, tap him on the shoulder.
Can the staff text him, or his staff, and----
Mr. Newhouse. I will text him. Sure.
Mr. Ryan. Sorry for the delay here, Dr. Hayden.
Mr. Amodei. Hey, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Sorry to inconvenience you, Mark. It is your
turn, buddy.
Mr. Amodei. As always, you are a gentleman, and I
appreciate you worrying about me.
Mr. Ryan. Dr. Hayden said in her testimony she can't wait
until Congressman Amodei asks questions, so we wanted to get
right to you.
Mass De-Acidification
Mr. Amodei. Well, we had worked with her on making sure she
had that down, so I am glad that all went smoothly except for
the part where I was supposed to say something.
Hey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Dr. Hayden, I appreciate it.
I have one area that we had talked about briefly, which was
the de-acidification thing. And I would like to circle back
with you offline, but my question revolves around: I get there
is expense to put part of your collection through the de-
acidification process. I think I understand that that process,
once done, takes care of the issue, at least based on present
technology, for about a half a millennium or more and that, if
we do the refrigeration thing, that basically takes care of the
issue.
But I am looking for, Doctor, to have a little bigger
discussion with you in terms of, okay, so does that mean we
refrigerate--and, listen, if ``refrigerate'' isn't the right
word, then obviously I won't blame that on the chairman; that
is my fault.
But, anyhow, I am just kind of looking for cost-benefit in
terms of refrigeration in perpetuity. Or we can even shorten
that up to half a millennium or whatever.
And then, also, I am curious too, if we are doing
refrigeration, if there is personnel associated with that, is
that refrigeration personnel? Or do we still have to devote
resources to staffing the refrigeration process?
So I know there are two or three things in there, and I am
mindful of the committee's time and the clock, which is
running. So I am just going to say, I am going to circle back
with you here maybe sometime next week. We can do it on the
phone or something. But I want a better understanding of
exactly what the cost-benefit specifics are in those two areas.
Dr. Hayden. Well, I am really pleased that you asked about
the Library's preservation strategies. And it is critical that
we have flexibility to meet current needs and future needs that
will undoubtedly include digital preservation and conservation.
So this opportunity to rebalance our preservation strategy has
been very important, and we appreciate the committee's support.
The specific program, mass de-acidification, was initiated
about 20 years ago. And 10 years ago, our Principal Deputy
Librarian, Mark Sweeney, was involved in the preservation
strategy rebalancing at that point, looking to the future. And
he can give you even more specifics about that particular
aspect, cold storage.
Mark.
Mr. Sweeney. Thank you for the question.
You know, we look at the brittle or acidic problem in our
collections as really a late-20th-century problem. And now here
we are in the 21st century, and one of our biggest collection
strategy challenges is dealing with growing digital
collections. So we look for efficiencies in how we can deal
with the 20th-century problem while we rebalance and we use
resources, you know, to deal with the digital collections that
are growing exponentially right now.
Cold storage slows down a chemical process, just as de-
acidification can slow down a chemical process. The thing you
need to understand about the storage is that the Library's
storage capacity needs to grow, just as its collections grow.
But when we construct that additional storage, meeting certain
environmental qualities, it alleviates the reason to make the
investment in the de-acidification treatment in the first
place.
So, as an example, it costs about $30 a volume to de-
acidify a book. So if you have 2.5 million items in your
collection and you want to de-acidify all of them, that will
cost you about $75 million in chemical treatment.
For more or less that same cost, we can build an
environmental storage module at Fort Meade that provides an
environment that will secure the material for about the same
length of time for $32 million but it can house 4 million
items. So we get a 3.2 percent increase in the amount of
material that we can address by controlling the environment
over doing a chemical process.
And, yes, these facilities that we will build are necessary
for the growth of our collections, but if we do it in a smart
way with the Architect of the Capitol, we actually lower our
treatment costs.
Mr. Amodei. And I appreciate that. So I will look forward
to our conversation which takes us down a little bit more--
since I am out of time, but that takes us down a little bit
more in what are the assumptions, is it powered by electricity,
you know, blah, blah, blah. Because when you are talking 500 to
1,000 years in the future, you are talking 500 to 1,000 years
in the future, and I will just kind of let that lay. We will
look forward to talking with you next week.
Thank you guys very much.
Mr. Sweeney. Yes, sir.
Mr. Amodei. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.
Visitors Experience
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Amodei.
Dr. Hayden, I have only got a couple minutes here, because
they have votes and I am down to the wire, but I did want you
to talk a little bit more about the Visitor Experience. I know
we talked a little bit about it on the phone, but I would love
for the American people and this committee to hear where we are
with that and the support you are getting and the private
support that you are getting for it.
If you could talk for a couple minutes about that, that
would be tremendous.
Dr. Hayden. I really appreciate the support in this unique
public-private partnership to create in the iconic Thomas
Jefferson Building for the first time an orientation center and
space for people to learn about what the Library of Congress
is, how it has served Congress and the American people, and
also what it can do for them now; a treasures gallery for the
first time that can have rotating treasures from the world's
largest library and to engage people in different ways; and, in
terms of engagement, a learning lab, a youth center for the
young and the young at heart.
And so the project has remained on track and on budget,
even with the pandemic. And with the combined efforts,
everything is on track to start with fabrication of exhibits
and areas.
We will have more private support coming in, and we have
submitted proposals to new donors totaling about $15 million.
And that is in excess of the $20 million that we have pledged
to have from the private sector to support the effort. And Mr.
David Rubenstein is leading that effort.
And we also have been able to increase our efforts with
fundraising in general. We just received a groundbreaking grant
to reach out to underserved communities from the Mellon
Foundation and also $10 million from the Kislak Foundation for
a revamping of their exhibit area on early American history.
And so the project is really taking shape, and we hope to
be able to present to this subcommittee drawings and renderings
of the different spaces within the next few months.
Gershwin Award
Mr. Ryan. That is great. That is great. I love the idea of
the treasures gallery. I think that is going to be a really
neat component.
And mention the Gershwin Awards. What is the plan for the
Gershwin? That is always one of the great nights in Washington.
Dr. Hayden. And one of----
Mr. Ryan. Garth Brooks last year.
Dr. Hayden. Garth Brooks----
Mr. Ryan. Yeah. It was tremendous. So what is the plan for
that for the coming year?
Dr. Hayden. Actually, a year ago tomorrow would have been
the Garth Brooks concert.
We are working with our broadcast partners for the virtual
aspect of a Gershwin Award greatest hits. We have had everyone
from Paul McCartney to Stevie Wonder to Tony Bennett in the
past. So there is going to be a way that we can let people know
about the Gershwin Award.
And we are working with potential honorees to see if
possibly within another year that we could have some component
of a live concert.
Mr. Ryan. That would be very exciting.
Dr. Hayden. Very.
Veteran's History Project
Mr. Ryan. Real quick, before I run out of time and I have
to run, Dr. Hayden, mention the efforts with the Veterans
History Project, which is one of my favorites that you run.
Through COVID-19, how have you been able to navigate the
complexities of COVID with the Veterans History Project?
Dr. Hayden. The Veterans History Project, we were able to--
and that is one of our signature outreach programs. Over
100,000 oral histories to date from veterans and different
engagements.
And so the Veterans History staff were able to have, for
instance, virtual panel discussions on how to cope with--
featuring veterans, and also veterans as small-business
entrepreneurs.
They had a special music program for the 20th anniversary
this year. And, also, they had a special program--and this one,
in particular, was very significant--the role of veterans in
farming in urban and more rural settings and how it relates to
PTSD. Because, as we know, veterans know a few things about
overcoming adversity. And so, to be able capture their
experiences and to have them talk about them virtually, that
was wonderful.
And they also were able--the staff of the Veterans History
Project were able to give workshops to local communities on how
to do virtual programming with veterans.
And so about 65 Members have already taken advantage of the
Veterans History Project. And, as you know, we reach out to all
the offices, and we want to make sure that each State has a
significant number of veterans who contribute.
Mr. Ryan. Yeah. Love it. Love it, love it.
Well, Dr. Hayden, thank you so much. You are the best. We
appreciate your team. Thank you so much for all that you are
doing.
And we look forward to supporting you in your efforts here
in the coming budget. We are going to do the best we can for
you, but you have some really exciting projects going. And, you
know, as you mentioned about the telework and the investments
that we make into you have paid off.
Dr. Hayden. Yes.
Mr. Ryan. And, you know, we just can't wait to get the
Visitor's--the treasures gallery and the other projects that we
have going for you that are going to be super-exciting for
everybody.
And I think, you know, in the coming years, people are
going to appreciate more getting out of their homes and being
able to travel, and the Visitor Experience will be here for
them when they get here, hopefully.
So we appreciate all you are doing.
And I thank the committee.
And, with that, we are going to end this committee and we
will adjourn. Thank you.
Dr. Hayden. Thank you.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 10, 2021.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
WITNESS
GENE L. DODARO, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
This hearing is fully virtual so we need to address a few
housekeeping matters. Members are responsible for muting and
unmuting themselves. For the purposes of eliminating
inadvertent background noise, the chair or staff designated by
the chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition.
If I notice when you are recognized that you have not
unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to
unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will
unmute your microphone.
We will begin with the chair and ranking member. Then
members present at the time the hearing is called to order will
be recognized in order of seniority. We are using the 5-minute
clock, which you will notice on your screen. It will show how
much time is remaining. If there is a technology issue, we will
move to the next member until the issue is resolved, and you
will retain the balance of your time.
In regard to adding extraneous or additional material to
the record, per House rules, we have set up an email address
where members can send anything they wish to submit for the
record after seeking recognition for its inclusion. That email
address has been provided in advance to your staff.
Finally, we are doing two panels today: first, the
Government Accountability Office and then House Officers. We
will take approximately a 10-minute recess between the panels,
but we will remain on this video feed so members do not have to
log off. So just stick around after the first one and take a
comfort break or whatever, and we will be right back.
For our first panel, I would like to welcome the
Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office,
Mr. Gene Dodaro, to present the fiscal year 2022 budget
request.
And I will admit, Mr. Dodaro, this is one of my favorite
hearings every year because, as I have said before, there are a
lot of people in D.C. who know a little bit about a lot and
there are just a handful of people who know a lot about a lot,
and you fall into that latter category, which makes this
committee hearing always so much fun for us. We want to welcome
you back. 2021 is a significant year for the GAO, as you are
celebrating 100 years of service.
This subcommittee has great admiration for GAO's work in
ferreting out misconduct and finding ways to save billions of
dollars with timely, public, fact-based nonpartisan
recommendations to improve Federal agency operations and save
taxpayers billions of dollars. We especially appreciate your
neutral independence in facing difficult budget questions.
Most recently, GAO has been evaluating the $2.6 trillion in
COVID-19 funding and making recommendations about how to
improve its effectiveness in dealing with public health issues
and the economy.
I understand that GAO estimates that it will initiate 175
to 200 COVID-19 actions over the next 5 years, and that the
benefits resulting from your work leads to program and
operational governmental improvements. Your work is invaluable
to getting the taxpayer the most from their tax dollars.
This year, GAO is requesting an increase of $83.2 million
in appropriated funds and 220 full-time equivalents, or FTEs,
over what was provided last year. While we understand that your
workload is increasing, I am afraid that the subcommittee
allocation may not be increasing at a reciprocal rate. As you
know, budgeting is, unfortunately, a zero-sum game, and it will
be hard to accommodate your healthy request, but I can assure
you we will do our absolute best for you.
I look forward to your testimony today.
And at this point, I would like to yield to my colleague
and friend, the ranking member, Jaime Herrera Beutler, for any
opening comments that she would like to make.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Dodaro, welcome back. It is really good to see you
again, even if it is virtually in this weird space.
Congratulations on the Government Accountability Office's 100th
year. That is remarkable.
As you know and as was mentioned, GAO has an incredibly
vital role in Congress' oversight of Federal spending,
providing evaluations on performance of Federal programs,
financial and management audits, policy analysis and many other
services that are ensuring that the American taxpayer dollars
are spent efficiently.
This past year has been busy for all of us, especially for
GAO. You and your staff have issued numerous reports on the
Federal Government's response to COVID-19, touching on hot
button issues like vaccine distribution, the effect of distance
learning on our kids, and the performance of financial
assistance programs for American businesses, all really
critical.
You have been doing this as we have been trying to roll out
these policies. So the information you have released has been
incredibly helpful, and it has been timely. In the midst of
your increased workload, GAO has continued to regularly issue
reports and provide testimony on a wide range of issues.
I am pleased to see that GAO is also working to implement
its new Science, Technology, Assessment and Analytics unit.
This unit will provide Congress with valuable insight into
emerging technologies and policy recommendations to harness the
benefits and mitigate the negatives that come with those
technologies.
Your fiscal 2022 budget request seeks to increase staff
capacity, build audit resources, modernize IT systems, which is
a theme we hear quite consistently, and address outdated
building infrastructure. We look forward to hearing how you
plan to implement these changes and how they will further
improve GAO's work.
Thank you and your office for working with us here in
Congress to ensure that the American taxpayer is protected and
their dollars are spent carefully, and I look forward to
hearing your testimony.
Thanks, and I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. We will move to the question-and-answer period.
You may please begin. The floor is yours.
Mr. Dodaro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning to you, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and
all members of the subcommittee.
I first want to thank you for your continued support to
GAO. It has been absolutely instrumental to GAO's continued
success. Even under the pandemic, which we have been able to
navigate, we have successfully had a good strong performance
this past year.
Our recommendations led to over $77 billion in financial
benefits. That keeps our average return on the investment for
you and the taxpayers at $165 back for every dollar invested in
GAO. We also had over 1,300 of our recommendations implemented
to enhance public safety and security, to help protect
vulnerable populations, and a wide range of programmatic and
operational improvements throughout the Federal Government.
As both of you have mentioned in your opening statements,
we were able to do real-time auditing and step up and meet our
responsibilities under the coronavirus legislation. We have
been giving monthly briefings to a range of congressional
committees, and issuing bimonthly public reports.
We have made over 40 recommendations for midterm course
corrections. Ms. Herrera Beutler mentioned the vaccine
distribution and communications plan, which we recommended last
fall, how to protect and fill gaps in the medical supply chain,
to get more complete information on testing, have a national
testing strategy, and a wide range of recommendations to focus
on transparency and accountability issues over the largest
Federal rescue in American history.
This year we also released our biennial report, which we
issue at the beginning of each new Congress on high-risk areas
across the Federal Government. There are 36 areas on the list.
We took one area off this year because it made improvements,
which is in the defense support infrastructure area. We added
two new areas: One is Federal efforts to prevent, respond to,
and recover from drug misuse. From 2002 to 2019, over 800,000
Americans died from a drug overdose. The period from May 2019
to May 2020 had the largest recorded annual increase in
American history of 80,000 people. We need a better national
strategy. We need better coordination. We need a wide range of
efforts in order to deal with this national crisis.
We also added the emergency loan program under the
pandemic. While it has been a lifeline and effective for many
small businesses throughout the community, it has been
incredibly poorly managed. And we didn't meet the transparency
and accountability goals over either the paycheck protection
program or the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, as well.
The efforts to increase our staff with our budget request
would help us in dealing with enhancing our science and
technology work, our cybersecurity work, as well as the
important work that we are doing in healthcare programs.
If we are going to get the Federal deficit and debt under
control, as a nation, we need to make sure that we control
healthcare spending. That is one of the critical drivers GAO
also needs to increase our General Counsel capabilities to
continue to provide advice to the Congress on exercising fully
its power of the purse and to make sure that we safeguard
Congress' prerogatives.
So I thank you for your attention this morning, I know you
will give careful consideration to our request, and I look
forward to answering your questions. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, sir, appreciate it.
We are going to proceed to the question and answers, and I
am going to begin with the ranking member, the distinguished
gentlelady from Washington State, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dodaro, every time when you go through that whole list,
my mind just goes into several different places, you know, cost
of controlling, how we control healthcare spending and get the
debt under control, and there are so many different things that
are critical.
I actually wanted to ask you about both intelligence
oversight by the GAO and how that is going because I know there
have been challenges; it is not as easy for you to get that
information. And then making sure that audits are being filled
or the recommendations are being taken up in a timely manner.
GAO reports its 4-year implementation rate of recommendations
by Federal agencies was 77 percent in 2020, but the
implementation rate after 2 years was just 51 percent. So
increasing responsiveness of agency implementation is
absolutely critical, and so I would like you to speak to that.
Let me also ask in that question about a GAO report from
about 4 years ago that has to do with the Police Board. And it
wasn't a super--it didn't seem like a super indepth report. I
guess I should say it didn't seem to be unearthing new
information, but it was really just trying to apply best
practices and incorporate transparency and accountability.
In light of kind of the uptake of recommendations by
agencies, is it possible for you to--I know this is kind of--
you weren't prepared for this. Is it possible to speak to
whether that has had any implementation or any of the things
have been done?
Mr. Dodaro. First, with regard to the intelligence
community, our work there continues. We have not had a lot of
classified work during the pandemic, and we are not yet able to
keep apace of our pre-pandemic workload in that area. So it has
really not been a good year to test whether we are getting
increasing cooperation.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. So it is going the wrong direction
during the pandemic.
Mr. Dodaro. Well, it was just a consequence of the
pandemic. It wasn't because of a lack of cooperation. GAO
couldn't put our people in harm's way until we could figure out
how to do classified work in a safe environment.
We have figured that out now. We are starting back up. We
expect cooperation. I have already reached out to the new
Director of DNI, Ms. Avril Haines, and I plan to talk to her to
elicit her cooperation. So far, it is going well. I will report
back if we are having any problems. I expect cooperation, and I
expect we will be able to continue to do our work in that area.
Now, with regard to getting our recommendations
implemented, I send priority letters to the head of all major
departments and agencies every year outlining open GAO
recommendations. I will be following up with all of our new
leaders as they are confirmed by the Senate.
I have already had a discussion with Secretary Mayorkas at
Homeland Security. And as people get confirmed and in place, I
will have conversations with them. Those letters are made
publicly available, and the Congress gets copies of those
letters as well so they can follow up.
The Congress also passed legislation that now requires
every agency as they put forward their budget submissions each
year, to include all GAO open recommendations and what they are
planning to do to implement them. So that is transparent to the
Congress. That has only just occurred--last year was the first
year that it started. The budget submission this year will be
the second year. We are hopeful. Congress intended that the new
legislation would give more attention to the fast
implementation of GAO recommendations.
Now, with regard to the Capitol Police Board, I will ask
our Chief Operating Officer, Kate Siggerud, to respond to our
prior work and recommendations. I am recused from the current
work we are doing right now. One of my sons-in-law is a Capitol
Hill policeman. And so Kate Siggerud has been handling that
work.
Kate.
Ms. Siggerud. Thank you, Gene.
I will start out, Ms. Herrera Beutler, by replying to your
question about the 2017 report. That report focused on the
structure of the Board. It did have recommendations about
updating the manual for the Capitol Police Board. And those
recommendations, to our knowledge, have not been implemented.
In fact, the Police Board has not responded to our efforts
to understand whether the recommendations have been
implemented. So that is not something we have information on,
and it is unfortunate that they haven't been responsive.
That report also outlined a number of options for the
Congress to consider if it wanted to make some changes to the
decision-making and transparency of the Capitol Police Board,
including some that could be made under current authorities and
others where the statutes might have to be changed in order to
accomplish that. Thank you.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Ms. Kate.
Thank you, Chairman Ryan. I really appreciate it.
Ms. Siggerud. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. You got it.
Ms. Clark. Also, Ms. Clark, before you go, evidently my
microphone was off and I need to say, without objection, your
written testimony will be part of the record, Mr. Dodaro. So a
little housekeeping.
Ms. Clark, you have the floor.
Ms. Clark. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Comptroller Dodaro, for being with us today.
We really appreciate it, and we appreciate your work and your
celebration of 100 years of fact-based work, which is music to
all of our ears.
I would like to take a minute to ask about your capacity to
fulfill report requests made by Congress. In your budget
request, you state that you were able to fill 90 percent of the
requests you get from standing committees--I am sorry. You
state that GAO received requests for work from 90 percent of
the standing committees, and you were able to fulfill 586
reports.
Can you give me a sense of how many Member requests you
were not able to respond to and what might be some of the
primary reasons, especially is it one of capacity?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. We have worked out with the Congress a set
of protocols that outline the priorities in which we address
requests from the Congress.
Priority one are mandates. These are statutory requirements
for our work or conference or committee reports that outline
requirements from GAO, requests for us to do our work.
Second are priority requests from chairs and ranking
members of the committees of jurisdiction. We treat both
parties the same as part of our nonpartisan status. So they
have equal access to our work.
Priority three are recommendations from individual Members
of Congress for our work.
We have not been able to fulfill requests from individual
Members for probably 15 years now because of a lack of
resources. So, right now, in order to get access to our
resources, individual members have to get a committee to
sponsor a request or get it into a statutory requirement in law
or in a conference or committee report.
Now, we are able to get to all the requests that we accept.
We may not be able to get to them as fast as the committees
would like. So what I have been doing for many years now is
meeting with the committee chairs and ranking members, as many
as I can, and we have worked to prioritize their requests to
make sure that we get to their highest priorities as soon as
possible.
One of the reasons I asked for additional resources is so
we can get to more requests, and we can get to many of them
faster if we have additional resources available at GAO. That
would help us be more responsive. But we get to everything that
is a priority from all the committees across the Congress as
soon as possible.
Ms. Clark. And maybe you can submit it later, but it would
be helpful that if you had another number of the requests that
are unfulfilled, you just can't get to, that would be great,
just to give us an idea of the scope.
Mr. Dodaro. We would be happy to submit that for the
record. We can. We get to all of them, but it takes longer than
I know people would like. Additional information provided for
the Record: As of April 23, 2021, GAO's queue of unstaffed
requests is 72. This number changes daily as new requests are
added and others are removed as we staff them.
Ms. Clark. Right. Okay.
I wanted to follow up a little bit on the intelligence
agency cooperation that the ranking member was asking you
about. And I understand your testimony is that, with the
pandemic, you really haven't had a chance to assess this, but
you seemed optimistic that better cooperation from when you
testified back in 2019 that you needed better cooperation.
Do you feel confident that will be coming? And are there
any other changes you need in law or in report language
requiring the expansion or edit of the Intelligence Community
Directive 114?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, we have been getting better cooperation
since 2011, when the Congress required the intelligence
community, the Director of DNI, to establish a directive to
resume cooperation with GAO. Prior to that time, we didn't have
good cooperation at all.
So it has been gradually building. We are getting feedback
from the defense and the intelligence community that our work
is useful to them, which is helpful. The Intelligence
Committees are providing more support. That is the one area
where we can always use help is from the Intel Committees to
provide support and back us up.
The only problem we have run into recently was one area
where we couldn't get the budget request fully from the
intelligence communities, and so we had to scope that work a
little differently, but we were able to respond to the request.
I have met with every DNI Director since Director Clapper.
I have met most recently with Director Ratcliffe, and he
promised cooperation, and we are getting cooperation. Our teams
are meeting with the intel community, and it seems like we are
getting cooperation with the new administration. As I
mentioned, I am going to meet with the Director of DNI, Ms.
Haines, in the coming weeks.
So I am hopeful. I don't think we need any other help right
now other than the support of the intelligence committees. So
we are continuing to meet with them. And, as long as they are
supportive, that sends the right signal to the intelligence
community to cooperate with GAO.
Ms. Clark. Thank you very much.
I see I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Dodaro, a pleasure to see you again.
Mr. Dodaro. Good morning, nice to see you.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony. You
brought up the PPE and the EIDL loans, the programs that we
have done many things to try to help businesses continue to
survive during the pandemic. We have also done a lot of things
in response to the working folks in the country as well.
So I wanted to ask, since you brought up the topic of our
appropriated funds to help prop up the economy, we did send a
lot of Federal dollars to States to help bolster their
unemployment programs and benefits for those people that were
put out of work because of government restrictions on small
businesses.
Several States, including my own home State of Washington,
unfortunately, those programs were defrauded of hundreds of
millions of dollars by foreign thieves. And those moneys were
meant to help those people most in need.
So my question, as the Government Accountability Office,
your title would indicate, first of all, do you have a role in
ensuring that these dollars are spent as Congress intended? And
if that is the case, can you tell me if you will be
investigating these instances, such as happened in Washington,
I believe California and Massachusetts; at least those are the
States that I am aware of.
Can you tell me what will be taking place, or maybe if you
have already done some work in this area, can you update me as
far as what that looks like as well?
Mr. Dodaro. Sure, I will be happy to. First of all, I am
very concerned about the situation with unemployment insurance.
One of the things that we have done since Congress gave
additional resources to the inspectors general as well as GAO
is to work to coordinate with the inspectors general across the
government.
And so, with the Department of Labor, we tried to avoid
duplication of efforts. Labor IG was investigating fraud and
program integrity aspects of the unemployment insurance area.
Thus, GAO decided to focus on what kind of challenges the
States are having targeting funds properly. We are looking more
at the programmatic aspects of whether the government achieved
its objectives of helping the people who needed the help. So
the IG at the Labor Department is focused more on the fraud
aspect.
Now, most of the criminal investigators in the government
in the accountability area are in the inspectors general
offices. We don't have or do criminal investigations in GAO.
The IG criminal investigators work for the Justice Department,
the FBI, and others. I will be coordinating with the individual
State auditors and with the Justice IG as we go forward.
One of the questions I got along this line last week when I
testified before the House and Senate on our high-risk list was
why wasn't this area on the high-risk list. So I am going back,
and I am taking another look at it. It didn't actually come up
to us because the IG is doing the fraud and abuse area, and we
are focused on another area. But I want to take a broader look
at it, including all the work done by State auditors and by
Federal auditors.
Now, the problems here this is a little different because
it is all administered at the State level. And a lot of the
States have antiquated systems, and they are responsible for
program integrity. We don't normally make recommendations to
States. We mostly focus at the Federal level.
So I want to figure out what is appropriate for us to
recommend to the Labor Department. We have already made several
recommendations to them about getting overpayments back and
also reporting better data. The data reported on initial
unemployment claims was misleading because there was a backlog
of claims. I could talk about that later if you are interested.
But that is the extent of it.
So I am focused on it. We are going to follow up and do
more work on it. And I think we need to work with the States to
transform the unemployment insurance program so that it can
accommodate future situations, where we have economic downturns
or a need to scale up, in a much better fashion than they have
been able to handle this current situation.
Mr. Newhouse. So--and I know I am out of time, Mr.
Chairman, but just curious if we send money to----
Mr. Ryan. Mr. Newhouse, take your time.
Mr. Newhouse. Oh, thank you.
You know, this is not an uncommon thing that we send money
to States in lots of different forms. And if it is not up to
the Government Accountability Office to make recommendations as
to how those programs at least have some input on how that
money is utilized, then whose responsibility is that? Are we
leaving it totally up to the States then at that point?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, in this particular program, the way it
has worked historically is the States tax employers within the
States, and the States decide what the rules are for
unemployment.
Mr. Newhouse. But this was Federal. These are Federal
dollars.
Mr. Dodaro. In this case, we added Federal money, but it
normally doesn't work that way unless there is some kind of an
emergency. It is a unique situation in this particular case.
I will be looking to make recommendations to the Labor
Department to work with the States to reform these things
because Labor has a role in making sure the States execute the
programs properly. So we will be looking at it----
Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. And to get recommendations in
place to make sure that the States are better prepared.
The States have had to borrow over $40 billion that they
are going to have to pay back to the Federal Government later
in order to pay for the benefits that they are responsible for
in addition to the Federal benefits. The States have a lot of
vested interest----
Mr. Newhouse. Sure.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. In making sure they have better
systems too. And I think it is a matter of how to get a good
intergovernmental partnership in place----
Mr. Newhouse. Yes.
Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. In order to produce a better
result. I don't think anybody is happy with the outcome under
the current situation, Federal or State.
Mr. Newhouse. And I am not advocating the Federal
Government always to be telling the States how to run their
businesses, but in this kind of an instance, we certainly want
to make sure that the aid is getting to the people that we
intended it to. And it seems like we have a responsibility at
least to have some input, and so I am glad you are looking at
what our options might be.
Mr. Dodaro. There are also legislative options for Congress
to mandate some things. And I think in the interest of getting
money out earlier, the signal that was sent was to move quickly
to get the money out and to not put a lot of barriers in place.
Sometimes you need some speed bumps in order to make sure these
things don't happen. And we will be looking at that as well,
Congressman.
Mr. Newhouse. Good. Well, I think that is something we all
are interested in.
I appreciate very much your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, and I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks for the good questions, Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Dodaro. Good to see you again. Thank you
very much for your team's incredible service throughout a very
difficult time.
We have had discussions in past years about assuring that
the components of GAO that are focused on highly specialized,
highly technical areas, for example, science and technology and
cybersecurity, are adequately resourced within GAO so that GAO
can provide not only, you know, world-class, objective views to
Congress, but also so that it is not reliant on external
sources for that expertise.
And we have discussed in past Congresses how there was some
concern that we were relying too much on the administration,
the executive branch, for that expertise and/or external
sources.
And so, along these lines, are you comfortable that you
have the resources to recruit and retain the highest quality
folks to provide us independent, objective advice, especially
in these really highly specialized areas?
Your past testimony has been yes, that folks do want to
work for the GAO. And that is great news, but, you know,
sometimes people want to work for an organization, but they
simply can't for whatever reason, financial or otherwise.
Are you comfortable that you have access to that level of
expertise?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. We have continued to build our capacity in
that area, Congressman Case. Last year, when we started out
2019, we had 70 people in that area. We now have 104 people,
and we are recruiting additional people. We are hoping to get
to 120 people this year.
We have been able to bring on new hires who have expertise
in a wide range of fields, like microbiology, quantum
mechanics, public health, chemical engineering, aerospace
engineering. I am very pleased with our progress, even during
the pandemic, and we have continued to hire and build the
capacity in that area.
The request for next year would get us to 140 people in
that specialized Science, Technology and Analytics Team, which
was the original plan I submitted to the Congress in 2019. I am
hopeful that we will get enough additional support to make that
target.
But we are proving that we can hire. We hired our first
chief data scientist, and we have established an Innovation
Lab. So I am very pleased. We have had the ability to hire a
lot of people. In the cybersecurity area, we hired 30 experts
too.
About 90 percent of all these people we are hiring are
staying with GAO. We are able to retain them. So I feel
confident that we are able to build that capacity. And with
additional support from the Congress, we will achieve the goals
necessary to fully support the Congress. We have never had a
situation where we haven't responded to a request from the
Congress in the science, technology and analytics area.
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you.
And then, you know, in your opening statement, you cited
$78 billion, I think it was, worth of financial benefits
resulting from your reviews and assessments. I mean, can you
generalize as to whether there are kind of common areas where
you have identified areas for improvement and for, you know,
financial savings? What are some of the thematic areas that you
tend to see results a little bit more?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, not surprisingly, it is where the biggest
amount of money is, which is in the healthcare area and the
Defense Department area.
In weapon systems, there is often a lot of problems with
cost growth and schedule delays, and we end up getting less
capabilities than we planned for. So we try to target those
things early to alert the Congress to where maybe technology is
not mature; it is not ready to go into production yet.
In the healthcare area, I think there is a wide range of
options in that area. But it is really across government.
Now, the other area, Congressman Case, is the revenue side
of government. We have made recommendations to the Congress.
Most recently, we suggested to the Congress that they move up
the dates of when the W-2s are sent to IRS. Previously, they
weren't sent till April and sometimes later by the employers,
so they weren't available to IRS in processing returns in the
January-February timeframe. That led to a lot of identity
theft. Now they are able to match it with the filed returns,
and so billions of dollars of potential theft has been stopped,
and we are collecting more money in the revenue side of things
too.
Those are the critical areas. I would ask my colleague,
Kate Siggerud, if she has any other recommendations, but I want
to emphasize our savings go across the board. I mean they are
all aspects of the Federal Government. Those are the ones that
have the highest dollars, so they are going to have a tendency
to have more opportunities for savings.
Kate.
Ms. Siggerud. Well, Gene, I think you got the main points
that I would have made.
With regard to savings, I do want to point out that we do
also receive a fair number of requests that are focused a
little bit differently than just on efficiency and savings,
things like consumer protection and safety and issues like
that, where we need to focus our resources in areas that are
important to the Congress and important to the American people,
but may not produce a savings to the taxpayer. Thank you.
Mr. Case. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, thank you to the presenters. My question is to
Comptroller Dodaro. In the past, the GAO has had a backlog of
study requests from Congress, meaning some requests have often
been put off or put on the back burner. Do you know what your
current backlog is?
Mr. Dodaro. I would ask Ms. Siggerud to respond to that. I
don't really know what the number is offhand.
Kate.
Ms. Siggerud. I am sorry, Gene. I was trying to respond to
a question from the hearing administrator to improve your
video, which is stuck. So, if you could repeat the question for
me, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Dodaro. It was what the number of backlog requests are.
Ms. Siggerud. I don't have a good number for that, but I
would like to get that to you for the record. Our approach
overall is to prioritize requests that we receive in law or
from ranking members and chairs of committees of jurisdiction.
So those tend to get the highest priority and get resources
first among our teams. There are teams that are a bit
oversubscribed in GAO, and I would mention in particular our
healthcare team, given the COVID-19 work that we have been
asked to do.
What I would like to do is get you a more precise answer
for the record on that issue. Thank you. Additional information
provided for the Record: As of April 23, 2021, GAO's queue of
unstaffed requests is 72. This number changes daily as new
requests are added and others are removed as we staff them.
Mr. Espaillat. Is your budget request seeking to address
the backlog?
Ms. Siggerud. Yes, it is, absolutely.
Mr. Dodaro. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. Espaillat. During the 116th Congress, the Committee on
Modernization provided an array of recommendations. Could you
tell me how your budget reflects modernization efforts
recommended by the committee?
Mr. Dodaro. Well, the committee request, from my
understanding, would go to the inner workings of the Congress.
So that wouldn't involve GAO. We are an independent
organization.
Mr. Espaillat. Oh, okay.
Mr. Dodaro. We worked with that committee, actually at
Congressman Newhouse's request. So we have lent our technical
expertise to the Modernization Committee.
Mr. Espaillat. I got you.
Mr. Dodaro. But their recommendations are not okay.
Ms. Siggerud. Gene, this is Kate. I might just add that
that committee did focus on trying to improve overall IT
services within the Congress, and we have occasionally also
been asked within GAO to consult on that topic.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Amodei here? I want to give him an opportunity. All
right. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Dodaro, several of these issues are very interesting to
me. You talked about the unemployment insurance. Boy, we had a
hell of a time in Ohio with unemployment insurance, people
getting their checks. I know you touched on a little bit of the
backlog and transforming unemployment insurance throughout the
State.
Some of us are pushing a proposal to have almost like, you
know, as unemployment goes up, almost have an automatic UI, you
know, push money out into the economy. And, you know, you think
about ideas like that. Without the proper technology or process
in place, it would be nearly impossible.
So can you talk, you know, with what you know, I know you
talked about coordinating with the IG and the fraud piece, but
can you dive a little deeper into the backlog and
inefficiencies in some of the State UI systems?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes, I would be happy to.
I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that we have an open
matter recommendation for the Congress to put a system in place
that would provide additional assistance in a more timely way
for Medicaid during times of high unemployment that would
target it earlier, phase it in and phase it out selectively
rather than nationally. It was similar to the concept that you
mentioned on unemployment insurance. That is why I bring that
up.
On the unemployment insurance area, from my understanding,
a number of these systems that the States have are decades old.
They are antiquated, and they need to be modernized. And this
was an issue.
At least one Senator called me before the original CARES
Act and asked about how they could target better to make sure
that people wouldn't get more money on their unemployment than
they would have gotten before. But we looked into this a little
bit informally, and the State systems weren't able to do that.
So we ended up having to just give the flat amount to everybody
because targeting would have thrown everything into turmoil.
Now, in another case we made a recommendation. In some of
the areas they gave everybody the minimum amount with so much
additional Federal assistance, and they were supposed to go
back later and then give them the amount that they were
supposed to, and in some cases, they haven't done that yet.
While we have talked a lot about the fraud part of it,
there are some people that didn't get the full benefits that
they were legitimately entitled to. We made recommendations
that it be addressed. That has been one of the focuses from the
GAO standpoint.
So this is a big technology issue. It is also a question of
what the balance will be between the Federal Government and the
States of who designs how unemployment is provided within the
States. I mean, there is a wide range of State decisions now
about who gets unemployment and who doesn't on a regular basis
and how much they receive.
But, clearly, if the Federal Government wants to use them
on a more regular basis during economic downturns or other
emergencies, we need to have a better system in place, and I am
happy to work on that.
Ms. Siggerud. Gene, if I could just add--this is Kate
Siggerud speaking.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
Ms. Siggerud. There are grants that are made to States to
try to improve their IT and replace legacy systems. Part of our
work going forward is to look at the use of those grants and
whether there is something that could be done to improve that
program.
Mr. Ryan. I mean, that just was, you know, the frustrating
part because a lot of constituents call our congressional
office even though, you know, it was a Federal benefit but the
State was administering the program.
And I think, like many issues that are facing the country,
the pandemic, you know, exposed them in a very, very big way,
whether it is the digital divide or access to healthcare or
public health issues, you know, kind of the off-shoring of all
of our PPE, those kind of things. But the most heartbreaking
one of the whole thing really was that people who weren't able
to get their unemployment insurance in the middle of a
pandemic.
So part of what we have to do, as the leaders of Congress,
is to make sure that we are better prepared in the institutions
and, you know, areas of government are ready to be modernized
so that, next time this happens, we are in a much, much better
place.
Mr. Dodaro, we have had this conversation before. And every
time we talk, the issue of healthcare costs come up as a
significant part of the budget that kind of squeeze out a lot
of other investments that we need to make. And we have had the
conversation too around prevention and using food as medicine
and those kind of things.
Can you give us a little bit of information on some of the
information that you may have on the modernizing of our
healthcare system and our food system to help point us in the
right direction.
Mr. Dodaro. Yes. As you point out, the pandemic has
stressed a lot of different systems and laid bare their
frailties. And it is certainly very true in the public
healthcare system, both in terms of the decentralized nature of
it, and the lack of investment over time.
Now, in the nutrition area, we are doing additional work to
make sure that we are focused on that. We did one report on
nutrition education to have USDA take actions to assess the
effectiveness and coordination of programs and the leverage of
those programs. But now we are taking a deeper dive into the
relationship between people's diets and chronic diseases.
And, preliminarily it is showing that the chronic diseases
remain very prevalent, very costly, and among the leading cause
of death. And there are more than 170 diet-related efforts
across 21 Federal agencies and departments to deal with this
problem, to deal with people at risk of chronic diseases, but
there is not an effective strategy in place, a national
strategy.
This reminds me of the reason why we put the drug misuse
area on there. There are a lot of activities going on underway,
but there is not a national strategy that deals both across the
Federal Government but with State and local governments, public
health officials, and others that are relevant to that area. So
there is clearly a role for more prevention that can deal with
these issues.
You have also seen during the pandemic the racial
inequality and the disparity in the underlying healthcare
conditions of people of color and low-income people. And they
have been disproportionately affected, but it is largely
because of the underlying conditions that haven't been dealt
with effectively over time.
We have got a lot of inequality. There are opportunities
for a greater role for prevention and education and earlier
treatment, Congressman. And this needs to be done because the
costs are going up in healthcare, not just because we are aging
as a population. They are going up because the cost per person
every year keeps going up in addition to that.
And while people are living longer lives, that is not true
for everybody. And so there are a lot of issues that need to be
dealt with here to make sure that the money that we are putting
in, it is not for lack of funding, but we are not getting the
high-quality results we need out of the system.
Mr. Ryan. Have you looked at all--and my time is coming to
an end here. Have you looked at all at--one of the dynamics in
the country that drives me crazy is that how our system is set
up with our schools, our K-12 schools, and how much money we
spend on feeding our kids breakfast and lunch, sometimes a
snack after school, which is entirely appropriate that we would
want to make sure our kids have food, but I question the food
that they are being fed. Very highly processed, lots of sugar,
additive sugar.
And when you look at a lot of the schools have 60, 70, 80,
90 percent of the kids in the school are Medicaid, and so we
cover them on the Medicaid healthcare plan. And over time, one
of the diseases, chronic diseases you mention was type 2
diabetes.
So, I mean, and you wonder why the taxpayer is insane about
how the government spends money. So we buy a bunch of bad food,
feed it to our kids, cover them with healthcare. They get
diabetes. We make sure they have access to healthcare, and then
the taxpayer pays for that too, as opposed to creating a system
where we actually feed them the kind of food that would prevent
that from happening, prevent chronic disease, reverse chronic
disease potentially with some people, and start trying to bend
that cost curve a little bit.
Have you looked into anything like that at all? And, if
not, I may have another assignment for you.
Mr. Dodaro. In the past, we have looked at some of the
nutrition standards for the school lunch program in place. I
know there were some changes during the Obama administration to
move in the direction that you are talking about, and there
have been some recent changes.
We will go back and look at what we have already done. But
I would be happy to take on another assignment in this area.
When you talk about your children, I see Ms. Herrera Beutler
has her small child with her today. Today, I am waiting for my
eighth grandchild to be born, so that is going to happen.
I am very interested in making sure that our children are
properly taken care of. And, in fact, I did a special study a
few years ago. There is no advocacy for children across the
board. There are a lot of these different programs in place,
but there is no national strategy to look at children
holistically at the Federal Government level.
I made a recommendation to the administration to put that
under a cross-cutting priority initiative, but they never have.
So I think it is a shame, and we ought to be focused more on
that. But I would be happy to look at the nutrition issue in
schools that you talk about.
Mr. Ryan. Yeah, I would appreciate that. So we will circle
back with it with the staff to get moving on that. I know we
already have a healthcare research project that you guys are
working on for us with the Tufts University and Dr. Hyman and
others who are interested in that.
So that is the whole thing. There is a whole move afoot in
the country that has not made its way out into broader society
around using food as medicine and, you know, really using and
seeing diet as prevention and that kind of thing.
So, anyway, I am going to open it up for one last question,
if anybody has something for the good of the order.
Ms. Herrera Beutler?
Ms. Clark? I see you are still here.
Anyone else?
All right. We are good. Good? Kat?
Ms. Clark. Can I ask one quick question, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Ryan. Yes, absolutely.
Ms. Clark. I just wanted to comment. I recently saw the
issue of deepfakes has been in the news, posing safety and
security risks. And on the GAO's website is a report on science
and technology spotlight on deepfakes.
I wasn't aware you produced these kinds of reports, and is
this part of your effort to enhance your science and tech
portfolio?
Mr. Dodaro. Yes, it is. Those are our Science and
Technology Spotlights. GAO has produced 12 of them in the past
year out of the Science, Technology Assessment and Analytics
team. Topics have included deepfakes and CRISPR gene editing
technology. We did several on coronavirus, both in testing, and
in infectious disease modeling. We have done deep works on
that. So, yes, it is part of our effort. In the nuclear area,
we have done them too, and we will continue to do those.
Those are to meet a specific need that was identified in
the Congress for quick explainers about the technology. They
are two pages. They are meant to be produced quickly. They
outline what the technology is, what some of the benefits of
the technology are, what is the status of the development of
the technology, and what are some of the challenges and policy
implications of the technology.
And then we do more deep analysis, like on 5G. We have done
two reports on artificial intelligence and how it could be used
to more rapidly get drug developments done and also in medical
diagnostics. We are looking at the forensic algorithms for law
enforcement, the DNA, and other testing.
And we are also going to be coming up with a framework for
evaluating artificial intelligence algorithms because you have
to make sure there is no bias in artificial intelligence and
that the data that goes into it is high quality and produces a
good result. We are doing all these things in this new team.
This is one of my highest priorities. It has been that way
during my entire tenure. I have been building the capacity
here. With Congress' support recently, we are expanding it. And
that is why I am asking for more support. For instance, we need
to look at decarbonization technologies. It is important to the
environment, medicine, weapon systems development, and the
nuclear area as well. We are prepared to deal with these issues
now, but we will even be better prepared with additional
support from the Congress.
Ms. Clark. Thank you for that. They are terrific resources.
We appreciate it.
Mr. Dodaro. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. So I have got one last question, Gene. You are
talking about the issues around carbon, carbon capture and
that. What is the latest that you are seeing technology-wise
with carbon capture?
Mr. Dodaro. We have done an earlier piece on that subject,
which I will provide to your staff, Congressman, that basically
talked about it being in a rather incipient stage, and that it
wasn't commercially viable yet to produce on a wide scale.
But that is something we did maybe 2, 3 years ago. So we
are going to take another look at the technologies now. That is
in our plans.
[The information follows:]
Correction: The prior study (GAO-0091080) was issued in 2008.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. Great. Well, I can't thank you enough. Mr.
Dodaro and Kate, thank you for your time today. And, like I
said, I always love this. I wish we could just have a nice long
dinner, like, every couple of weeks and we can just ask you
questions. So we may have to do that off the record with the
committee.
But best of luck with the new grandbaby and your family and
everything. It is great to have another Italian-American baby
in the world. So God bless you.
Thanks for all your great work, and please let your team
know how much we appreciate them and how much we rely on them.
And we look forward to staying in close contact and interfacing
with your office.
So, with that, we want to say thank you. This hearing will
be in recess for 10 minutes as we switch panels. So I want to
just make sure to advise the members to say logged on, and we
will be back here in a few minutes.
This particular hearing is adjourned.
[Questions, answers, and additional material submitted for
the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 10, 2021.
HOUSE OFFICERS
WITNESSES
E. WADE BALLOU, JR., LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, ON BEHALF OF OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
HON. TIM BLODGETT, ACTING SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
KEMBA HENDRIX, DIRECTOR, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON BEHALF OF
OFFICE OF DIVERSITY & INCLUSION
HON. CHERYL L. JOHNSON, CLERK, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DOUGLAS N. LETTER, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON
BEHALF OF OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
MICHAEL T. PTASIENSKI, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, ON BEHALF OF OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
RALPH V. SEEP, LAW REVISION COUNSEL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON
BEHALF OF OFFICE OF THE LAW REVISION COUNSEL
HON. CATHERINE L. SZPINDOR, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, U.S. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
For our second panel, I would like to welcome the officers
and officials of the House of Representatives to present the
fiscal year 2022 budget request. Testifying before us today we
have the Honorable Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk of the House; the
Honorable Tim Blodgett, Acting Sergeant at Arms; the Honorable
Catherine Szpindor, Chief Administrative Officer; Mr. Wade
Ballou, Chief Legislative Counsel; Mr. Douglas Letter, General
Counsel; Mr. Michael T. Ptasienski, Inspector General; Mr.
Ralph V. Seep, Law Revision Counsel; Ms. Kemba Hendrix,
Director of Office of Diversity and Inclusion. Thank you all
for joining us today. We welcome you back to our subcommittee.
Before we begin with the testimonies, I would like to thank
all the officers, officials, and their staff for the
extraordinary work over the past year. Through the pandemic, a
violent mob of domestic terrorists, and just life on Capitol
Hill, you continue to serve this body and ensure the Members of
Congress can continue to work. Your work is invaluable to
getting the taxpayer the most from their tax dollars, and we
hold you and your staffs in very high regard.
The request for the House of Representatives is $1.737
billion, an increase of $260 million over what was provided
last year. While this is a healthy request and would provide
Members and committees the resources necessary for us to
represent our constituents, I am afraid that the subcommittee
allocation may not be increasing at a reciprocal rate. As you
know, budgeting is unfortunately a zero-sum game, and it will
be hard to accommodate the full request, but we will do our
best. I look forward to your testimony today.
And at this point, I would like to yield to the ranking
member, my friend and colleague from Washington State, home of
the largest dam in the United States, Jaime Herrera Beutler,
for any opening comments that she may like to make.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, welcome back to Ms. Johnson, our Clerk of
the House, and welcome to our Acting Sergeant at Arms, Mr.
Blodgett, and our new Chief Administrative Officer, Catherine
Szpindor. Congratulations on your new positions and your first
budget testimony before this subcommittee.
The House of Representatives has been challenged by the
COVID-19 pandemic and, more recently, with the assault on the
Capitol on January 6. Collectively, our House officers are
working around the clock to ensure that the legislative process
can continue to function and our staff have the resources they
need to work from home or safely from the office.
Your offices have shown ingenuity and flexibility to ensure
the people's House continues its work throughout this past
year, and I thank each of you for your hard work under very
tough circumstances. As the committee reviews your budget
request for fiscal year 2022, I look forward to hearing more
about the challenges you have overcome as well as how you will
continue to grow and adapt as we move forward. Thank you for
that.
And I will yield my time back to the gentleman whose home
State has the world's largest basket. It is seven stories tall
and used to be an office building. We think it is vacant now.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
So, without objection, all of the written testimonies will
be made part of the record. As we have a large panel, I ask
that the Clerk of the House, the Acting Sergeant at Arms, and
Chief Administrative Officer summarize their statements for the
members of the committee.
Ms. Johnson, we will begin with you, then Mr. Blodgett,
and, finally, Ms. Szpindor. Please begin.
Ms. Johnson. Good morning. Chairperson Ryan and Ranking
Member Herrera Beutler, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for your support and for the opportunity to testify about our
operations and fiscal year 2022 budget request.
Since our previous Appropriations hearing on March 3, 2020,
we have witnessed an unprecedented challenge to the continuity
of business in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Office of
the Clerk has been deeply immersed in efforts to ensure that
the critical functions of the House continue uninterrupted
throughout an unfolding global pandemic. Because of the high
level of professionalism in the Clerk's Office and the
longstanding culture of preparedness and nimbleness, we were
able to seamlessly adjust to these disruptions.
Regarding the pandemic, in just a few weeks, the Clerk's
Office developed new systems to permit the electronic
submission of legislation, additional cosponsors, and
Congressional Record inserts. At the risk of falling ill with
the coronavirus, Clerk staff worked daily to process more than
4,500 bills in the last year.
Under the eHopper system, there has been a 157-percent
increase in bills introduced during pro forma sessions. As a
result, staff spend hours processing bills long after the House
concludes its daily business. For example, the January 28 pro
forma session yielded 155 introduced bills, of which all but
four were introduced through the eHopper. Clerk staff worked
more than 12 hours to process those bills.
In addition, we have processed 7,909 proxy votes and made
all proxy letters available on the Office of the Clerk's
website.
In addition to its myriad of responsibilities in support of
daily legislative operations, the Clerk's Office has nearly 200
duties related to the biennial transition from one Congress to
the next. Those duties include everything from updating the
Electronic Voting System to working with State election
officials to collect and review certificates of election for
every Member, Delegate, and Resident Commissioner.
The ongoing pandemic made this year's preparedness
especially challenging, but in the end, the Office of the Clerk
ensured that, on opening day, January 3, 2021, a new Congress
could begin carrying out its constitutional mandate. On January
6, the Clerk's Office and the Parliamentarian worked with
Senate officials on the official counting of electoral votes,
which was completed despite the terrible challenges of that
day.
We appreciate the subcommittee's ongoing support for the
operations of the Office of the Clerk. For fiscal year 2022, we
respectfully request $35,857,000 to carry out our existing and
new responsibilities to the House, of which 90 percent supports
personnel salaries, training, and technology. The request is a
net increase of roughly $4 million, or 12 percent, above the
fiscal year 2021 enacted funding level.
A major component of that increase would support
nonpersonnel items, primarily mandatory maintenance of the
Electronic Voting System, the Comparative Print Project,
further development of the eHopper, and continued modernization
of the Legislative Information Management System. These
projects are all critical to the flow of legislative
operations.
Working closely with our partners in the House, from quite
literally living rooms and dining room tables, Clerk staff have
successfully supported the House through a remarkable time in
history. They have done so while shouldering the personal
impact of this pandemic by serving unexpectedly as school
teachers and family caretakers. I am honored to work with such
dedicated staff.
Thank you again for your continued support, and I look
forward to any questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
Mr. Blodgett.
Mr. Blodgett. Good morning, Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member
Herrera Beutler, and members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to present the Office of the Sergeant at Arms'
budget request for fiscal year 2022. It is an honor and a
privilege to serve this institution, and I look forward to
continuing to partner with the committee as this year
progresses.
I first want to thank the employees of the Office of the
Sergeant at Arms. I have been serving as Acting Sergeant at
Arms for 2 months. During that time, I have learned that my
success depends on the success of my employees. I can fail on
my own, but success requires the commitment and skills of
multiple employees working together to fulfill the mission. My
success is dependent on them, and I thank them. Their support
means more to me than I can express.
These hearings serve as a useful time to both look back and
look forward. Since the Office of the Sergeant at Arms' last
budget hearing, the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically altered
how my office and Congress has done its business. Longstanding
processes have had to change in order to keep us safe. My staff
have had to shift their mission in all areas, from Chamber
operations to coordinating personal protective equipment
distribution.
In addition, the needs of the Office of the Sergeant at
Arms has changed considerably since January 6. We are focusing
on realigning our workforce to better serve Members, staff, and
visitors. This includes structuring ourselves in a way that
allows us to hold both our organization and our law enforcement
partners more accountable for the security services we provide
you, your fellow Members, your staff, and our visitors.
Unfortunately, because of the budget submission cycle, the
identified needs for the Sergeant at Arms, including more needs
identified by the report produced by General Honore this past
week, will grow from what was originally submitted. My staff
and I will continue to work with the subcommittee on
investments that the subcommittee can make that would help
better secure Members, staff, and visitors.
With that background in mind, I would like to present the
Sergeant at Arms' fiscal year 2022 request. For fiscal year
2022, I am requesting further funding for the Joint Audible
Warning System, or JAWS, project. This is a shared effort with
the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Architect of the Capitol, and
Capitol Police to replace the aging wireless emergency
enunciator system.
One of the items I have testified to this subcommittee
about is how communications in times of crisis needs to
improve. The existing wireless enunciator system was introduced
as a temporary measure following the events of 9/11. The system
components are beyond their end-of-life dates. The requested
funding will help procure a new joint system with encrypted
transmission capabilities and new devices for all offices in
the House. The JAWS effort, in conjunction with other existing
notification capabilities, will provide notification
resiliency.
I am also requesting funding to continue providing security
services to Member district offices through the Sergeant at
Arms' District Office Security Program. Today we are only
responsible for providing a security system for one district
office per Member. I believe the District Office Security
Program should be expanded to allow security systems to be
provided by the Sergeant at Arms' program to all appropriate
district offices.
To date, with the support of this committee and the
Committee on House Administration, we have more than 450 active
systems, with new systems coming online each month. While this
is a measurable improvement from the beginning and is a
positive sign, our work isn't done, and I believe that we can
provide more for the district staff, who play a critical role
in the functioning of Congress. Therefore, I view the District
Office Security Program as a necessary and basic investment in
ensuring security.
Employees of the Sergeant at Arms' Office are our strongest
asset. Fiscal year 2022, I am requesting funding for two new
FTEs. Within the Division of Police Services and Law
Enforcement, an additional FTE would work on coordinating
security installations and providing administrative support for
the District Office Security Center. Also, within the Division
of Police Services and Law Enforcement, an additional FTE will
provide the staffing needed for the increasing requirements to
coordinate and support event planning efforts with our law
enforcement partners. This includes working with our partners
to develop written plans for large events, like the national
special security events, and smaller scale events, like
committee field hearings.
While this FTE request was provided in late fall, January 6
demonstrated a clear need for this role to both assist our
office and to hold our law enforcement partners accountable for
meaningful documented planning efforts.
Nonpersonnel expenses for fiscal year 2022 will continue to
support, among other items, travel, including Sergeant at Arms-
approved Capitol Police travel in advance and support of
overseas leadership codels and other large-scale off-campus
events attended by Members, and the biennial purchase of Member
and spouse identification pins, plates, parking permits, and
safes.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before
the committee. I am so appreciative for the committee's support
and partnership, and I am happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
Ms. Szpindor.
Ms. Szpindor. Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera
Beutler, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the fiscal year 2022 priorities and
subsequent budget request for the Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer.
The CAO remains committed to its 5-year strategic plan and
its goals to, one, align Member needs; two, modernize and
transform; three, protect the House; and, four, foster and
engage. In meeting these goals, the CAO is guided by its
organizational motto: Member focused, service driven. The CAO
strives to improve communications with Members and staff,
institute rigorous execution and delivery of promised
initiatives, enhance our support for the well-being of the
House employees, and promote and foster an inclusive and
diverse workplace within the CAO.
The fiscal year 2022 budget request for the CAO is $191.3
million, an increase of $14.1 million, or approximately 8
percent, above the fiscal year 2021-enacted funding level. The
increase includes $5.3 million for new initiatives, including
the design and upgrade of House office websites to ensure they
are accessible to all Americans, including those with
disabilities; upgrades and designs to make CAO services easily
accessible through modernized and streamlined technology;
contract support for committee broadcast operations; Member and
staff training and course development; and software upgrades
for financial and IT systems.
Additionally, $4.5 million of this request increase
supports ongoing critical activities, including our technology
support to Members and staff, the continued strengthening of
the House's cybersecurity posture, additional licensing for
audio and videoconferencing tools, and cloud software for daily
operations and telework, support for the Member- and staff-
specific services, and the migration of House websites to a
more secure and resilient cloud platform.
An increase of $862,000 allows our Logistics and Support
staff to refurbish existing furniture and implement new
furniture and acquire software enhancements to streamline the
House inventory processes, eliminating the need for Member
offices to conduct self-inventories, and reducing paperwork and
the amount of time Logistics and Support staff spend in Member
offices.
Cybersecurity remains a critical priority, as an average of
6,000 House employees log in to the House network remotely each
day. In 2020 alone, the Office of Cybersecurity blocked 40.1
billion unauthorized scans, probes, and connections aimed at
the House. To ensure and maintain a strong cybersecurity
posture, our request includes funding for remote network
surveillance and monitoring and related support.
Our Employee Assistance team supports the health and well-
being of Members and staff and continues to be crucial as we
navigate the COVID-19 pandemic and cope with trauma-related
issues. The fiscal year 2022 request also includes $280,000 for
our House Wellness Center to fund in-person and online wellness
courses on topics like mindfulness, nutrition, fitness, and
stress management.
The CAO continues to manage the delivery of workforce
rights and responsibility education, cybersecurity, financial
systems training, and support for mandatory ethics training.
Our House-wide training program develops and delivers courses
designed specifically for job roles within the Member and
committee offices. Our request includes $350,000 for expansion
of this custom curriculum development.
The personnel component of our fiscal year 2022 budget
includes $3.5 million, or a 4-percent increase, in current
funding for staff longevities and projected 2.6-percent cost-
of-living adjustment.
Before closing, I would like to highlight the CAO's
stewardship with the resources that we have opportunity to use.
We decreased our budget request by a total of $5.8 million by
eliminating obsolete equipment, software, and contracts.
Thank you for your support, for the opportunity to present
our fiscal year 2022 budget request, which directly supports
each Member of the people's House and the staff who support it.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank
you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ryan. Thank you for all of your remarks. We appreciate
you, and we are going to go to the question and answer.
I don't know if Chairwoman DeLauro is on?
The Clerk. She is not.
Mr. Ryan. She is not, okay.
Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Hi. Thank you so much for that.
I would like to start with Acting Sergeant Blodgett.
I know you referenced in your remarks that the task force
review was made public this week and had a number of
recommendations in it that I found really interesting and
really helpful, honestly.
Specifically with regard to the Capitol Police Board
decisionmaking during emergencies, they said that the CPB's
deliberate decisionmaking process proved too slow and
cumbersome to respond to the crisis in January, delaying
request for critical supplemental resources. We recommend to
give the USCP chief the authority to request external law
enforcement and National Guard support without CPB preapproval
in extraordinary emergency circumstances.
Do you support--I would just--do you support that
recommendation? You are on mute.
Mr. Blodgett. Nothing like doing that right out of the
gate. I apologize.
I think General Honore's report to start is a--can be the
starting point for constructive dialogue on how to provide the
chief, who is the day-to-day operational commander of the
Capitol Police, the ability to utilize extra resources
available, whether it is through mutual aid agreements or
National Guard----
Ms. Herrera Beutler. I am going to just step in really
quick because I don't have a lot of time.
Mr. Blodgett. Sure.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. So, just specifically, on that
recommendation, do you support that recommendation?
Mr. Blodgett. Yes, I support that we can find a mechanism
to get the chief that authority, yes.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. To get him the ability to make
immediate requests for law enforcement, National Guard support
[inaudible] In an emergency----
Mr. Blodgett. I think there is a mechanism to do that, to
provide enough of oversight to do that to allow the chief to
have that flexibility and capability.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Well, obviously, I am asking in large
part because one of the things that we have been challenged to
figure out is who did what and said what before, you know, with
regards to National Guard, and then, as the emergency was
happening, who had the authority. And I think it has been
very--it has been widely observed that the Board really seemed
to slow down the process and/or the former Sergeant at Arms. I
mean, it is hard to understand who did what.
And we just had the GAO in the hearing before us, and I
asked about a report done a few years ago with regard to
bringing accountability and transparency and more effectiveness
to the Police Board, and the GAO just informed us that the
Board has not adopted almost any of those recommendations.
And I know you are somewhat new to the role, but you have
been there. Are you aware of this report, the GAO report, and
is that something that you can assure us as we give you this
new budget that you are going to be implementing their
recommendations or at least asking for their assistance in
getting to that goal?
Mr. Blodgett. Ma'am, I am aware of that report. As you are
aware, the dynamics on the Board, you know, the House, Senate,
and the Architect have--you know, play a role in how things
were implemented. I know that Mr. Irving had been pushing to do
that, and I will continue to push those that are----
Ms. Herrera Beutler. To get their recommendations adopted
by the Board?
Mr. Blodgett. To get it considered and those that we can
get consensus to to be adopted, yes.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. So would you say the challenge has
been that other--maybe other voting members on the Board don't
share the GAO's recommendations?
Mr. Blodgett. I think----
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Unmute. There you go.
Mr. Blodgett. I think that there were, in the past, I can't
speak for the present Sergeant at Arms, that there was a
reluctance on the Senate and other members to, you know, to not
engage.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Can I ask, and this is a little bit
different tack because I am trying to follow what is being said
in the Senate and what is happening here, and just, honestly, I
am trying to piece together who was in charge so that we can
make changes so that we never go through what we went through
again. And I don't mean me personally; I mean the U.S. Capitol
and the seat of our democracy.
Was anybody on your staff, either the previous Sergeant at
Arms or yourself or any of your staff, in direct communication
with anyone on the leadership staff with regard to the request
to have National Guard come before the 6th, so anytime January
6 or in the week before? Had anybody on your staff either
requested that or had communicated a need for that to the
Speaker's Office, and did you guys connect with anybody in the
Speaker's Office about that prior to or on January 6?
Mr. Blodgett. I can say I did not. As to what Mr. Irving
may or may not have done, that would be a question best
directed towards him. You know, I can't--you know, that is
outside my personal knowledge on what was discussed.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Oh, so you think there was a
discussion?
Mr. Blodgett. I don't know. I don't know one way or the
other. That would be a question best directed at Mr. Irving.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. But no one on your current staff that
you are now responsible for has relayed to you----
Mr. Blodgett. Not to my knowledge. Not to my knowledge.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Great. Thank you so much. I appreciate
your time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Blodgett, going to the security of Members back in
their district, we have had discussions over the last couple of
years about the obvious need to consider security for Members
from a nonphysical office perspective because, basically,
Members' security is required. Wherever they are, that is where
their office is, and we have got Members that are way out there
in the public. And it may not be as acute during COVID-19, but
as COVID-19 recedes, we will be back into that environment. And
as Members go back to their districts, we don't hang out in our
offices.
And so the question has been, how do we provide for a
greater level of Member security when we are not on Capitol
grounds or not in our district offices? As I understand it, the
practice has been that the Sergeant at Arms correctly asks
local law enforcement to cooperate on that but does not
compensate local law enforcement for that.
As I recall correctly, the Honore report had a provision in
it, to the extent that we needed to, as I recall, increase
Member security on a risk basis, which I suppose means that
some Members are at higher risk than others, which I accept.
But the basic question here is, do you believe that the U.S.
Congress should undertake a greater level of funding of the
security of Members back in their districts out of their
offices, in other words, to compensate local law enforcement?
The answer from the Sergeant at Arms in the past has been
no, as I recall, at least generally. And, you know, local law
enforcement is very cooperative in providing that service, but
at some point, it becomes just unfair to ask them to do that in
addition to their other duties. Have you given further thought
to that?
Mr. Blodgett. Thank you, sir. That is, you know, a very
good question. Right now, I believe that we have had good
cooperation in getting local assistance as needed and when
needed, and it is easier for other jurisdictions to be able to
support those requests as compared to other jurisdictions. So I
do think it is something that we probably should examine. But
finding what the right sweet spot is in terms of that
reimbursement, I would have to work with the--we would have to
work with the Capitol Police and go through that process with
the committee to request the proper funding for that.
Mr. Case. Okay. Well, we have been considering it for at
least the time I have been on the committee and probably
longer, and I think it is getting more acute. And I don't want
to have a tragedy out there where we look back and said--you
know, sometimes when I go home and I am going out into my
district, I actually consciously think about whether I should
actually ask my local law enforcement to come out and help me
out in a situation where I don't think there is any real risk,
but I don't want to take a chance. But I don't want to ask them
if they are not compensated.
And so I get into a tricky situation myself where I may be
putting myself at risk because the burden that I feel I am
placing on them. Now, they always have done it when I have
asked and so--and, you know, I have asked--I have asked on
occasion, but I don't ask all the time. And I wonder--and I am
a pretty low-key Member here. I am not in the high-risk
category, knock on wood. But, you know, some of my Members are
high risk when they go out there. So I would suggest that that
is an area that we should probably accelerate our
consideration. But I appreciate your appreciation of the
concern.
Hey, Mr. Letter, just quickly, you had a very, very busy
last couple of years, and what is left of all of that? What is
on your plate now in terms of externally representing the
House? And how does that, you know--I think you had a much
higher activity level on a budget need in the last couple of
years, but has that started to dry up, or is it still kind of
continuing with the residuals?
Mr. Letter. Mr. Case, thank you for that question. We do
still have a batch of cases leftover involving--that are in
litigation involving the Trump administration. We have been
working with the Department of Justice and various, you know,
the House committees to see what can be settled.
In some of the cases, for example, the Department of
Justice has withdrawn positions that were taken by the Trump
administration. You might have noticed that just recently that
happened yesterday with regard to the public charge case. So we
have some cases that have gone away. We still have some that
are pending on court dockets, and I am very actively discussing
those with the Speaker's Office and the White House and the
Justice Department.
I also still continue to have a considerable amount of
litigation that, as I am sure you are aware, is totally
nonpartisan, you know, people who are bringing suit against,
for instance, Members of Congress for issues such as their
activities and policies concerning their social media accounts,
et cetera. So the office is still quite busy, but you are
right; the amount of litigation has already lessened, and I am
expecting it to continue to lessen. I hope that answers your
question.
Mr. Case. It does. Thank you very much.
Mr. Letter. You are welcome.
Mr. Ryan. Great. Thanks, Mr. Case.
The chair of the full Appropriations Committee, Ms.
DeLauro.
The Chairwoman. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
One point before I ask my question, if that is all right, I
want to just make a comment with regard to the Police Board. I
would very, very much like to arrange some time where we can
have an opportunity to discuss the Police Board, what we
believe its structural makeup should be, and, I mean,
recommendations for the future of the Capitol Police Board.
And maybe we can even have a conversation with General
Honore and get some advice about how we can look at--and I say
this to Congresswoman Herrera Beutler as well--a structure
which meets the need and the time rather than a group of people
where there has been a lack of coordination and a lack of what
I call central command. So I would like to move in that
direction.
In the meantime, Mr. Ballou, I read your testimony with
great interest. As I am sure my colleagues have been told, like
I have been by my own staff, that bill text is not going to be
ready in time for when we want to introduce our legislation for
a bunch of reasons. One that I have already encountered is that
the large pieces of legislation, you know, like the Rescue
Plan, puts virtually all other legislation drafting on hold.
I understand that these rules were laid out in 1970, but I
think I can speak for others that this is incredibly
frustrating. So these are a couple of questions that I wanted
to ask: What changes can be implemented to avert, to prevent
the standstill of legislative drafting, for those working on
legislation while it is not moving is equally as important? You
talk about two full-time new hires. Is that enough to address
the workload that the office has coming in, has clearly
increased over the last several years? And what are your long-
term plans for the office to increase recruitment and retention
of attorneys, particularly in light of the 5-to-7-year training
period? Mr. Ballou.
Mr. Ballou. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Let me first
address changes. We do respond as rapidly as possible, and the
House schedule and committee schedules are what we focus on
with matters that are coming to the floor, matters that are
coming to committee. With the available staff we have then when
we are not responding to the floor of the committee, then we
are responding to requests for introduction for bills.
So, when the schedule remains packed for the floor with
large bills, then that is where our resources go.
Unfortunately, that means that those bills that are being
prepared for introduction end up in a backlog and having to
wait. So looking at matters of scheduling and coordinating may
be something that will help.
For numbers of staff, we currently have on staff 78 full-
time employees. We are, as we speak actually, onboarding a new
attorney. We hope to onboard four or five before the end of
this fiscal year or at the very beginning of the next fiscal
year.
Our challenge over the last few years has been that we have
had a number of retirements. And while we have hired a number
of people for 3 years in a row, we had a net gain of zero, and
our hires have not ended up balancing out the number of
retirements. And the length of service of our attorneys 5 years
ago was approximately 15 years on average. Today, it has
dropped to about 11 years. So it can take a little bit longer
for a newer attorney who is not as familiar with the subject
matter to turn something around compared to somebody who has a
longer tenure in the office.
The third part of your question addressed long-term plans.
We are attacking that on multiple fronts. We are currently
looking at our own processes and for ways that we can expedite
what we are doing and working in the most efficient manner
possible. We are doing what we can to provide educational
opportunities for committee staff and Member staff so that we
can help them help us as much as possible, and we are on course
to hire more attorneys.
The Chairwoman. Let me, if I can, just interrupt for a
second, and I apologize, but how many people do you need? I
mean, really? What do you need, and what is the size--I mean,
what is the backlog here?
Mr. Ballou. The backlog varies by our subject area teams,
and it varies with respect to whatever is happening with the
schedule.
The Chairwoman. I understand, but what is it now? What is
your backlog now? Maybe you are up to date with everything now.
Mr. Ballou. We are not because we have had a lot of focus
on the current reconciliation effort. I will need to get back
to you with the particular backlog.
The Chairwoman. Okay. I am essentially just saying, what do
you need to keep, you know, to keep pace in terms of staffing?
And I understand the training piece, which is, you know,
substantial, and, you know, I recognize that, and that is
necessary and needed. But this is something that we need to
know and to understand and so forth so that we can have the--
you know, we can have legislation moving.
You know, I understand you get a big piece like the Rescue
Plan, well, you have got to throw everything else on hold. But
there ought to be a way in which we can accommodate these big
pieces and, you know, and other pieces of legislation that need
to be moving.
You know, the process is oftentimes--I don't have to tell
you--slow enough, you know, to get all the pieces in line to
get something done. And then when you are--you know, rather
than, you know, to continue--well, you get my point, but I wish
you----
Mr. Ballou. Yes, ma'am.
The Chairwoman [continuing]. Could get back and let us know
what that backlog is, what you might need in order to be able
to, you know, not come out with a net loss or unevenness with
people retiring and people that you are putting on so that you
don't make gains.
And my time has run out, but many thanks, and I yield back
the balance of my time. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. DeLauro.
Wade, I think probably all of us want to associate
ourselves with the comments of the full committee chair with
regard to that issue.
Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. Hey, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Mr. Espaillat.
The Clerk. He is not on, sir. Oh, wait. I think he is
actually popping on.
Mr. Ryan. Mr. Espaillat?
Mr. Newhouse?
Mr. Espaillat. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Yep. Mr. Espaillat, you have the floor.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
General Honore, the general's long-awaited release of the
report gives recommendations. Many recommendations have to do
with Capitol Police, where there are a number of them
suggesting that will touch on all other offices. One in
particular relates to the IT security and continuity of
operations, something that I previously asked about to the
Library of Congress.
I am wondering if you can all speak to how the report's
recommendation may impact your budget request, whether relating
to data security or other aspects of the report's
recommendation?
Ms. Szpindor. This is Catherine Szpindor. I could speak to
that if you would like. We do have some information in the
response from General Honore regarding cybersecurity and
regarding a possibility of centralized authority over the
cybersecurity within the House. And I can speak to the entire
aspect of it, or if there is a specific question you would like
for me to answer, I will be glad to.
Mr. Espaillat. How IT security could impact your operation
and whether you are ready to have a secure operation regarding
data security.
Ms. Szpindor. Uh-huh. I will tell you that right now we
feel that our systems are secure from an infrastructure
standpoint and also within our data centers. We have done a lot
of work in the past to bring our data centers up to a tier
three level, which is a high level from a security and support
standpoint.
The issue comes, with what I know of General Honore's
statement, it is really about blocking and tackling, okay. We
need to everyday ensure our servers and our mobile devices and
our accounts are set up correctly. And one of the biggest risks
to us is the decentralized model that we all operate under
means that I really cannot guarantee to you that this basic
blocking and tackling is done correctly.
I can't guarantee that because the people that do much of
the work don't necessarily report up to the Chief
Administrative Officer or to our CIO. We have limited authority
to be able to make sure that the technical expertise required
to validate whether all policies and processes around
cybersecurity and cybersecurity itself is followed universally.
And it is a significant risk, if we are talking about risk
and blocking and tackling, to the Members and to the House by
not being able to ensure that every single thing that we are
trying to accomplish from a cybersecurity standpoint is
actually done. We don't believe that we should take significant
risk, but we need to identify the risks that we do have and
ensure that we are taking steps to reduce it.
Mr. Espaillat. So what is your recommendation then to avert
those risks?
Ms. Szpindor. My recommendation is to look at how we can
better have accountability and authority to ensure that the
cybersecurity practices and policies are followed correctly.
Mr. Espaillat. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think that we ought to follow up
on this issue a little bit more as we move forward. I think it
is an important one for all of us. Thank you so much. I yield
back.
Mr. Ryan. I thank the gentleman for bringing that to the
committee's attention.
Ms. Wexton, you have the floor.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is great to be here with all these folks from the House,
and I want to thank all of you for everything that you have
done to help keep the House running so smoothly during this
pandemic. You know, I saw a statistic from the House Admin
Committee that the House Members and staff conducted about
almost 350,000 virtual meetings during 2020, and that is pretty
remarkable because I am guessing that is a whole lot more than
there have ever been in the past, and that is really--you guys
deserve a great pat on the back for that.
But I do have some questions. Ms. Szpindor, following up on
those questions from Mr. Espaillat, for the data security, part
of what has been recommended is that we move the data center
operations out of the national capital region to some place
outside of this general area. Is that correct?
Ms. Szpindor. That is certainly something that we have been
working toward in the CAO for a while. And for the most part,
for all of the data centers, center equipment, servers, data
that we support that is 100 percent within the CAO, we are
accomplishing that with two things. We are accomplishing it by
having fully redundant data centers in two disparate locations:
One is a remote distance; the other one is a little bit closer.
But we are putting all of our information and our network and
our servers and all of the data into two tier three data
centers that are very secure.
And so for--I can't speak to what is done outside of the
CAO and the other leg branch agencies, but for us, that is the
path that we are on to ensure that there is nothing here on the
Hill that could be damaged if there was a major disaster, and
that has been our posture for a number of years now.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. And is that process proceeding at the
pace that you would like it to be?
Ms. Szpindor. Yes, it is. We have a team right now that is
finishing the move from the alternate computing facility that
we had been in for a number of years to a tier three data
center. The moves are happening as we speak, and we expect all
of that activity to be finished around the mid to end of May.
And once it is finished, I can sleep better at night.
Ms. Wexton. Very good. Thanks.
Now, Mr. Blodgett, I understand that there have been some
other questions about the Capitol Police Board and the
decisionmaking authority and everything, but a question I would
have for you is, does the Capitol Police Board have its own
dedicated staff just for the Police Board?
Mr. Blodgett. The Capitol Police Board has an executive
assistant who is housed within the Capitol Police Department,
as well as, technically, the IG reports up to the Capitol
Police Board.
Ms. Wexton. So then who would respond to inquiries and
things like that that are directed to the Police Board? If the
GAO had inquiries about the implementation of recommendations,
who would actually respond to that? Because it is my
understanding that the Police Board has not been very
responsive to the GAO.
Mr. Blodgett. Usually that would come in to the chair of
the Board, any official requests.
Ms. Wexton. And do you know if this [inaudible] What has
been happening with the implementation of their
recommendations?
Mr. Blodgett. Ma'am, there were attempts from the House to
implement some of those recommendations, as you are aware, that
the Capitol Police Board works on consensus. There is also a
Senate Sergeant at Arms and the Architect of the Capitol
involved.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. But there is no centralized response
system for the Police Board----
Mr. Blodgett. If there is an official response, it would be
addressed to chair of the Capitol Police Board, at the time
which is currently the Senate Sergeant at Arms office.
Ms. Wexton. Got it.
Mr. Blodgett. I apologize.
Ms. Wexton. Is it the same among the members of the Police
Board, or is it just who the chair is?
Mr. Blodgett. Can you repeat the question?
Ms. Wexton. Does who the chair is rotate among the members
of the Board? Do they select one every year or what?
Mr. Blodgett. It alternates between the House and Senate
Sergeant at Arms.
Ms. Wexton. Okay.
Mr. Blodgett. Now, I did have discussions with GAO in the
past on those reports as well, that and then my counterpart at
the time when I was, you know, on the Senate and the Architect.
So we have had dialogues back and forth with the GAO
individuals doing the review.
Ms. Wexton. Okay.
Ms. Hendrix, I understand that the Office of Diversity and
Inclusion is new--kind of new--within the--the Office of
Diversity and Inclusion is fairly new, but you did this work in
the House of Representatives for several years. So what are the
challenges that you are currently having in ensuring that
offices are aware of the ODI and use its services?
Ms. Hendrix. The challenges are reminding people that we
exist. I think people tend to think about it immediately when
they have a new hire because that is a service that was
provided when--in the Democratic initiative and with the
Republican initiative in that format. But as we are moving to
where we are staffing and we are continuing to work with the
CAO on the reporting, it is a reminder to people that we exist.
So we are working with outreach, using social media,
engaging with chiefs and at the staff level in multiple
different levels. But it is a constant reminder and in
collaboration with speaking to similar offices, like the
ombudsman or the Office of the Employee Advocate. They are
similar--they are working through that similar process, having
to make sure people understand what their services are and when
a person would use that resource as opposed to another one. So
we have been working in concert with those other offices to
think of ways that we can collaborate to make sure employees
know what resources are available to them and how to utilize
them.
Ms. Wexton. Great. Thank you so much.
I see that my time has expired, and I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Wexton.
So I have got a few questions here for the panel. I want to
start with Ms. Hendrix. Ms. Hendrix, I appreciate your being
here. This is obviously an issue, the Office of Diversity and
Inclusion, and it is an issue that has been very important to
this committee over the past couple of years. And I know you
requested four additional full-time employees but then also
additional funds to develop and execute the compensation
diversity study. This is something that we feel very, very
strongly about. The barrier analysis, we feel very, very
strongly about, really, you know, trying to identify what some
of these barriers are.
And you said that the--and mentioned at some point that the
reports can be completed by an outside vendor or from the new
team in-house. If you can just talk to us for a minute or two
about this request, and where are you in the process of
developing these surveys? Would the four additional full-time
employees, is this where they would be? Would they be
associated with this analysis that we need to happen and those
kind of things? So I would love to hear where you are at on
that.
Ms. Hendrix. Yes. Up until this point, the House has always
worked with an outside independent contractor who completes
those services. And so, when we completed the 2019 compensation
and diversity study, that was an outside contractor, when we
did the barrier analysis in 2020. With additional employees, we
could hopefully bring some of that work and complete it
internally rather than working at a discrete period of time and
working in concert with--or in collaboration with an external
contractor.
If we could have a team that was focused and familiar with
the House and how it works, I believe that we could get more
robust reporting and be a little more agile and adaptive,
rather than having to begin with that idea and then extend the
RFPs and have people compete for all of the--going through all
of those processes when we have to compete the process and then
finding the initial--I think we could tailor our process and
procedures to the House because even as we are bringing in
these outside workers, they are familiar with the Federal
Government or they are familiar with the private sector, which
is very different and unique. And how our employees are
employed are unique. How our individual offices and each Member
office is structured is unique. So we spend a lot of time
bringing the outside contractor up to speed, and even sometimes
the general processes of how we do business don't necessarily
align with what our needs are. We are adapting those processes
and procedures as they would be done within the Federal
Government or within the private sector, but our processes and
procedures are different. We don't have the original mandate to
report to the EEOC or to the White House or to other individual
sectors. We are just reporting to the body. So they are
adapting their reporting model to those entities to try and
make it work for us.
And with the partnership that we have been doing, I think
we have built a good enough relationship with those
contractors, but it is still always a good amount of work to
get them to understand how we are employed here and how our
processes and procedures work.
I think we would serve the demands that we have better if
we had a team that was specifically dedicated to that who
understood our structure, our hierarchy, our procedures, and we
were utilizing the dollars that we were spending on a team that
was just focused on us.
Mr. Ryan. Do you need all four of the FTEs in your request,
or could you do it with a couple of full-time employees?
Ms. Hendrix. I would be remiss to say that we don't need
all four. I think that would be untrue. Will we make it work if
we don't get all four? We will. Would we be more agile and more
adept and be able to do something more robust? I believe we
would.
We have multiple different streams of reporting, and so
having two people focused on generating larger--of course, I
think the Compensation and Diversity Study was a report that
was 400-and-some-30-odd pages, and the team that completed it
from the outside contractor was about 30 people. They had
industrial psychologists. They had tech people. They had their
industry people. We can't replicate that with two people.
And so, ideally, we could over a longer stretch of time
through the course of the year do that with a smaller team, but
I do not know that we could replicate the scale of the products
that we have done before working with an outside contractor
with one or two people.
Mr. Ryan. Kemba, how many do you have now working there?
How many full-time employees?
Ms. Hendrix. Full-time employees, we have seven, but they
are not all dedicated to the research work. Currently, we have
one research analyst whose responsibility is kind of project
managing the work that we do with the outside contractors.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. Well, we want to engage on this. Obviously,
the survey and the analysis is very important to us. We want to
get it done. We want to get it done as quickly as possible. And
we want to make sure we sit down and talk with you as we are
crafting the appropriations number here for you, figure out the
best way to do that. So let's make sure we stay in close
contact on that. So I appreciate your answer.
Wade, I have got a question for you real quick. I missed a
little bit of Ms. DeLauro's conversation with you, so I don't
know if you covered it. Did you guys cover the comparative tool
that your office and the--where did you go, Wade? There you
are. That the Office of the Clerk and your office are
developing a legislation comparison tool that would allow
Congress to compare two versions of legislation. Can you talk
to us about where you are in the development of that tool?
Mr. Ballou. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
We are working very closely with the Clerk of the House on
that tool. We currently have roughly 100 users in the House and
an early alpha pilot project for them to be working out the
tool and to be providing feedback that we can incorporate and
move toward improving that tool so it is usable for all staff
and Members in the House.
We very much hope to be able to roll that out later this
year. Relating to that, we are working with the Congressional
Academy in developing a course to provide training on how to
use that tool.
And we are actually quite excited about the possibilities
and the ways that we think it will help all Member and
committee staff to be more efficient in their work and thereby
helping the Members in their duties in the legislative process.
Mr. Ryan. Is this the same system that is used in the
Senate now?
Mr. Ballou. No, this is very different from the Senate. My
understanding is that the Senate has a tool that is a legacy
tool called CompareRite that provides a bill-to-bill comparison
to see the changes that had been made in a later draft.
The tool that we are working on will do that. We are
working on building into it a little bit more intelligence, so
that, as provisions move around in a later draft, that they
will show up as moved but not new text, or if, you know,
something is dropped, there will be more notifications as to
what was deleted in the next text.
In addition, we will be providing a changes in law, very
similar to what is now provided for the committees in the
Ramseyer part of the committee report, and that will be able to
be run on demand by staff so that it makes it easier to
understand how a bill would change a current law.
We are adding in a bill viewer to make it easier for staff
to analyze a bill and to begin to work through a bill smartly,
looking for items of particular interest, you know, such as the
definitions or dollar amounts, effective dates.
Mr. Ryan. I appreciate it. Well, that can help us move
significantly quicker. So I appreciate it. And it will be much
better for our staffs. Thanks.
I have got one final thing for you, Tim. You know, one of
the conversations we are having that comes out of the Honore
report and that I have had several of these conversations with
Chairman DeLauro and Speaker Pelosi and others around the
decisionmaking, and I know we touched upon it a little bit with
the Capitol Police Board, but I would love to have your opinion
on. You know, given the dynamic sometimes between the House
Sergeant at Arms and the Senate Sergeant at Arms and then
throwing in the Capitol Police and all that, what is your
opinion on developing some kind of system where there is maybe
one decisionmaker that is in charge, which is always important
but especially important in times of grave danger, times of
emergency? What is your opinion on that, as we look to, you
know, potentially restructure how the law enforcement is done
here on the Capitol?
Mr. Blodgett. That is a very interesting question, sir.
Mr. Ryan. I try my best.
Mr. Blodgett. It depends, I guess, on where you want to put
the unitary authority. If it is, say, a streamlined version
where you have maybe the chair of the Capitol Police Board able
to say, ``Emergency, go for it,'' that could work. If it is in
the chief of police, that could work.
But sometimes you could get a chief of police who may be
overaggressive or necessarily underaggressive. So there is a
layer of accountability as every police department reports up
to some entity, whether it is a commission or a board or a city
council.
So I think that would be one way to streamline a lot of the
issues surrounding the nimbleness and the quickness of making a
decision. It is just how you want to--you know, where you want
to place that in the chain. But I definitely think it is
something that is worth talking about, especially in
emergencies.
Mr. Ryan. Yeah, no question. We also want to further the
conversation. We have got to wrap things up now, but further
the conversation with you around one of the other topics that
came up here around security--Mr. Case talked about it--around
security in districts and district offices and residence, you
know, to make sure that the level of security that Members have
here, while it probably could never be matched, they do have an
opportunity to feel safe and their families feel safe back at
home.
That is something that is very important to us here, given
what a lot of Members have been through and are continuing to
still go through and having the resources available there for
details, if needed, but certainly the upgrades that are going
to be needed back in their home district. So we want to
continue to work with you on that.
And I want to thank you, Tim, too. I mean, you have been
terrific. You have been transparent. You have been open. You
have been really a partner through all of this. So I want to
personally say thanks to you because it has been, you know,
such a tough go here. And, Catherine, to you guys as well. You
guys have been really terrific, and we appreciate everything
that you have done.
I want to thank everybody here.
Ms. Johnson, I still want to hear about your stress
reduction sessions that you are having. And in this trying
time, I think me and Ms. Herrera Beutler may want to come join
a couple of them to sit and get a little quiet time with you.
But thank you, everyone, for an amazing and difficult year,
and we are going to look at this budget very, very closely. As
you know, there are so many different moving parts here this
year. It is always tough decisions for us to make, but
especially this year.
So I want to just say thanks for all of your service, and
we will see you again very, very soon, and we will be sure we
are in contact.
And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Questions, answers, and additional material submitted for
the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 11, 2021.
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
WITNESS
J. BRETT BLANTON, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
This hearing is fully virtual, so we need to address a few
housekeeping matters.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves
for the purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
The chair or staff designated by the chair may mute
participants' microphones when they are not under recognition.
If I notice when you are recognized that you have not
unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to
unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will
unmute your microphone.
We will begin with the chair and ranking member. Then
members present at the time the hearing is called to order will
be recognized in order of seniority.
We are using the 5-minute clock, which you will notice on
the screen. It will show how much time is remaining. If there
is a technology issue, we will move to the next member until
the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of your
time.
Regarding adding extraneous or additional material to the
record, per House rules, we have set up an email address where
members can send anything they wish to submit for the record
after seeking recognition for its inclusion. That email address
has been provided in advance to your staff.
Finally, we are doing two panels today: the first, the
Architect of the Capitol, then the Government Publishing
Office. We will take approximately a 10-minute recess between
the panels, but we will remain on this video feed, so members
do not have to log off. For our first panel, we will also be
juggling votes as well.
For our first panel, I would like to welcome the Architect
of the Capitol, the Honorable Brett Blanton, to present the
fiscal year 2022 budget request.
Mr. Blanton, this is the second time you have testified
before the subcommittee in 3 weeks. We welcome you back.
For fiscal year 2022, the AOC is requesting an increase of
$181.4 million in appropriated funds and 94 new full-time-
equivalent employees over what was provided last year. While we
understand that your workload is increasing, I am afraid that
the subcommittee allocation may not be increasing at a
reciprocal rate.
Additionally, I understand that the fiscal year 2022 budget
request does not include requirements to address the necessary
physical security and landscape architecture changes that are
as a result of the domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol. I
hope you can touch on those needs in your testimony today.
I also would like to expand on your, quote/unquote, ``big
rocks initiatives'' during our hearing today. Specifically, I
hope you will address the Capitol Complex Master Plan and how
this strategic plan has changed in response to the January 6
attack on the Capitol.
I look forward to your testimony. We appreciate your work
very much. You have shed a lot of light on a lot of the
different scenarios that we have had to deal with over the past
few weeks, Mr. Blanton, and I want to personally thank you for
being very accessible to us here at this committee.
At this point, I would like to yield to my colleague and
friend from the Evergreen State, the Nation's leading producer
of apples, and is the home of the coffee chain Starbucks, the
ranking member, Jaime Herrera Beutler, for any opening comments
she may have.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you. And I should add, Mr.
Chairman, that my specific district is home to Sasquatch. So
don't forget that.
Mr. Ryan. Excellent. Good to know.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. And Fabio. And the filming of
``Twilight.'' But anyway.
Mr. Blanton, January was a difficult month for the Cannon
House Office Building construction crew. Shutdowns from January
6, the inauguration, COVID-19 all resulted in significant
delays. And these factors collectively place--whoops, I am
jumping into questions. That was one of the things I want to
ask you about.
All--not just Cannon, but Rayburn, and everything in terms
of the master plan that has been being worked on for a number
of years now. I am in the very far corner of Rayburn, and our
quadrant has been--I feel like every week it is in a new place.
And after January 6, it all changed.
I am very anxious to hear about the master plan, about
coordination with the task force recommendations from General
Honore and what we see coming out of the Senate in terms of
recommendations.
Obviously, you know, you have been with us now, I think, a
little over a year, and you had a big job before. With
everything that has come full circle in the last couple of
months, I think everything has been a little bit more
complicated.
So I am really interested in hearing about how your budget
request incorporates some of these challenges. I know we had
talked about making whole some other budgets under your
purview, that you had to move money around to pay for things
like the fence and some of the ongoing security costs. But I am
really interested to hear from you about these things and
probably will have some questions along that line as well.
So it is a pleasure to have you. We are grateful for the
job you and your team do.
And, with that, I yield back to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Ryan. I thank the gentlelady.
Is Chairwoman DeLauro on the call?
Staff. She is not.
Mr. Ryan. She is not? Okay. Thank you.
So, Mr. Blanton, without objection, your written testimony
will be made part of the record. Please summarize your
statement for the members of the committee. Once you have
finished your statement, we will move to the question-and-
answers.
You have the floor, sir.
Mr. Blanton. Thank you, Chairman Ryan. Thank you, Ranking
Member and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to present the Architect of the Capitol's fiscal
year 2022 budget request for $865 million.
It has been a whirlwind year since I last sat before you,
only a few weeks into my tenure as the 12th Architect of the
Capitol. In that time, I have been amazed by the level of
commitment and professionalism displayed by my staff. We have
been in pandemic operations for nearly a year. We supported
three lying-in-state or honor ceremonies, we survived a
building breach on January 6, and we successfully prepared and
supported the Presidential inauguration.
Last year when I testified before the committee, I
committed to conducting a top-down assessment of the agency to
identify the most urgent needs and address critical issues. The
agency's fiscal year 2022 budget request is a result of that
review and serves as the beginning of the transformation of the
Architect of the Capitol into a world-class service agency.
Additionally, this budget serves as the foundation for the
future of the Capitol campus. This request introduces several
new initiatives that will address many of the most critical
needs of the AOC and the Capitol community, including
committing ourselves to long-term planning and developing
strategies that will prepare the Capitol campus for the next
century.
This budget also reinforces my commitment to AOC's
employees by developing a human-capital strategy that will
bolster our efforts to acquire, develop, train, and retain a
talented, diverse, and highly skilled workforce that is
prepared for the future. We aim to transform the AOC's human-
capital landscape by ensuring workforce readiness, closing
skill gaps, maximizing employees' talents, and deliberate
succession planning.
As I mentioned in our hearing last month, our commitment
towards ensuring adequate measures are taken to mitigate the
threat of COVID across the campus has not been met with the
required funding and financial support. Other than our initial
installment of funds, which is fully obligated, AOC has been
forced to use critical infrastructure and security projects
funding to support Congress at service levels required for
enhanced cleaning and to acquire necessary personal protective
equipment.
Maintaining vigilant and strict adherence to COVID-19
protocols, the AOC has successfully continued to facilitate
operations and deliver quality projects to Congress and our
legislative- and judicial-branch partners.
The agency's fiscal year 2022 budget request seeks to
continue this progress by addressing over $78 million in
deferred maintenance needs across campus. It also invests
nearly $90 million in projects that renew or improve aging
infrastructure, such as fire alarms, campus intrusion, ADA
compliance, environmental systems, and electrical distribution.
AOC's risk-based project prioritization process identified
$171.5 million for capital projects. Of this, $92.7 million, or
54 percent, are projects that did not receive funding in fiscal
year 2021.
These projects include the failed waterproofing system for
the Cannon-Capitol tunnel. Water infiltration has caused
staining on the walls and unsafe conditions for pedestrians. If
not funded, the tunnel conditions will continue to deteriorate,
require additional water management intervention, and be more
expensive and more disruptive during construction.
The agency is also requesting funding for critical utility
distribution projects at the Capitol Power Plant and off-site
facilities. Funding is required for phase 5 of the
Refrigeration Plant Revitalization Program, which will replace
40-year-old piping and provide other additions to bring the
older West Refrigeration Plant equipment up to date.
Earlier this year, a chilled water pipe broke and spilled
over 200,000 gallons of water a day and impacted servers in
Congressional Recording Studio spaces. Phase 5 of this project
is imperative to prevent a complete shutdown of various
congressional operations if another pipe breaks.
Off campus, we need to replace aging HVAC units with dual-
use, energy-efficient units within the data centers to reduce
risk of interruption to daily operations, reduce energy
consumption, and reduce our carbon footprint.
We are seeking to address critical upgrades to life-safety
systems across campus. Fire alarm and sprinkler system upgrades
at the U.S. Capitol, Botanic Gardens, and the James Madison
Memorial Building will address code deficiencies, reduce the
risk of system failure, and improve facility safety for
building occupants.
Finally, as we continue to assess the Capitol's future
facilities needs in the aftermath of the January 6 breach, I am
also asking for the subcommittee's support for a campus-wide
facilities assessment.
During my selection and confirmation process, I promised to
transform the agency. This budget request is the first step in
that transformation. Additionally, last year, I promised to
emphasize deferred maintenance and emergent needs required for
our facilities.
I am confident that this request, coupled with the changes
that we are actively incorporating throughout our agency,
represents a major step forward in the beginning of the future
AOC and the Capitol campus.
I appreciate your thoughtful consideration for our fiscal
year 2022 budget request. Thank you for your time, and I am
happy to answer your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ryan. Appreciate it.
We are going to start with the question-and-answer period,
and I will yield to my ranking member, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Blanton.
I think that, you know, the immediate thing that jumps to
mind is, obviously you have things that have to be addressed--
broken pipes destroying buildings, you know, and creating
further havoc, those immediate kind of maintenance needs, which
I want to support, absolutely.
I think the next piece for me that has been a focus has
been the fact that we have all these different layers of people
looking to harden our infrastructure against any future
attacks, quite frankly, and the security piece.
So I am curious if you found General Honore's report
helpful, especially with regard to the physical infrastructure
and their recommendations; what you think won't work.
You know, you and I talked about you doing your assessment.
And this is one of the things I asked General Honore, was: So
you are looking at the House side, kind of, and the Senate is
looking at the Senate side; you know, the AOC wants to look at
a campus-wide plan. Who is coordinating that? Who is taking the
lead? Or are we just looking at General Honore's stuff as just
a recommendation?
I would love to hear your thoughts on that.
Mr. Blanton. Well, thank you. I appreciate that question.
My staff have worked very closely with General Honore in
his assessment. In fact, many of the areas that we are
concerned with he addressed specifically.
Because of the short nature and timeframe that he had to do
his study, he couldn't delve into the real details and perform
the real engineering work that is required to actually execute
these projects.
So I think his recommendations were great; however, we need
to look at those across the entire campus, take what his
recommendations were, perform our due diligence from an
engineering standpoint so that we can actually give you budget-
level detail so I can execute these projects and perform the
proper projects to enhance our campus.
Also, we need to look at additional projects from a risk
perspective--not just what the threat is, but what the
consequence and likelihood of that risk is--so we can do short-
term mitigations to that risk and also develop a long-term
implementation for what we can to secure the campus and still
keep it in the way that we all want, which is to be as open as
possible to the American public.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. I appreciate that.
Is there a way that you could keep us updated as you move
forward on that? Like, it has been a once-a-year thing, but,
like, the committee could get updates as you are looking at
recommendations and what seems feasible, what you can do, what
you can't do.
I mean, I recognize you are not going to be able to replace
every single--nor will you need to replace every single window
in the building, right? But some should be. And, as you are
adopting these things, is there a way for you to keep us
updated?
Mr. Blanton. Absolutely. So I view this as really--as
synergizing all the stakeholder requirements, including all the
security elements on the Capitol complex, as well as the
Supreme Court, Library of Congress, and Members, and bringing
those into one--so you have one entity that looks at all of
this as a whole. So there would be stakeholder engagement
throughout the entire process.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. It really seems like you are the
appropriate agency for this because of that exact point. There
needs to be one person or one entity looking at the whole
scope, not just individual pieces.
To that end, I did want to draw your attention to and
wanted to ask you if you guys have been able to fix--I wasn't
aware that things like--like, the garage doors in Rayburn
didn't close. They, like--I assume that has been addressed.
I am grateful that the mob didn't know that there are these
major areas of entrance that just--we just--it was kind of
shocking to me that, security-wise, we didn't know that.
I didn't know that the West Front door doesn't lock and
that those are just simple, plain glass. Like, that is shocking
to me.
Were you aware of those type--I mean, that is not high-
level stuff. That is pretty basic stuff. Were you aware of
those things? And have we just failed to provide funding to
bring those up to date, or----
Mr. Blanton. So the garage, in specific, is something that
we actually did know about, and it was deliberately put into
the phase 4 of the Rayburn Garage project that was briefed and
approved a couple years ago.
That is a great example of where I talk about deferred
maintenance, where it is something that was a known issue, it
was deferred maintenance, but, without having the appropriate
dollars that year, we lumped it into a larger project so we can
get the work done. Unfortunately, this event happened before
the work on those garage doors actually started.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Yeah, I do understand that, like,
updating the doors. But I don't know that I was ever briefed
and told that the doors physically won't close. I have never
heard of--like, not being able to close your door, to me, when
there are literally three sides that a Mack truck can drive
through? That is different than--I mean, I get that we didn't
update them because of deferred maintenance, but not being able
to close them is a different situation. I don't think anybody
told us that.
Mr. Blanton. Well, I will apologize if that--if that is
true----
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Well, I mean, it may have been your
predecessor.
The other piece about the West Front doors, do they lock
now? Do the doors all in the Capitol lock?
Mr. Blanton. Yes.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Okay.
With that, Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Blanton [continuing]. At various levels of protection,
just to want to make sure you know that they are not all
intrusion-proof.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Perfect. Yeah, I agree.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Blanton.
Mr. Ryan. So, Mr. Blanton, all the doors will be--what are
the strongest doors we have in the Capitol? Like, the doors
going into the House Chamber from the steps, those first set of
doors?
Mr. Blanton. Yeah, so those are built to a stronger
standard. And we are getting into information that I would be
welcome to talk to you about in a classified setting so that we
don't----
Mr. Ryan. Okay. Okay. Fair enough.
Mr. Blanton [continuing]. Provide the public----
Mr. Ryan. Okay. Fair enough. Fair enough.
Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome back, Mr. Blanton. Thank you for joining us
again today.
I am so glad that the AOC has implemented and tracked
performance measures such as the energy and sustainability
targets. But in the past few years, you have been short of
hitting the target of building occupant waste. I wondered if
you could tell me a little bit about why that is such a
persistent challenge and how we can help you make progress in
that area.
Mr. Blanton. Well, thank you. I do appreciate that
question, because recycling is something that is important to
me.
Our goal last year was 44 percent capture of recycling
products, and we got to 38 percent. A lot of that last year had
to do specifically with the reduced staffing and the amount of
paper waste that was not included in our normal calculations
for what we expected for recycling.
As a whole, recycling itself, we do pretty well. In fact,
we generated a net revenue of $120,000 last year, even with the
reduced numbers.
Some of the challenges that we have, since we try to make
it as easy as possible for the staff and Members, when we go to
single-stream recycling, if somebody throws a coffee cup in the
recycling bin, all that paper is now not able to be recycled.
Ms. Clark. Yeah. Yeah.
Mr. Blanton. And, quite often, it will happen that somebody
thinks they are doing a great job in recycling their food
container. They throw it in, and that contaminates the entire
bin. And so we end up losing that, and we have to transfer that
to a waste-to-energy company so they can burn down and capture
the waste out of there.
A lot of it is education, and I think we need to do a
better job helping the congressional community on the education
of that. And I think, with that, we can then reach our goals.
Ms. Clark. Yep. And there are still persistent rumors that
actually none of it gets recycled and that, you know, it all
goes into one bin. So I know that is sort of--it is part of the
education process, that this is actually a recycling program.
I wonder if you could also share with me a little bit about
fire suppression. It is my understanding the Capitol Building
doesn't have a complete sprinkler system. There are certainly
many complexities in doing that. So how are you managing the
risk of fire in the Capitol?
Mr. Blanton. So, again, that is another really good
question, and, in fact, is one of our budget requests this
year, is to perform a design for the first three floors for a
fire-suppression system.
Our current fire suppression in the Capitol itself is
really a hodgepodge of systems that were put together
incrementally over about a 50-year period. And that is why we
really need to look at the entire Capitol and put it on one
system.
The events of the 6th really put that into a scary reality
for me----
Ms. Clark. Yeah. Right.
Mr. Blanton [continuing]. And probably should be for
everybody. If there was a fire in there, that would have been a
terrible situation, because we would not have had the resources
nor the suppression system to suppress the fire.
And, to me, that was one of the scariest things, once the
breach happened, is, if somebody decided that they were going
to light something on fire, what would we be able to do to get
the people out as well as prevent the facilities from burning
down?
I also want to emphasize that----
Ms. Clark. So----
Mr. Blanton. I am sorry. Go ahead.
Ms. Clark. The $6.8 million you have requested in your
budget, is that--that, you said, is for the first three floors.
It wouldn't be enough for a full system in the Capitol?
Mr. Blanton. The basement right now has about 98 percent
coverage, so that 2 percent would be included in that, but it
is very minor.
The fourth floor is going to be done using our internal
minor construction budget this coming year.
So this design is going to take into account integrating
the basement system, the fourth-floor system, and doing the
first three floors so that we will have the entire Capitol
Building.
Ms. Clark. Great.
And thank you. Thank you for joining us again and for all
your work.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Thanks, Ms. Clark.
Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And if I could take the liberty of pointing out that Ohio
is the home of the largest cuckoo clock in the world. It is
located in Sugarcreek, which I don't think is your district.
But it is the ``Little Switzerland of Ohio.'' Thought you might
want to know that.
Mr. Ryan. Mr. Newhouse, of all the firsts and special
things about Ohio, you bring up the cuckoo clock. I mean, I
find that ironic.
Mr. Newhouse. Yeah. Well, it is a fun fact.
Well, thank you, Mr. Blanton, for being here with us today.
You have a very important job, a lot of responsibilities, and
we appreciate that.
I have three areas of questions, and we have a short amount
of time, so I will try to talk fast.
I want to ask you about the Cannon Renewal Project. About,
I think, 2 years ago or a year and a half ago, the GAO
testified in front of House Admin that they were expecting a
total cost between $828 million and $866 million.
Recently, that cost is now expected to reach to $890
million. And I just wondered if you could enlighten us as to
some of the reasons for the additional costs that would cause
that overrun.
Mr. Blanton. Thank you.
So, when we did the GAO integrated schedule cost-risk
analysis, our work with them estimated that, for a 90 percent
confidence to complete the project on budget, that the actual
cost would be $890 million. And in 2019 is when we submitted
that to CHA and first notified the Appropriations Committee of
such.
I do want to stress, you will notice in this budget, we
have somewhat of a spike in our budget request for Cannon, and
that is actually pulling money from the 2023 and 2024 budgets
forward so we can do the award of phase 4. Without that money
in 2022, we won't be able to award phase 4 on time.
And I want to stress that the total cost of the project has
not increased over that $890 million number from that
integrated assessment with GAO. But the year that we had to
pull it--we had to pull it forward this year. And it was
foreshadowed last year in my testimony as well.
Mr. Newhouse. I see. I appreciate that. Okay. Thank you. So
we are still on schedule to complete at the anticipated date?
Mr. Blanton. Programmatically, yes. Now, we, admittedly, as
the ranking member mentioned, we have had a very challenging
January and a beginning of February. We effectively in phase 3
were at a stop-work from right before--from January 6 through
mid-February.
Now, the good news on that is, yes, we were 44 days behind
the schedule but we have 2 years to make that up. This is not
like it was last year during COVID, when we had----
Mr. Newhouse. Yeah.
Mr. Blanton [continuing]. The hotspot occur and we lost
1,800 worker days and we had only 8 months to make it up. So
the good news is we have 2 years to make this up. I am
confident we can remain on schedule.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Okay.
The other thing I wanted to ask you about is the fencing
around the Capitol complex, a couple questions there.
I have been told that the Pentagon is calling the shots on
the fence. If you could enlighten us as to actually whose
decision it is to keep it in place. Certainly a lot of us, as
you probably have heard, and a lot of the community too--I have
been seeing signs all over Capitol Hill, ``Take down the
fence.''
So talk a little bit about the plans, how long it is going
to be in place, and actually whose decision that is.
And, also, clear up some of the rumors about the cost of
the fencing. I have heard a million dollars a day. Is that
true?
Mr. Blanton. I will address that one first. The original
cost is $1.9 million a week.
Mr. Newhouse. A week. A week.
Mr. Blanton. Yeah. We have since been negotiating with them
and brought that cost down.
As you may have noticed now, we are reconfiguring the fence
line to allow more access on Third Street, Louisiana, and
Washington Avenue so that people have some of their corridors
available.
I will say, without a doubt, DOD is not the one calling the
shots on this. The fence line came from a request from the
chief of police, and it was approved by the police board.
We are actually working with DOD now based off of the
Capitol Police's National Guard request of how much fence line
we can remove with their force posture that would remain on
campus, with the goal of shrinking it as much as possible and
allowing as much access as possible, while providing security,
of course.
Mr. Newhouse. The view of our Nation's Capitol through
concertina wire is not something that we are very proud of. So
is there an anticipated date of removal?
Mr. Blanton. So, in small increments, it has started
already.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
Mr. Blanton. We did Third Street--we did Third Street on
Monday. As I said, Louisiana and Washington Avenues, those are
being done--well, Louisiana is right now. Washington Avenue
will start tonight.
And then we are going to look weekly at the threat
scenarios and the risk and start bringing the fence line back
as much as possible.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay.
Mr. Blanton. It will be incremental, though.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay. All right.
Well, thank you for being with us today.
And, Mr. Chairman, appreciate it, and I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Blanton, I guess I kind of want to go here for a second
just to kind of--some big-picture, long-term trends here.
The chair started out by saying that your budget here does
not reflect any specific changes from the perspective of the
attacks on the Capitol, and the ranking member asked what has
changed in your budget in terms of the overall master plan as a
result as well.
I am looking at your actual budget request, and I am trying
to sort through kind of where the real increases really are.
And it looks to me like the great majority of the increases are
in multiyear projects. You have 90 out of--well, about half of
it in multiyear projects.
I think you said earlier that you were trying to catch up
on $78 million of deferred maintenance, which I assume is what
you are talking about there in terms of multiyear projects. I
think you also said that you needed to defer moneys to COVID-
19-specific items.
And so I am trying to make sense of all of that and ask
myself: What is the real, kind of, combined budget here going
forward?
And I guess we could leave aside any specific changes that
arise from January 6 that would really be single-year changes
and ask, in the big picture, is the bottom-line challenge that
you are facing the fact that we are, in fact, deferring a lot
of maintenance on a year-to-year basis, where we are perhaps
falling behind on maintenance in terms of just maintaining
operating, you know, budgets?
And do you anticipate, at least from what you know right
now, that any changes to your overall master plan from the
attack would--or, for that matter, COVID-19, reconfiguration of
committee hearing rooms, et cetera--that this budget would
change over time? Is this kind of, you know, the big-picture,
wish-list budget? What is your assessment of the validity of
this budget as kind of a long-term guide?
Mr. Blanton. Thank you.
As I mentioned, so--and in concert with what the chairman
mentioned of our increase is $181 million over what was enacted
last year--our last year's budget request was $150 million more
than what was enacted. So we pulled forward almost $93 million
of projects, which are mostly infrastructure-related projects--
a lot of stuff you don't see every day--into this budget so
that we can execute that.
My maintenance backlog is actually--deferred maintenance--
is actually $1.8 billion. And that is an astronomical amount of
money. And, frankly, it won't be solved in one budget year. And
it is going to be solved by more intelligent ways of how we
manage our budget, which is why we have the ``big rock
initiative,'' which is called enterprise asset management. This
will allow us to actually develop projects that will be able to
look at the maintenance backlog as the return on investment and
prioritize those so I can start buying that down.
The initial phases of that have started with our assessment
of it. And we plan in 2022 where we are asking for resources to
fully implement it.
I want to stress that organizations that have implemented
enterprise asset management, that follow the ISO 55000, which
we are going to do, those investments have an ROI of under 5
years, and so--based off of what we are doing.
So the other aspect of our current budget, as I mentioned,
that spike in the Cannon, where we are pulling forward--when
you pull forward funds from the 2024 and 2025, that is $31
million right there additional that was not in the normal
profile for Cannon funding.
So, when you add that up, that is effectively where the big
change in our budget is between what was enacted last year and
what we have this year.
Mr. Case. Okay.
And to the ranking member's question of what more
significant changes are necessary or may be necessary in the
long term as a result of, you know, January 6 and whatever
implementations we make from the various recommendations, what
is your response on that question? I am not sure I kind of
understood a response there.
Mr. Blanton. Okay.
So what I would say is, first, the thing that is needed is
the comprehensive security assessment. Without looking at that
from the entire campus, what we are really doing is just taking
a bunch of good ideas and implementing them, not putting the
rigor in there and saying, what is going to produce the best
bang for the buck?
And, as I alluded to last month, I don't want to spend
money to spend money. I want to spend money that produces the
best result possible.
And so, start with that assessment, pick up the low-hanging
fruit out of there, then the intermediate projects, and have
that be integrated into what is our Capitol Complex Master Plan
that we are asking for this year, for a broad look at how we
take all of these other disparate studies that were done from
many things that are even unrelated, like the Capitol South
Metro Entrance Project, to transportation studies, to other
security studies, to lighting studies, and put that into one
package that will be able to be broken up into 5-year strategic
plans and allow us to give you guys, give the Budget Committees
and the Appropriations Committees, the ability to see, over the
next 5 years, this is what we need to execute to meet the goals
of the master plan.
Mr. Case. Okay. And that is fair enough. I don't think
anybody wants to rush projects and do it on a piecemeal basis.
But, while we get to the bottom of that, do you think that that
would impact this particular budget? In other words, are there
projects within the budget that you have submitted, which is
kind of a more normal-course budget, that would change or be
amplified or, for that matter, be materially changed or even
irrelevant as a result of that master plan?
So, in other words, you know, kind of, what should we wait
for before committing, and what should we just go with now?
Mr. Blanton. So I wouldn't say any project would be
irrelevant. What I would say is that there may be scope
changes, probably around the edges where there are integrating
security concerns, much like we do with ADA. We know that the
Capitol complex itself is not the most accessible complex
because it was built for so long. We take a lot of our long-
term projects and we put a lot of the fixes for ADA in there.
And we see the same thing with security.
And what we would target with those is not the things that
would be the immediate execution to give us the best bang for
the buck, but it would be the stuff that would give us our
long-term solutions. And----
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank----
Mr. Blanton [continuing]. The budget provides a flexibility
for doing that. But I would see where we need a supplemental to
get the immediate-action items for----
Mr. Case. Yeah, no. Understood. But I am talking about,
kind of, why the long term. Understood on the supplemental. So
I am trying to distinguish between what is supplemental and
what is more long-term and how does that work back into your
current budget request.
Anyway, my time is up, so I defer back. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Ryan. I thank the gentleman.
The distinguished gentlelady, Ms. Wexton----
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan [continuing]. You have the floor.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Blanton, for joining us today
again.
Since I am kind of batting cleanup here--well, ahead of the
chairman--I do want to follow up on some of the questions that
my colleagues have already put out there. I want to follow up
on the fence, first of all, the fencing.
You said it had been $1.9 million a week but you were able
to renegotiate that and now it is less. How much is it costing
us now?
Mr. Blanton. So it is $1.2 million per week now. And that
will depend on how long the fencing is up. As we shrink, it is
going to, obviously--the total cost will decrease as it
shrinks. But, also, the longer we keep it, the unit costs for
the fencing will also decrease.
Ms. Wexton. Okay.
And I do want to put in a plug to minimizing that fence as
much as we possibly can and making it safer for pedestrians
where we do have it. Because that stretch of Second Street, you
know, in front of the Library of Congress and the--or behind
the Library of Congress and the Supreme Court, I mean, it is
absolutely treacherous. You have pedestrians walking in the
street trying to make that crossover over from one side of the
Capitol to the other. So I think there are some improvements
that can be made even if you don't want to shrink the perimeter
too much, which I hope that you will do. So, anyway.
So you testified that you wanted a comprehensive security
assessment. How do you envision that taking place? Like, would
it be performed in house, or would you get a third party to do
it?
Mr. Blanton. So we have already been working with the Army
Corps of Engineers, and they have a physical security specialty
center that was actually used in the General Honore study. So
bridging off of what they did--and we currently have a
relationship with them, so we would use them as our facilities
experts.
And they do this for the entire executive branch, so this
is not, like, something that is just DOD. They do it across the
entire executive branch. And so we would utilize them and their
expertise that they can bring in from around the world to look
at this study.
And I want to emphasize that the study is not meant to look
at everything from brand-new, but it is meant to really take
all the other studies that are out there and make sure that we
can build it into one cohesive, executable strategy so that we
have something that has the level of detail that I could come
to Congress and say, this is what it would take to implement X,
Y, and Z.
Ms. Wexton. And so that would include not only the physical
structures within the building but also things like the
interoperability of security cameras and upgrades to those,
would it not?
Mr. Blanton. So that is under the purview of the Capitol
Police. And the short answer is, yes, the study would do that.
But when it comes to the funding of the projects, it would be
under their budget that they would come to you, about the
interoperability and total coverage of the cameras, which we
don't have now.
Ms. Wexton. So for things like--and I understand from
General Honore's report that you already had some of these
recommendations in process, things like security vestibules and
things like that that you had on order. Could you explain how
those would be integrated with any kind of security that you
would come up with?
Mr. Blanton. Yes. And so what we are doing now is we are
looking at two security vestibules, at the north and the south
entrances to the Capitol Building. This would get the screening
of individuals from within the Capitol Building itself outside
of the building, so the first time that we have the opportunity
to see if somebody is bringing in something that we don't
allow, that they are not inside the physical confines of the
Capitol Building themselves.
The design for these facilities is starting next month.
And, to be honest, the design is really agnostic of the
security study, because they are going to be designed such
that, if it in the security studies, for example, recommends
that we have a centralized screening in between House office
buildings, for example--and this is just a concept--the design
would still be the same; it would just be where is it
relocated, if that makes sense.
Ms. Wexton. Yes, it does.
And for things like the security--with the physical
infrastructure and security within the Capitol itself, there
are going to be times when the historic nature of it has to
yield to the security concerns, so things like the windows and
things like that that are going to be, you know, on the block
for this.
Who ultimately is going to make that decision about where
security begins and where historic nature ends?
Mr. Blanton. So the historic preservation aspect is clearly
within my realm. My view of this is, we wanted to have
deference for the historical aspects, but you can't sacrifice
security for, for example, having 250-year-old windows there
that can be broken with the lightest touch.
And so we would still take the efforts to have it be
designed in a way that it looks like it is clean with the
fabric of the original building, but it would still provide its
intent for being secure.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you.
I see my time is up, so I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. I thank the gentlelady from Virginia.
Mr. Blanton, I have a couple questions here.
You were talking about the big rock--big rocks project. And
you talked about enterprise--what did you call that?
Enterprise----
Mr. Blanton. Enterprise asset management.
Mr. Ryan. Enterprise asset--talk to me about that.
Mr. Blanton. Yes. So that is where we look at all of our
facilities, and we actually start doing things that are more
into the predictive nature of the facilities maintenance. So,
based off of known lifecycles, we will be able to, with our
annual inspections that we currently do, determine how the
facilities have been aging based off of what their life
expectancy would be.
And then you would take the actual maintenance that has
been done by our blue-collar workforce in the jurisdictions,
the initial design aspects of it that would be done in our
centralized, and we would be able to use services that do
predictive projects, so such that we will say we are going to
replace the HVAC in the Rayburn Building in these quads because
these certain areas are closest to the end of lifecycle so that
we don't end up having a catastrophic event.
The greatest part about this is, I can target my deferred
maintenance and then also be able to have the ability to
articulate to Congress that, should we not choose to fund this
project in budget year X and delay it to Y, the cost of that
would be a certain amount of dollars. And that would give you
the full visibility on what the implications are for projects
within our budget.
This goes into more of what I want to do, as being much
more transparent and show you multiyears of what we were
thinking in our projects, as opposed to just one budget at a
time, hoping that you guys could predict the future based off
of projects we have.
Mr. Ryan. Okay.
I am trying to--I have been trying to do this for a while
and try to think through this. You know, you said we had $1.8
billion in repairs that we need or----
Mr. Blanton. Maintenance backlog.
Mr. Ryan. Backlog. I mean, we have--and I don't know how we
do this, because we are the Federal Government, and a lot of
this stuff needs done. And just looking at it, the longer we
defer it, the more expensive everything gets. So how can we
figure out how to, in some way, finance these projects?
I mean, am I out of my mind here? I am just like, there has
to be a creative way we can move these projects up, start
getting them done, and get creative with how we can, you know,
save the taxpayer a lot of money and get some of this off the
deck.
Mr. Blanton. That is a wonderful question. We have two
legislative proposals, one that allows us to enter into public-
private partnerships. And that is a great tool when capital is
limited and you need to get significant amount of work done,
especially now that the cost of money is so low.
Another tool is the use of enhanced-use leases. And these
are things that are done in the executive branch already. In
fact, we just hope to mirror the same exact language they have.
And, as I talked about an off-site facility, where in the
past we have had electrical issues that would deal with server
farms, we could have the ability through enhanced-use lease to
use underutilized space, put a solar farm there, provide
battery backup, at almost no cost to the Federal Government and
have them maintained by the contractor.
So this is an authority that is quite commonly used in the
executive branch in underutilized space. And that would then
give us ability to have 24-7 backup that we don't have at this
particular time.
Mr. Ryan. Uh-huh. So the public-private partnership, what
is that? Is that like an infrastructure bank or something like
that?
Mr. Blanton. So a public-private partnership would be that
you would have a third-party entity who would actually finance
it at a fixed--finance the project and based off of a fixed
agreement.
Probably the one that is most resident here is, the
Thurgood Marshall Building was built as a one-time authority
for a public-private partnership, where the contractor invested
all the capital and then we leased it back from them at a rate
that would pay back the building itself.
Mr. Ryan. And you have legislation that is----
Mr. Blanton. We have legislative proposals for both of
those.
Mr. Ryan. I am sorry? I couldn't hear you.
Mr. Blanton. We have legislative proposals for both of
those.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. Well, I want to take a close look at that.
I think those are the kinds of things that we need to do now,
and we could maybe start making some serious headway on some of
this.
We are talking a little bit, too, about the supplemental
here. How long will it take us to get some idea of what a fence
would cost? Like, how much time do we need to figure that out?
Mr. Blanton. So I hate to sound wishy-washy on this. A lot
of it depends on where the fence is going to be. If it is just
on the Capitol square, there are previous estimates for a
relocatable fence on Capitol square.
However, those estimates--it looks like they have a very
low up-front cost but has a large tail. Where are you going to
store this fence? Who is going to maintain the fence? How is it
going to be transported? How are you going to get it up and
down? Those are all things that we want to look at.
When I look at these projects, I look at the total
ownership cost for this. So we will look at it over a span of
time so we can say, yes, this project may cost 20 percent more
for the initial investment, but over a 10-year period it is
actually going to cost a certain percentage less.
So I hate to be wishy-washy, but if we look at a fencing
around the entire perimeter like we have now, that is going to
be very, very, very expensive. If we look at just targeted
fencing in areas that we can bring in fencing later, which is
what I am more proposing, that would have less of an up-front
cost, and we will have to articulate what the long-term cost is
for those so that you have that agreement.
I would prioritize that as something early on in our
security assessment so we could start getting this information
to Congress earlier than waiting for the whole thing to be done
and say, here are things that we can do right now.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. Well, we are going to be asking for some
help in figuring out what the costs are and the different kinds
of technology with the fences and the movable ones and all the
rest. So we are going to be leaning on you for some help with
trying to figure that out.
Mr. Blanton, I can't thank you enough. We are going to
adjourn this hearing now because we have to go vote and I have
to go vote, and then we will reconvene.
But, once again, Brett, honestly, thank you so much. You
have been terrific, and we look forward to working with you.
And I personally feel like we are in good hands with you as you
have continued to try to guide us through this.
So we appreciate your service. And please let your team
know how much we appreciate it. And we will be talking to you
again real soon. Appreciate it.
Mr. Blanton. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. This committee is in recess.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 11, 2021.
GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
WITNESS
HUGH HALPERN, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
For our second panel, I would like to welcome the Director
of the Government Publishing Office, Mr. Hugh Halpern, to
present the fiscal year 2022 budget request.
Thank you all for joining us today. We welcome you back to
our subcommittee.
Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge the staff of
GPO for the extraordinary work over the past year. We know that
COVID has dramatically affected GPO's workload. Through the
pandemic and a very active congressional schedule, you and your
team has continued to serve this body and ensure the Members of
Congress have the documents to continue our work.
Mr. Halpern, the work you are providing is invaluable, and
we thank you.
The request is $125.6 million, an increase of $8.6 million,
or 7.3 percent, over what was provided last year.
I understand that your appropriation has remained flat
since fiscal year 2016. I also read in your testimony that your
budget has declined by 21 percent from a high point of $147.6
million in fiscal year 2010. I hope you might shed some light
on this matter for the benefit of the committee, as none of us
were on the Leg. Branch Subcommittee in 2010.
While you have a reasonable request, I cannot guarantee
that the subcommittee allocation will be increasing at an equal
rate, and it may be hard to accommodate the full request, but
we will do our best.
I look forward to your testimony.
At this point, I would like to yield to my colleague and
friend from the 42nd State to join the Union, the ranking
member, Jaime Herrera Beutler, for any opening comments she
would like to make.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome back, Mr. Halpern. It is really good to see
you. I miss seeing you on the House floor--although you may not
miss us. I don't know.
Congratulations to the Government Publishing Office for
achieving its 160th year in operation. That is amazing.
Since its creation, GPO has taken advantage of the
technological advances of the time to provide an array of
printing services to support the needs of Congress, Federal
agencies, and the public. The agency's willingness to adapt to
the latest technologies plays a large part in its effectiveness
today.
GPO's funding priorities center on creating access to
congressional publications in digital formats as well as in
hard-copy formats. And coming from a State where we have lots
of trees that produce quality timber, we are not afraid of
hard-copy.
Specifically, you have worked over the last 2 years with
the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate on
initiatives to convert legacy files into a format that promotes
interoperability among documents. And I appreciate that your
office continues to work with the Library of Congress to
prepare summaries and status information for House and Senate
bills in a more widely accessible format.
For the previous 6 fiscal years, GPO has maintained a flat
funding, as the chairman mentioned, and for fiscal 2020 you are
requesting a 7.3 percent increase.
I look forward to hearing more about how your office plans
to continue its transformation from print-centric to a content-
focused publishing organization.
And, with that, I will yield back to the gentleman from
Ohio, the State that is the top Swiss-cheese-producing in the
Union. I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Very good.
Without objection, your written testimonies will be made
part of the record.
Mr. Halpern, please summarize your statement for the
members of the committee. Once you have finished your
statement, we will move to the question-and-answers.
Please begin. The floor is yours, sir.
Mr. Halpern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and members
of the subcommittee, I am honored to appear again before this
subcommittee to present GPO's fiscal year 2022 appropriations
request.
At the outset, I want to thank you for your past support of
GPO, and I look forward to continuing our partnership during my
time as Director.
For the coming fiscal year, I am requesting appropriations
in the amount of $125.549 million, which is a 7.3 percent
increase over the last year. This reflects our increased costs
in labor and materials as well as specific funding for
initiatives of importance to Congress and the rest of the
legislative branch.
When we met on this very day a year ago, I was in my third
month as Director and looking forward to accelerating GPO's
transformation into a dynamic, digital-first publisher. 2020
kept us from making nearly as much progress toward that goal as
I had hoped.
Last week marked the 160th anniversary of GPO's founding
during the Civil War, and this week marks the anniversary of
one of our most challenging years ever.
Like other Federal employers, we rapidly moved our
telework-capable staff to work remotely while examining our
other operations to figure out how we could operate safely. We
had to shut down our passport line for an extended period, and
our plant was operating at a fraction of its normal capacity.
The pandemic had an immediate detrimental effect on GPO's
bottom line. Put simply, the pandemic reduced our revenue and
increased our costs. We began running monthly deficits in March
of 2020 and have lost more than $30 million through this past
January. Our revenue from passport production alone dropped by
$92 million in fiscal year 2019 to fiscal year 2020.
The good news is, things are beginning to look up. We are
safely ramping up our operations, and our monthly financials
are almost in the black. We have also been able to rely on our
cash reserves to carry us through the pandemic without any
furloughs or layoffs.
As a result of having to use those reserves to meet our
regular payroll, we will need to delay some planned
investments, prioritizing those projects critical to safety or
current production needs.
We have also been able to largely operate safely during the
pandemic. We have had only two known incidents of virus
transmission inside our facilities, with the other cases coming
from community spread.
We are encouraging our teammates to get vaccinated as
quickly as possible, and we appreciate the limited number of
vaccinations that Congress has shared with our GPO detailees up
on the Hill. We hope that we can continue that partnership as
more vaccine doses become available.
This would be GPO's first major increase since 2014, and it
is two-thirds of our fiscal year 2010 appropriations when
adjusted for inflation. We were able to keep our request flat
for the last several years by improving our efficiency,
naturally reducing our headcount, and keeping our overhead
costs low.
However, as I foreshadowed in my testimony last year, we
are losing another tool we use to manage our requests:
repurposing prior-year unobligated balances. This is forcing us
to request additional funds if we want to continue our current
pace of development and innovation.
As part of our request, we are asking for increases to fund
several specific initiatives.
For our public information programs, we hope to add five
FTEs to conduct enhanced outreach to our more than 1,100 FDLP
libraries.
We are asking for $3.37 million for continued development
of xPub, our next-generation composition engine. Beyond merely
replacing our aging composition software, xPub is a platform
that will enable new applications and allow Congress to focus
on the content of its documents, while GPO can produce them in
ways that will look great online and in print. [Inaudible] Some
of the power that xPub promises to deliver.
We are also asking for direct funding for the world's only
ISO-certified secure digital repository, GovInfo. This year's
request of $6.8 million for GovInfo is a slight increase over
what the subcommittee provided last year and would fund both
infrastructure and development.
We are also asking for $150,000 to support GPO's broad and
ongoing efforts to defend against cyber attacks on its systems.
Lastly, we are requesting $1 million to support GPO's
implementation of the Treasury Department's G-Invoicing system
for interagency payments. Because GPO collects over 80 percent
of its operating funds through these transactions, this project
is of paramount importance.
Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera Beutler, and members
of the subcommittee, thank you so much for the opportunity to
present our fiscal year 2022 appropriations request and for all
the support you and your staff have extended to us during this
most challenging year.
That completes my statement. I look forward to your
questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ryan. Great. Thank you, Hugh. We appreciate it.
Ms. Herrera Beutler for questions.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you.
And my question is actually kind of specific to the Pacific
Northwest and contracting.
So, when it comes to Federal contracting opportunities,
domestic manufacturing should always be supported when and
where it makes sense.
I understand that a Tribe from the Pacific Northwest has
reached out to GPO regarding some novel, environmentally
sustainable production processes that could enhance the
performance characteristics of domestic groundwood pulp paper
products and possibly increase opportunities for the use of
such products in Federal paper contracts.
Obviously, I am very interested in this. Is this something
that GPO would be able and willing to look into?
Mr. Halpern. Absolutely. And we have talked with the Tribe
as well, and we are looking forward to evaluating the products.
The problem we have right at the moment is, our materials
science team is not actually in the building, except for those
things that are really critical to some of the other ongoing
projects we have. So, once everybody can get back in and
operate safely, we look forward to evaluating their product.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Awesome. Thank you so much. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for joining us today, Mr. Halpern.
I am interested, as you have managed to overcome so much of
the challenges presented in the last year. I was impressed to
learn that the Federal Depository Libraries were able to
smoothly transition into remote work and develop new and very
creative ways of operating.
Can you share some of those innovations? And do you expect
them to continue past the pandemic?
Mr. Halpern. Thank you. That is a great question.
So the great thing about our partnership with these
libraries is that we learn from them as much as they learn from
us. And through our Depository Library Council and other very
active online fora that we have set up, there is a lot of good
information exchanged between GPO and our partner libraries and
the libraries themselves. So that has been fantastic.
One of the things that we are planning on doing in the
coming year is really extending our outreach to those libraries
where they are. I think it is really important for GPO to meet
those customers where they are.
So the five FTEs we have actually requested are for folks
that we very much envision being out in the country. So, for
instance, we can have folks who may have a little bit more
expertise in some of the collections that Tribal libraries or
libraries in the Southwest have, and, actually, they are going
to be based in that part of the country.
So we want to take some of the innovation that folks have
had so far and really build on that.
And I don't know about you; the last time I was in a
library was at American University and I was preparing for my
confirmation. And the library today looks very different than
the library I left 30 years ago when I graduated from AU.
So our librarians are getting more versed in our digital
products. And we are really trying to support that, both by
training them up on how to use GovInfo as a resource but also,
on the document production end, trying to give them more data,
more digital formats that they can use and they can do some
really amazing stuff with.
Ms. Clark. Well, as the daughter of a public school
librarian, I am always eager to support our libraries.
But you also mentioned xPub. And I know, when you came
before us last year, this was something you were excited about
implementing.
I know, you know, this has been a tough year, but how
successful do you think it was in the last year in helping meet
your responsibilities? And can you tell us about your plans to
further implement?
Mr. Halpern. Absolutely. I really, actually, like talking
about xPub. I think that is going to be the platform that is
going to support GPO well into the future.
So the last project that we were able to successfully do
was the main edition of the U.S. Code, and we were able to trim
7 months off of that project. This year, we hope to roll out
xPub to both the House and the Senate as the composition engine
for printing amendments, bills, and resolutions. And that work
is ongoing, and we hope probably within the next quarter or two
to have that deployed. And that is going to be a huge step
forward, replacing our way-out-of-date Microcomp tool.
But you saw with some of the--I showed the cover of the
Modernization Committee's report, which looks very, very
different than any other committee report we have done. And the
thing is, if you take xPub and you marry it up with our new
digital inkjet presses, if Congress is willing, we can move
away from some of these formats that have been around for time
immemorial.
To give you an idea, the average committee report, the
committee report that the Appropriations Committee, this
subcommittee, will put out for this bill, that format has been
around since GPO's inception during the Civil War.
Ms. Clark. Hmm.
Mr. Halpern. My point to the Joint Committee on Printing
and the Committee on House Administration has been, these
technologies give us all an opportunity to take another look at
how you do that. And, hopefully, working together, we can make
those documents more readable and more accessible for
everybody.
Ms. Clark. That is great. Thank you so much for joining us.
And I happen to see that I have the red timer and that,
since the first stoplight in the country was in Ohio, I will
yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Oh, Ms. Clark, you get the award for being most
creative in presenting the fun facts. So congratulations.
The gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Try to top that one now.
Mr. Newhouse. No, I am not even going to try. But I do
appreciate you bringing a little levity into the committee. It
does help things a lot.
Good to see you, Hugh.
Mr. Halpern. You too, Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Yes.
And let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I have total confidence
in Mr. Halpern's ability. You know, I have gotten to know Hugh
in his work when he worked over here in the Capitol. And if he
brought the same work ethic with him to the Printing Office, we
have nothing to worry about, that everything is going to be
managed as well as it possibly could be.
So it is great to have you here, and I appreciate your
presentation very much.
Mr. Halpern. Thank you.
Mr. Newhouse. You probably have a distinction that not many
agencies in the government can claim, that you haven't really
asked for a significant increase in your appropriation since, I
believe, 2014, which says a lot about the management of the
agency--until this year, which, you know, obviously, some
extenuating circumstances that have turned everything upside-
down. And I appreciate that.
But, Hugh, in your estimation, as things get back to
normal, as we return to a new normal, do you anticipate going
back to the status quo of being able to pretty much be a self-
sustaining agency with, you know, the services you provide,
obviously you charge your customers for, and all of the
benefits that come with that? I just wanted you to reflect on
that for us, if you could.
Mr. Halpern. Absolutely. And it is a great question.
So, as I think I mentioned, over 80 percent of our revenue
comes from what we charge our customers. And most of the
requests that we are making this year are for specific projects
to get us over the hump, to get us into a position where our
rates that we charge folks are more accurately tied to the
services that we are providing.
So, for instance, funding the development of xPub
ultimately will benefit Congress, but it will also help us move
that to a more sustainable model in the future.
So the way the predecessor product was funded was they
built that into the page rate. So, when we charge Congress
several hundred dollars a page for the Congressional Record,
they tried to build development costs for that product into
that rate. But that didn't provide a steady stream of income to
keep that product going.
So what we want to do is, after the initial development
phase of xPub, move that to more of a software as a service.
So, just like Office 365 or the Adobe Suite or whatever, we are
charging our customers, through the congressional printing
fund, you know, a fee for using that software that we can then
use to keep that updated into the future so we don't run into
these problems down the road. And we want to do that with a lot
of our projects.
So we think that most of the funding that we have asked for
has been designed in a way so that, hopefully, over time, it
will go away.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you very much, Hugh. I appreciate that
response. And, again, I have a lot of confidence in your
ability, and appreciate your presentation today.
And, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of Mr.
Halpern. I just hope that at some point in the near future, Mr.
Chairman, you can explain to us and the rest of the country why
Ohio finds it necessary to have a nonrectangular flag. Being
one of 50, you have to be different.
But, other than that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. It is a cry for attention.
The distinguished gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In answer to that last question, Ohio considers itself a
noncontiguous part of our country.
And to Ms. Clark's comment, I am going to brag, too,
because I am the son of an elementary school librarian. So we
have something in common there.
Mr. Halpern, you started out by saying that you are in this
situation because your revenues had declined and your costs had
increased. And in your, you know, written report, you say--I am
focusing on the cost side, because I am not sure I understand
why your costs went up during COVID-19 specifically. I mean, a
lot of, you know, businesses or quasi-businesses, they saw
their revenues plummet and their costs go down also.
And I see that you talked about emergency leave as being
one major consequence of that, and you talked about some
obvious things, like having to, kind of, COVID-19-proof your
facilities and your operations. But why did your costs go up so
significantly? And I suppose the question is, was most of that
on the labor side? Was that operating side? What percentage?
Like, 90 percent of the cost escalation was----
Mr. Halpern. I can get back to you on the exact breakdown.
But, to give you an idea, because of our labor agreements--
we have 11 union bargaining units here at GPO, everything from
our police officers to our bookbinders to our typesetters. But
as part of our labor agreements, we pay everybody who has come
into the building during a declared emergency essentially
double-time. So that cost us more than $7 million over a period
of just a few months.
When you combine that with our difficulty sometimes getting
materials and having to stockpile materials--you know, have a
greater stockpile of those materials than we would otherwise,
we had to expend a lot of capital to make sure that we were
able to continue operating.
That is particularly true with our passport operations. As
we ramp those back up--because of supply-chain constraints, we
suddenly had to change suppliers for a key component of our
next-generation passports. You know, all of those things sort
of came together to increase our costs.
We are out of that emergency period, so we are back to a
more normal labor stance and more normal payroll. Our payroll
runs about $850,000 a day normally.
So we are working through that. We think we have costs back
under control. But you combine those increased costs and our
substantially reduced revenue, and that led us to, sort of, the
deficit situation we have been in at least through January. I
am keeping my fingers crossed that February's numbers start to
turn back.
Mr. Case. Okay. And the requirement that you pay
essentially double for people on the job during an emergency,
that is a function of collective bargaining agreements?
Mr. Halpern. That is part of our collective bargaining
agreements and longstanding GPO directives that came out of
that. Yes.
Mr. Case. And is that separate from any kind of--what is
there--hazard pay or, you know, comparable pay classifications,
accelerated pay classifications over and above that?
Mr. Halpern. No. That was largely--that particular
provision, frankly, was intended for snowstorms or hurricanes
or those more traditional situations where the rest of the
government closes but our folks still need to come in to make
sure that the Congressional Record gets out to you all.
So, in those circumstances, it was eminently reasonable and
manageable and that--it is much like snow days for a school
district. You build in a little bit, and you can work with
that. What we weren't prepared for is having 3 or 4 months
where we had to be in that status all the time.
And once we got our plan together to start our reopening
process this past July, that enabled us to end that emergency
period and reduce those costs and get back to something more
normal.
Mr. Case. Okay. So you talked about $7 million in the
emergency pay. What percentage of the overall cost decline was
that? Was that 50 percent? Seventy-five percent?
Mr. Halpern. I would have to get back to you on the exact
portion.
The other thing to keep in mind is that our productivity
went down as well. So, in order to socially distance, we had to
divide the number of people we had working in the plant at any
one time in half.
So the key thing to keep in mind about GPO is, in the past,
the way we solved problems is we throw people at them. So, for
instance, the reconciliation bill, the American Recovery Act
that you guys just sent us, we often--and we did in this case--
assist the Clerk with proofreading that to make sure that it is
true and correct and accurate. Well, the way we do that is we
divide that, you know, 700-page bill into really small chunks
and parcel that out to our proofreaders. Well, we only had half
of our proofreaders working at any one time, because that is a
manual-based, paper-based process in a fairly small area. So,
in order to do that safely, we had to cut our number of people
in half.
So it is not just increased cost; it is also lowered
productivity and, as a result, lowered revenue.
Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ryan. Appreciate it, Mr. Case.
Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Hey, it is good to see you.
Mr. Halpern. You too, sir.
Mr. Amodei. I just want to, for the record, since we want
to make sure that--I didn't realize this was on the agenda, but
I will go ahead and adapt. We don't allow stoplights in
Nevada's Second Congressional District. So we will learn from
the mistakes people made in Ohio and other places before we
allow them.
But, anyhow, listen, I have been in that office before, and
you look good there in that----
Mr. Halpern. Thank you.
Mr. Amodei [continuing]. Older building with that old-
school office. That is neat stuff. That is real wood, unlike a
lot of the other ones, so good for you.
Listen, it has been about 6 years, I think, since I walked
through the place, which I found phenomenally educational and
just very interesting. So what I think we are going to do, if
it is all right with you, is we will get on your calendar to
come over and spend about an hour and sort of walk through and
get tuned up on some of your technology, in terms of, you know,
the whole deal downstairs there with passports and all that
secure stuff, and get updated on your other stuff. And so we
will just do that offline.
And, Mr. Chairman, we will make sure that, when we get that
set up, if there are any other committee members, we will let
you guys know, if somebody has the time or ability to tag
along, if that is all right.
Mr. Halpern. We would love that.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. Then we will do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Appreciate it, Mr. Amodei.
Hugh, I am going to just kind of open it up to you, because
the couple of the questions that I was going to ask have
already been asked and answered--the xPub, the GovInfo,
interoperability. We have a few minutes left here. Is there
anything in or around those issues that you would like to
expand upon that maybe you couldn't with the other questions?
Mr. Halpern. Thank you for that opportunity.
You know, for better or for worse, I have probably written
more House committee reports than almost anybody over my 30-odd
years working up there. And one of the things that I really
learned was, that process stinks. It is not a good process for
the people who have to create the content.
And what I am trying to do here, through xPub, is create a
system where you guys, the content creators, can focus on
creating that content, not about how all the pieces fit
together.
So what we want to do over the next several years is build
out a system where your staff can write their report in Word
and do your numbers in Excel, give us those files, and we can
easily get that into our system, spit that out either in print
or online and in machine-readable format, so that it is not
just us who can use it or you guys who can use it; there are a
lot of other folks in academia or other groups who can take
that data and do things you and I haven't even imagined yet.
And I think those are all good uses of what we can do. And we
just have to make this whole process easier.
The good news is, we have a great team here at GPO. GPO
does three things, basically: One is we produce stuff--
Congressional Record, the Federal Register, bills, reports, all
of that stuff. Two is we make that available through GovInfo
and through our Federal Depository Libraries. And lastly is we
build the tools that enable you all to produce the documents
you need.
And we are continuing to work with the Clerk, House Leg.
Counsel, other folks, to try and figure out are there things
that we can do, services we can provide, that make your
processes easier.
And we have a great team here, and they have been very
supportive of me as Director and trying to get the job done for
you all. So I really appreciate the opportunity.
The other thing I would say--and let me just say, as
somebody who spent 30 years up there, 15 of them on the floor,
I understand the pressures that you all are under for this
allocation, and we will manage one way or the other. But just
keep in mind that, if we can't fund these things now, we will
have to figure out creative ways to do it, and that may delay
some of the projects that, frankly, you all want us to be
doing.
Mr. Ryan. Well, we appreciate it. We all love and respect
you, Hugh. We appreciate your service. And to have you in this
position, we feel very lucky, so we know we are in good hands.
So we appreciate it.
I want to thank the committee. We have had a busy, hectic
week with a lot of hearings, and I think they have all been
very productive. And we will see you all back here next week.
So, Hugh, thanks again for your service.
Mr. Halpern. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ryan. Please thank your team.
This committee is adjourned.
Thursday, March 18, 2021.
FY 2022 BUDGET HEARING--OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE RIGHTS
WITNESS
SUSAN TSUI GRUNDMANN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
WORKPLACE RIGHTS
Mr. Ryan. The committee will come to order.
This hearing is fully virtual, so we need to address a few
housekeeping matters. Members are responsible for muting and
unmuting themselves. For the purposes of eliminating
inadvertent background noise, the chair or staff designated by
the chair may mute participants' microphones when they are not
under recognition.
If I notice when you are recognized that you have not
unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you would like the staff to
unmute you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will
unmute your microphone. We will begin with the chair and
ranking member, then members present at the time the hearing is
called. The order will be recognized in order of seniority.
We are using the 5-minute clock, which you will notice on
your screen. It will show how much time is remaining. If there
is a technology issue, we will move to the next member until
the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of your
time.
Finally, in regard to adding extraneous or additional
material to the record, under House rules, we have set up an
email address where members can send anything they wish to
submit for the record after seeking recognition for its
inclusion. That email address has been provided in advance to
your staff.
I would like to welcome the executive director of the
Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Ms. Susan Grundmann,
to present the fiscal year 2022 budget request. It is always a
pleasure to be with you. The Office of Congressional Workplace
Rights is responsible for administering the Congressional
Accountability Act for the approximately 30,000 employees in
the legislative branch. The mission of the office is to
continue assisting the legislative branch community in creating
and maintaining a workplace that is safe, accessible, and free
from discrimination, and other unlawful employment practices.
You are not requesting an increase over the seven and a
half million and 31 full-time employees provided last year.
While your budget is not increasing, I understand that you plan
to make cybersecurity improvements, along with necessary IT
system and network upgrades in line with governmentwide
security standards.
These costs have been projected at $500,000. Since your
budget is a zero-sum game, I hope you can explain where the
savings are going to come from. I look forward to your
testimony today.
At this point, I would like to yield to my colleague and
friend from the Pacific Northwest, the Ranking Member Jaime
Herrera Beutler, for any opening comments she would like to
make.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, back Mrs. Grundmann. It is a pleasure to have
you. The Office of Congressional Workplace Rights 2022 fiscal
year request of $7.5 million, the same as fiscal year 2021
enacted level. After receiving funding increases over the last
2 years, we really appreciate the flat funding request. We are
now approaching 2 years since the implementation of the CAA
Reform Act, which greatly expanded your office's duties, and
your office's biennial report to Congress advocates for
legislative action on 11 items, ranging from strengthening
whistleblower protections to providing subpoena authority to
extending protections to employees who serve on jury duty.
So I look forward to hearing from you more about your
progress on those initiatives and the budgetary impact of any
legislative proposals, including your semi-annual report. I
appreciate the work of you and your team to protect the rights
of employees, assuring access for persons with disabilities,
and educating our constituency on CAA's mandate.
So I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Excellent. Thank you.
Without objection, your written testimony, Ms. Grundmann,
will be made part of the record. Please summarize your
statements for the members of the committee. Once you have
finished your statement, we will move to the question and
answer part of the hearing.
You now have the floor.
Ms. Grundmann. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Ryan, Ranking Member Herrera
Beutler, and other distinguished members of this committee. It
is good to be back. It is great to see you and it is good to be
seen. On behalf of the Office of Congressional Workplace
Rights, thank you for this opportunity to address your
questions on our 2022 budget justification.
When last we met, we were just barely 6 months into a new
process, the administrative dispute process that fully
implemented on June 19, 2019. And today we continue under the
Reform Act, but we do so while working remotely as a result of
the pandemic. And like our sister offices, we make it work.
Mediations and hearings continue in a virtual environment.
Training and education continues via Zoom for government, our
new friend. And that particular aspect of our function has
taken on increased significance because some employing offices
have designated us for the purpose of their mandatory training.
Safety and health and public accessibility meetings move
forward, and when there are physical inspections required, our
inspectors maintain social distancing, follow the guidelines of
the CDC, and the Office of Attending Physician. It is not
business as usual, but it is business in our new norm.
And in addition to our day-to-day mission, we also
successfully launched and delivered the results for the first
ever legislative-wide climate survey. The results we delivered
were for the House and Senate, and this includes questions
about respondent's attitudes towards sexual harassment. This
was somewhat of a monumental undertaking for our office
because, as you know, we are very small. It took four people on
staff plus a contractor, the contractor, five people, supported
by the employing offices. We were able to reach 30,000 people
in the legislative branch, both online and on paper.
We issued proposed substantive regulations on paid parental
leave, which provides for 12 weeks of paid leave in connection
with the birth or a placement of a child. Following full public
notice and comment, we are now working towards those final
regulations that will be sent to you and the Senate later this
year for congressional approval.
We held our annual mediators and hearing officers summit to
update them on trends that we have seen and take their feedback
on issues that have arisen. We completed our biennial
occupational safety and health report, which will be published
once the security review is completed. Our public accessibility
report is also completed and will be ready to deliver to you
shortly, and as the ranking member mentioned, we have completed
our recommendations to you which laws that you have passed
should also be made applicable to the legislative branch. We
call this our 102(b) report, and that is the section that is
referenced in the CAA. It has been published in the
Congressional Record and is available online to us on our
website. And with our 2-year anniversary approaching, we do
make recommendations to changes in the Reform Act process. We
took stock of all the events that have occurred during the last
18 months and overhauled our strategic plan. What we created,
we think, is a much more transparent, much more outward-facing
plan that will give you a roadmap of where we plan to go in the
next 5 years.
In terms of appropriations, let me spot a couple trends for
you. As we predicted last year, costs for hearing officers have
dramatically increased. In fact, they have more than tripled
over the last year, and that is due to, as we predicted, more
employing offices coming within our jurisdiction, more
categories of employees, and due to changes in our process.
And, while our process has changed and while we continue to
work remotely, some things that haven't changed is the volume
of work that we still have. We are seeing that our spending is
not tied to a fiscal year. Certainly, cases can span more than
a fiscal year, and inspections that involve specialized
expertise can span several years.
So, without asking for more money, we are asking for more
time to spend it. As always, we credit the men and women who
work tirelessly to meet our mission while striving towards our
vision, which is a respectful, safe, healthy, and accessible
congressional workplace with equal opportunity and treatment
for all.
Thanks to this committee's constant support, we achieved
our funding request for fiscal year 2021, and we are not asking
for more money in 2022 or additional FTE.
I thank you for the privilege of your time, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ryan. Great. Thank you for your testimony. We are going
to move to the question and answer, and we will begin with the
distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Washington, Ms.
Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The first thing I want to ask about, Ms. Grundmann, is last
year's hearing we were discussing the role of your office in
the implementation of the new 12-week paid parental leave that
is available to legislative employees, which went into effect
last year in October.
Could you fill us in on efforts on the implementation of
the rules associated with that policy and what is your office
doing to inform House offices and employees about the new
policy?
Ms. Grundmann. Absolutely. There is tons of information on
our website. We have gone through that public notice and
comment period receipt, and we generally when we do this, we
receive a lot of intelligent guidance from the employing
offices. Some of the opinions that have been received are
diametrically opposed, so we are working towards reconciling
them currently with our board.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. What do you mean? Like someone saying,
``Hey, we don't like this''?
Ms. Grundmann. Well, it is more than--it is a really
complicated piece of legislation that you passed. And in terms
of how the 12 weeks is tracked, that depends on, you know, how
much annual leave, whether you can assert that annual leave,
how many kids. So there are a lot of different scenarios, and
we have tried to play out those scenarios in some guidance on
our website.
The comment period has closed. We are working towards file
regulations. We hope to have them out soon. Once they are
completed, they will be sent to you. You will have to pass them
into law for your congressional approval because they are
substantive regulations as opposed to the procedural
regulations that we have the authority to promulgate.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. So help me understand because I
thought we passed it last October?
Ms. Grundmann. You did.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. It is not effective yet; is that what
you are saying?
Ms. Grundmann. It is effective. It is effective, but in
order for us to create the framework in the congressional
community, we have to pass substantive regulations, bring them
to you for your passage. So the law is effective, but how it is
going to be implemented is in these substantive regulations.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. There are offices pushing back saying
they are not providing this, correct?
Ms. Grundmann. They should be. They should be.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. It is just providing--I am a little
unclear about providing--obviously, it is not as cut and dry as
you have a baby, adopt a baby, or get a baby placed, and then
you take your 12 weeks.
Ms. Grundmann. Right.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Is that because of the different--not
necessarily congressional offices, but the different types of
offices across--you know, because Federal employees? Is that
part of this, or you are just looking at Federal employees and
some employing offices are, I don't know, questioning it?
Ms. Grundmann. They shouldn't be questioning--this
particular piece of legislation is just for the legislative
branch. So it is unique. Actually, it is landmark. It is huge.
You have gone over and above what is happening in the executive
branch, and it is just reconciling the different kinds of
comments. When you see the final document as you have seen with
our procedure regulations in the past, we do explain every move
that we make.
We talk about the comments and why we have accepted them or
why we have tried to reconcile them with other comments. And,
generally, all the employing offices, your counsel sends us
something. I believe OHEC also sent us something as well.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Okay. Okay. Thank you. With my time
left, I wanted to prioritize here. Oh, the workplace rights
training. So we are spending--CAO spends millions of dollars to
contract out for the workplace rights training for Members and
staff, and your staff also does workplace rights training.
Would it be beneficial for the House to explore working
with your agency to have OCWR lead the required trainings? If
conversations like that are already taking place, I would like
to know about it. But it just seems like that might be an
efficiency or simplification that we could benefit from.
Ms. Grundmann. We would love to do it. And I think we talk
about this every year. This is something we do have a great
deal of interest in. With the funding in the FTE that you gave
us last year, we were able to retain two full-time educators on
our staff. Those educators not only have training in the CAA,
but it is over and above. They carry certificates with respect
to unconscious bias, which is our number one module in demand.
Those certificates actually come from Cornell University. They
will work with all employing offices in terms of developing
strategies, scenarios that fit your--that fit the environment
that you work in.
So the shorthand answer is yes. We are very interested.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
Up next is the distinguished gentlewoman from
Massachusetts, Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Director Grundmann, for being with us here today.
As we have discussed in past hearings, I am very interested
and concerned about the instances of sexual harassment and
discrimination in our congressional workplace, and I appreciate
all your efforts to implement the provisions of the Reform Act
to address this problem.
I know this has been a tumultuous year, to put it lightly,
but I am hoping that you can update me in progress that has
been made. And also if you can specifically address the climate
survey? Were you able to get the response rate up, and are
there any weaknesses in the handling of sexual assault that you
feel you have been able to address and make improvements on?
So sorry for the triple question in one question.
Ms. Grundmann. All right. Let me see if I can break it
apart. In terms of the climate survey, the statute requires
that we deliver the results to three particular committees, and
that is CHA, Senate Rules, and Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs. The actual survey itself, keep in mind,
that it is a baseline. It is a snapshot in time, so there
really isn't anything to compare it to at this point in time.
The comparison will come when we re-administer the survey next
year.
In terms of results for the legislative community, we are
completing reports for the other employing offices. The House
and the Senate have been completed. The House did very well.
You set the baseline very high.
In terms of the next step in training, we are looking at
training over and above the baseline of law. Because if you
just train on the letter of the law itself, you really haven't
gotten to the underlying behaviors that can cause
discrimination, that can cause--lead to a hostile work
environment.
So, for that reason, you know, we have branched out. We
have done the implicit bias module, which is available to you
right now. And, in fact, we have had discussions with the CAO
in terms of loading our materials on to your website so that
you can have access to them directly and that they can be
tracked through your through the CAO as well. So that is the
first step.
The second step is, you know, we want to work directly with
your offices in terms of tailoring training specifically to
your needs. And a good example of this is let's talk about last
summer and the death of George Floyd. In the wake of his
passing, in the wake of his death, we were asked to develop and
deliver modules on racial equity, on civility, and on
inclusion, and those requests are still coming in to this day.
So I would encourage you to reach out to our office and,
you know, set something up. Training is our cornerstone. It is
preventive in nature, and it is the way to go.
Ms. Clark. Thank you so much for that.
And can you tell me a little bit about the response rate
and how that went? Did you see improvements?
Ms. Grundmann. It is not--because this is a baseline, there
is nothing to compare it to, but in terms of the House's
response rate, it was very good. You were well within the
margin of error.
Ms. Clark. Okay. Excellent.
I also wonder if you can update me on the alternative
dispute resolution program. Last time we spoke, it was just 6
months into taking effect, and I am hoping you can give me a
better sense a year and a half in about how things are
progressing? Have you noticed significant number of cases
increased, or has the pandemic just--you know, not seen the
progress you might have hoped for?
Ms. Grundmann. Again, let me parse that out. In terms of
changes, there are some trends that we have seen. One,
mediation is down, but we expected that because mediation is
now voluntary. Two, there are more requests for administrative
hearings because with mediation being voluntary, the only
option is adjudication, and there is a much shorter timeframe
for employees to request that hearing. They only have 10 days.
Three, case processing times are also shorter now because the
employee is pretty much in adjudication on day one.
In terms of the types of issues we are seeing, they are the
same types of issues that we have seen before: Discrimination
mostly based on race and color. Retaliation as well. In terms
of caseload that is a difficult question to answer. Let me see
if I can get to it succinctly. We don't count cases the same
way as we did under the old system. So, if you saw in our
statement--I think we gave you this--under the old system, we
counted cases before they reached adjudication. So, if you look
at our past, we had, you know, a number of cases coming in
through, quote, counseling, and then a steep drop off to the
filing of a complaint before a hearing officer.
Now the system reversed. So employee comes in. They are
before a preliminary review hearing officer pretty much on day
one, which is the rise in cost in terms of hearing officers. So
we can't count cases the same way anymore because there are
really no two equivalence. In terms of the workload, it is
still the same.
One more thing to note: The Reform Act created a
confidential adviser, and she is at the beginning of our
process. She is receiving calls directly from employees in the
legislative branch with questions, with concerns at the same
rate as she was receiving before the pandemic. So, in terms of
workload, it really hasn't changed for us, despite working
remotely.
Ms. Clark. Great. Thank you. I see my time has expired.
Thanks for being with us today.
Ms. Grundmann. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Clark.
Next is the distinguished gentleman from Nevada, Mr.
Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. You guys have done a
pretty good job of covering my stuff. So I will yield back.
Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Amodei.
Next is the distinguished gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Case.
Mr. Case. Good morning, Ms. Grundmann. We shared a common
experience: law school. One of my professors taught me that
lawyers that don't read footnotes starve. So I did read your
footnote in your submission that says here--I am just reading
it: Approximately $800,000, or 12 percent, of your general
expenses budget remained unexpended at the end of fiscal year
2020. Okay. That was fiscal year 2020, right?
So what happened to that? Was that carried over and do you
have the same issue this year?
Ms. Grundmann. That is precisely why we are asking for an
increase in the carryovers. We don't want more money; we just
need more time to spend it. We are starting to see that our
spendingis really not tied to the fiscal year. We don't control
the number of cases that come in. We don't control the number
of requests for investigations or inspections that come into
our OSHA program and our public accessibility program. So that
is the key.
And so you are actually seeing hard evidence of why we are
looking for a larger carryover.
Mr. Case. Okay. And then you say here that this is
attributable, at least in part, to a closure of the workplace.
The reason I am asking this question is because some of the
other folks that have testified to us have actually seen
general expenses go up during COVID-19. And so, I mean, they
have reasons for why that happened.
Why generally did yours go down? I mean, you still have a
physical presence. You still had personnel. Was that because
the cases themselves went down as a result of the closure of
the workplace?
Ms. Grundmann. Not necessarily that, but the publication
expenses that we generally have--we usually hard copy things.
We don't do that anymore. Our board consists of attorneys
around the country, and they travel in for board meetings.
Their travel was canceled this year, so that is a partial
attribution. But we talk about those costs going down. At the
same time, we have costs going up. And we are talking about
specifically the hearing officers. That is three times more
than we spent last year.
So one hand goes up; the other hand goes down.
Mr. Case. Okay. And that was kind of my next question. When
you talk about hearing officers, why did they go up three
times? That wasn't like their rate went up three times? That
was just the utilization went up that much?
Ms. Grundmann. Exactly. It is all attributable to three
things: The first is more employing offices within our
jurisdiction, as we predicted last year. The second is more
categories of employees. And the third really is that change in
our process.
If you recall, under the old process, the hearing officer
didn't enter the picture until the very end of the process, and
we only had maybe three to five cases involving a hearing
officer in any year under the old system.
In the new system, the hearing officer is there pretty much
on day one undergoing a preliminary review of the employee's
claim within the first 30 days of the filing of that claim. So
it is very intense. The hearing officer also shows up at the
end of the case for a merits review. So it is not surprising
that this has happened.
Mr. Case. Okay. And then I wanted to pick up on a comment
that the chair made in his opening remarks to the effect of
cybersecurity. Because that was one of the major
recommendations out of the GAO was that you increase your
cybersecurity capacity, and you have responded to the GAO on
that, but it is unfinished business.
And so I am just curious whether the complete response on
cybersecurity does or doesn't require more resources? It looks
like, from your perspective at least this fiscal year, no, but,
you know, we have all got to up our cybersecurity game.
Ms. Grundmann. Yes. So, as you know, we work very closely
with the Library of Congress for cybersecurity. In fact, we are
heavily dependent on them. We have satisfied all their
concerns. The system is undergoing continuous monitoring. So
the costs are steady. They are really, basically, expenses that
we owe the Library. And so we can predict where they are
coming.
In terms of upgrading, that is where we are. It is one day
at a time. The next phase we are looking for--and that is
certainly in our budget justification--is we are talking about
migrating our Occupational Safety and Health and public
accessibility findings into the system also covered by the
Library.
Mr. Case. Okay. Great. Thank you.
Ms. Grundmann. Sure. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Case.
Next is the distinguished gentleman from Washington State,
Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, everybody.
Thank you, Ms. Grundmann, for testifying today.
Like many of the offices that this committee oversees, the
work of the Office of Workplace Rights is--probably an
understatement--but has changed significantly over the past
year. Not only the definition of workplace has changed, but
also how folks communicate and, unfortunately, instances where
your office gets involved I am assuming has also changed and
evolved.
So I am just curious how some of your training maybe has
changed to reflect some of these new realities that I hope are
not permanent, but certainly we are dealing with them today?
Ms. Grundmann. Absolutely. And you hit it right--the hammer
right on the nail. Excuse my analogy.
Mr. Newhouse. I know what you mean.
Ms. Grundmann. Again, the environment has changed. We are
seeing more modules, the development from in-person training to
online training. In addition to that, we are training scenarios
also include scenarios that are based on virtual environments,
working remotely. And then, again, we talk about what happened
last summer.
The nature of our work has changed. We are talking more
about preventive measures. We are talking about bystander
intervention. We are talking about implicit bias. We are
talking about addressing, you know, the tension in terms of the
workplace of racial equity, civility, inclusion.
Those are the types of issues that employing offices are
bringing to us now. And, again, back to our two educators, they
are fabulous. They are certified in this stuff. And they can
tailor a training to address a specific situation in your
office or generalized situation. And we know this from
experience that employing offices have all different dynamics,
and so the dynamic that we train in one office may not work for
the other.
So there is a lot of work that goes in on the front end,
kind of working with this office. What do you want to hear?
What do you need to hear? And what situations do you need
addressed? It is very, very personalized to each particular
group of people.
Mr. Newhouse. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate
that and look forward to continuing to work with you. And I
know you have got a difficult road, and I appreciate your
dedication to making things as workable as possible. So thank
you very much for being with us today.
I will yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse.
Next is the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia, Ms.
Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And it is great to meet you, Director Grundmann, albeit
virtually.
Thank you for joining us here today. I want to follow up a
little bit more on some of my questions that my colleagues have
had about this climate survey. Because the statute indicates
that it needs to be performed every 2 years, and that it will
include a module on or questions on sexual harassment and
sexual assault type questions, but that is a minimum.
And so I am just curious whether you had any plans to ask
other questions about other things. You are talking about
racial equity and things of that nature, maybe the impacts of
January 6 or working remotely on people because, you know, I
think that it is great that some offices are coming to you
proactively and asking for help with modules on those topics,
but not all offices are going to do that and not all staff are
going to be that forthcoming maybe to their Member or to their
chief.
So do you have any plans to expand the scope of those
surveys?
Ms. Grundmann. So the statute requires that we consult with
CHA, Senate Rules, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
in the Senate with regards to methodologies and procedures. And
in that context, it is also the content as well. So what we
will do for the next cycle of surveys is we will propose
changes. We will add questions. I can reasonably see adding a
series of questions on how the pandemic was handled. Did
offices do well? Were people prepared?
In terms of what we saw last summer, definitely, that area
can be beefed up, but this, again, is a baseline. So we are
asking about employees' knowledge about what they personally
experienced, what they saw. If they saw it or they experienced
it, do they know what to do next? Those are the types of
questions in the baseline.
So, from thereon, we have to keep some of the same
questions to continue to monitor the growth in the baseline,
but we can add additional questions next go round. And the
timing of your question is impeccable because as we are
wrapping up this first round of surveys, we are actually
starting on the second survey now to be delivered next year.
Ms. Wexton. Okay. So what does it entail for your office to
come up with those new questions, in addition to consulting
with those committees that you mentioned that are in the
statute? What else does it entail for you guys to come up with
these questions and decide, you know, what methodology are you
going to use for those questions?
Ms. Grundmann. So, in terms of methodology, we are talking
about the delivery of the survey itself because the statute
requires that the survey be anonymous and confidential, which
are two difficult things, which is how the survey was issued
last time.
In terms of the content, we are watching. We are learning.
We are thinking of the things that people have said, people
have told us in terms of our confidential advising, the themes
that we are seeing, and we can reach out into those themes. And
you have seen these surveys before. You ask a question,
strongly agree, agree, neither, strongly--but that is the type
of questions. They are not open-ended questions.
The areas that we covered during the last survey are the
same across the legislative branch: discrimination, sexual
harassment, retaliation. We talk about reasonable accommodation
as well. Those are areas of interest to these particular
committee members. And, again, the pandemic has really changed
the dynamic of the workforce, not only in our community but
throughout the country, throughout the world.
So those types of questions will actually be included this
time, and we will see if the committees agree with us.
Ms. Wexton. Great. I understand that you are still just
getting started on this process and you have the one survey
under your belt and you are working on the next one. Do you
have any thoughts on whether this could become an annual thing?
Ms. Grundmann. Under the statute, it is a biennial. If you
want to make it an annual survey, then we would have to change
the statute.
Ms. Wexton. Okay.
Ms. Grundmann. Really, it is tied to the Congress. It is
tied to each Congress. It is a monumental undertaking, that
much I can tell you, but we have learned some good lessons, and
I think it is going to be a lot tighter sounder next time.
Ms. Wexton. Great. Well, I hope it will be a little less
monumental every time you do one. So thank you very much for
your responses and everything you are doing.
And, with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Ms. Wexton.
I appreciate this. The committee has covered a lot of the
main areas. I have one final question I would like to ask. In
December of 2019, as you know, the GAO conducted a study of the
OCWR management practices to fully implement the statutory
requirements of the CAA Reform Act. They are finalizing their
strategic plan for 2021 to 2026.
Has COVID-19 and January 6 changed the strategic plan at
all?
Ms. Grundmann. We started working on the strategic plan
last summer. So it was all pretty much done remotely. What you
will see in the strategic plan are particular action items that
are really related to working remotely.
In terms of post-January 6, there are a number of things
that we are doing that are outside the strategic plan, and that
is we are going to be looking at emergency action plans. We are
going to be looking at escape hoods. And we are also going to
be looking in terms of keeping the police officers safe in
public demonstrations, and safe includes their mental well-
being as well.
Also, in addition to outside the strategic plan because it
is still a very dynamic environment that we are living in, we
are putting on a brown bag in about 2 weeks. You are invited,
and we are going to talk about the mental health issues about
working through a pandemic and now returning to work gradually.
Mr. Ryan. That is great.
With that, are you interfacing with the House office of
well-being that we started, the wellness office here? We should
at least get you connected so you know about each other and you
know of some of the work they are doing.
Ms. Grundmann. That is great. And we have communicated with
the CAO. They have been very supportive of our work, and we
will continue to do so. That will be wonderful. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. Okay. Our staff will make sure you get connected
to Bryan over there. I think that would be important
relationship for you guys to cultivate.
Ms. Grundmann. Okay.
Mr. Ryan. With that, if anybody has a final question for
the good of the order?
All right. Well, thank you, Ms. Grundmann. We appreciate
all your great work and look forward to, you know, watching
what transpires here over the next year. So thank you so much.
Ms. Grundmann. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Ryan. This hearing is adjourned.
[Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]