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


                    LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS
                                 FOR 2024                                 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
                                 
                                 HEARINGS

                                BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                              FIRST SESSION

                               ___________
                        
                        
                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

                     MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada, Chairman

  ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia	 ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas		 JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia		
  STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma	 MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
  C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida

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

                Michelle Reinshuttle and Jacquelynn Ripke
                            Subcommittee Staff

                                 ___________

                                  PART 1

                   FISCAL YEAR 2024 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
                         APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-984                      WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                ----------                              
                     KAY GRANGER, Texas, Chairwoman


  HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
  ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
  KEN CALVERT, California
  TOM COLE, Oklahoma
  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
  DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
  ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
  MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  CHRIS STEWART, Utah
  DAVID G. VALADAO, California
  DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
  JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
  BEN CLINE, Virginia
  GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
  MIKE GARCIA, California
  ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
  TONY GONZALES, Texas
  JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
  MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
  MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
  RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
  ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia
  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
  JERRY L. CARL, Alabama
  STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
  C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
  JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
  JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona

  ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
  STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
  SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
  BARBARA LEE, California
  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
  DEREK KILMER, Washington
  MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
  GRACE MENG, New York
  MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
  PETE AGUILAR, California
  LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
  BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
  NORMA J. TORRES, California
  ED CASE, Hawaii
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
  JOSH HARDER, California
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
  LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada
  JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York

              Anne Marie Chotvacs, Clerk and Staff Director

                                   (ii)
                                   
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                             March 8, 2023
                      Congressional Budget Office

                                                                   Page

Philip Swagel, Director, Congressional Budget Office.............     1

                             March 8, 2023
                Office of Congressional Workplace Rights

Patrick N. Findlay, Executive Director, Office of Congressional 
  Workplace Rights...............................................    19
    Answers to submitted questions...............................    31

                             March 9, 2023
                      Government Publishing Office

Hon. Hugh, Halpern, Director, Congressional Publishing Office....    75
    Answers to submitted questions...............................    89

                             March 23, 2023
                    Government Accountability Office

Hon. Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General, U.S. Government 
  Accountability Office..........................................   109
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   120

                             March 23, 2023
                          Library of Congress

Dr. Carla Hayden, Librarian of Congress..........................   123

 Accompanied by: Mary Mazanec, Director, Congressional Research 
  Service; Maria Strong, Associate Register of Copyrights and 
  Director of Policy and Internal Affairs, U.S. Copyright Office
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   133

                          Submitted Statements

Matthew Berry, General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, 
  U.S. House of Representatives..................................   181
E. Wade Ballou, Jr., Legislative Counsel, Office of the 
  Legislative Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives.............   184
Sesha Joi Moon, Director, Office of Diversity and Inclusion, U.S. 
  House of Representatives.......................................   189
Joseph C. Picolla, Inspector General, Office of the Inspector 
  General, U.S. House of Representatives.........................   195
Ralph Seep, Law Revision Counsel, Office of the Law Revision 
  Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives.........................   200

                             March 24, 2023
                              Members' Day

Hon. Derek Kilmer, a Representative in Congress from the State of
  Washington.....................................................   153

                             March 28, 2023
                        House of Representatives

Hon. Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives.....   163
Hon. William McFarland, Acting Sergeant at Arms, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................   165
Hon. Catherine Szpindor, Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. House 
  of 
  Representatives................................................   166

                             March 29, 2023
                        Architect of the Capitol

Chere Rexroat, Acting Architect of the Capitol and Chief Engineer   207

                             March 29, 2023
                          U.S. Capitol Police

J. Thomas Manger, Chief, U.S. Capitol Police.....................   214

 
               LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2024

                              ----------                            


                                          Wednesday, March 8, 2023.

                      CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

                                WITNESS

PHILLIP L. SWAGEL, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
    Mr. Amodei. Good morning. This is the time and date noticed 
for the hearing of the subcommittee.
    The subcommittee will come to order.
    I will reserve on opening remarks.
    Welcome, everybody. The subject of today's hearing is 
fiscal year 2024 request for the Congressional Budget Office.
    Mr. Espaillat from New York, Mr. Ranking Member, would you 
like to do some opening remarks?
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Dr. Swagel, thank you for being here before our 
subcommittee, and we appreciate your time here to discuss the 
fiscal year 2024 budget and the request of the Congressional 
Budget Office.
    I want to begin by reflecting the important role that your 
office plays, and we look so much forward to working with you 
to make sure that you are stronger--a stronger instrument of 
democracy and oversight for our committee and our Congress. So 
thank you for being here.
    Mr. Swagel. Thank you.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
    Mr. Swagel, you know, as--when we spoke earlier, your 
agency has really got a pretty simple job. No matter what your 
conclusions are, both sides are equally unhappy with you, and 
so knowing--acknowledging that history and what an easy job you 
have, the floor is yours.
    All members have gotten the materials that you submitted to 
them. I understand that you have been circulating amongst those 
folks to meet beforehand. And so, with that, the floor is yours 
for whatever remarks you deem fit in justifying your budget 
request.
    Mr. Swagel. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Amodei, and 
thank you, Ranking Member Espaillat, and thank you, members of 
the subcommittee.
    Thanks for the opportunity to present CBO's budget request. 
And I will speak just for a few minutes, and I will look to 
connect the funding request to our mission. That is the purpose 
of my testimony.
    So I am here to request an appropriation of $70.8 million 
for fiscal year 2024. That amount is an increase of $7.5 
million, or 12 percent, from the amount provided in 2023.
    Now, I recognize that is a large request. Twelve percent is 
a big increase. A big part of that reflects inflation and 
paying for deferred information technology costs from 2023, 
from last year, or our current fiscal year.
    Our request supports CBO's mission to provide nonpartisan 
analysis to the Congress that is timely, rigorous, and 
transparent. And we will carry out our mission with integrity.
    So CBO is here to support you. The resources provided 
connect directly to our mission, and that is what I want to 
explain. So we support the Appropriations Committee and the 
authorizing committees as legislation is developed when it is 
on the floor, when it is being considered in a committee, in a 
markup.
    When the legislation heads to a vote, the CBO staff--and 
many of my colleagues are here with me today--we analyze 
amendments in real time, and sometimes hundreds where, for a 
bill like the NDAA, there is thousands of amendments, and we 
analyze them in real time so that the Congress can consider the 
legislation and understand the fiscal effects.
    We worked for months to produce the updated budget and 
economic projections that incorporated last year's legislation 
and development, such as the high inflation and the Fed's 
response to it. And I know I am speaking to House Members later 
today about that. So we work to provide you with timely and 
accurate projections, cost estimates, and other information.
    Now, I know we can do better. We can do better in terms of 
our responsiveness and our transparency, and the money I have 
requested is to help us do that. So about two-thirds of the 
increase is for personnel costs. And so that would cover the 
salaries and benefits for 11 new staff and then fully fund the 
staff we hired at various times last year.
    So these new people would let us do more in the areas in 
which the Congress has focused and the areas in which I know we 
can do better, in which we fell short. So defense and homeland 
security--I have told that to several of you--energy, 
infrastructure, and climate, health policy, income security, 
and immigration, and in our long-term analysis to provide more 
and better information on the long-term fiscal situation.
    Now, having said that, most of the request would cover 
inflation and then the performance-based salary increases for 
the people we already have. Now, about $2.8 million of the 
increase that I have requested would be for nonpersonnel costs, 
and that is a big increase over last year so a 57-percent 
increase over last year, over 2023. And that is because, in 
2023, the--our allocation was constraining, and we deferred 
computing services and information technology, things like 
that.
    And, again, I will just say we are here to support you, and 
so, if there are--when the appropriations bills are considered, 
the 12 annual appropriations bills, we will support you. We 
will do provision-by-provision estimates. If there are 
supplementals, we will support you on that. We will support the 
authorizing committees. I hesitate to say----
    Mr. Quigley. How much?
    Mr. Swagel. Well, the chairs and ranking members of the 
authorizing committees, I should say. And then, if there are 
continuing resolutions--you know, I know no one wants that, but 
we would support you on that as well.
    And we do hundreds of cost estimates, dozens of reports, 
thousands of technical assistance requests as legislation is 
developed. This year, I am committed for us to return to our 
historical benchmark, which is providing cost estimates before 
legislation is considered on the floor.
    It was difficult the last 2 years because so much of the 
work of the House went forward on the suspension calendar. And 
legislation was developed outside of the committee process, so 
it just made it more difficult for us.
    But that is my goal, is to get back to our benchmark. And 
so that is it. That is why I am requesting the increase of $7.5 
million, to be responsive and to focus on the areas in which we 
need to do better and which Congress wants us to do more.
    So let me stop and, again, thank you for your support, and 
I am here to answer questions.
    Mr. Amodei. Great. Thank you.
    You know, it just occurred to me that--so we can ask you to 
do analyses for the leg branch bill, and I know you guys call 
them the way you see them, but you can basically say: Nobody 
else in leg branch needs anything, and, actually, we are the 
only ones that are worthy, right? Your analysis could 
theoretically say that?
    Mr. Swagel. Ah, so we have set it up to make sure we don't. 
So, within CBO----
    Mr. Amodei. Okay. Let me ask you one more time, slowly.
    Mr. Swagel. Yeah, exactly. I am a little slow this morning.
    Mr. Amodei. I withdraw the question.
    Mr. Ranking Member, questions?
    Mr. Swagel. I need the caffeinated water, so----
    Mr. Espaillat. To follow up on the chairman, this is going 
to be quite bipartisan----
    Mr. Swagel. Yeah.
    Mr. Espaillat [continuing]. But--oh, thank you.
    I know that your outfit has a very distinct reputation for 
being deliberate and professional and so, like, nonpartisan. 
But sometimes, you know, we would like it to be a little 
quicker, right? And of course doing that may require additional 
funding. And you are asking for an increase in the--in your 
budget, or--have testified to your wishes of expediting 
matters, you know, in a way that it becomes a real tool for our 
process, right----
    Mr. Swagel. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Espaillat [continuing]. So that the analysis that you 
will make are an important tool to the wise and educated 
decisions that we must make as a subcommittee, as a committee 
and Congress.
    And so--what do you feel could impact you accomplishing 
this goal if you don't get the increase or, in fact, if you get 
a budget cut? What would happen----
    Mr. Swagel. Yeah. What would happen?
    Mr. Espaillat [continuing]. If you get a budget cut vis-a-
vis your wishes, your goals and objectives?
    Mr. Swagel. And I will talk about that. As I said, the 
increase--the new people is targeted, and so I know from both 
Chambers that we fell behind on national defense, on--you know, 
legislation for national security and homeland security. And I 
have heard that from many Members. And I know it. I think we do 
a good job, but the volume has increased. We need more people.
    I was going to hire those two people this year, and I had 
to cancel that hiring. So, if we are flat funded, I am 
certainly not going to let go of any people in national 
security, and we will shrink--we would have to shrink. We do 
that through attrition. And then I have to rebalance people 
internally.
    So I--you know, I am certainly not--you know, I am not 
telling you I would, like, shut down the agency or anything 
like that. We would do--we would focus our resources on the 
Congress' priorities. It would just put us further behind.
    Mr. Espaillat. Okay. And the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations bill is the key legislation for ensuring that 
our country has a strong and secure Congress, and I am 
committed to protecting these investments. I am sure the chair 
is as well. If CBO were to receive a cut in funding, let's say 
back to your 2022 level of $61 million, what effect would that 
have on CBO's ability to support Members, like specifically, 
Members and staff, which are the--pretty much the terrain where 
we rely on our support system, right?
    Mr. Swagel. Yeah. It--so we would shrink, and that would 
affect what we do for Members. And that is an area where I know 
we already fell--fall short and fell short. And this is where 
Mr. Quigley said--and he is exactly right--that, you know, we 
focus on the chairs and ranking members of the authorizing 
committees. We do as much as we can for others.
    The last 2 years were especially hard because the--we had 
both the authorizing committees and the leadership in both 
Chambers, in some sense running parallel processes. And that 
just left us less time to focus on Members outside of that.
    And we would just fall--we would fall even shorter on that. 
I mean, I think we do as best we can, but we don't always do as 
much as we would like, and we would get further behind.
    Mr. Espaillat. Just for the record, I am very concerned 
about Mr. Quigley and Congresswoman Wexton, and we want to make 
sure they get all the help they can get.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you.
    Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
    Just real quick, before we go to Mr. Franklin, you said 
that the allocation for the last cycle was constraining. Could 
you expand upon what constraining is?
    Mr. Swagel. So we--as I said, we canceled our hiring, or we 
canceled our hiring of new economists, and the--but we 
interviewed people, and then did not proceed to the next round. 
And so we interviewed people in energy, environment, climate. 
So we were going to hire two climate economists that--in the 
Senate, the focus of the Budget Committee is on climate. And so 
that--you know, that is just--it is awkward.
    I canceled hiring people in national security for the same 
reason. We deferred certain information technology purchases 
and basically hardware. There was some we had to do. Some 
cybersecurity purchases, we had to do, and we couldn't defer. 
And so that--that is the sort of constraining in which it was.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay. And so members--so members know, you are 
going to be called on in the order in which you arrived at the 
committee meeting. I don't think I need to explain more than 
that, other than to say the floor is Mr. Franklin's from 
Florida.
    Mr. Franklin. All right.
    Mr. Amodei. Please proceed.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Dr. Swagel, thank you for the time that you spent 
getting me up to speed. As a new guy, there is a lot to learn 
here, and I certainly appreciate everything you all are doing.
    As we look at the budget and try to figure out where we 
might be able to realize savings, it is tough when everything 
is in personnel, over 90 percent.
    Mr. Swagel. Yeah.
    Mr. Franklin. Were you--so--and I think you got--you shed a 
little more light on a question I had. The inability in the 
last cycle was just you weren't able to find the people? I 
mean, the money was there. You had the budget for it, but it 
just--you didn't get the right people at the time, or why were 
those hires not made?
    Mr. Swagel. No. It was the money wasn't there. So we had--
--
    Mr. Franklin. Money. Okay.
    Mr. Swagel. You know, we had the people. You know, Amazon 
shut down their economics hiring this year. They are the 
largest--the last couple years, they have been the largest 
single recruiter of Ph.D. economists. So this was a buyer's 
market for us in economics Ph.D.'s, and we had to stay out of 
it.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay. So--I lost my question in there. But we 
talk about regular order now, and as a first-termer last time, 
it sounded like, you know, fairy tales and pixie dust and 
unicorns, this mythological regular order. Now that we are 
getting back to that, how much do you foresee that impacting 
your ability to deliver? Will you be able to do--if the number 
of requests ramp up as we are anticipating, are you going to be 
able to keep pace with that?
    Mr. Swagel. That--that is what I am hoping--not hoping, 
right? Hopes aren't the plan. That is my commitment, is that 
the return to regular order will let us take the additional 
resources freed up not having reconciliation and, you know, all 
the energy that went to that, and provide a service to, you 
know, a broader array of Members, you know, not just the 
rankers and committee chairs and the leadership.
    And that is what we need to do, and more cost estimates, 
more technical assistance because I know Members have, right, 
legislation, and it is not always a committee chair; it is just 
rank-and-file members.
    Mr. Franklin. Right.
    Mr. Swagel. And that is--getting back to regular order will 
let us do that.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay. And, looking at your--going back to 
2019, it looks like pay and benefits, which, again, is the 
driver of your budget are up about 38 percent over--going back 
to 2019.
    Mr. Swagel. Yeah.
    Mr. Franklin. At 290 FTEs, with your request this time, 
what did that look like as far as number of personnel 5 years 
ago? How much in just bodies has the staff grown?
    Mr. Swagel. It has grown by a lot, right? So, 5 years ago, 
it was 255. That was in 2019. And now I am hoping to go up to 
290.
    So it is a considerable increase. It was before my time as 
Director, and the agency grew in the wake--essentially in the 
wake of the repeal and replace debate over the ACA in 2017 that 
the agency--we were just behind, and so we--you know, we were 
not in position to support the Congress in considering that 
legislation. And that--as I understand it, that was the impetus 
to say, okay, we need to do better; we need more people. And 
that is the last couple of years has gone from there.
    Mr. Franklin. So you are at about 278 or so now? You are 
looking to add about a dozen?
    Mr. Swagel. Yeah.
    Mr. Franklin. Are those all filled, your current 278 
positions?
    Mr. Swagel. Not all. I mean, we have a--you know, there is 
always some turnover.
    Mr. Franklin. Sure.
    Mr. Swagel. We have a couple of management positions open, 
a couple of economists who have kind of come and gone, some 
support--you know, like IT technical--IT support, and even 
that--so there is always some turnover, but we are close. We 
are close to that.
    Mr. Franklin. I guess--and what I was looking for there is 
this--you know, having been involved with organizations before, 
some--you know, there is always going to be turnover. You are 
not always going to have everything filled, but I am just 
looking for are--is there a continuous, you know, gapping of 
positions that are carried from year to year? But it sounds 
like you are running pretty lean and everything is pretty full, 
and if it is not full, then you are out looking for the 
replacement.
    Mr. Swagel. That is right. I mean, one thing we are doing 
now, which, as you asked the question, I realized I should 
mention, is, looking ahead, we are leaving positions open for 
longer. And that is part of our adjustment just because, you 
know, I recognize the possibility of flat funding for the next 
year.
    You know, I am requesting a lot. It could be, like, a zero. 
And there, I really need to keep vacancies open and--just to 
maintain that flexibility in case--you know, in case the 
funding environment is different than--you know, different than 
what I might hope for.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay. All right.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you Chair.
    Let me make something a little clear with what you had said 
before on the question from the ranking member.
    If you had a 25 percent budget cut, is this just attrition 
to get you to get through this, or would you actually at that 
point have to lay people off?
    Mr. Swagel. We would end up laying people off. So flat 
funding, we will handle with attrition. The--my colleagues here 
from the Office of Financial Management--Mark Smith is the--
oversees that group. Yeah, that would--25 percent cut would--we 
would end up not handling that with attrition.
    Mr. Quigley. And roughly what numbers are we talking about?
    Mr. Swagel. You know, I--I am not sure--we have--one thing 
we have done over the last year or two is we have moved to 
lower cost staff. We are hiring younger--you know, younger 
people--you know, kids right out of college, and they are less 
expensive. So I suspect we do some of that, some more of that. 
We would shrink. I am not sure how many, but it wouldn't be one 
or two. It would be more than one or two.
    Mr. Quigley. Sure. Now, an issue that has gone before this 
subcommittee before--and you talked about it with modernization 
of Congress, and that is the issue, the difficulty of getting 
timely data from Federal agencies.
    And feel free to name names and point fingers and blame.
    Is there anything else we can do to help on that front 
procedurally, statutorily, growling, showing up at their place?
    Mr. Swagel. So we have two issues. And what--one we have 
requested, a statutory change regarding student loans. You 
know, just the legislation from a few years ago will help 
parents of college students by the FAFSA, the application they 
fill out, that will automatically have their tax data filled in 
rather than them having to fill it in themselves. There is 
privacy concerns, but that was what the legislation is meant to 
do.
    That legislation means we no longer will have access to the 
student loan data. And it is just because it becomes Federal 
tax information, and we have access to some, but that would be 
off limits to us. So I have--we are requesting a statutory 
change basically to let us keep getting that information. And 
we use that--we are evaluating President Biden's--you know, his 
various student loan proposals, and that is the sort of 
information we--you know, we rely on there.
    I will just mention one other, and that is on rescissions. 
So, when--there are two pieces of legislation of the previous 2 
years involve rescissions, the infrastructure bill and the guns 
and mental health bill, and those were funded in part by 
rescinding unused balances. To get that data, we have to get it 
from the executive branch. They publish the information, but 
there is a 2-month lag.
    Mr. Quigley. Which part of the executive branch?
    Mr. Swagel. You know, the Treasury and OMB do a finger- 
pointing exercise.
    Mr. Quigley. Yeah.
    Mr. Swagel. But it is really--I mean, OMB--well, anyway, 
one of the two. Treasury has a database. OMB has a database. 
They each--they talk to each other, so they--and just--if the 
administration doesn't want to rescind something, one--one 
reaction--it is just human nature--is they hesitate to provide 
us with the dollars. Presumably they start spending the money 
faster, but that is something where we feel like we should be 
entitled to the information, and it is just--it is for you to 
decide what to do. We are just trying to inform you. And that 
is----
    Mr. Quigley. No, I agree.
    Mr. Swagel. That is the----
    Mr. Quigley. Very good. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Ms. Wexton.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Dr. Swagel, so nice to see you again. It really is. I 
really enjoyed our chat yesterday. And, actually--actually, 
after we got off the Zoom, my legislative assistant and I were 
talking about it. We were both saying that we were struck by 
the same thing, which is that you love your job so much. You 
really do. It is wonderful to see. You love economics. You love 
your job, and you really are very dedicated to your staff.
    Mr. Swagel. Thank you.
    Ms. Wexton. So it doesn't surprise me that those 278 staff 
positions are almost all full. I am glad to hear that. And you 
guys do an amazing amount of work for $70.8 million. You guys 
are amazing for that.
    I think that you guys--give us more bang for our buck than 
just any other congressional office, any other office that we 
have here. So keep it up. Keep it up.
    A couple questions for you based on stuff that you said in 
this earlier testimony. You said that--some part of this 
increase was to fully fund staff that you had already hired 
over the last couple years?
    Mr. Swagel. Yeah.
    Ms. Wexton. Were they hired as contractors or something, or 
why aren't they fully funded already?
    Mr. Swagel. Ah. So, if we hired someone last fiscal year, 
the current fiscal year, we might have hired them in the middle 
of the year, and so say we only had to fund them for 6 months 
of the year. But then, next year, we will need to fund them for 
12 months.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay.
    Mr. Swagel. So that is why--that is why part of the 
increase is to fully fund the people we already have on board.
    Ms. Wexton. But they were already counted as an FTE on your 
budget----
    Mr. Swagel. That is right.
    Ms. Wexton. And this information with the tax information 
and the FAFSA, as a parent of a couple of kids who are--one who 
is in college and one that is about to go to college, I am 
curious about that because, if it says ``tax information,'' you 
no longer get access to it. Is that correct?
    Mr. Swagel. That is correct. That is soon--Department of 
Education is in the process of setting up that connection to 
the--you know, the Federal tax information. Once they get that 
operational, we will lose access to it.
    Ms. Wexton. Is there a way to silo it so that you wouldn't 
be able to see it so that you can still get information for the 
FAFSA or the student loans without getting information from the 
FAFSA?
    Mr. Swagel. It would be challenging--I mean, in principle, 
we could ask the Department of Education to do the analysis for 
us. But I think that would be not desirable because, without 
casting aspersions, their calculations might be different than 
what we do. That is the challenge.
    Ms. Wexton. There is no other way for you to do it----
    Mr. Swagel. No.
    Ms. Wexton [continuing]. Other than to have access to the 
entire database, right?
    Mr. Swagel. Now, we--well, it is just that--I will say it 
is just the student loan database that we get now. So now--so, 
today, we get student loan information that doesn't include 
parents' incomes.
    Is that right? I should--I need to think about that. Okay. 
I need to go back on that.
    So, right now, we get the information that parents put on 
the FAFSA.
    Ms. Wexton. Right.
    Mr. Swagel. So that must be--their self-reported 
information, but that is not Federal tax information because it 
doesn't come from the IRS database.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay.
    Mr. Swagel. That is the difference, yeah.
    And, actually, can I just say one more thing? We do get the 
protected tax information already. We get that through the 
Joint Committee on Taxation for the purpose of our baseline. So 
we have the facilities already to protect that information. So 
I am--essentially I am--and we work closely with the IRS to 
make sure we safeguard it.
    So what I am asking for is to let us keep having the 
information in a sense that we already have, using the 
protections that we already have in place.
    Ms. Wexton. All right. Okay. I understand.
    Another issue that we talked about, it was--things that you 
would like to be able to do more of at the CBO that you are not 
able to do with your current staffing levels. Now, are you able 
to cross-train people so that they can cover different subject-
matter areas, or do they specialize in the one subject-matter 
area throughout their entire time with you?
    Mr. Swagel. It is more the latter, more the specialization, 
and we are moving toward the cross-training, the more 
flexibility.
    Especially with our younger staff. So that is something we 
will continue.
    Ms. Wexton. And so one of the things that, I know on my 
side of the aisle, people are interested in is childcare and 
child well-being and things--investments in things like early 
childhood education and healthcare.
    Mr. Swagel. Uh-huh.
    Ms. Wexton. Is that something that you are able to look at 
to get a long-term view of now and see, what those investments 
will do later on in those children's lives?
    Mr. Swagel. That is something we are working on. And I know 
there is considerable interest in that. And the issue is--you 
know, as your----
    Ms. Wexton. Your early investments now, will they pay off 
later?
    Mr. Swagel. Pay off later and outside the budget window.
    Ms. Wexton. Right.
    Mr. Swagel. And so we are working to quantify those 
impacts. You know, and there is research that, if the child 
has--if the mother of the child has healthcare, including when 
the child is in utero, the child 20 years down the road has 
better outcomes. And that has a fiscal impact, and we are 
trying to quantify that and then accrue it forward into the 
budget window.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you so much. I have no further questions. 
I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
    Mrs. Bice from Oklahoma, you are--got the floor.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Dr. Swagel, for being here and our 
conversation over Zoom a few days ago.
    A couple questions I have. Do you know what the current 
wait--average wait time is for a request to be responded to 
from your office? Do you track that information?
    Mr. Swagel. You know, it depends on who the request is 
from. And that is--I hate to it say it, but it is true----
    Mrs. Bice. So the freshmen here--well, I guess we are 
sophomores, now, right? We are probably at the bottom of the 
list?
    Mr. Swagel. You know, it depends what you ask for. If you 
ask for something that we have already answered, the wait will 
be zero. If you ask for something complicated, the wait will be 
infinity.
    Mrs. Bice. Do you track that information, though, because I 
feel like that would be helpful in sort of determining sort of 
a baseline of how long it takes you to actually--your employees 
to respond to requests, whatever that may be, because, in a 
given year or given Congress, if you extrapolate that out, you 
are going to have some that are zero timeframe and some that 
are, you know, a month, right?
    Mr. Swagel. Yeah, that is right. That is right. We don't 
track that, and I will just tell you one of the challenges 
there is a lot of our interactions with Member offices are 
essentially technical assistance. A Member will have a piece of 
legislation, and the legislation, it just needs more work. You 
know, we sort--we say: We get what you want to do.
    Say it is in healthcare, CMS. They could not implement the 
language as written. And so we work with them--we work with the 
Member office to say: Okay, well, let's accomplish your goal, 
right?
    We have no view.
    And so there is sort of--there is a little bit of we don't 
get to a finish line because we are helping Members make 
progress, if that makes sense.
    Mrs. Bice. But I think you could--I mean, this is what your 
office does, is quantify data, right?
    Mr. Swagel. Yeah.
    Mrs. Bice. So I feel like this is a data point that we 
could actually quantify so we can determine a baseline of how 
many--you know, what is the average wait time so we can justify 
the increase in head count, right?
    Mr. Swagel. Uh-huh.
    Mrs. Bice. To follow up on that, the--you mentioned in your 
testimony earlier that there has been an increase in requests. 
What is the percentage of increase that you all have seen?
    Mr. Swagel. Ah. It is--so the--in the submission, we have 
some data on cost estimates. And so, in the last Congress, just 
the volume of legislation went up especially the shift to the 
suspension calendar, and so that I can quantify that.
    I can't quantify the requests. You know, so many of those 
will come from the--you know, a staffer of a Member will call--
you know, will contact the staffer within CBO, and they will 
just do that bilaterally, and you are right; we don't track 
that.
    Mrs. Bice. So are we--sort of follow up with, again, we 
are--that is your whole sort of organization, is to quantify 
information in some way. So it would be helpful if we knew 
this. To justify the request that you have for the increase, I 
think it would be helpful for us to know this.
    Final question, if I may, Mr. Chairman: Is there--are there 
any technology applications that CBO is looking at that would 
help you expedite the deliverables to Members and staff?
    Mr. Swagel. Ah, okay, and very good.
    And then I will answer that, and then I have one thing that 
we do quantify, which I can go back to.
    So we are looking to improve our technology. One way we 
have done it is shifting to the cloud, you know, both in our 
data, which improves the security, and then shifting actually 
our--you know, from desktop computers to the cloud. And so, you 
know, our desktops will essentially become portals to a cloud-
based computing. It is just more secure. It is easier to access 
remotely, and it is just--right--we don't have to keep buying 
new hardware. So I think that--you know, that will help us, 
that shift.
    We are improving some of our modeling. I had--when we 
talked, I had mentioned that we had a model that we are moving 
out of Fortran into Python. So, from, you know, sort of----
    Mrs. Bice. The fact that you said the words ``Fortran'' was 
frightening to me, but yes.
    Mr. Swagel. I learned Fortran in high school, so I am older 
than I look.
    Yes. So we are--so modernizing that will improve our 
ability on Social Security modeling and other modeling. So we 
are making those sorts of changes as well.
    Actually, I am sorry. Mr. Chairman, could I just say one 
more sentence here?
    Mr. Amodei. As long as you don't use any more dirty words 
like ``Fortran,'' please go ahead.
    Mr. Swagel. The one thing we do quantify and where I know 
we fell short last Congress is cost estimates of legislation 
that go to a vote, you know, whether a markup in committee or 
on the floor. And that, by statute, we are required to provide 
those cost estimates.
    And, just when legislation is developed outside of 
committee or goes on suspension to the floor, we just sometimes 
don't have the cost estimate ready. And, there, that is where 
we fell short, and I know it, and that is--that is our 
commitment for this Congress, is to get back to--it might not 
be a hundred, but in the nineties.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Mr. Clyde from Georgia, the floor is yours.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Director Swagel, thank you for being here today.
    And I know that the CBO provides invaluable information for 
Congress. In fact, I would say that the CBO analysis of bills 
coming to the floor can indeed be a determining factor in 
passage of the legislation as it provides insight into the 
effects that a bill is likely to have on Federal spending, 
revenue, and deficits.
    In addition, CBO provides analysis of the economic outlook 
of our Nation, routinely updating to account for new laws. Over 
the past 2 years, Congress has passed several large spending 
bills accounting for trillions more in Federal spending. The 
average American can certainly understand the economic effects 
this spending has had on inflation, and CBO reports confirm the 
detriment that excess spending has on the economy.
    So, in your opinion, do omnibus bills that have come to the 
floor with a short timeframe, et cetera, do they create more 
work for the CBO than, say, individual appropriation bills and 
single-subject bills?
    Mr. Swagel. They are challenging, yeah. I mean, the answer 
is yes. I mean, it is a compressed timeframe, and I will give 
you one example with the last omnibus. I will be fast, which 
is, for the omnibus legislation, the healthcare provisions, we 
were sort of up in the air. There are two paths. We actually 
prepared two full cost estimates for those provisions, you 
know, bigger and smaller, because we didn't know which way 
the--you know, the legislation would go, and it was decided 
very late in the process, you know, rather than sort of in a 
committee process----
    Mr. Clyde. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Swagel [continuing]. And so that is the sort of--there 
is extra effort. Look, we did it. It is our job.
    Mr. Clyde. Right.
    Mr. Swagel. But it--but the answer is yes.
    Mr. Clyde. So, therefore, having regular order, having 
single-subject bills, having 12 individual appropriations, all 
right, is much better for the CBO and allows you to do your 
work more effectively and more efficiently. Is that a correct 
statement?
    Mr. Swagel. That is right. And we will work--however the 
Congress works, we will work----
    Mr. Clyde. Right.
    Mr. Swagel. But, for sure, that is correct.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay. Great. Great.
    Okay. According to your presentation on ``The Budget and 
Economic Outlook 2023 to 2033,'' from February 16th of this 
year, you stated the cumulative deficit over the next 10 
years--next 10-year period is $3.1 trillion larger in CBO's 
current baseline projections than it was in May of 2022 
projections, so we are growing faster in debt.
    Additionally, you wrote, Federal debt held by the public is 
projected to increase in each year of the projection period and 
reach 118 percent of GDP in 2033, higher than it has ever been. 
In the two decades that follow, growing deficits are projected 
to push Federal debts higher still to 195 percent of GDP in 
2053.
    You know, these figures are not only extremely concerning; 
they are actually frightening to me. CBO projections clearly 
illustrate the dangers of spending beyond our means. It is 
imperative that we begin reducing deficit spending, and 
realistically that means we must look for smart and targeted 
ways to reduce annual appropriations levels while maintaining 
the integrity of essential government services.
    In your testimony, you cited technological improvements for 
maintaining a hybrid working environment as part of the 
justification for the fiscal year 2024 budget increase. And we 
know that the remote working increases cybersecurity risks. And 
you have acknowledged this, because a portion of your budget 
justification references improvements to IT and cybersecurity, 
specifically for a hybrid work environment.
    So what percentage of CBO's workforce is currently hybrid, 
and how many days a week are they working remotely?
    Mr. Swagel. Ah, okay, and very good.
    We have a couple of dozen employees--it is probably in 
the--say, 20 who are fully remote. And so what we did is we 
went position by position and said, what jobs in principle 
could be remote if the person wants to?
    So I will give you an example. We have an editing staff, 
and they work with everyone, but it is generally by email and 
by documents. And we said to the editors: If you want to be 
remote, you can.
    There is--several are in the office all the time. There is 
a couple who wanted to be home--you know, kid--you know, kids 
in high school; they want to be there when they get home, 
things like that.
    Most of the positions, so 250 people, are in the office. 
Everyone is in the office Tuesday and Wednesday, so we have 
told everyone: Those are core days.
    Everyone is there.
    Other people are there. I schedule Monday, Tuesday, 
Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. So my meetings are 5 days a week, 
and people come in. The other days, Monday, Thursday, Friday, 
there is a mix. You know, Friday, I--the Ford Building is a 
ghost town. Monday and Thursday, it is pretty busy. You know, 
our floor.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay. In last year's fiscal year--in the budget 
request from last year for fiscal year 2023, the CBO hearing, 
when asked about the effects or impairment of remote working, 
you agreed that--and I quote--``being in person is definitely 
better.'' Okay? So does CBO--does the CBO have a plan to return 
to a full-time, in-office working environment for everyone?
    Mr. Swagel. Yeah. No. I agree; it is better. I don't see 
how we will get there to a 5-day-a-week. I think that would be 
a real challenge for our ability to retain staff. And, you 
know, there is some--it is a mix, right? For younger staff, the 
ones we hire right out of college, being in person is a draw. 
For the older staff, it is in the other direction. And so that 
is why I just don't see us getting back to 5 days a week. I am 
there 5 days a week. It is a benefit. So I just don't see us 
getting there.
    Mr. Clyde. But, yet, it is better being in person? I mean, 
doesn't that kind of ring a bell, like, you know, the CBO isn't 
working in person; they are not being as efficient as they 
possibly can be?
    Mr. Swagel. No. I--I agree with you. I am just weighing the 
tradeoff. If I said to everyone, ``We are all coming back 5 
days a week, even when, you know, Congress is out of session,'' 
whatever, I would lose staff. I mean, it is just--it is just a 
reality. So I have to weigh that tradeoff.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay. All right. Well, thank you.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Any other questions from----
    Okay. I have got a few, Dr. Swagel. Following up on Mr. 
Clyde's last stuff, do you have any quantification where, you 
know, you are here, you are not here? Is there any productivity 
curve to measure that against? So, of those folks that are 
there only on Monday or Tuesdays, do we have any----
    Mr. Swagel. Ah.
    Mr. Amodei. Do we have any database that says, ``Hey, by 
the way, those people, whether they are doing X, Y, or Z, are 
just as productive''? Do we have any fallback on that?
    Mr. Swagel. Yeah.
    Mr. Amodei. And I heard you when you said: Well, I think, 
if we went to 5 days, that we would lose people.
    I guess the question is: Are we losing productivity because 
we are accommodating them? That, I think, is the bottom line.
    Mr. Swagel. Yeah.
    Mr. Amodei. So, if you could check into that and give us a 
database on that.
    And then the second thing is maybe to send a message to 
some folks is, well, how many--not who--there is probably some 
rules against who--how many do you--what would happen to your 
workforce if you said, ``Hey, those--those oversight people 
think you should be here''?
    Mr. Swagel. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Amodei. Try to quantify that.
    Mr. Swagel. Okay.
    Mr. Amodei. And then the last thing--and I meant to say 
please if I didn't.
    And then the last thing is: Part of the thing that the 
people on this committee are going to have to do when we 
recommend a bill to the whole committee is it is a value 
judgment. Here is what we think Swagel's outfit ought to have 
for money going forward.
    And so, when we follow up on a little bit of what Mrs. Bice 
was talking about, it would be helpful in terms of informing 
that decision to know what the effect of--because you have 
talked about procedures on the floor for this, that, and the 
other sort of thing.
    I know there is discussion--serious discussion about, hey, 
open rules. Anybody who wants to have an amendment on the floor 
gets to have one. What is the quantification on--and 
historically this committee goes first, so you have got a 
little bit of a Guinea pig. I mean, we won't historically have 
as much fun as Defense or Interior or, you know, all the other 
ones. But, nonetheless, if open rules is, hey, and by the way, 
we want to know what--what Amodei's amendment is going to 
happen--you know, in whatever the sense, or Espaillat or 
whoever, it would be nice to have that--some idea in terms of 
that is fine, but here is what happens to operations at these 
levels.
    Mr. Swagel. Okay.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay?
    Mr. Swagel. Okay.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
    And Mr. LaTurner just showed up because he wanted to be the 
anchorman on today's questioning, so the gentleman from Kansas 
has the floor.
    Mr. LaTurner. Happy to do it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Most lawmakers understand the value that a CBO report 
provides when considering legislation and the potential fiscal 
and economic impacts of certain bills. Your primary, 
overarching justification for the $7.5 million increase from 
fiscal year 2023 is that you will be able to fill the growing 
demand that you forecast for the next year.
    You said that CBO has historically been able to review and 
provide cost estimates for bills ahead of floor consideration 
about 90 percent of the time.
    Mr. Swagel. Uh-huh.
    Mr. LaTurner. What are some of the determiners of whether 
or not you will be able to get that information out the door to 
Congress?
    Mr. Swagel. Uh-huh. There is two key factors.
    One is the suspension calendar. So, in the House, if 
legislation, right--if we haven't seen a bill and suddenly, 
right, the--you know, it is--in the last Congress, it was Mr. 
Hoyer's office--told us this is going on suspension, and it is 
a challenge for--you know, post office, no problem, but, you 
know, something more--something complicated, we haven't seen in 
some committees that are just not used to working with us 
that--you know, the healthcare committees--you know, they know 
us. But someone, say, on the justice side might--just they 
don't interact with us as much. They might not realize we need 
to see it.
    So suspension calendar. And then, outside of regular order, 
the omnibus, the reconciliation bills, so heavily driven by 
leadership, that is just difficult for us because we are 
supporting the committee and the leadership, and we are just 
sort of stretched--stretched thin.
    And, you know, sometimes there will be different groups 
within the Congress, and so, like, health, there will be four 
different groups working on legislation, and we are sort of 
stretched a bit thin. So it is that mix of things.
    Mr. LaTurner. Sure. All right. Can you expand on the impact 
that inflation has had on CBO's standard operating procedures 
and how you worked within the 2023 levels?
    Mr. Swagel. You know, thank you for asking. Inflation has 
affected us, our wages. So last year--this was another 
constraint of our allocation last year, is that I had to delay 
the inflation adjustment for all the--most of the staff. Anyone 
making--anyone at the low income, we held them--you know, we 
protected them.
    Anyone--most of our staff have master's and Ph.D.'s. They 
are relatively highly paid. Each of them lost about $2,000 to 
$3,000 because I couldn't give any inflation adjustment that 
everyone else in the Congress got effectively because of--
because of the constraint that we had.
    No? No. Okay. So I am--I could be wrong. Anyway--so that 
was a direct effect. That was a constraint of--I guess I can 
talk--I can talk for myself. That was, for our agency, that was 
the constraint. So--and that is inflation, right? Inflation did 
that. And that was a--I talked before about delaying some IT 
and things like that. That was another delay. We delayed COLAs 
for basically everyone with--anyone with a master's and Ph.D., 
which is like two-thirds of the staff.
    Mr. LaTurner. Gotcha. Some of your nonpersonnel costs go 
towards paying expert consultants.
    Mr. Swagel. Yes, sir.
    Mr. LaTurner. Particularly when input is needed in high-
demand areas like healthcare, immigration, how does CBO 
determine when outside consultants are needed? And tell me 
about the collaboration.
    Mr. Swagel. Ah, okay. So we have two groups--two main 
groups of outside advisers. One is economic advisers, and one 
is health advisers. And those, the lists are on our website. 
The meetings are open to staff--to Hill staff. They are not 
open to the public, but we invite staff from the economic-
focused committees. So that is all done in public as well. And 
we look to have a broad range of experts. We have people from 
all the previous administrations, certainly going back to Bush 
41, in these.
    Once in a while, we have an expert on a particular area. 
For the demographic report we did, we actually hired a 
consultant to help us understand the impact of the Dobbs 
decision, what that would do to fertility. And so that--there 
is--having--there is an academic who had the research like 
that.
    And we consulted widely with people with very wide--you 
know, very wide variety of views on Dobbs, but we did hire one 
expert just because she was set up to do the--to help us with 
the analysis.
    Mr. LaTurner. Understood.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
    Reminder to everybody. If we have got outstanding 
information requests with Dr. Swagel's organization, let us 
know. Faye, Michelle are here to help facilitate that so the 
information gets exchanged, anything else like that, so we can 
get on with drafting the committee bill in this area.
    Mr. Clyde.
    Mr. Clyde. Director Swagel, one final comment I would like 
to make--and I think you would be--you will be happy to hear 
this--is that, you know, the new Republican rules talk about 
regular order. They talk about 12 appropriation bills. You 
know, they talk about single-subject bills, okay? So I think 
that will greatly improve your ability to deliver to Congress 
what Congress needs in a timely fashion.
    So I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of that.
    Mr. Swagel. No, I----
    Mr. Amodei. That should free up a lot of your time to deal 
with open rules and thousands of amendments on the floor.
    Mr. Swagel. We will support the Congress on whatever----
    Mr. Amodei. With that----
    Mr. Swagel. However the Congress works.
    Mr. Amodei. With that, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you, 
all.
    Mr. Swagel. Thank you.

                                          Wednesday, March 8, 2023.

                OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE RIGHTS

                                WITNESS

PATRICK N. FINDLAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
    WORKPLACE RIGHTS
    Mr. Amodei. The subcommittee will come to order.
    I want to welcome everyone. The subject of today's hearing 
is Fiscal Year 2024 Request for the Office of Congressional 
Workplace Rights.
    I want to thank my ranking member, Congressman Espaillat, 
committee members, and Executive Director Patrick Findlay.
    I have asked Mr. Findlay, as well as other folks--so we 
know kind of what direction we are headed--to submit their 
usual justifications in their opening statements, which will be 
made part of the record. I have also asked him--said, hey, I am 
pretty sure we are capable of reading that stuff and proceeding 
accordingly, so feel free to summarize that. Anything that is 
included in those written comments is obviously fair game.
    And so we will go ahead and begin.
    I am going to go ahead and reserve on an opening statement. 
I don't think anybody came here with the expectation of hanging 
on every word that I might say in an opening statement, so I 
will save you that.
    Mr. Ranking Member, the floor is yours for an opening 
statement.
    Mr. Espaillat. Well, thank you, first, Mr. Amodei, for 
pronouncing my name right.
    Mr. Amodei. I have been working on it.
    Mr. Espaillat. I know that we share a certain complication 
in that arena.
    Mr. Amodei. That is true.
    Mr. Espaillat. Maybe we can work bipartisanly in that way, 
right?
    Mr. Amodei. I can use all the help I can get. Thank you, 
sir.
    Mr. Espaillat. OK.
    But this committee, as you know, has a long history of 
bipartisan work, and I look forward to working with you in that 
direction. As you know, the committee also impacts on aspects 
of the operation of Congress, and without that we cannot serve 
the people that we represent. So it is critical that we work 
together as we address the issues that the subcommittee will 
put forward as a priority.
    And, Mr. Findlay, welcome, and we look forward to hearing 
from you.
    As you indicated in your budget request, the Office of 
Congressional Workplace Rights is responsible for one major 
program, administering the provisions of the Congressional 
Accountability Act, CAA.
    So we look forward to your presentation, and I look forward 
to working with you.
    Mr. Amodei. Great. Thank you, sir.
    I should also add for purposes of the record that the 
subject of today's hearing is the Fiscal Year 2024 Request for 
the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights.
    And, with that, Mr. Findlay, the floor is yours.
    Mr. Findlay. Great. Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Member, 
members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to 
appear before you on behalf of the Office of Congressional 
Workplace Rights to discuss our fiscal year 2024 budget 
request.
    I became Executive Director just this past November. It has 
been an incredible privilege to work with our small but 
dedicated staff to advance workplace rights, safety and health, 
and accessibility in the congressional workplace.
    As you know, the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights 
is the independent, nonpartisan office that administers the 
Congressional Accountability Act, including all of the 
employment- and accessibility-related statutes that apply to 
Congress through the CAA. For example, through the CAA, 
Congress has applied to itself parts of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Family and 
Medical Leave Act, along with several other important statutory 
provisions.
    The OCWR performs many of the same functions for the 
legislative branch as do multiple agencies within the executive 
branch. That means that the OCWR operates in several distinct 
but complementary mission spaces.
    We operate in administrative dispute resolution, or ADR 
program, to resolve CAA claims, including through hearings and 
appeals. Our ADR program also offers voluntary confidential 
mediation services to assist the parties in resolving claims on 
their own.
    We provide confidential advising services to covered 
employees on a privileged and confidential basis to advise 
employees about their rights and responsibilities under the 
Congressional Accountability Act in light of their particular 
circumstances.
    We have a robust outreach, education, and training program 
tailored to the unique needs of the legislative-branch 
community.
    Our Office of General Counsel investigates alleged 
violations of laws governing hazard-free workplaces, 
accessibility, and collective bargaining, and they prosecute 
violations. OGC inspects more than 18 million square feet of 
legislative-branch facilities and grounds to ensure safety and 
accessibility.
    Our board of directors proposes and, after congressional 
approval, promulgates regulations to interpret and implement 
the various statutes applied to the legislative branch through 
the CAA.
    We also administer the statutorily required biennial 
Congressional Workplace Climate Survey.
    With that brief background, I would like to turn to the 
particulars of our fiscal year 2024 request for just less than 
$8.55 million. I believe this request reflects our commitment 
to operating efficiently and as a responsible steward of 
taxpayers' money.
    Funding at the requested level in fiscal year 2024 would 
keep the OCWR at a steady state. It would not notably expand 
our capabilities beyond our fiscal year 2023 levels but would 
allow our currently authorized staff to continue succeeding in 
our mission.
    The OCWR relies on its people to accomplish our varied 
mission. We don't have highly specialized, expensive equipment 
or facilities or other capital-intensive things. As in the 
past, our biggest line item for fiscal year 2024 remains 
personnel costs.
    Approximately 61 percent of our budget request, or $5.2 
million, is for the costs associated with our current allotment 
of 34 authorized full-time-equivalent employees. Though not 
contemplating any additional staff, this dollar amount 
represents an increase of 6.7 percent above the fiscal year 
2023 enacted level.
    The increase has two components: the standard CBO-generated 
cost-of-living projection that all legislative-branch agencies 
are to use; and an amount that would allow for merit and tenure 
increases in salary to ensure our compensation is comparable to 
the executive branch.
    Our request for non-personnel costs and expenses makes up 
approximately 39 percent of our request, or approximately $3.3 
million. This amount represents an increase of 7.1 percent 
above our fiscal year 2023 enacted amount. This increase covers 
projected upticks in operational costs related to contract 
services, including for projected increases in costs associated 
with IT modernization and security.
    As I discuss more in my written statement and as our budget 
justification covers in even greater detail, a good deal of our 
non-personnel costs are dictated by, for example, the number 
and complexity of cases. Put another way, while we are 
conscious of keeping costs down when possible, circumstances 
outside of our control, including inflation, mean we cannot cut 
our non-personnel costs indiscriminately or across the board 
without a direct impact on our mission.
    Because our requested budget is straightforward, efficient, 
and crucial to the OCWR fulfilling the roles Congress set out 
for us, I ask that you fund our office at the requested level.
    Your support will allow us to continue our efforts to make 
our legislative branch a model workplace--safe, accessible, 
free from discrimination and harassment, and which offers equal 
employment opportunity and treatment for all.
    Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions that 
you may have.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
    Mr. Ranking Member, questions?
    Mr. Espaillat. Yes.
    My first question centers on the impact of the budget and 
proposed budget cuts. And OCWR received a substantial increase 
last year. With no new initiatives in 2024, what will happen to 
the operations if you remain flat or even return to the fiscal 
year 2022 level? And how do you see the decrease impacting the 
employees and overall goals of the legislative branch?
    Mr. Findlay. So, if we remain flat, that would put us at 
about $8 million and about 500,000 less than we requested.
    Because, as I mentioned, so many of our non-personnel costs 
are fixed--our IT-related things that are essentially non-
negotiable; we have to have secure IT systems, that sort of 
thing--it would almost certainly have to come out of our 
personnel side.
    And so that would mean, to get back to, say, 500,000, from 
our projection, 200 to 300 of that could come from not giving 
cost-of-living raises or any other merit increases, anything 
like that, to our staff.
    Some of it could be made up by leaving positions unfilled. 
But I think, in light of the roles our folks play, most of our 
staff play unique roles. We only have a couple of positions 
that have multiple people doing a role. So, depending on who 
were to leave, how we were to leave those spots open, it could 
cause delays in inspecting premises.
    So, if any of your staff call with a complaint and are 
trying to get AOC to fix something and they are not, it might 
take longer for our inspectors to get out there and be 
responsive to that call.
    If your folks call and need confidential advising and that 
is a position that had to remain open if someone were to leave, 
it could delay them getting that.
    It couldn't prevent and be--just under the statute, we 
would still have to appoint our hearing officers and process 
all the cases, but it could cause--if our clerk staff were to 
be diminished, it could cause delays in that arena.
    So every part of our mission could be impacted depending on 
how it particularly impacted our staff. And I don't think there 
would be any way, if we were to go back or certainly even 
farther back, to, say, 2021 levels, I don't think there is any 
way we could maintain our current level of service. We would 
have to delay training, we would have to--something would have 
to give. And I think the impact would be pretty stark and, 
obviously, not efficient and not ideal.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you for that answer.
    As you know, last year, we passed a resolution guaranteeing 
protections for staff who try to unionize. How has your office 
supported these efforts? How many petitions have been filed, 
elections conducted, or unions approved?
    Mr. Findlay. So, as you alluded to, the House passed the 
resolution last Congress to extend to House staff collective 
bargaining rights. And, since then, 14 petitions have been 
filed with our office asking for a collective bargaining unit 
to be recognized.
    Seven of them have gone through the process, at least as 
far as our office is concerned, and have either completed their 
collective bargaining or are in the middle of their collective 
bargaining. They don't then have to come back to us once there 
has been the election. And so they are off and running on their 
own.
    There are seven that are pending at different stages of the 
process, some earlier than others--the conferencing, trying to 
settle on what they are going to have as their bargaining unit. 
Others are about to have an election. Others, you know, are at 
various other spots.
    So, as far as supporting that, of course, the act requires 
us to run the elections, for instance, and so we hold the 
elections. And recognizing that House staff are all over the 
country, we have used an electronic elections system that I 
think is a safe, secure, and efficient way to do it and allows 
district staff to participate on equal footing with DC staff, 
which is important and required by the act.
    So, beyond that, we have our attorneys doing the normal 
role that you would expect, whether it be House or any other 
part of the legislative branch.
    Mr. Espaillat. Are there any particular concerns regarding 
this entire process?
    Mr. Findlay. I don't think so. I think it has been 
efficient, at least on our end, and I haven't heard any 
complaints or problems with how we provided the role we are 
obligated to provide.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
    We will now go to Mr. Franklin.
    Mr. Franklin. I thank the chairman.
    Mr. Findlay, of the 34 full-time equivalents you have, are 
those all filled at this time?
    Mr. Findlay. They are not. We are at 29 filled right now. I 
have one posted. I hope to post very soon two others. And then 
I am looking to fill two more by the end of the fiscal year, 
and if not early in the next fiscal year, this coming fiscal 
year.
    One of the FTEs actually is not a full-time person. It is 
distributed among our five board members. So they, together, 
are considered one of our FTEs.
    Mr. Franklin. OK. When were you last at full strength?
    Mr. Findlay. I don't know.
    Mr. Franklin. Is it pretty typical to have vacancies?
    Mr. Findlay. I know they kept some of the vacancies until I 
was appointed so that I could, you know, have an impact or say 
on who it is. I don't know how often--I would think it is 
typical to have at least some vacancies.
    But I don't like vacancies. I want to get them filled. You 
know, we have work to do.
    Mr. Franklin. So what happens to the budget and money if 
you go through a year and you are funded at a certain FTE level 
and those positions aren't filled? What happens to the money 
that is allocated for those salaries?
    Mr. Findlay. Well, of course, if we have money at the end 
of, you know, the appropriated period, it would return to 
Treasury.
    Mr. Franklin. All right. Following up on the unionization 
question, did that require you to add staff?
    Mr. Findlay. Sort of. It required us to dedicate staff.
    It was, well, sometime in the spring last year, I think, 
after the initial approps that our folks asked for additional 
funding, as Mr. Espaillat noted. And so, at one point back 
then, about a dozen of our staff were spending some of their 
time on the unionization matters.
    But now that it is more routine and a system and a process 
is in place and the computer systems are in place, it is less 
than one FTE, of a line person. Then, of course, there is the 
management review and that kind of thing. But at the line 
level, it is taking up less than one FTE worth of----
    Mr. Franklin. So it is mostly a collateral job, or it was, 
for people----
    Mr. Findlay. Yes, for the--exactly, the 12. Because that 
covers training people, technical people, a clerk. It is sort 
of all aspects of--other than--not--our health and safety 
inspectors didn't have anything to do with it. But the folks 
that you would expect certainly had something to do with it.
    But now it is mostly one of our attorneys who is in the 
process that the regs and the statute require, the interacting 
with the employing office and with the declared union.
    Mr. Franklin. OK. Very good.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Next we will hear from Congresswoman Wexton.
    The floor is yours.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Mr. Findlay, for coming before us today.
    Director Findlay, I am kind of curious about the paid 
family and medical leave policy that we have here in the 
Capitol, because my understanding is that each employee gets up 
to 12 weeks of paid family medical leave for the birth of a 
child?
    Mr. Findlay. Right.
    Ms. Wexton. For parental leave. My apologies.
    Mr. Findlay. For parental--right.
    Ms. Wexton. Yes, parental leave.
    So have you inquired about how many people are aware of 
that? I mean, do you know what the uptake of it is?
    Mr. Findlay. I don't. And I don't know that we would 
necessarily know the uptake. I think that would have to come 
from maybe CAO.
    But it is a new--the House did pass regulations in the last 
Congress to extend the paid parental leave to House employees. 
And those, of course, are the regulations that our board 
proposed. And then they became effective for the House 
employees.
    So it is a new requirement, a new opportunity for House 
staff. I don't know what the uptake----
    Ms. Wexton. OK.
    Mr. Findlay. I do think, as you noted, it is important that 
folks do realize they have that opportunity.
    Ms. Wexton. Is your office doing anything to inform people 
about that opportunity that they have?
    Mr. Findlay. We are, through our outreach program, in both 
training--it is now being mentioned as we update our trainings, 
and there are other--newsletters, things like that, that we 
have, working with the House to get that message out.
    But that is a good point. The right isn't worth anything if 
folks don't know they have it. And so I think that is crucial.
    Ms. Wexton. And do offices have an affirmative duty to tell 
their employees about it?
    Mr. Findlay. I don't know. I don't think they have an 
affirmative duty to tell their folks about the new paid 
parental leave, but it absolutely needs to be part of the 
overall training under the Congressional Accountability Act and 
in the FMLA training that it is part of. Because, of course, 
paid parental leave is part of the FMLA, as you noted.
    Ms. Wexton. OK. Thank you.
    A few months ago, OCWR released its biennial report to 
Congress with several recommendations to modify the CAA. The 
recommendations included protecting whistleblowers from 
retaliation, requiring offices to maintain records of workplace 
injuries and illnesses to help prevent workplace hazards, and 
extending paid child bereavement leave to legislative-branch 
employees.
    Under the CAA, your board has to provide these 
recommendations and to ensure that we are keeping pace with the 
private sector--is that correct--as well as well as the 
executive branch. Is that correct?
    Mr. Findlay. That is exactly right.
    Ms. Wexton. Right.
    So let's talk a little bit about the recommendations to 
extend the paid child bereavement leave to legislative-branch 
employees.
    I know that with the passage of the NDAA for fiscal year 
2022, the executive-branch employees are entitled to 2 weeks of 
bereavement leave for the death of a child. Is that correct?
    Mr. Findlay. I think that is right. I would have to verify, 
but I think that is right. That sounds right.
    Ms. Wexton. OK. And, right now, legislative employees are 
not allowed to have that--are not entitled to that benefit?
    Mr. Findlay. They don't have that entitlement because it 
has not been applied by the House yet.
    Ms. Wexton. OK.
    And if your recommendation is adopted, what, if any, 
challenges do you expect with implementing the leave policy?
    Mr. Findlay. I don't think there would be on our side. The 
regulations have already been proposed.
    Ms. Wexton. OK.
    Mr. Findlay. I don't think there would be one on our side.
    Ms. Wexton. I hope not. I mean, if a child dies, I mean, I 
don't think that 2 weeks of paid leave is too much for somebody 
to take, so hopefully we will do that. Hopefully we will do 
that.
    A question about the Congressional Climate Survey that came 
out recently. And I know we don't have the results from it yet, 
do we?
    Mr. Findlay. We do. And so I should----
    Ms. Wexton. It is raw data?
    Mr. Findlay. The results for the House have gone over to 
the Committee on House Administration. And, at the high level, 
our folks who do the analysis were heartened, and I think 
things are looking good for the House-side offices.
    And so those results are in, over to CHA. As far as what 
sort of granular level is made public or how it is made to 
various offices is really up to CHA. But our folks were 
heartened by what----
    Ms. Wexton. Would you say that there was an improvement 
over the previous Congressional Climate Survey?
    Mr. Findlay. I think so. Now, keep in mind, we have only 
done it twice. So there is not a span of year--at least OCWR's. 
I know there are other surveys have gone on out there, but OCWR 
has only done it twice. We are now formulating for the next 
Congress, because, of course, it is a requirement every 
Congress. So we are early in the process now, working with 
folks to make it as effective and useful----
    Ms. Wexton. And were there notable changes to the questions 
that you asked, or were they very similar to the ones that you 
asked in the previous survey?
    Mr. Findlay. We try to keep the questions--I think there 
have been changes to the questions year to year, but try to 
keep them similar----
    Ms. Wexton. Similar?
    Mr. Findlay. It is always a--you want the questions, and 
you want it to be comparable year to year, but you also want to 
be responsive to events that might be happening or concerns 
that come along.
    But we do--and that is really where we are focused right 
now, to keep the survey and make it as useful as possible to 
you all.
    Ms. Wexton. Mr. Chairman, I see that my time has expired. 
May I ask one more quick question?
    Mr. Amodei. You bet.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you.
    Director Findlay, do you know what the response rate was to 
the survey? And was it higher or lower than the previous year?
    Mr. Findlay. I think it was about the same. I would have to 
check. But it was about 10 percent, which, to me, sounded 
terrible, but according to the statisticians and the folks that 
really look at it, they thought it was meaningful and could 
actually provide useful information. And so that surprised me. 
But it was about 10 percent, and folks were happy with that.
    Now, we will continue and in the next cycle try to get that 
number up even higher, because of course----
    Ms. Wexton. Based on the number of emails I saw in my inbox 
about, you know, ``Answer your survey,'' ``Answer your 
survey,'' Answer your survey,'' I know that you definitely beat 
the bushes to get those responses in. So thank you very much.
    I will yield back with that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
your indulgence.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
    Also, in case members are wondering, you are being called 
on in the order that you arrived. As a fairly junior member in 
this process, I was always impressed when a senior-ranking 
person would come in and bump me. So, on behalf of the little 
ladies and gentlemen of the world, you are called on in the 
order you arrived.
    Which brings us to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Quigley.
    Mr. Quigley. I thank the chairman.
    The ranking member asked you a question about if your 
budget was flat, stable. But, given the reality, it is not 
inconceivable that a budget could be proposed within this House 
that is much starker, perhaps a 20- or 25-percent cut.
    At that point in time, are you able to function and 
complete the duties that you are assigned to?
    Mr. Findlay. I don't think we could do all the duties. We 
would have to delay things like training. We would have to sort 
of see who--leaving positions unfilled, that sort of thing, and 
having folks backfill for other responsibilities, which might 
now be collateral, auxiliary responsibilities would become 
their primary.
    But it could slow down our training updates. In an effort 
to keep our training relevant, useful, to keep folks out of hot 
water, we regularly review and update those. I think that 
process would be slowed or stopped.
    It would certainly have an impact on our inspections. We 
would have to--we would probably miss our target on 
inspections.
    The confidential advising is another area. Pretty much 
every--because we are so people-driven, I mean--and, with less, 
that things would have to go.
    I wish there was, in looking through the budget, when I 
pushed folks, ``We have however many thousands for Westlaw'' 
that kind of thing, the things that we could cut and save on 
the margins like that are in the sort of single-digit 
thousands.
    If we were to have a 25-percent cut, it would cut our 
staff, it would cut into the bone. And we would really have to 
elevate, you know, which staff, you know, do what at that 
point. But there is no doubt in my mind that we would be doing 
less, which means things would slip.
    Mr. Quigley. But, in terms of your core functions, you talk 
about prioritizing. Who ultimately would make those decisions 
on what you would still do and what you would not do?
    Mr. Findlay. Well, some of it--processing claims, for 
instance--we have to do under the act.
    And so we would still appoint a preliminary hearing officer 
every time a claim comes in. If it passes the preliminary 
hearing officer stage and goes on to a full merits hearing--
now, there could be a motion to dismiss, all of that--we have 
to appoint a merits hearing officer. If the parties request, we 
have to facilitate mediation. And all of that is done through 
contracting with our hearing officers and our mediators. And 
that wouldn't be optional.
    We have to promulgate the congressional survey. We have to 
offer Congressional Accountability Act training. And so it is--
I think we would still be doing a lot of those things. We 
wouldn't be doing it as well, and certainly on a delayed basis.
    And it would really--as far as who would decide what we do, 
I mean, that would be a conversation with you all and with the 
Committee on House Administration to figure out exactly what 
can give. But a lot of it can't give, because it is statutorily 
required. And that is what worries me with a cut of that 
magnitude.
    Mr. Quigley. Does your training or advice include issues 
related to whistleblowing?
    Mr. Findlay. I think probably not the type of 
whistleblowing you are thinking about.
    Mr. Quigley. Well, what does it cover?
    Mr. Findlay. Well, it--so our training covers a whole--
everything that is covered by the Congressional Accountability 
Act. So whistleblowing, because someone raised an Americans 
with Disability Act claim, for instance, would be covered.
    But I think you are probably talking more general 
whistleblowing: Somebody says, something in my office is not 
right, there is corruption, there is--any of the more 
traditional whistleblowing. And that is not covered currently 
under the Congressional Accountability Act.
    Mr. Quigley. But the elements that you describe in more 
detail, someone can come and explain a situation that is 
unsafe? Or what exactly would they be able to tell you that you 
cover?
    Mr. Findlay. Well, so, for instance, you know, if there is 
a hazard in their workplace, they could certainly come to us, 
and our inspectors would go out and take a look at it and cite 
it or get it rectified.
    In their personal--if they felt like they had been 
discriminated against or weren't given their family medical 
leave or something like that, that they would raise--they could 
immediately file a claim, and our process would facilitate 
that. And they could do it in paper, email, and online system. 
We try to make it easy, especially recognizing folks in the 
district offices.
    But they also might not know what exactly their rights are 
or what these circumstances mean to them with respect to our 
office and the act. So they could call in or Zoom in or walk in 
and talk to our confidential advisor, who could work with them 
to understand what exactly their rights are.
    And that is a position that was created in the Reform Act a 
few years back that is pretty unique and provides that sort of 
service for folks who you wouldn't expect are going to know 
exactly what their rights are or what to do about it.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Kansas, Mr. LaTurner, the 
floor is yours.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    And thank you, Mr. Findlay, for being here with us today.
    I want to talk about cybersecurity. So, as you know, the 
GAO issued a report 3 years ago talking about the weakness in 
the cybersecurity surrounding the transition from the legacy 
system to the e-filing system.
    How has your office improved cybersecurity management since 
then?
    Mr. Findlay. So I think it has been pretty significant.
    We have brought in folks now and recently started a new 
person who have that expertise.
    We work with the Library of Congress, because they are our 
sort of top-level--they are the ones who provide our internet 
connection, for instance, and so most of our systems have to go 
through them. So that has been a terrific relationship, with 
their IT folks and our IT folks, to focus on security, because 
security is so crucial to what we do in keeping things 
confidential and within our system.
    And so all of the GAO recommendations we have over the 
years agreed to and have closed a whole slew of them, they have 
to be--some of the GAO recommendations have to sort of be 
processed in order. And so I think that was important, to make 
sure our base-level systems were secure where they needed to 
be, and then our online filing, all of the things, the sort of 
second- and third-order, come into play.
    We are currently working on additional policies in that 
regard and work with GAO and give them updates on a rolling 
basis. And so I would hope and expect we will have all of the 
open recommendations closed before we get into fiscal year 
2024.
    Mr. LaTurner. How many remain?
    Mr. Findlay. I would have been able to tell you if you 
didn't ask me. I want to say five or six.
    Mr. LaTurner. OK.
    Mr. Findlay. And they are all related.
    But my goal is to get those closed--yes, we can get you the 
exact number. I have the exact number, I think, in our budget 
justification. But rather than flip through it, I know we talk 
about it there.
    Mr. LaTurner. OK.
    Mr. Findlay. But my goal is to get those closed. They have 
been open a while. And I understand why they had to be open a 
while; we wanted to do it right. But I want to be done with it 
and get those closed--realizing, and as we tell GAO, that 
doesn't mean the process is done. Our IT folks have to monitor 
all the time, update all the time.
    You know, that is another area that I would worry about if 
we did have a significant cut, just because, of our non-
personnel costs, our IT budget is, I think as you would expect, 
a huge chunk of our non-personnel costs.
    Mr. LaTurner. Sure.
    Mr. Findlay. And I don't want to scrimp there. That worries 
me.
    Mr. LaTurner. I want to talk about--switch subjects--the 
confidential advising. So that is part of the justification for 
the increase in your budget request.
    There has been an increase of 60 percent in confidential 
advising from fiscal year 2021 to fiscal year 2022. Over that 
period, do you have data for how many legislative offices were 
transitioning back to in-person work post-pandemic and if that 
transition and the increase have a cause-and-effect 
relationship? Or could you provide data for a larger timeframe 
so we could look for a trend of increased request submissions?
    Mr. Findlay. The confidential advisor only, you know, was 
created in 2019 through the Reform Act, so we don't have data 
before then. We do have data going all the way back then.
    We don't have data, at least that we generate, with, you 
know, who is back, how many staff are back full-time, and how 
many staff are back in a more hybrid model.
    We have seen an uptick since sort of a resume or back to 
normal COVID stance. I think with more folks coming back, there 
definitely has been an uptick in both the requests for 
information--now, after the Reform Act, there was a huge uptick 
because nobody knew what was--but since it settled down, there 
has been an uptick, and we were at sort of a higher level now.
    And we have also noticed that in cases. If you look at our 
case numbers that we report, there was a spike. Part of that 
was because of changes in the Congressional Accountability Act 
back in 2018, 2019.
    But I think we are expecting that number to sort of stay at 
its new higher level. But I hate making predictions like that, 
so we try not to.
    Mr. LaTurner. Would you mind sending us or directing me to 
all of the years of data that you have?
    Mr. Findlay. Sure. I want to say it is page--it is 16 of 
our budget justification that might have our----
    Mr. LaTurner. I think we have it.
    Mr. Findlay. You have it? OK, great.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you very much.
    I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Clyde, the floor is yours.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Chairman. And congratulations on your 
new role as chair of this committee too.
    Mr. Amodei. Oh, the jury is still out on that. We will see 
about that.
    Mr. Clyde. As we discuss the budget request for the Office 
of Congressional Workplace Rights, we must remember that 
Congress, as defined and written the Constitution, plays a 
vital role in the separation of powers and the oversight of 
Federal agencies.
    As we delve into the important work of this subcommittee, 
it is essential to consider the size of our Federal Government. 
There are approximately 2 million full-time Federal employees, 
excluding Postal Service workers and Active Duty military.
    However, it is worth noting that the estimated 10,500-plus 
employees that work in Congress, including Members and staff, 
make up only about 0.5 percent of the total Federal workforce.
    This statistic highlights the importance of the 
congressional support staff as a small but essential part of 
our government. And, as such, it is imperative that we ensure 
that the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights is 
functioning efficiently and effectively.
    With that in mind, I have some questions for you regarding 
the management of OCWR. The first question is about GAO 
recommendations.
    Mr. Findlay, OCWR says it has adopted five GAO 
recommendations, but GAO has made 11 recommendations to OCWR in 
the reports on the key management practices and weaknesses in 
cybersecurity management.
    So, as you were talking with Mr. LaTurner and the number of 
outstanding recommendations didn't come to mind, that would be 
six, from what I see here.
    And so what is the status of those six relating to IT 
systems and weakness in cybersecurity management?
    Mr. Findlay. So the status of the six--and that is right. A 
number have been closed.
    So the status of those six are: We are almost there. Some 
of them require policy updates and procedures that our folks 
are working on. We are close.
    And I think GAO would agree with that. They have been, I 
think, largely pleased with what we have provided to them. Of 
course, have closed the majority of them when you include that 
report and a couple of the others that have come up over the 
years.
    So, as far as the status, we are in the implementation--
really, more documentation stage, I think, at this point.
    And my goal is to get those--I would love to have them 
closed out this spring, but I think as we noted in our budget 
justification, we definitely expect to have them closed before 
we get into fiscal year 2024, realizing that some of that will 
be out of our control. And, of course, how long it takes GAO to 
analyze what we submit to them in our effort to get it closed, 
you know, is out of our hands entirely.
    But I hope in this fiscal year, not the next fiscal year, 
to have what we think is the full package over to them of our 
new policies, procedures, sort of the documentation, the 
receipts, if you will, to show them that we are doing what they 
recommended.
    Mr. Clyde. Well, OK. Because that kind of conflicts with 
the information I have here.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record GAO 
Report 20-199 and also the author of that report's email to my 
office this week stating that ``GAO has received no evidence 
that OCWR has addressed any of the five recommendations'' and 
that the status remains open on their website.

    [The report appears at the conclusion of the record.]

    Mr. Clyde. So I am kind of confused here as to--you are 
telling me that they are closed? You have some that are closed?
    Mr. Findlay. No. Oh, there are certainly recommendations 
that are closed.
    Mr. Clyde. And implemented?
    Mr. Findlay. Closed because they were implemented, of 
course.
    Mr. Clyde. All right.
    Mr. Findlay. There are five or six that are--and it sounds 
like it was six. I would have to go back and look.
    Mr. Clyde. It is six.
    Mr. Findlay. So six that remain open--do remain open.
    We, in preparing our budget justification--because one of 
the sections of the budget justification is how you are doing 
on open GAO recommendations. So we reprinted them all there and 
verified what GAO had on its website. And, at least as GAO 
reported it, we agree entirely with--and so I don't know about 
the email, but as reported on gao.gov, on their lookup for each 
report we agree with how they have characterized our status on 
each of them.
    That said, I hope very soon to get them information that 
would let them close the remaining handful of recommendations.
    Mr. Clyde. OK. And you think that before the end of the 
fiscal year?
    Mr. Findlay. I hope sooner but our commitment and the 
commitment of our IT folks and other folks who have to be 
involved in all of this is that we will get that done.
    Mr. Clyde. Because the report came out in February of 2020.
    Mr. Findlay. Yes It has been a while, absolutely.
    Mr. Clyde. It has been a long time.
    Mr. Findlay. And I think, as I mentioned, and rightly so--
this isn't a criticism of GAO--but a number of the 
recommendations had the--you had to follow the right order. A 
had to go before B, which had to go before C.
    And so we had to get them, some of them--and we are working 
on all of them sort of simultaneously, but they are ordered. 
And so the ones that have been closed obviously are now closed, 
and we are on to the B's and C's. But it was going to take some 
time, as I understand it. But we are close.
    Mr. Clyde. Well, I look forward to seeing those closed.
    Mr. Findlay. Me too. Thank you.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
    We have a little bit of time. Does anybody have any other 
questions?
    OK. The record should reflect there was a negative 
response.
    Just so--Mr. Findlay, obviously, you are familiar with this 
process. There is going to be some time now between drafting 
the manager's amendment and the bill and stuff like that. So, 
if there are any questions that members have, I encourage you 
to get with either Faye or Michelle to make sure that Mr. 
Espaillat and Ms. Wexton and Mr. Quigley, as well as the 
members on our side, have the understandings they need so they 
can participate fully in terms of communicating what they think 
is important as a result of the hearing and going over the 
budget so that everybody can have their say in drafting the 
bill for committee markup or be fully prepared to continue 
their advocacy at the full committee markup.
    So I would ask that, if any members have concerns, that 
they make sure that Faye or Michelle know those so that we can 
make sure we have robust communications with ``we are still 
waiting on this'' or ``we are still waiting on that''
    If we are not of that opinion, then we will assume that 
everybody has had their chances. I would encourage you, as you 
have always done in the past, if a member wants a meeting or a 
phone call or something like that, that that is a priority 
since some of our deadlines are not negotiable in terms of 
producing our work product.
    So, since there are no further questions, I would like to 
again thank you, Mr. Findlay, for being here today.
    The members may submit additional questions for the record 
in the process that you are familiar with.
     And the subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.

    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                           Thursday, March 9, 2023.

 FISCAL YEAR 2024 REQUEST FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING 
                                 OFFICE

                                WITNESS

HON. HUGH NATHANIAL HALPERN, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 
    PUBLISHING OFFICE
    Mr. Amodei. The subcommittee will come to order.
    I am going to yield back the time for my opening remarks 
since nobody seems to be missing them much.
    The purpose, the subject of today's hearing is fiscal year 
2024 budget request for the Government Printing Office, but I 
am going to yield at this point in time to Mr. Espaillat for 
any opening remarks you may have.
    The floor is yours.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for your 
collegiality.
    And thank you, Mr. Halpern, for coming before us. Thank you 
for appearing before our subcommittee today. We appreciate your 
time here to discuss the fiscal year 2024 budget request for 
the Government Printing Office.
    And congratulations to the GPO for being named by Forbes 
Magazine as one of America's best places to work 2 years in a 
row, not 1 but 2 years in a row, and one of the Nation's best 
employers for veterans.
    So thank you for the work culture that you have maintained 
in your outfit. And this is quite an accomplishment.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. The ranking member did mean to inquire before 
we get into the guts of the budget if there are any openings at 
that wonderful place to work for people who are maybe past 
their prime and a government employee since----
    Mr. Halpern. We are hiring, so----
    Mr. Amodei. We will keep that in mind. I think there is a 
rule about approving a budget that you are going to apply for a 
job in, so we won't put anybody in that position.
    We are going to go right into questions.
    Mr. Clyde, since you made the mistake of getting here 
first, you are the lead-off hitter. The floor is yours.
    Mr. Clyde. Well, thank you, Chair.
    Good morning----
    Mr. Halpern. Good morning.
    Mr. Clyde [continuing]. Mr. Halpern. I appreciate you being 
here.
    I noticed in the information that you have given us that 
you said that you had a net positive income of $26.2 million in 
fiscal year 2022, and it marked the first time in 5 years in 
which GPO added employees.
    So since you had a net positive income of $26.2 million, 
and I believe you are asking for 132--is that correct, in the 
appropriation?
    Mr. Halpern. In appropriations.
    Mr. Clyde [continuing]. In appropriations, does that mean 
then that you are going to be asking for 106, or how does that 
work?
    Mr. Halpern. So let me explain GPO's business model. So we 
operate very much as a commercial enterprise. We provide 
printing and publishing services for all three branches of the 
Federal Government.
    Our appropriations request for fiscal year 2024 represents 
only about 11 percent of our projected revenue for fiscal year 
2024, which should be about $1.1 billion.
    What we are requesting are funds for services that we are 
going to render. So the bulk of that request is for Congress' 
own publishing needs. So, if you think of it as--the technical 
term is it is a deposit account.
    So what happens, say, for fiscal year 2023, we have about 
the same amount of money, about $83 million in that deposit 
account. So, when you introduce a bill, the work that it takes 
to produce that bill, publish it on GovInfo and produce the 
paper copies all get billed back to that account.
    The surplus that we get is reinvested in our capital needs. 
So our single biggest product is one that isn't appropriated at 
all, and that is the U.S. passport. So we print blank passport 
books.
    So, to the extent that we have a net positive income, we 
are reinvesting that in our capital needs. So purchasing new 
equipment for other areas that may not be appropriated as well 
as trying to invest in our overhead and our other 
infrastructure.
    So our buildings are about a hundred years old here in DC, 
so we need to keep those up. We have got--elevators are 
actually a huge problem for us because it is not like having a 
whole bunch of passenger elevators like you do here in the 
Capitol or the office buildings. We have got fairly heavy-duty 
freight elevators. So they have got to be able to carry a 
forklift plus a 3-ton roll of paper. And those are showing 
their age.
    So, to the extent that we have a net positive in any given 
year, that is going to get reinvested in some of those capital 
needs so we don't have to come back to the Appropriations 
Committee to ask for more money.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay. So, when you receive revenue from your 
customers, does that then go back into the general fund and 
this is basically just a net request, or----
    Mr. Halpern. It goes into--we have what is called the 
Business Operations Revolving Fund that has a permanent 
appropriation that we can then draw on. So that is where those 
funds--when we bill a customer, that is where that money goes 
and where we can draw from.
    So, like I said, we operate very much like a commercial 
enterprise. Most of our budget, we aren't coming back directly 
to the Appropriations Committee to get that funded every year.
    And, for instance, with respect to passports, we charge the 
State Department--it depends on volume and month and their 
order size and a lot of other things--anywhere between $24 and 
$28 a book for the current generation passport.
    In addition to that, the State Department will often fund 
other capital investments we need to make in order to upgrade 
our ability to produce those books for them.
    So there are a lot of different sources that come into that 
revolving fund. In addition to what we actually produce, we 
have about a $400-million-a-year contracting operation where we 
contract print and publishing services for other Federal 
agencies. Department of Defense is a very large customer for 
that. When your constituents get the ``Medicare and You'' 
booklet, that is done through our customer services contracting 
operation.
    So what we are asking for in terms of the appropriation are 
really items largely specific to Congress. So it is Congress' 
own printing and publishing needs.
    The second category are sort of our public information 
programs, programs we run on behalf of Congress. So that 
includes the Federal Depository Library Program, where we 
provide publications and access to materials for about 1,100 
libraries nationwide, and support for GovInfo. GovInfo is the 
world's only ISO-certified trusted digital repository, and that 
is where all of this digital information resides and is 
preserved and is accessible.
    And then sort of the third category are special 
appropriations to the revolving fund for priorities that 
Congress has.
    So one of the key priorities for us, I think for Congress, 
and for the rest of our customers is upgrading the software 
stack that we use to print. So, since the early 1980s, when you 
go to Leg. Counsel and you say, ``produce a bill,'' and they 
hit control-P, our software takes over on that process.
    Unfortunately, the same software we wrote in 1982, 1983 is 
still in use today. So that is a huge vulnerability for the 
legislative branch. We have a replacement program that we have 
been, frankly, pouring a lot of resources into. The good news 
is we hit sort of that release 1.0 this past fall. It is in 
testing with both House and Senate Leg. Counsel, and I am 
hopeful that that will move to production in the summer or the 
fall.
    So those are sort of the three big categories of what we 
are asking for in direct appropriations, and they are really 
defined priorities that are Congress'.
    Mr. Clyde. I have got one more question for you: In your 
congressional publishing account, I notice it is pretty flat 
from 2019 through 2022.
    Mr. Halpern. Yes.
    Mr. Clyde. And then it takes about a $4 million increase 
there in 2023 and then projected also the same for 2024.
    Is that because you are printing less and expense of----
    Mr. Halpern. So congressional publishing covers a lot of 
different activities. So the short answer is yes, we are 
producing far less paper.
    Mr. Clyde. Paper, right.
    Mr. Halpern. But the work that goes in on the front end to 
produce the Congressional Record every night, bills, reports, 
enroll and engross measures, all of that is actually fairly 
labor-intensive.
    So, for instance, again, we will use the bill example. You 
drop a bill into the hopper, whether that is electronically 
through the e-Hopper or physically by going up to the floor. 
After the clerk does her work with that, that comes over to 
GPO's congressional desk and eventually to the proof room.
    The proof room, we are going to have a proofreader who, 
because paper is the media of record, will take the electronic 
copy and compare the paper copy to it to make sure that they 
are identical. Once we do that, it goes into what we call a 
markup process to make sure that formatting and typography and 
all of that kind of stuff is set.
    And then, once all of those things are done, somebody 
basically hits a button, and it goes a bunch of different 
places. It will go to our new digital inkjet process for the 
paper copies. It will go to GovInfo for electronic 
availability, where it will also get picked up by Congress.gov 
and other folks who use our data. And it will also go to the 
Archives for them to archive in the future.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay. Well, thank you. And just some good info 
for you, the only bill that has ever made it to the House floor 
of mine, actually made it through the Senate, it was only a 
page and a half.
    Mr. Halpern. There you go.
    Mr. Clyde. That should help you out.
    Mr. Halpern. That probably went to our digital print 
center. So we didn't even need to put that on the big presses.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Well, with that, we probably want to recall 
that whole thing and take another look if it went through that 
fast. There must be a problem at GPO.
    Questions from the ranking member, Mr. Espaillat. The floor 
is yours.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Chairman.
    Thank you for your testimony. And, given today's climate 
and plans to reduce government spending, what challenges would 
GPO face if your budget remains flat for the fiscal year 2023 
enacted levels or even reduced further to the fiscal year 2022 
levels? What impacts will be directly felt by the GPO?
    Mr. Halpern. So I think the most important thing for all of 
you to know and remember is we get our work done. So we will 
figure out a way to make sure that Congress gets taken care of.
    But, with fewer resources, that means we have got to 
refigure priorities. And we take those resources and we really 
focus on what is our day-to-day work. So, with that respect, we 
are going to make sure that things like bills, reports----
    Mr. Espaillat. Passports, right?
    Mr. Halpern. Passports, but passports are paid for 
separately. State Department pays us for those. So, you know, 
if the State Department gives us an order for--we are at 18 
million for this year?--18 million passports, as those come off 
the assembly line we send them a bill, and they essentially 
send us a check.
    Mr. Espaillat. So whatever level.
    Mr. Halpern. Whatever level.
    Mr. Espaillat. It will not impact that.
    Mr. Halpern. This process is sort of separate from that 
process.
    With respect to Congress' work, because that is really the 
bulk of what we are talking about, we would really focus on the 
basics. So making sure that we are getting work out the door as 
quickly as we can, given the resources we have. But that will 
also mean that some of our initiatives, like some of the 
modernization initiatives, some of the investments in 
technology that we would otherwise make would get deferred.
    So, for instance, the work on XPub, our next-generation 
composition engine, this piece of software that is really key 
to all of the work that the House and Senate do. That means 
that we might not be able to deliver it feature-complete in 
fiscal year 2027, as we are planning. It might go out to fiscal 
year 2028 or fiscal year 2030.
    It needs to be done. That is a huge vulnerability for the 
legislative branch because we are operating on this decades-old 
piece of software that--not to malign Microsoft, but every time 
they come out with an update, it takes us a long time to make 
sure that this old software will continue to work with modern 
operating systems.
    So we have really got to move to a new platform. But, 
again, it is a little bit like going to Best Buy and you want 
to buy the $500 TV with the $400 gift card. If you don't have 
enough, you have got to make some tradeoff someplace. And it 
may mean you are not buying that TV today, you might need to 
wait another month or two, or it may mean that you buy a lower 
cost TV.
    And, you know, ultimately, if Congress decides that we 
don't have the resources we are asking for, we will figure out 
how to manage and get it done without them, but that will 
necessarily mean some tradeoffs.
    The other thing that I really want to flag for the 
committee, my single biggest issue that I am facing near term 
is the fact that about half of my workforce will be eligible to 
retire in the next 4 years. That means one out of every two 
proofreaders, press people, bookbinders, electricians, 
carpenters, you name it, they are eligible to retire.
    Mr. Espaillat. So what are you doing to recruit new talent?
    Mr. Halpern. We are working really hard to try and do that. 
So we are looking at two different angles there. First, we have 
restarted our apprentice program, and we have restarted with 
proofreaders in the proof room.
    So our first class is eight folks. Next year, we hope to 
expand the apprenticeship program to 20 folks across a variety 
of different trades.
    We are also looking at new innovative ways to try and 
recruit and recruit qualified folks. We created a whole new 
position where, particularly for our passport work, folks could 
come in and have a 3-year on-the-job training program where, at 
the end, they are a full journeyperson bookbinder.
    And then we are also using the Recent Graduates Program to 
try and get folks in more of our white-collar jobs. But 
telework has actually been a huge incentive. It works for us 
really, really well for our white-collar jobs, our knowledge 
workers. And it has been a huge recruiting tool, and we have 
been able to recruit all over the country because we have made 
the investment in telework and remote work, and it works for 
us.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
    Mr. Franklin, the floor is yours.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Halpern, thank you for being here. As a new member of 
the committee, I enjoyed learning more about how your 
organization works. It did feel like it has more of an 
entrepreneurial, business-like spirit than a lot of the others 
that we get reports on, but I wanted to touch a little bit 
deeper on the workforce issue because we are hearing that 
across the board. We are hearing it in the private sector. 
There is a lot of, you know, brain drain that is coming with 
the boomers all retiring out of the workforce.
    With half of your folks leaving in the next 4 years, I am 
concerned, because we get kind of conflicting messages, about 
the impact of telework on the ability to transfer this 
information to the next generation.
    I get for older workers it is nice. You know your job 
already. You don't have the hassle of the watercooler talk and 
all the distractions all day. You can focus and get the job 
done. But there is a great benefit of a lot of that to the 
younger workers coming into the force.
    Are you concerned that--and some of that knowledge work, 
can you recruit and bring that knowledge in the door 
immediately? Or, if it has to be transferred, how does that 
happen if you have got folks who are not working with their 
junior colleagues?
    Mr. Halpern. So that is a great question. And a couple 
things to keep in mind. So GPO is about 1,600 people, a little 
less right at the moment, but we will probably hit close to 
1,600 at some point during the year.
    Two-thirds of those folks come to work every day. They run 
a printing press. They are bookbinders. They can't do their 
jobs at home. So the folks who are craftspeople who are working 
in the different trades, they are coming to work every day, and 
they are involved in the training of that next generation.
    And, frankly, it is hard for us to attract folks to some of 
these more traditional trades. Every time there is a local 
firm, a local printing firm that is shutting its doors for 
whatever reason, we are pouncing on those folks to try and 
recruit them to come to GPO. And we think it is a great 
opportunity for folks.
    But trying to get that next generation in there also to 
work alongside those folks, that is a challenge but not one 
that is insurmountable. We are working with high schools, and 
we are working with other folks to try and attract tradespeople 
to come to GPO.
    With respect to our knowledge workers, our white-collar 
workforce, you are absolutely right that the in-office contact, 
there isn't as much of that, and that is a potential deficit. 
But that is one of the things we recognized when we put 
together our strategic plan last year, was, one, in our broad 
strategic imperative, we need to develop our workforce because 
we have got to make sure that we have people to do these jobs 
going into the future.
    Part of that was figuring out knowledge transfer, and that 
is both on the trade side, making sure that, you know, a 
journeyperson, a journeyperson press person, for instance, can 
train that next generation coming up.
    But that is also true for our accountants, our IT folks, 
our human capital folks. And all of those folks, even though 
they are working remotely, it doesn't mean that knowledge 
transfer isn't happening. It is just happening differently, and 
it requires a different kind of management.
    Where I think folks run into trouble with remote work and 
telework is when they try and do that and manage the same way 
they did when everybody was in-person.
    And what I tell my executive team and what I expect them to 
tell their next-line managers and their next-line supervisors 
is that it requires a lot more work on the part of the manager. 
You need to be communicating with folks a lot more than you 
would otherwise because you don't have that sort of incidental 
communication.
    So far it works really well for us. We have seen 
productivity go up. We have seen employee engagement go up. It 
may not work in every workforce, but it works for us.
    Mr. Franklin. Passports. So the State Department is 
backlogged. We hear that from our caseworkers back home. Is GPO 
part of that backlog at all, or are you caught up with the 
demand State Department requires?
    Mr. Halpern. So we are ahead of model, right? Yeah. So the 
short answer is, is that--well, let me back up.
    Last April, there was a change in the actual passport. The 
blue what we call ePassport you probably have with the chip in 
it, that was end of life. That was about 15 years old. We have 
replaced that with what we call the next-generation passport.
    And the way you can tell the difference between the two is 
the identity page is made up of polycarbonate material. We 
actually manufacture that material for the State Department. We 
built facilities to do that, both here in DC and at our other 
facility in Stennis, Mississippi.
    The short answer is, we are supplying State Department with 
the number of passports they have ordered. My guess is most of 
the backlog is in the personalization process, and we have been 
helping the State Department make sure that process can be more 
efficient and, with the new equipment and new books, is working 
well.
    So I think they are trying to dig themselves out, both from 
COVID and the change in product, but I have heard good things, 
that they are starting to close that gap. But, as far as 
delivering what State has asked for, we are current with them.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Amodei. The gentlelady from Oklahoma is recognized. The 
floor is yours Mrs. Bice.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, really, you have answered a lot of the questions that 
I had wanted to ask in regards to staffing issues as well as 
the new passport structure.
    The only other thing that maybe could be a little bit 
expounded on is you have mentioned that you have one of the 
best--you received the Forbes Award for Best Midsize Employer, 
which is a pretty big accomplishment.
    What are you doing for your employees that you feel like is 
different that maybe others could learn from?
    Mr. Halpern. So, when I came to GPO about 3\1/2\ years 
ago--prior to coming to GPO, I was here. I was here for three 
decades, far longer than my wife wanted me here.
    But one of the cultural things that I experienced as a 
member of the floor team and leading the floor team is we 
communicated all the time. Everybody, whether it was me in the 
Speaker's Office or my colleagues in the majority leader and 
whip's office and even on the Democratic side, we were talking 
all of the time.
    And one of the things that I really felt strongly about 
coming into this organization was being honest, open, and 
transparent with everybody, both our oversight folks and 
everybody else who works at this organization. And I started 
day one with some really basic expectations for everybody that 
eventually morphed into our agency values.
    So we are honest. We are kind to one another, and we get 
results. And those are really some of my three key items. And I 
have really been trying to drive that culture throughout the 
organization. I think we have been successful. We have also 
been willing to try new things.
    So, when COVID hit, we were very much like a lot of other 
Federal agencies. And you were occasionally allowed to telework 
one day a week, and, you know, we weren't quite counting mouse 
clicks, but everybody sort of looked askance.
    And I sort of approached it from the standpoint of I am 
going to treat you like an adult until you give me a reason not 
to, and I am far more concerned about your output and about 
your productivity and getting the job done than I am about, you 
know, fitting into some of these bureaucratic silos.
    So that is the culture I have really tried to imbue. I am 
actually backed up by a great team. Our executive team is 
mostly career folks. Our deputy, Patty Collins, brings two 
dozen years in the Army dealing with the needs of some of our 
most elite folks. And she is a great teammate in terms of 
helping deal with those day-to-day operations.
    And I take a team approach to everything, and I think that 
has shined through. And I am very, very flattered by the Forbes 
recognition because that comes from our folks. The question is, 
would you recommend where you work to a friend or a family 
member? And being able to make that list means people are 
happy, and that is a good thing.
    Mrs. Bice. Can you tell me the FTE count for GPO?
    Mr. Halpern. So we are just under 1,600. I think right at 
the moment we are like 1,573, 1,574. Our total FTE count is 
actually above 1,600. We just can't fill all of the jobs. But 
we have everybody from cutting-edge software design folks to 
bookbinders who practice an art that has been around for 1,500, 
2,000 years. So it is a fantastic place, and I would invite all 
of you to come visit. We would love to host.
    Mrs. Bice. Fantastic.
    That is the end of my questions, Mr. Chairman. I yield back 
the balance of my time.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
    Mr. Clyde, would you make sure that Mr. Franklin knows, 
since you are the two Navy folks, that the Director has 
indicated the key performance of a former Army officer in his 
office. I don't want to put too fine a point on that, but, 
nonetheless, I want to make sure it is in the record.
    Mr. Clyde. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Amodei. Next we will go to the gentlelady from the Old 
Dominion. Ms. Wexton, the floor is yours.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you very much, Mr. Halpern, for joining us today. 
It is good to see you.
    So I think, just like Mrs. Bice, most of my questions have 
already been answered by you. You have one other thing, one 
other honor that I don't know whether you have gotten to yet, 
which is that you are one of the best places to work for 
veterans in 2022. Is that correct?
    Mr. Halpern. That is.
    Ms. Wexton. Yeah. So, in Virginia, we have the Virginia 
Values Veterans Program. I don't know; do you participate in 
that as a participating employer?
    Mr. Halpern. I don't know that we--do we? I don't think so.
    Ms. Wexton. How do you recruit veterans to come and work 
for you?
    Mr. Halpern. So, you know, through USAJobs is a great 
resource for us, and I think we have just gotten a good 
reputation as a great place for veterans.
    One of the things that GPO offers that most of the Federal 
Government doesn't offer is more of a trade or craft 
environment. Now, I don't like the blue-collar/white-collar 
labels but----
    Ms. Wexton. You don't have to sit behind a desk all day.
    Mr. Halpern. Right. You are working with your hands. We 
have got--let's take our passport operation. You know, much of 
that equipment we purchase but then have to heavily modify to 
make sure that we are building the product that our customer at 
the State Department wants.
    And I think you can find folks who may have a little bit of 
college education or no college education at all, and they came 
out of the Army or the Navy. They may have come out of the 
Navy.
    Mr. Amodei. Doubtful.
    Ms. Wexton. Let's say they came from the Navy.
    Mr. Halpern. We actually have a couple of Marines who do 
okay.
    But, you know, you get that sort of hands-on----
    Ms. Wexton. Right.
    Mr. Halpern. Opportunity.
    He is going to be angry with me, but I use my own son as an 
example. My son enlisted in the Army straight out of high 
school. The Army taught him what he needed to know. You know, 
high school was--he was in high school during COVID, and it was 
kind of a garbage fire like it was for everybody.
    But he showed up at his job training, and they are like: 
Okay, we are going to start with math, and we are going to 
start with addition and subtraction.
    Three weeks later, he was at trig. And then they started 
with physics, and they moved on from there.
    And he has gotten a great practical education there, one 
that he can then--if he decides to go to college later, that is 
great, but if he doesn't, he has got a great base to work from 
in the future for a Federal employer like GPO or like a lot of 
others.
    So we are looking for really smart, really good people. And 
I don't necessarily care which piece of paper they have. If 
they can demonstrate a skill and they can demonstrate a 
willingness to work, that is great; we want them.
    Ms. Wexton. That is wonderful. And I think that it helps 
because they have something tangible at the end of their 
workday----
    Mr. Halpern. Absolutely.
    Ms. Wexton [continuing]. Which we don't always have in our 
employment here. We don't have the same sense of accomplishment 
that they get.
    And so I would recommend that you take a look at Virginia's 
V3 Program, because we have a lot of veterans coming out to 
live in Virginia, who are nearby, so that would help.
    Mr. Halpern. Awesome. We will take a look.
    Ms. Wexton. Of those 1,500 to 1,600 employees, how many of 
them live locally in the DC metro region?
    Mr. Halpern. So I can get you the exact breakdown a little 
later. We have got--obviously, the majority of folks who work 
here in DC work in the greater local area, I would say--and 
this is more by feel than actual data--probably most of our 
folks are in the Maryland area. We do draw from Virginia as 
well.
    Ms. Wexton. Not unusual.
    Mr. Halpern. But we also have folks who commute every day 
from as far away as Pennsylvania, West Virginia. And those are 
killer commutes, but because they are working here, they get 
the higher DC locality pay and that kind of thing.
    Ms. Wexton. Yeah. They can also carpool and things like 
that.
    Mr. Halpern. Right, exactly. We have always had a 
distributed workforce. So our customer services folks, 
basically our sales team, they were originally in physical 
offices all over the country, about 10 to 12 physical offices.
    One of the things that telework and remote work has enabled 
us to do is we actually are in the process of closing all of 
those physical spaces, and all of those folks are working 
remotely. And it has been a huge boon for morale. It has been a 
huge boon in productivity. You know, we did $400 million in 
sales to Federal agencies last year.
    And it lets us have a high degree of flexibility. So, if 
you have got somebody who, say, is living in rural Virginia, 
but they are willing to work the hours to service our west 
coast customers, that works just fine for me. I don't care 
where you are physically located if you are doing the work and 
you are meeting our needs and we are meeting your needs.
    I think there are some real opportunities there for folks 
to have a great career with GPO, and it seems to be working for 
everybody at the moment.
    Ms. Wexton. It sure does. Thank you so much, Mr. Halpern.
    I yield back with that. I am out of time. So I do have one 
more question, but it is kind of a long one, and I don't want 
to subject the whole committee to it.
    Mr. Amodei. Well, you can if you want. I was just going to 
say, does anybody have any other questions?
    Ms. Wexton. Actually, I do. It is kind of a long one, 
though.
    Mr. Halpern, I used to serve in the State legislature, and 
we had something called the Virginia Legislative Information 
System, which was fantastic. It was very interoperable. And, 
when you got a bill, it had links on there to what the previous 
version of it was. It had a redline version, all that sort of 
thing.
    So Congress.gov does not have anything like that in there. 
And it just seems like it would be very beneficial to us to 
have something interoperable like that actually gives you some 
information about what the previous version said, what other 
Code sections are nearby in the Code, things like that, to 
really help you do a better job as a legislator.
    Mr. Halpern. So I can get up on my soapbox if you would 
like.
    Ms. Wexton. Really, my question for you--because I know it 
is probably going to be something that resides mostly with the 
Library of Congress. But my question for you----
    Mr. Halpern. Well, actually, it is a legislative branchwide 
initiative. So we work very well with our partners over at the 
Library of Congress and folks here, both in the House and 
Senate, through the Congressional Data Task Force.
    Ms. Wexton. Right.
    Mr. Halpern. And we are trying to deliver a more modern 
experience.
    Ms. Wexton. Okay.
    Mr. Halpern. The best way to put this is the folks who 
started this institution 226 years ago made some really poor 
decisions that don't scale very well.
    So, unlike Virginia, unlike most other State legislatures 
which, say, have a unified code of law, the U.S. does not have 
one single code of law. We have the U.S. Code, some of which 
are positive laws, some of which are not. We have the Internal 
Revenue Code. We have got a whole bunch of other things. So 
there is not a single body of law that you can easily amend and 
build these systems around.
    Similarly, when we decided how we were going to write law, 
the Founders made the decision that it was going to be 
expressed in terms of instructions to an unseen clerk: Page 6, 
strike this, insert that.
    That causes problems when you are trying to scale this up 
to modern information systems.
    Ms. Wexton. Right. When you are trying to look at the 
legislation and see what it actually means----
    Mr. Halpern. Exactly. It makes it very hard to compare.
    Ms. Bice. Yes.
    Mr. Halpern. So I know that the House has done the 
Comparative Print Project. That came out of a rules change back 
when I worked for the House Rules Committee. And that project 
has been doing really, really well and is a great, great boon 
forward.
    The other thing I would point to is our changeover to XPub, 
our new composition engine, is really key to this as well 
because our current composition system was designed for 
typesetting. It was designed to describe how things look, not 
what they are, not what the data is.
    The new system, XPub, is based around the legislative 
branch's standards for XML for data. And those systems look at 
legislative elements as data. What is it? This is a paragraph. 
This is a clause. This is a title.
    And it is easier to relate those pieces of data to other 
pieces of data. And so, when we are able to fully move to XPub, 
we are going to have much better data coming to our partners. 
You can then use that, whether you are at the Library of 
Congress or you are some private entity out there.
    Ms. Wexton. They will be using XPub as well? They will be 
using XPub as well, or they will talk with one another?
    Mr. Halpern. The data will be based around something we 
call USLM, the United States Legislative Markup, standard. And 
that will be an open standard that anybody can use. XPub will 
be proprietary largely for the legislative branch.
    Actually, now that Mr. Quigley is here, one of our hopes--
--
    Mr. Quigley. We can begin.
    Mr. Halpern [continuing]. And one of our areas for growth 
in the future will be with complying with the congressionally 
mandated reports----
    Ms. Wexton. Those are--yeah.
    Mr. Halpern [continuing]. Legislation. So what we would 
like to be able to do is offer to those agencies that you all 
task with reporting to Congress saying: Hey, here is your Word 
template. If you just use this template and use the styles and 
things like that we built into this template, we will have a 
website where you can upload that file and get back good 
typeset copy and good machine-readable copy.
    Now, that is several years away at this point. And we are 
working really hard just to meet the deadlines in the bill to 
get the system up and running. But, in terms of where we would 
like to go, that is where we would like to go. And we are 
working hard to try and build the pillars to make that happen.
    Ms. Wexton. That is wonderful. Thank you so much. I just 
hope I get to stick around here long enough to see it happen, 
come to fruition.
    Mr. Halpern. Me too.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you so much. I have no further questions 
for you.
    Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, the 
floor is yours.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I was----
    Ms. Wexton. I was stalling until Mr. Quigley got here.
    Mr. Amodei. You did a good job.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you.
    And thank you, sir, for your service. And I just want to--
appreciate your efforts to congressionally mandated reports, 
and we look forward to working with you on that.
    But, in your notes, you talk about improving efficiency in 
the office. Can you tell us if any of that relates to 
sustainability efforts, reductions on waste production and so 
forth?
    Mr. Halpern. So we recycle as much as we physically can. 
And that is everything from wastepaper to the aluminum plates 
that we use for offset printing. But, beyond that, we are 
trying to use new technology to just cut down on waste to begin 
with.
    So one of the things to keep in mind is the older style 
printing, offset printing, actually creates a lot of waste 
because it takes you a lot of prints to make sure that 
everything is working and that you are getting the quality out 
of the print and everything like that.
    So, for instance, if you are trying to do color on an 
offset press, there are actually four different plates that 
have to line up exactly for each image so you can mix the inks 
to get the colors you need.
    That is very expensive from a labor standpoint because you 
need really talented craftspeople who know how to do that, but 
it is also expensive from a materials standpoint because you 
have got all of that waste that you are creating to make sure 
that you got that right.
    What we have shifted to for much of our production work--
and we are going to continue this trend--is we have shifted to 
digital inkjet presses for things like the Federal Register or 
the Congressional Record or even large bills reports, Code of 
Federal Regulations.
    And what that lets us do, there is far less waste in that 
process because they operate very much like a large office 
copier. Think that inkjet that is probably sitting next to your 
desk the size of a panel van.
    And we don't have all of that set up. We don't have all of 
those kinds of things. And we can just print basically pages in 
order and then we have got other machines that will cut those 
pages apart, assemble them into a book, and move them out the 
door.
    Changes like that are huge changes in terms of 
sustainability. We are using less paper. We are using less ink. 
Those inks tend to be less toxic. And it helps us keep our 
costs down because those are highly efficient presses.
    And it is actually a very clean, very easy, very nice place 
to work in the plant. Like, you don't feel like you are in a 
traditional industrial area when you are in the area with those 
presses.
    We would love to have you over to GPO and show you what is 
operating there. So----
    Mr. Quigley. Sounds good.
    Mr. Halpern. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Quigley. Very good. I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Nobody on the committee should think that I am 
telling them what to do, and it has been a while, but it is a 
fascinating operation over there.
    And I will tell you that the Director's office, while it is 
not the Oval Office or the Speaker's Office or anything like 
that, it is pretty neat from a historical standpoint. And those 
book people that do that wavy stuff on the edge----
    Mr. Halpern. Marbling, yeah.
    Mr. Amodei. That is pretty neat stuff too.
    I do want to, before we adjourn the meeting, just put on 
the record that we have given you, Mr. Director, a question 
regarding proof room operations, congressional work, that sort 
of stuff. So we will look forward to your response for that.
    And who is the lady who had an extra copy of the directory 
from a couple Congresses ago?
    Mr. Halpern. Sarah Wheeling.
    Mr. Amodei. Would you tell Sarah--I am putting it on the 
record. Thank you very much, Sarah. I will be over to thank you 
personally.
    Mr. Halpern. Absolutely. I actually mentioned it to her the 
other day. I saw her in the hall. So thank you.
    Mr. Amodei. You bet.
    If there are no further questions, I would like to again 
thank you, Director Halpern, for being here today. Members may 
submit any additional questions for the record.
    The subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

                                          Thursday, March 23, 2023.

                    GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

                                WITNESS

GENE L. DODARO, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
    Mr. Amodei. The subcommittee will come to order.
    I am going to reserve on any opening remarks, which, if I 
give some later, will not be opening remarks, so don't anybody 
sharp-shoot me on definitions or anything else like that.
    The subject of today's hearing is the fiscal year 2024 
request for the Government Accountability Office. I would like 
to thank our witnesses for being here.
    And I would now recognize for opening remarks my ranking 
member, Mr. Espaillat.
    The floor is yours, sir.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for being here today.
    The Government Accountability Office has a tremendous 
responsibility to provide independent oversight of U.S. 
Government programs, activities, and nonpartisan support to 
Congress.
    This subcommittee has a great appreciation of GAO's work. I 
would like to commend GAO for its work to reinforce Congress's 
constitutional power of the purse and for dedicating the 
resources necessary to support this committee.
    I would also like to commend GAO for its commitment to 
recruiting and retaining a diverse staff and its track record 
of earning a top spot among the best employers for veterans and 
the best places to work for overall.
    So maybe someday I will go work for you guys.
    But, anyway, Mr. Dodaro, I look forward to your testimony, 
and thank you for being here today.
    Mr. Dodaro. Thank you.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
    I want to thank you, Mr. Comptroller General, for your 
presence here today, and I would now recognize you for a 
summary of the written testimony that you have submitted.
    Mr. Dodaro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 
Member Espaillat, Congressman Quigley, Congressman Franklin. I 
appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss GAO's 
fiscal year 2024 request.
    I appreciate the confidence this subcommittee previously 
has given us and the resources you have provided. I believe we 
have provided a great return on investment as a result of 
Congress's provision of funds to us. Last year alone, 
implementation of our recommendations led to over $55 billion 
in financial benefits to the government.
    On average, over the last 5 years, GAO has returned $145 in 
financial benefits for every dollar invested in our activities. 
We do this through our ongoing reviews looking at waste, fraud, 
and abuse in the Federal Government as well as identifying 
overlap, duplication, and fragmentation in our government 
programs and activities.
    We also annually, on average, have over 1,200 other 
benefits that help improve public safety, promote the more 
efficient and effective use of Federal resources and programs 
and help Congress craft laws and provide effective oversight 
over the executive branch. This helps ensure our system of 
checks and balances works effectively in our government.
    GAO serves a wide footprint across the Congress, since our 
scope is the entire breadth of the Federal Government. On a 
regular basis, we conduct work for over 90 percent of the 
congressional standing committees.
    We also have been charged with responsibilities in a number 
of recent laws. The recent National Defense Authorization Act 
for 2023 has 158 mandates for GAO; the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act for 2023 has close to 100 additional 
requirements for GAO studies; the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act has over 35; the CHIPS Act, over 10. The Inflation 
Reduction Act has a broad mandate for GAO. We have 32 different 
engagements already ongoing or planned in that area.
    Congress also has asked us to review the accountability of 
aid provided to the Ukraine. So we will be looking at both 
military aid and humanitarian assistance, as well as how DOD is 
replenishing the materiel that we have provided to Ukraine.
    Also, and this wasn't anticipated in our budget request--
the recent bank failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature 
Bank triggered a mandate that GAO has to look at any ``systemic 
risk'' designation by the regulators and look at the emergency 
lending facilities set up by the Federal Reserve. We also just 
recently received a bipartisan request from the House Financial 
Services Committee on these issues.
    I have already signed out letters to the Secretary of 
Treasury and Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the Chairman 
of the FDIC to begin our analysis of what went wrong here and 
what recommendations we would have for the Congress to address 
this particular situation.
    Now, our request reflects the, hundreds of requirements 
that we have been given by the Congress, it would allow us 
also, I would like to expand our resources modestly in four 
areas.
    One is science and technology. Congress has given us 
additional responsibilities to do technology assessments to 
support the Congress, and to provide technical assistance to 
the Congress to help them understand the developments in 
science and technology, which are evolving faster than any time 
in human history. Congress needs more support in this area, and 
Congress has been encouraging us to broaden our capabilities. 
We have done that, but we think we continue to need some 
additional resources to expand our capacity in that area.
    Second is cybersecurity. We designated that a high-risk 
area across the entire Federal Government in 1997; we added 
critical infrastructure protection in 2003. There are many 
recommendations we have made in this area, but the requests for 
us to continue to do work in this area have greatly expanded. 
And I am not just talking about information systems; I am 
talking about weapons systems, satellite systems, and other 
areas, as well as critical infrastructure--electricity grid, 
financial markets, et cetera.
    Third is national defense. With the conflict in Ukraine and 
strategic competition with China and Russia, a lot of attention 
has been focused on modernizing, for example, our Air Force 
aircraft systems. We look at the full range of national defense 
programs such as the missile defense system, space-based 
programs, and others. So national defense would be the third 
area.
    Last would be healthcare. Healthcare costs are the fastest 
growing part of the Federal Government's budget. It is over 25 
percent right now. If we are ever going to have a shot at 
getting our deficit and debt down, healthcare is critical to 
that path, as well as bringing down net interest on the debt 
over a period of time. We have a broad portfolio in the 
healthcare area, and we want to continue to address this 
critical issue.
    In closing, we have one of the most dedicated and talented 
workforces among audit organizations in the world. I am very 
proud of our people. They are dedicated, very talented. We are 
a very diverse, multidisciplinary organization.
    As Congressman Espaillat has mentioned, for the last 15 
years, during my entire tenure, we have been ranked as one of 
the best places to work in the Federal Government. The last 2 
years, we have been number one across midsize Federal agencies 
across the government.
    So I am very pleased to be here, and I am happy to address 
any questions that you may have.
    Mr. Amodei. Thanks, General, for your testimony.
    We are going to go to members now, based on their arrival.
    The gentleman from Illinois, the floor is yours.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you for your service and being here today.
    So a lot of requests, a lot of mandates. As well as I can 
ask this, are you able to do all you need to do given the 
resources you have?
    And if challenged with reduction in resources, you know, 
how do you prioritize where you spend your resources and what 
you focus on in order of ranking, I guess?
    Mr. Dodaro. First, I believe the request I put forward for 
fiscal year 2024 would provide the resources necessary for GAO 
to effectively support the Congress in meeting all the 
mandates. But we need that request to be honored in order to 
meet those requirements----
    Mr. Quigley. Have you been short resources in the past to 
get things done on a timely basis?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. We have struggled since sequestration back 
in 2013. We lost about 12 percent, of our authorized staffing 
levels to get through that period of time.
    We have been steadily working with Congress to build back 
our capability, so we are finally back to the position we were 
in around 2010. Congress has been giving us additional support 
in the science and technology area in particular to build that 
capacity.
    So, yes, we have struggled in the past. We are back in a 
pretty good situation right now. I am hopeful we can continue 
on this path forward to fully serve the Congress.
    Mr. Quigley. Well, what do you do, so far, if you have to 
limit what you do?
    Mr. Dodaro. Right.
    Mr. Quigley. Is this putting off when you get something, 
how long something gets done or how many resources you can put 
toward an analysis? And I want to ask this in a sensitive way.
    Mr. Dodaro. Sure.
    Mr. Quigley. Does it affect how well you are able to 
accomplish a request?
    Mr. Dodaro. It doesn't affect how well we accomplish it, 
but it does affect when we get to the request.
    Right now, we have about 800 audits going. We have 88 
requests from chairs and ranking members waiting to be staffed 
in the queue. We have 265 mandates that are waiting to be 
staffed. But they will be staffed as we go forward.
    Now, you asked how we prioritize. We have worked out a 
prioritization system with the congressional leadership. It is 
written in our protocols. Priority 1 are mandates that are in 
law or in committee and conference reports accompanying a law. 
Mandates are the broadest expression of congressional interest.
    Priority 2 are chair and ranking members, requests. To 
reinforce our nonpartisan status, we treat both parties the 
same in terms of access to our resources.
    Priority 3 are requests from individual Members of 
Congress, but we haven't had enough resources to do that in 
about 15, 20 years. Right now a Member would need to get, a 
chair or ranking member to sign on to a request to get into the 
queue.
    We work with each committee across the Congress to 
prioritize the work. And it is a constant reprioritization 
based on ongoing events.
    So we get to everything, but the question is when. Now, for 
the requests that are in the queue, on average, they will be 
there, because mandates keep going ahead of the request, about 
8 months before we can start those requests.
    A degradation in our resource commitment would really push 
off further starting that work or even being able to entertain 
new requests from committee chairs and ranking members.
    Mr. Quigley. Can you characterize the level of cooperation 
you typically get or if there are outliers that are more 
problematic than others?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. We typically get good cooperation from the 
executive branch, as a general rule. But there have been 
exceptions to that area, and when there are, I will go meet 
with the agency head.
    I just met recently with the Secretary of Education. We 
were having some issues there. It got resolved within a day or 
two after that meeting. I have talked to the Department of 
Justice in the past. Those issues are resolved.
    I had trouble during the early stages of the pandemic--
because we were given responsibilities for tracking the $4.6 
trillion in Federal pandemic aid, and providing monthly 
briefings to the Congress. And we were having problems at Small 
Business Administration. I let you know and you were very 
helpful in helping resolve that situation.
    So I meet with all the heads of the executive branch 
departments and agencies as they are confirmed and try to 
establish a good, constructive working relationship. So I try 
to deal with them, and then, if I need the help from Congress, 
I ask.
    Mr. Quigley. Very good. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Mr. Franklin, the floor is yours.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Chairman.
    And I don't have a lot for questions, but, General, thank 
you for your testimony. And I am learning, as a new member of 
the committee, and trying to get my arms around the scope of 
what these agencies do. And I appreciate that you all have a 
lot on your plate.
    What strikes me--and I understand the line of questioning 
of, you know, what is going to give if cuts are required. I see 
that. But I also see, and what concerns me, is, just in the 
technology space, for example, in a 5-year period from 2019 to 
what you are projecting at the end of 2024, just the FTE, you 
know, the number of employees in that one section of what you 
oversee is going to quadruple.
    So, in 5 years, we are talking about head count 
quadrupling. Clearly--and we are seeing this across every 
single thing----
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Mr. Franklin [continuing]. We touch. I mean, government has 
exploded in the last 5 years.
    To me, my perception, my opinion is that is not a 
sustainable path. But where do you see this going? Five years 
from now, is this 200 going to turn into, you know, 800?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yeah.
    The 200 would put it around the same size as many of our 
other teams that conduct work in other areas of government. It 
is our newest team within GAO. It is like, those horse races 
where somebody starts, way in the back of the field and then 
they catch up with the rest of the pack. That is where it is.
    The reason it has grown so fast is that Congress debated 
whether to recreate the Office of Technology Assessment or beef 
up GAO's resources. Congress decided to go with the approach of 
beefing up GAO's resources.
    So we were given explicit direction, and asked to provide a 
plan to the Congress to increase our resources and capacity in 
the science and technology area. We did so in 2019 and have met 
the plan's goals. We have met that plan. Despite speculation 
that we would have difficulty recruiting people in that area, 
we have been able to do that.
    So we have met the plan Congress asked us to develop. And 
our FY 2024 request, would bring us up to a level that is 
commensurate with the demands. I don't expect it to keep 
growing exponentially as it has in the past.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay.
    Well--and looking at the types of things that are 
contemplated under that, I agree, these are critical needs now. 
They are areas we need to be focused on. At some point, I would 
just hope that--there is a tendency in government programs 
that, once they come into place--I mean, government never goes 
away; it only grows.
    Mr. Dodaro. Right.
    Mr. Franklin. But at some point we are going to be forced 
to make the hard choices to do reallocation.
    Mr. Dodaro. Right.
    Mr. Franklin. So hopefully some things that have, you know, 
been necessary before, the need may change, and we are just 
going to have to be willing to make the hard decision to 
reallocate those resources.
    Mr. Dodaro. I understand.
    Mr. Franklin. I know you do.
    Mr. Dodaro. I am the auditor of the Federal Government's 
financial statements.
    Mr. Franklin. Exactly.
    Mr. Dodaro. I understand our position.
    Mr. Franklin. Right.
    Mr. Dodaro. But I also understand GAO provides a lot of 
return on our investment. So you get more back than----
    Mr. Franklin. Right.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. You put into us----
    Mr. Franklin. And you are the watchdog over, you know, 
ensuring that what we are spending is being done 
appropriately----
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes actually----
    Mr. Franklin [continuing]. And I appreciate that.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. We issue an annual report on 
fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in the Federal 
Government. And the last 12 years, we have made about 1,300 
recommendations. Congress and the agencies has implemented 
fully or partially 74 percent of these recommendations. This 
has generated financial benefits of $552 billion. So it is 
already over the half-trillion-dollar mark.
    And believe me, I am judicious in managing our own 
organization, I only ask for what we need, because I am aware 
of our fiscal position. But I am also aware that Congress is 
basically outresourced against the executive branch. And unless 
you have strong oversight--or, a strong GAO, it is hard to 
provide effective oversight of what is really going on, as 
opposed to what the executive branch, puts forward as their 
position on that issue. So Congress needs independent check and 
balance----
    Mr. Franklin. I agree.
    Mr. Dodaro [continuing]. And GAO provides that.
    Mr. Franklin. Very good.
    All right. Thank you.
    Mr. Dodaro. Sure.
    Mr. Franklin. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from the Empire State, Ranking 
Member Espaillat, the floor is yours.
    Mr. Espaillat. From the Big Apple. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Yes, Comptroller, I know that the Appropriations Law group 
has done tremendous work, as we seek legal opinions about the 
different work that we do here. It is so important for us to be 
in compliance with the Constitution, and with the law, and I 
know that they continue to do good work. I also want to commend 
you for the resources that you have dedicated to that 
particular group.
    Can you share with us, some of the services that they 
provide that are relevant and important to the work that we do?
    Mr. Dodaro. Actually, their responsibilities go directly to 
the heart of Congress's power of the purse.
    They are experts in appropriation law decisions. We have 
issued 42 decisions since March of 2020 as to whether or not 
the agencies are following the direction given by the 
appropriation committees and the law, and sometimes we find 
that they don't heed that. There are provisions, for example, 
that they consult with the Congress before they make a change; 
sometimes they don't do that.
    Also, we train congressional staff in appropriation law 
decisions. We have regular classes that we provide in addition 
to regular rulings in that area.
    We also have responsibilities in the Congressional Review 
Act. We must review major rules promulgated by Federal 
agencies, congress can act to stop a rule if they don't agree 
with it. We have issued, a one hundred products in that area.
    We also have responsibilities under the Vacancies Act. 
There is only supposed to be people serving in acting positions 
for a certain period of time, so we monitor this issue across 
the executive branch for Congress.
    And then, also, very importantly, we issue decisions 
related to antideficiency Act. Congress's direction is supposed 
to determine what agencies spend the money on. So we make sure 
that they spend the money that Congress directed them to. But, 
on the flip side, if they spend more than Congress authorized, 
that is an antideficiency violation, and we point that out to 
the Congress.
    Mr. Espaillat. I know that you are also doing work on 
enhancing cybersecurity. And, just recently, the Washington, 
D.C., health exchange was compromised, exposing confidential 
information about our team, and ourselves. This is a growing 
problem in a very hostile world environment.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Mr. Espaillat. What are you doing, what are the priorities 
of the center, of the Center for Enhanced Cybersecurity, as we 
move forward?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes. I do not believe the Federal Government is 
operating at a pace of strengthening computer security 
commensurate with this evolving grave threat.
    We have been doing this; I have been pushing this. I 
mentioned in my opening remarks, we designated cybersecurity 
across the Federal Government as a high risk area in 1997. We 
got Congress to pass a series of laws. It is a little better, 
but most Federal agencies still do not have effective 
information security programs. And since 2010, we have issued 
4,000 recommendations. 860 are still open, so we are going to 
continue to follow up there.
    We are doing more work also in critical infrastructure 
protection. The Federal agencies, try to encourage voluntary 
compliance, but basically the Federal Government really doesn't 
know how prepared the private sector is to deal with these 
issues until for example, there is a ransomware attack on 
Colonial Pipeline. So I have been trying to encourage more 
information-sharing between the government and the private 
sector, and capacity building in the Federal agencies.
    We have had our center for 25 years now. I have been 
expanding the size of it. In addition to looking at current 
threats, we need to look ahead; growing our resources in this 
area will allow us to do this.
    Artificial intelligence will bring new threats in this 
area. It has a lot of advantages, but like most technologies it 
also has a darker side. Quantum computing is another example, 
it has advantages but it could also be used to break all the 
current encryption techniques.
    Another example is blockchain technologies. We have a pilot 
right now with Treasury that tests new auditing techniques that 
would be required if they adopt blockchain technology.
    In artificial intelligence, we have issued a framework so 
we can be positioned to audit algorithms used under artificial 
intelligence. We will continue to focus on artificial 
intelligence issues.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Amodei. The gentlelady from Oklahoma is recognized.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you for being here with us this morning.
    I want to start--you mentioned the cybersecurity aspect. 
And last Congress, I had the great pleasure of serving on the 
new subcommittee on House Armed Services focused on cyber. I 
don't think that there is enough emphasis put on the 
ramifications of a cyber attack across government.
    One of the things that I have been focused on is the, what 
they call, ``rip and replace'' of technology hardware that has 
been installed throughout government, whether that is local, 
State, municipal, or other agencies, that is equipment from 
adversarial nations.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Mrs. Bice. Do you have a little bit of insight that you can 
share with us about that rip and replace program?
    My understanding is there was $5 billion--or, I am sorry, 
there was $1.9 billion allocated for that program. There were 
over $5 billion in requests. There has just now been a first 
let to be able to start doing that.
    But this is an important piece, because the potential harm 
that can be done by having this equipment within our 
infrastructure is grave, and I don't know that it has gotten 
enough attention.
    Can you speak a little bit to that?
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes, absolutely.
    On this particular program, I don't think we have done a 
detailed evaluation. I will check, and if we do, we will let 
you know.
    But the broader issue you bring up is a supply-chain issue. 
We have done a lot of work on supply-chain issues in 
information technology. We have come up with a set of best 
practices. We compared those to what agencies are doing, 
including Defense; we found them short of those best practices. 
We issued that report before the SolarWinds incident happened.
    So we are very aware of this problem. You are right to be 
concerned about it. I am too. And I would like to do more work 
in that area. Because the government is moving to zero-trust 
architecture, which is all based upon knowing who, along in the 
supply chain, you can trust.
    Mrs. Bice. And to follow up on that, can you talk a little 
bit about the technology that GAO is using currently and what 
you are looking to potentially upgrade in the near future? I 
know there is a lot of different--whether that is e-discovery 
software or other things that would be helpful.
    Talk a little bit about where you are now and what the 
future looks like----
    Mr. Dodaro. Sure.
    Mrs. Bice [continuing]. For the organization.
    Mr. Dodaro. Sure. We are in the process now of moving to 
the cloud in most of our operations. We have a multiyear IT 
modernization underway. We are taking steps to ensure it is 
secure and we have good computer security over the information 
we collect.
    We are replacing our document management system, which is 
all the records that we keep for our audits. The system we have 
in place now is over 30 years old. So we are replacing that as 
we go forward.
    Mrs. Bice. How long do you anticipate that process to take?
    Mr. Dodaro. I am hopeful, if we get the support from the 
committee, that we can have that done within the next year or 
two.
    Mrs. Bice. And you started that process in----
    Mr. Dodaro. Well, we started moving to the cloud a few 
years ago. For example, our email is in the cloud now. But not 
all of our operations are in the cloud.
    Completing our move to the cloud, is a multi-year effort--
we are moving at a deliberate pace because we want to be 
careful about how we are doing it, make sure we have good 
security and that we have good, access to everything we need. 
Some of the federal contracts haven't been struck very 
carefully, and so I want to do that.
    For the document management system, we are on track to try 
to do that next fiscal year.
    Mrs. Bice. One of the challenges I see with the procurement 
and acquisitions structure is that it takes so long to move to 
new software applications or new technologies. And I think that 
we are up against a time crunch now. We don't have time to 
spend waiting for approval at every step. In some cases, we 
need to really figure out how can we move forward quickly, 
because we are falling behind----
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Mrs. Bice [continuing]. And I think that is a really 
dangerous place for us to be.
    So, certainly, anything that we can do to speed up that 
procurement and acquisitions process, particularly for software 
and technology, I am happy to help with.
    Mr. Dodaro. The basic thing would be having stability in 
our funding. I mean, part of the problem is that, almost every 
year we are in a continuing resolution process. So we enter a 
year, and maybe a quarter or half through the year we don't 
know what our funding is going to be for that year. It is hard 
to enter into a multiyear procurement without knowing that you 
are going to be able to honor your commitments that you are 
making.
    We have also created, on our audit side, an Innovation Lab 
where we are testing new technologies we want to be able to 
develop and test new audit technologies and methods that are 
needed as federal activities grow in size and complexity.
    And so I am very aware of the issue. Part of the problem we 
had--and I mentioned earlier in response to one of is that 
during sequestration we lost 12 percent of our staff. We also 
stopped a lot of our IT modernizations during that period of 
time so that we would not have to lay people off. I didn't want 
to lose our talent base.
    So we are still catching up from some of those problems we 
have had in the past. And I hope that with robust funding we 
could move quicker.
    Mrs. Bice. Great. Thank you.
    My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Additional questions from any committee members 
for the General?
    Seeing none, General, I have a few.
    You have alluded to it in your testimony, but--you know, 
what we have been asked to do--is 100 percent of your work 
requirements generated by Members of the House and Senate?
    Mr. Dodaro. Almost 100 percent. There is a small number, 
like 5 percent, that I will reserve to determine new areas that 
we need to invest in. Like, originally, we did a lot of 
computer security work under my authority. But after we start 
work on our own Congress starts asking for it.
    Part of the work that we do under my authority includes 
budget scrubs that we do for the Appropriations Committee. We 
go through the President's budget request every year for major 
departments and agencies and see where there are unused 
obligations and therefore, an opportunity where there is a need 
to reduce funds in some areas that they have carryover money. 
That work is done under my authority, rather than have requests 
from the committees every year.
    We also work on identifying fraud, waste, and abuse in the 
government under my authority.
    And then I will do some targeted areas. For example, our 
housing agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they are still in 
Federal conservatorship from the 2008-2009 global financial 
crisis. And a lot of the housing risk right now, if there is a 
downturn in the housing economy, it lays at the Federal 
Government's footstep, because the Federal Government is either 
directly or indirectly guaranteeing about 70 percent of 
individual home mortgages.
    And so, I issued a framework for the Congress that they 
could use in making decisions on how to decide whether to 
privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or use a hybrid model.
    But most all of our workload is driven by the mandates and 
requests.
    Mr. Amodei. So is it fair to say that 100 percent of what 
you do is either a direct request or related to that oversight 
function that you play in supporting the Congress?
    Mr. Dodaro. Absolutely.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay.
    And so you are in a unique situation--and, actually, the 
committee is in a unique situation--that it is no surprise to 
anybody here that the general atmosphere is going to be, okay, 
how can we cut, how can we reduce, blah, blah, blah. It is your 
job to take a look at if people are doing what they were 
supposed to do, being asked by--the vast majority of those 
comments, or missions, if you will, are generated by specific 
legislation, committee chairs, committee ranking members, that 
sort of stuff.
    So if you were going to play the GAO, looking at yourself, 
when this committee comes forward with its recommendations in 
front of the full committee and then on the floor, what would 
you say? ``Hey, here is why''--and I am not putting words in 
your mouth.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yes.
    Mr. Amodei. They will be your words. But it is like, ``If 
you value oversight, if you value responsiveness, if you 
value''--go ahead and take off from there.
    Mr. Dodaro. Yeah. No, absolutely.
    First, I would say, if Congress wants to have an aggressive 
posture on reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal 
Government, if Congress wants to generate good ideas, smart 
ideas on how to cut the Federal Government's spending without 
harming individuals, and if Congress wants an effective 
oversight mechanism over the executive branch, you need a 
strong GAO.
    And without us being strong, your ability, Congress's 
ability, to manage and oversee the rest of the Federal 
Government will be severely diminished.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay. Thank you.
    I want to thank you for your testimony.
    Members may submit additional questions, not forever, 
within--yeah. If you have additional questions, please contact 
the committee staff so that we can get them to you and they can 
be meaningful in time for markup and that sort of stuff.
    General, thank you very much. Appreciate your appearance 
and your testimony.
    The meeting is adjourned.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                          Thursday, March 23, 2023.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                               WITNESSES

CARLA HAYDEN, PH.D., LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, MARY MAZANEC, PH.D., 
    DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, MARIA STRONG, ASSOCIATE 
    REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS AND DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS, 
    UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE
    Mr. Amodei. The meeting of the Legislative Branch 
Subcommittee will come to order.
    Since it seems to be going okay so far and nobody has 
complained about the chair not doing opening remarks, we are 
going to stick with that proven formula.
    And I am going to recognize the ranking member, Mr. 
Espaillat, for your opening remarks.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, Dr. Hayden, for coming here and for your 
colleagues being here as well today.
    The Library of Congress is a national treasure, and it has 
unparalleled resources, as you know. I appreciate your 
commitment to making it more accessible to every American 
across the country and particularly to us here in Congress.
    Importantly, we look forward to the unveiling of the 
Visitor Experience Center in 2025. My team was able to take a 
peek at that, and they really bragged about it. So we are 
looking forward to that.
    And as ranking member, I am committed to ensuring that the 
Library has the resources it needs to continue its mission, 
safeguard its collection, and provide a robust cybersecurity 
protection for all of us.
    I would also like to thank and recognize the staff of the 
Congressional Research Service, especially the Appropriations 
Team and Executive Branch Operations Section, for their 
continued support and essential support to our entire 
committee.
    So I look forward to your testimony. Thank you, Dr. Hayden.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
    I would like to thank our witness for being here, the 
Librarian of Congress.
    Ms. Strong is also here, representing Ms. Shira Perlmutter 
for the Copyright Office. And Dr. Mazanec is here, representing 
the Congressional Research Service. Ms. Perlmutter and Dr. 
Mazanec's testimony have been submitted for the record.
    Mr. Amodei. And I now recognize you, Dr. Hayden, for your 
summary of your written testimony. Welcome.
    Dr. Hayden. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Amodei, Ranking 
Member Espaillat, and members of the subcommittee, for this 
opportunity to provide testimony in support of the Library's 
2024 budget.
    And I am pleased to report that in fiscal year 2022 the 
Library returned to regular operations. Visitors and 
researchers returned on site. The reading rooms reopened and 
in-person events multiplied, while our very popular virtual 
programming continued.
    And with the support of Congress, the Library continued to 
build collections in multiple formats and engage users in a 
variety of ways. Today, the physical collections contain nearly 
175 million items, and many of those are in digital form. And 
the Library's digital engagement increased dramatically since 
2020.
    I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the 
support from this committee and Congress in general for 
investing in our recent IT infrastructure; also, the Visitor 
Experience Initiative. We have raised over--almost--and you 
see, I am ready to go there--we have raised almost $20 million 
from donors nationwide for this impactful initiative. And our 
goal is to have engaging new spaces in the Thomas Jefferson 
Building open to the public for the Nation's 250-year 
celebration in 2026.
    I come before you today to discuss the Library of 
Congress's appropriations request for $940.8 million, a 7.5-
percent increase over the fiscal year 2023 enacted 
appropriation. This request includes $45.8 million in mandatory 
pay and price level increases, and the remaining increases 
represent critical investments necessary to meet the Library's 
mission.
    With modern IT infrastructure in place, thanks to your 
support, we are using a continuous development approach to 
ensure improvements as we manage all of the Library's 
technology, and our requests build on that: for instance, 
resources for Congress.gov to build capacity to continue to 
serve Congress effectively.
    The U.S. Copyright Office has reached major milestones 
toward a new Enterprise Copyright System, ECS, which is 
transforming the entire copyright process. And the budget 
request this year asks for a permanent base for continuing to 
develop the ECS.
    The Library's special responsibility to the National 
Library for the Blind and Print Disabled extends to critical IT 
systems that ensure accessibility for its patrons and blind 
staff. The request this year includes staffing dedicated to 
continuous innovation and development of these systems. Other 
forms would replace very obsolete talking-book machines with 
web-based systems and make refreshable Braille e-readers 
available to patrons.
    In addition, we have a request for support for the 
increasing volume and complexity of the contracts that support 
the growing IT structure that we have, and that would mean 
additional experienced staff for the Library's Contracts and 
Grants Directorate.
    Other requests would ensure more responsibility for the 
service to Congress.
    And with the significant increase in the volume and 
complexity of bills introduced, the CRS, Congressional Research 
Service, requests additional staff to accommodate the growing 
Bill Digest workload and to enhance its support for Congress.
    There is also a request for a pilot program for 
quantitative analysis of research and operational big data to 
meet emerging congressional demand.
    We recognize the challenges that result from the current 
fiscal environment, and we know that our programmatic requests 
this year represent the most necessary and impactful priorities 
that will enhance our ability to serve Congress and the 
American people.
    So thank you for your support, and we look forward to your 
questions.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Dr. Hayden.
    And Dr. Hayden's written testimony will be part of our 
record, as well as the stuff that I have indicated before.
    And so the chair now recognizes for questions the 
Representative from the Bronx, Mr. Espaillat.
    Mr. Espaillat. And Manhattan. Thank you, Chairman. I mean, 
we went from the Empire State to the Big Apple to the Boogie 
Down Bronx.
    Thank you for the opportunity.
    Dr. Hayden, I know that all of us really enjoy the Library. 
And I wanted to get your impression on how you feel the 
services that you provide will be compromised if the 
discretionary spending cuts come through. And what will be the 
impact on the work that you do there?
    Dr. Hayden. There is no aspect of the Library's work and 
the people we serve that would not be affected by reductions in 
resources.
    And because the Library is roughly 65 percent pay, and the 
non-pay is used for the majority of the modernization efforts, 
some that I referred to just a minute ago, the support to 
Congress specifically, as well as the people it serves, would 
be dramatic, depending on the reduction.
    For instance, depending on the size of a reduction, we 
would immediately implement a year-long hiring freeze and not 
backfill positions from attrition, which would then make our 
FTE count go down, and you would have fewer people doing more 
work. We would have to mandate, for instance, furlough days, 
and that would have a real effect on our ability to provide 
timely service to Congress.
    So CRS is 85 to 90 percent pay. They are people. So when 
you cut CRS, you are cutting direct service to Congress.
    Then, copyright registrations. We have made great strides. 
We talked about the milestones. But the work on the new 
copyright system that our public stakeholders are very 
interested in--that is why our Register is actually in 
California, at a copyright conference, where they are urging us 
to continue--that work would stop.
    Our other IT systems, the National Library for the Blind 
and Physically Handicapped, the rollout of the e-readers would 
curtail. We circulate about 22 million items to the blind and 
print-disabled each year. And when you think about the impact 
on that community, people who are really dependent on our 
services throughout the country--I can go on, with the 
cataloging of the materials that we provide for thousands of 
libraries throughout the country.
    Digitizing the collection. Our security and IT development 
would be compromised. And that is one we would have to make 
sure that we preserve, because cybersecurity is so important, 
so we have to maintain that.
    And then, of course, we would have to reduce the public 
services, the on-site services in those reading rooms. So some 
would close, reduced hours. And then things like our signature 
programming and those things would have to be halted.
    So it is the degradation of services, right when we are 
coming out of really renewing what the Library had to endure in 
previous years. So----
    Mr. Espaillat. And you mentioned cybersecurity, and that is 
so important to all of us. In fact, the Library of Congress 
experienced more than 180,000 attempted cyber attacks in a 
year.
    Dr. Hayden. Yes.
    Mr. Espaillat. What is the Library doing to handle that? 
What are you proposing to do?
    Dr. Hayden. Well, thank you for mentioning that, because we 
are a target, and we know that, and we take it very seriously, 
and we have a very robust security system.
    And we are very fortunate to have a CIO, Judith Conklin, 
who is here, who is a cybersecurity expert, and who could, if 
you wouldn't mind, give you even more in depth, because there 
are certain things we can say publicly, but--Judith is that.
    And just as she comes up, she is receiving in a couple of 
weeks her second award for public service, specifically for 
what she does with cybersecurity and making sure our systems--
--
    Ms. Conklin. Thank you, Dr. Hayden.
    Dr. Hayden [continuing]. Are not attacked.
    Mr. Espaillat. Ms. Conklin, could I have you just hang on 
for a minute? I wanted to make Mr. Franklin aware, before you 
started testifying----
    Ms. Conklin. Oh, sorry.
    Mr. Espaillat [continuing]. She is a former Army officer. 
So I would expect you would be open-minded, based on your 
military background, to anything she would have to say.
    Please proceed.
    Dr. Hayden. She was a major.
    Ms. Conklin. But Army.
    Thank you for the question. And thank you for your concern 
about cybersecurity at the Library of Congress. Cybersecurity 
is a passion of mine, and it is a top priority for me as the 
CIO.
    The cybersecurity program at the Library of Congress really 
took off in 2002. And it was built in a non-centralized way, 
and the specialists were down in the businesses.
    When, as you know, in 2015, technology needed to be 
revamped in our agency, and Dr. Hayden arrived in 2016, and she 
directed centralization, we centralized the cybersecurity 
roles. And that has strengthened it significantly.
    So we have cybersecurity professionals under our Chief 
Information Security Officer. We have an authorizing official, 
Steve Elky, that started building it in 2002, and he is very, 
very well knowledgeable in IT security. And he only allows 
things on the production network; it takes his signature to do 
that. Our CISO, Sean Lang, is very technical and works with the 
legislative branch CISOs also.
    From a tools perspective, we are always vigilant. We are 
always monitoring the network, monitoring our assets, 
monitoring folks coming in or attempting to come in. We have a 
24-hour virtual SOC, security operations center.
    And we have been very lucky to receive support from 
Congress since 2015 on our IT security initiatives, and that 
has helped us strengthen the security program.
    So I feel very strong that we are very mature in our IT 
security program, but we continue to mature, because the cyber 
threats in the world continue to evolve.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you.
    Dr. Hayden. I would also add that we have added additional 
funding to have additional background checks for certain staff 
members, even the ones that are physically around some of our 
equipment. So we have stepped that up too, and so that is 
increased in our budget.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you so much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. The gentleman from Kansas, you are recognized. 
The floor is yours, Mr. LaTurner.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Hayden, I wanted to ask about the trend line. Digital 
engagement increased dramatically since the start of the 
pandemic. Have you seen that trend continue this year?
    Dr. Hayden. Yes, we have. And what is very interesting, at 
certain points, when we post something or we have a special 
something to put out, like when we had a pop star that used one 
of our historic flutes, we saw a dramatic uptick, and we were 
able to see that quite a few people were looking and saying, 
what else does the Library of Congress have?
    Mr. LaTurner. The flute helped.
    Dr. Hayden. It helped quite a bit, quite a bit, because 
then they are seeing all of this, and then they look and they 
say, oh, you have a digital jukebox, or you have old movies, 
you have photographs, you have maps, you have this, you have 
that, and people start exploring what we call our digital front 
door, our website.
    And so to see that increase and to see it being sustained 
is very rewarding.
    Mr. LaTurner. Talk about, a little bit, the funds to 
improve IT contracting.
    Dr. Hayden. We find--and we are not alone--that the 
attrition rate for contractors, people who can work in 
contracting, is rather high. For the Library in general, it 
averages about 7 to 8 percent attrition. And that area in 
contracts, it is about 25 percent.
    And we share the difficulty with other agencies that those 
people are very highly sought after, and so we have to do more 
to recruit them but also to make sure that we maintain staff 
there.
    Mr. LaTurner. Talk a little bit about the plan to develop 
Congress.gov. What does that look like?
    Dr. Hayden. Ah. Well, you have Mary Mazanec here, but 
before she starts, I want you to know that, in terms of impact 
and budget impact, that would be a system that would be 
impacted. Because right now, for instance, we are able to have 
every 3 weeks new improvements to Congress.gov for its 
continuous improvement in doing that.
    So we are on track for that, we have been funded for that, 
and it is vital to the work.
    Dr. Mazanec. So Congress.gov is also the repository of the 
bill summaries. And one of the concerns that have been raised 
is the timeliness of the bill summaries. And if you compare the 
number of measures introduced from the 115th to the 117th, 
there has been a 30-percent increase, and the bills are more 
complex.
    So the programmatic increase that we have requested would 
fund 12 additional slots that would increase the size of the 
team that does bill summaries by a third, and it would 
hopefully improve the timeliness of bill summaries by 40 
percent. We are also requesting four additional FTEs to help 
support continuous upgrades and improvement to Congress.gov.
    Congress.gov is a joint effort between CRS and other parts 
of the Library. Also, the Clerk of the House and the Secretary 
of the Senate, they are also partners in this effort. And so we 
are constantly trying to introduce new features to Congress.gov 
that you find useful.
    Mr. LaTurner. Sure. I appreciate that. And I see your 
lanyard. Go Irish!
    And I yield back, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. LaTurner, for that.
    And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from the 
Sunshine State, Mr. Franklin.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Dr. Hayden. I appreciate learning about your 
organization. I have always been a fan of it. And, you know, 
like everything I have experienced around here, there is a lot 
more to it under the hood as I start diving in.
    I guess I am curious to know more on the personnel side, 
because so many of the entities that fall under leg. branch are 
people-driven. That is where the source of the budget primarily 
lies.
    How has telework evolved within your organization, pre-
pandemic? And then now that we have come back out of that, are 
you seeing some permanent changes? And what would you consider 
some of the benefits?
    And are there challenges, say, culturally or, you know, 
transitioning knowledge? As we hear from most branches, you 
know, we are seeing a brain drain in a lot of areas as people 
retire from the workforce. How do we transition that knowledge 
to the next generations? And what challenges do you see when 
folks aren't always face-to-face?
    Dr. Hayden. Our post-pandemic telework policy was 
redesigned to make sure that we have our mission stable, to 
serve Congress and the public, and then also, though, to 
provide the flexibilities that we really got a chance to see 
during the pandemic.
    And what we know and the way we have revised the policy is 
that there are going to be differences based on the unit. For 
instance, you have CRS, very direct-service-intensive; the 
reading rooms, people coming in. There are different units that 
had to look at their own policies.
    And there are requirements now that we have where there is 
a minimum of on site regardless and then there are 
opportunities for more telework based on what the position is. 
For instance, IT, they could do different types of things. So 
it depends on the type of service that is being provided.
    But we made sure that we had some flexibilities, and we 
learned what those are, but we also wanted to make sure that we 
maintain a certain level of service. And so those checks and 
balances are in there with that.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay.
    I would think, within your realm, that being associated 
with the Library of Congress would be like the World Series. 
You know, everyone would want to be affiliated with the 
organization. It would make your staff very enticing to folks 
elsewhere. I mean, I would think having experience with the 
Library of Congress would look very good on a resume.
    Do you find yourself--are you poached a lot from 
universities and other entities trying to hire away your 
people? And do you have a salary structure that is competitive 
to keep your best?
    Dr. Hayden. What the Library of Congress has--and I am 
speaking as a career librarian--is that it is almost like you 
are going to the top, all right, and it is the Nation's Library 
and that. So you have that, even though sometimes the salaries 
might not be as competitive with universities and colleges. And 
then in other areas--for instance, IT--you have to look at 
that.
    So we have interesting projects that people could get 
involved with. But that also gives you more of a turnover. 
Possibly, people get the experience at the Library of Congress 
and then industry might take them away.
    So we try to keep staff members engaged and to make sure 
that we at least--and that is when you think about the telework 
policy, for instance, some flexibilities. Before the pandemic, 
it was rather rigid.
    So we look at our HR policies in terms of being attractive 
not just for the status but the fact that people--Washington, 
D.C., physically living in this area is sometimes a challenge.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay.
    Well, I thank you that you have brought the dinner series 
back. I am looking forward to participating in those. And as I 
came in last session as a freshman, I was told really across 
the board that, of all the events and things you can go to in 
D.C., those speaker series, the dinners, are one of the best 
things in Washington. So I am glad to see we are putting that 
part of the pandemic behind us.
    But I don't have any other questions, Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you. You should know, they also have a 
lunch series which you don't have to pass an entrance exam for. 
It is just in the cafeteria every day at noon. That is the one 
I have been able to go to, but not with a lot of frequency. But 
they are working on lowering the standards for the other one.
    I appreciate that, Dr. Hayden.
    The gentleman from the Peach State, Mr. Clyde, you have the 
floor.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
    Ladies, thank you for being here.
    To Dr. Hayden, the offsetting collections that are reported 
here for fiscal year 2022, I believe that is about $44 million, 
almost $45 million. That would be on summary tables. How do you 
handle that? As in, are those collections then used for the 
next year's budget, or do they decrease the appropriation for 
the current year?
    Dr. Hayden. My understanding is they are in Copyright.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay.
    Dr. Hayden. And that is an area that--and you might want to 
speak to that.
    Ms. Strong is here.
    Ms. Strong. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Hayden.
    Yes. So the Copyright Office is funded in two ways, by 
appropriated dollars from Congress as well as offsetting 
collections, which are the payments and fees that we collect 
for some of our services.
    And so we are not a fully fee-funded agency----
    But the offsetting collections are those fees that we 
generate from that. And so that does pay for part of the 
Copyright Office basic budget.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay. But the question was, what fiscal year? 
The year that you collect them? Are they used the year that you 
collect them, or are they the next year?
    Ms. Strong. My understanding is we definitely try to use it 
the years that collect. We do have a very small prior-year fund 
of, I believe, $1 million, which we can use to go back to a 
prior year that would go to the next year.
    So we do have a very small fund to use to fund the next 
year's event--but primarily we aim to execute in that fiscal 
year.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay. Thank you.
    I went back and looked at your 2019 budget, which was about 
$696 million. And then if you look at offsetting collections, 
projected for fiscal year 2024 at $45.5 million, that would be 
a total appropriation of almost $742 million.
    Would you be able to make the Library of Congress work 
efficiently with that kind of an appropriation for fiscal year 
2024?
    Dr. Hayden. You are referring to the 2019?
    Mr. Clyde. I am. The pre-COVID.
    Dr. Hayden. It would be very difficult.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay. Could you do it?
    Dr. Hayden. When you say ``operate,'' it would be at a 
reduced--reduced services, reduced everything, for the public, 
for Congress which is our primary goal. We are the Library of 
Congress. CRS would be severely damaged, because they are 90 
percent personnel and people.
    So services to Congress and the people Congress serves 
would be severely affected.
    Mr. Clyde. So the current ask is $895 million. This year's 
enacted was $828.5 million. And this would be, then, 741, 742, 
so about $75 million less than what you are currently getting?
    Dr. Hayden. Are you----
    Mr. Clyde. About three-quarters of a billion dollars.
    Dr. Hayden. And I just want to clarify----
    Mr. Clyde. Sure.
    Dr. Hayden [continuing]. What you are asking. In terms of 
the effect on services to Congress and the public?
    Mr. Clyde. Sure, why not.
    Dr. Hayden. There would be service cuts.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay. All right.
    To Director Mazanec, you spent about an entire page of your 
eight-page testimony, I believe, on talking about diversity, 
equity, and inclusion training. How much money do you actually 
spend on that annually?
    Dr. Mazanec. I don't have that figure in my head. We can 
certainly calculate that and get it back to you.
    We try to do quarterly trainings for the staff and for 
managers on diversity and inclusion topics. It is a priority of 
mine to recruit and retain a diverse workforce and have a very 
inclusive work environment.
    But I can get back to you with a specific figure.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay. I understand you have a website dedicated 
to it?
    Dr. Mazanec. We recently introduced----
    Mr. Clyde. And newsletter, et cetera?
    Dr. Mazanec [continuing]. Introduced a website that has all 
the information on it. I wouldn't call it a newsletter. There 
is on-site information that staff can look at.
    We have expanded our efforts to participate in recruitment 
events--we did 30 last year; we have done 8 this year--to try 
to reach populations that are not routinely represented in the 
Federal workforce.
    And I think it has had an impact. At the senior level, 
which I am involved in, in selecting people, since 2020, we 
have had eight senior-level hires, senior-level managers. Five 
have added diversity. So we are making an impact.
    Mr. Clyde. Uh-huh. I only used the term ``newsletter'' 
because you used it in your testimony here. That is all.
    Okay. I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Any other questions from committee members?
    Okay.
    Dr. Hayden, we learned something this morning in the GAO 
hearing that I would encourage you folks to do if it is 
appropriate, and that is to supplement your testimony, because 
we all know that we are in a challenging fiscal environment. As 
you go through your presentation, if there are areas where you 
go, ``Hey, here is the value that we are providing,'' so that--
when we look to make the decisions that will inevitably have to 
be made, I think part of the consideration needs to be, where 
is the value?
    Now, that may be a hard thing to quantify, and if you 
can't, you can't. But I want to encourage you, so that all 
committee members can see. It is like, ``So here is what we are 
asking for, and here is what we have done programmatically,'' 
but to try to reduce that to a, ``By the way, here is the value 
that we are providing for the dollars that you are spending on 
us.'' If you can quantify that somehow, we would certainly 
encourage you to do that to supplement it.
    And we are not picking on you guys. We are going to ask 
everybody, ``Hey, where is the value here?'' so that when those 
decisions are made, it is not just, ``Where do we start, and 
how do we get to where we need to get?'' So that if there are 
cuts, not that you wouldn't have the discretion to see how you 
implement those, but we want to be as well-informed as 
possible.
    So I put that out there for you.
    Dr. Hayden. Thank you.
    Mr. Amodei. And, with that, since there are no other 
questions or whatever, the members have 10 days--I am making 
that up, so don't look for the rule--10 days to submit 
additional questions on behalf of committee members.
    Mr. Amodei. And the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
    Dr. Hayden. Thank you.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

                                            Friday, March 24, 2023.

                              MEMBER'S DAY

    Mr. Amodei. The subcommittee will come to order.
    Today is our Member Day hearing for the Legislative Branch 
Subcommittee on Appropriations. I would like to thank our 
witness, Mr. Kilmer, for being here. I now recognize the 
ranking member for his opening remarks.
    Mr. Espaillat, the floor is yours.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Congratulations on all the work that you accomplished in 
the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress over the 
last 4 years. That committee has passed over 200 
recommendations to improve the way Congress works, and this 
subcommittee has been supported by providing the necessary 
resource. In fiscal year 2023, we provided $10 million for 
modernization.
    I think what we have heard here so far from most of the 
witnesses is that we need to really modernize. We are falling 
behind rapidly, and that is not good for cyber security, that 
is not food for the way we conduct our business, that is not 
good for the future of our Nation.
    So thank you, Mr. Kilmer, for your commitment.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat.
    I would like to thank Mr. Kilmer for being here. Hope you 
are feeling better and going to feel even more so. The floor is 
yours for your statement. And for the record, we have your 
statement, which will be made part of the record. And public 
witness testimonies for all topics related to Member Day will 
also be part of our record.
    Mr. Kilmer, please.
                              ----------                             


                                            Friday, March 24, 2023.

                                WITNESS

HON. DEREK KILMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    WASHINGTON
    Mr. Kilmer. Great. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, 
and Mr. Clyde, thank you to your staff as well for paying 
attention to this stuff. Apologies that I look a little like 
Frankenstein or like unshaven Frankenstein. I had sleep apnea 
surgery earlier this week, so a little bit the walking wounded.
    I wanted to talk about the work of the Select Committee on 
the Modernization of Congress. As Mr. Espaillat said, our 
committee over the course of the last two Congresses passed 202 
bipartisan recommendations. At this point, 45 have been fully 
implemented, and another 87 are on their way to implementation. 
And that is in no small part due to the work of this 
subcommittee.
    The new majority created a subcommittee now as part of 
House Admin that is going to focus on implementation of the 
remaining recommendations.
    And we covered a whole lot of terrain, looking at how this 
institution can do a better job of recruiting and retaining and 
having a more diverse staff, working on having this institution 
be more civil and collaborative, working on strengthening how 
our institution does law making and conducts oversight, working 
on modernizing the workplace and how we use technology as an 
institution. And while we were able to get a whole lot done, 
there is a whole lot of work that remains. And I want to thank 
this subcommittee for helping us move forward where we have.
    The omnibus that we passed at the end of last year included 
funding. And particularly and the thing I want to underscore is 
for the Modernization Initiative Account. That provides some 
flexibility to the institution so that we don't have to 
necessarily micromanage every one of the 202 recommendations 
and their implementation, but rather gives the CAO some 
flexibility to move forward.
    The omnibus also included funding for the MRA, which was 
important. As we look to improve the institution, that matters. 
Funding to provide paid internships and to develop an intern 
resource office. We heard in House Admin last week that that 
process is underway so that there can be some--a more 
systematic way of bringing on interns and making sure that the 
internship experience is positive for the young people who come 
and work here.
    Expanding the student loan repayment program so that it 
also covers tuition assistance, if we have a member of our team 
who wants to take night classes or go get a grad degree while 
they are working for us. Mr. Espaillat mentioned cyber 
security. I had a team member who was our MLA who wanted to get 
an advanced degree in cyber security policy while they were 
doing defense policy for us. Being able to provide that tuition 
assistance was a positive change provided in the omnibus.
    And working on improving childcare options was something 
that we heard consistently as we engaged with staff within the 
institution, and all of that saw some progress in the omnibus. 
So again, thanks to this subcommittee for that.
    As we look at fiscal year 2024, I think the main thing I 
want to plea for is just level funding for the next year for 
the Modernization Initiatives Account. That will help move 
forward some of the recommendations that haven't yet been 
implemented, with an eye towards reducing turnover, providing 
more efficiency within the institution, helping the institution 
be more effective and get its work done.
    A lot of the recommendations of the select committee 
actually save money and with minimal upfront investment. We can 
actually save a fair amount of money streamlining some of the 
purchasing across the House and the Senate. Setting up a system 
where we can have House-wide bulk purchasing of goods and 
services can cut back on waste and inefficiency, trying to 
drive more implementation of some of the Government 
Accountability Office recommendations. Those all are focused on 
saving taxpayer dollars and were all bipartisan recommendations 
of the select committee.
    Through the--we put into the portal not just a request for 
money, but a fair amount of report language with directive 
language to primarily the CAO about where we are hoping that 
the CAO's office will focus. That includes launching a new 
calendar tool to reduce committee conflicts for Members so that 
we can actually attend more of our committee hearings.
    Most colleges and universities and high schools have 
figured out how to deconflict the schedule. For those of us 
appropriators who, as I was yesterday, were in three 
subcommittee hearings at the exact same time, we have not 
cracked the code as an institution on deconflicting the 
calendar. We--to quote the beginning of the TV show The Six 
Million Dollar Man, ``we have the technology, we know how to 
fix him.''
    In that same vein, the Modernization Initiatives Account 
could fund the select committee recommendation to the chief 
administrative officer to construct a committee feedback tool 
that committee leadership could use to solicit Member feedback 
to improve the operations of our committees. Think about sort 
of Yelpifying the work of our committees so that we can 
actually try to improve.
    On top of that, the Account can be used to better serve our 
constituents and implement some of the recommendations that 
were made around constituent engagement and constituent 
services, including setting up a best practices hub, making 
sure that our offices are getting more cutting edge 
correspondence technology tools so that we can respond to our 
constituents in a more thorough and timely fashion.
    One of the recommendations that we made that was bipartisan 
and that Members were pretty enthusiastic about was trying to 
aggregate and anonymize casework data. So Imagine, you know, 
Mr. Clyde, in your office, if you get three or four messages on 
the same VA issue, you might say that seems unusual, but if we 
discovered that every office was getting three or four, 
suddenly we recognize, hey, there is a systemic problem in the 
VA, let's go to work on that systemic problem. Same thing with 
the IRS or Social Security or you name it.
    We don't really have a way of aggregating that data, 
identifying trends, and being able to solve problems. So one of 
our recommendations that can be funded out of the Modernization 
Initiatives Account is to do that.
    Improving some of the transparency regarding the work of 
Congress for our constituents so that they can do a better job 
of providing feedback and offering opinions on pending 
legislation for staff. The Modernizations Initiatives Account 
could provide for the automation of obtaining bill sponsors to 
save staff time and reduce the risk of error.
    Having a staff directory so that our staffs can better 
collaborate on policy issues. Most management consulting firms, 
including the one I worked for, had a sort of firm intranet, so 
that if you wanted to dive into a particular area, you could 
quickly find people who have expertise in that area.
    Forming a mentorship program, which is something that we 
heard from junior staff in particular, that they wanted to see 
happen within the institution so that they could improve, 
develop professionally, and hopefully stick around so that we 
don't see the turnover that we have seen here.
    I think I will leave it at that. I submitted written 
testimony to you, but I kind of wanted to hit the highlights of 
some of the areas where I think, if we move forward with 
implementation with some of these recommendations, the 
institution will be better, will be more efficient, will be 
more transparent to our constituents, will hopefully be more 
collaborative, and hopefully as an institution, we can get some 
more stuff done.
    [The statement of Mr. Kilmer follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer.
    Mr. Clyde the floor is yours.
    Mr. Clyde. I have no questions.
    Mr. Amodei. Good.
    I can tell you that I will sure as hell vote for anything 
which deconflicts committee hearings. I don't want to say 
anything about sight unseen, but I will make an exception in 
that case. So thank you for your work.
    I am sorry. Fire away.
    Mr. Espaillat. Is there any like--one of the top three--I 
heard you mention, one of the top three modernization 
recommendations that your committee worked on that you feel 
need immediate action?
    Mr. Kilmer. Yeah. The ones that haven't been yet 
implemented?
    Mr. Espaillat. That is right, that haven't been 
implemented.
    Mr. Kilmer. Yeah. I think the committee deconfliction tool 
is one of the biggies. If you think about, as an institution, 
if we want policymaking to happen in a thoughtful way, it means 
we have to be able to show up at committee. The committee is 
where that work is supposed to happen.
    A lot of the discussion in the Speaker's race around 
getting back to regular order presumes that we can have 
functional committees. That is really hard when Members right 
now primarily pinball from committee to committee, by and large 
show up, make their 5-minute speech for social media and bail 
because they have got to get to the other committee that they 
are scheduled in at the same time.
    Mr. Espaillat. So you say that is the----
    Mr. Kilmer. I think that is a really big deal. If we want 
this institution to get back to being a regular order 
policymaking institution that allows for more collaborative 
give and take of ideas, committee has to be a place where that 
can happen, rather than be a place where people parachute in 
for 5 minutes and then bail because they are in three other 
committees at the same time. I think that is a biggie.
    A lot of the work around staff matters. This subcommittee, 
with the increase in the MRA, went a long way towards helping 
us. And I think data will show over time that we will be able 
to hang on to staff better with some of the changes that have 
been made. But there continue to be things that we have to do 
on the implementation side with regard to staffing. You know, 
and some of that is underway. The internship office is a good 
example of that.
    You know, if you think about, just as an example, a lot of 
our junior staff and a lot of eventually senior staff start out 
as interns. Making sure that those interns are learning the 
ropes in an effective way matters. The fact that we are now 
providing payment to interns matters because it means that 
interns aren't just the children of wealth who can afford to 
come to Washington, D.C., for an internship, that we are 
actually able to better diversify the ranks of our interns, and 
as a consequence, diversify the ranks of congressional staffs. 
And that is most often the sort of foot in the door.
    I think the other thing that I would mention--I mentioned 
this--the importance of having this tool related to case work. 
I think we are missing opportunities to fix things that are 
broken in government, because when our constituents reach out 
to us with a constituent problem with an agency, right now it 
is a discrete problem that only our office is hearing. And we 
don't necessarily know whether other offices are hearing the 
same thing.
    My sense is that there is a lot of examples where there is 
a systemic problem that if we just had a tool for being able to 
identify that, this institution could go to work on that and 
drive better accountability for our constituents.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you.
    Mr. Kilmer. You bet.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat.
    Mr. Clyde, still nothing?
    Mr. Clyde. I have nothing.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay. Mr. Kilmer, thank you. I know that, as 
you described, the institution or whatever, in some instances 
Member Day, before many committees it is like mandatory fun, 
but with the--with your presentation and your committee's work, 
it is certainly thought provoking in terms of how we try to do 
the right thing as far as what resources are given and where, 
which happens regardless of who is making the executive budget 
and that stuff. So appreciate your work.
    Mr. Kilmer. You bet.
    Mr. Amodei. We expect to be back in contact with you as we 
move on to the next phase of actually gathering the thoughts of 
Members and writing the bill.
    So thank you, sir. I hope you feel better.
    Mr. Kilmer. You too.
    Mr. Amodei. Since there are no further questions, the 
subcommittee will stand adjourned.

                                           Tuesday, March 28, 2023.

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                               WITNESSES

HON. CHERYL L. JOHNSON, CLERK, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HON. 
    WILLIAM McFARLAND, ACTING SERGEANT AT ARMS, U.S. HOUSE OF 
    REPRESENTATIVES, HON. CATHERINE L. SZPINDOR, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE 
    OFFICER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    Mr. Amodei. The meeting of the Legislative Branch 
Subcommittee will come to order.
    I am going to, for this meeting, do as I have done in the 
other meetings, which is forego opening remarks. And as I have 
indicated on the record in other ones, nobody has complained 
yet about the lack of opening remarks from the Chair, so we are 
going to stick with that.
    The subject of today's hearing is the ``Fiscal Year 2024 
Budget Request for the United States House of 
Representatives.'' And we will start with an opening statement 
from our ranking member.
    Mr. Espaillat, the floor is yours.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And good morning, still, to everyone.
    Congratulations, Madam Clerk and Ms. Szpindor, on your 
return to this Congress, as well as congratulations to Mr. 
McFarland on your acting role as Sergeant at Arms. I am looking 
forward to working with all of you, obviously, this Congress.
    The Committee has always supported the men and women that 
run our House, and we consider them family. I would like to 
take a moment to thank all the officers and officials and their 
staff on their extraordinary work this past year. You do an 
exceptional job, and we will continue to support you.
    The overall fiscal year 2024 request for the House of 
Representatives is $1.9 billion, which is $55.3 million, or 3 
percent, above the fiscal year 2024 enacted level.
    So we look forward to hearing from you and working with you 
and with our chairperson, and thank you.
    I will yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat.
    I would now recognize the Clerk of the House, the Honorable 
Cheryl Johnson, for your testimony in support of your budget.
    Ma'am, the floor is yours.
    Ms. Johnson. Good morning. Chairperson Amodei and Ranking 
Member Espaillat, members of the subcommittee, thank you for 
inviting me to testify regarding the Office of the Clerk's 
operations as well as our fiscal year 2024 budget request.
    The past several months have been unique in my tenure as 
Clerk of the House. The events at the beginning of the 118th 
Congress brought an increased awareness by the American public 
of some of the Clerk's duties in supporting the operations of 
the House. What the public saw, however, is simply the tip of 
the iceberg in terms of what the Clerk's Office does to support 
the House daily legislative activities.
    The Clerk's Office, as you know, is a nonpartisan 
organization composed of 244 full-time staff spread across 9 
offices. We provide a wide array of procedural assistance and 
support necessary for the orderly conduct of official business 
of the House, its Members, and committees.
    My goal throughout my tenure as Clerk has been to harmonize 
outstanding service with the responsible use of taxpayers' 
dollars. In other words, I am committed to tying all spending 
to actual need. It gives me great pride to report that we have 
continued to strike that balance while tackling new challenges 
and addressing expanded responsibilities.
    My written testimony goes into more detail about our budget 
request and some of our most important projects, but I would 
like to take a moment to highlight for you just one area of my 
budget today, which is maintenance, with an example of how some 
of those funds are used to support the House.
    I have here a Luminex II machine that I will pass around. 
This machine is used by our official reporters, better known as 
stenographers, and they use it to record everything from the 
State of the Union Address and committee hearings to House 
floor activities.
    That machine there costs approximately $6,000, and we have 
52 of those machines. And the annual maintenance and licensing 
costs are approximately $56,000 annually.
    To be clear, these are necessary costs to ensure that our 
stenographers have the tools in proper condition to enable them 
to provide accurate and timely service to House Members and 
committees.
    Last Thursday, our stenographers supported 42 committee 
meetings in a single day. Notwithstanding that level of 
activity, the reporter here with us today, Martin, will produce 
the transcript for this hearing so it can be reviewed by our 
editors and will be delivered to you, Mr. Chairman, no later 
than Thursday.
    I appreciate the subcommittee's ongoing support for the 
operations of the Office of the Clerk. For fiscal year 2024, I 
respectfully request $44,747,000. The request is a net increase 
of $3,920,000, or roughly 9.6 percent, above the fiscal year 
2023 enacted funding level.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Espaillat, subcommittee 
members, I want to reemphasize, in conclusion, that my staff 
and I share a commitment to providing outstanding service while 
remaining respectful that we are stewards of taxpayers' 
dollars. That combination provides me with great comfort as I 
constantly analyze the efficiencies of my office budget.
    We are all dedicated to making efficient and effective use 
of the funds allocated to our efforts in serving this great 
institution.
    Thank you again for your continued support, and I look 
forward to your questions. Thank you.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Madam Clerk.
    The record should reflect, Martin, that when that visual 
aid was handed back to you, it was in perfect working order.
    We will start with the ranking member, Mr. Espaillat.
    Staff. Mr. McFarland.
    Mr. Amodei. Oh, we don't want to give him a little time to 
see how the first one goes and how that goes?
    I am sorry. Thank you for yielding back, Mr. Ranking 
Member.
    Mr. Sergeant at Arms?
    First of all, before I recognize you for your testimony, 
have you brought any visual aids?
    Mr. McFarland. No, I did not, sir. Sorry.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay. The floor is yours, sir.
    Mr. McFarland. Thank you, sir.
    Good morning, Chair Amodei, Ranking Member Espaillat, and 
members of the committee. I appreciate the invitation to appear 
before you today and present the Office of the Sergeant at 
Arms' fiscal year 2024 budget request, which totals 
$33,628,000.
    I am very pleased to sit in front of you today and report 
that we are able to decrease our funding needs in fiscal year 
2024 by 13 percent overall.
    It is an honor and privilege to serve this institution and 
to collaborate with the committee to provide the necessary 
resources to serve the congressional community and to help keep 
Members, staff, visitors, and facilities safe and open to the 
public.
    Since I was sworn in as Acting Sergeant at Arms on January 
7, 2023, I have focused the efforts of my office on the mission 
of providing high-quality, customer-serving, nonpartisan 
services to improve the safety of Members and their families 
wherever they may be and to ensure that the Capitol complex and 
district offices are safe and secure to Members, staff, and 
visitors from across the country.
    I am deeply engaged with building our team up to provide 
you with the best security and safety services our office can 
offer. We are here to serve you, and my first priority is 
making sure that my team is appropriately resourced, trained, 
and aligned to provide you with the services you need to safely 
represent your constituents.
    While you will hear references to security throughout my 
discussion today, I also must point out that I recognize the 
challenging harmony that must be struck to improve security 
while maintaining the right for Americans to petition their 
elected officials. And it is in this spirit that I want to take 
the opportunity to highlight a few initiatives in the Sergeant 
at Arms' budget that will help achieve this goal.
    The appropriations request focuses on investing in the 
Sergeant at Arms' employees, modernizing the Sergeant at Arms 
Office, and continuing building security and safety programs.
    With respect to continuing existing security programs, 
included in the Sergeant at Arms' budget request is funding for 
the Residential Security Program. Based on the threat 
landscape, Member security concerns are not limited to the 
Capitol complex. To respond to this threat, and with the 
support of this subcommittee, last year our office was able to 
repurpose existing funds to start a program that provides for 
equipment installation and the monitoring and maintenance of 
security systems at a Member's residence.
    This program has been of significant interest for Members, 
and I can report that we have a robust, bipartisan 
participation in the program.
    The Sergeant at Arms is committed to modernizing and 
providing its services in a more customer-friendly and 
accessible way. This initiative includes a new outreach center 
located in Longworth House Office Building, and it is designed 
to make our trainings and services more accessible to the House 
community.
    Furthermore, we are delivering most of our services in a 
digital format and intend to continue to leverage technology to 
improve our services. Our office has launched eight digital 
training courses so Members and staff can receive important 
training on security best practices and emergency procedures 
anytime, anywhere, and we intend to expand these offerings.
    Included in the fiscal year 2024 budget request are certain 
digital tools to allow Members and offices to better access our 
services. One initiative included is a mobile duress capability 
that will allow Members to request emergency assistance or 
communicate with the U.S. Capitol Police. There are a number of 
other technologies available in the marketplace, and we hope to 
find an appropriate technology with the right controls and 
features to provide to the House community.
    Additionally, I would like to emphasize that the employees 
of the Sergeant at Arms are our most valuable resource. I want 
to thank them for their hard work and dedication to Congress.
    My funding request includes critical job-specific training 
for Sergeant at Arms staff in the areas of leadership and 
management, physical protection systems, emergency 
preparedness, project management, and customer service.
    The fiscal year 2024 Sergeant at Arms' budget request has 
been prepared in the spirit of zero-based budgeting, remaining 
fiscally responsible without jeopardizing mission-critical 
services provided to the House community.
    Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before 
the committee. I am deeply appreciative for the committee's 
support and partnership as we strive to maintain the 
challenging harmony between strong security measures and free 
and open access to the Capitol complex.
    I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Sergeant at Arms.
    Next, we will recognize the Chief Administrative Officer 
for the House, Chief Catherine Szpindor.
    Ma'am, the floor is yours.
    Ms. Szpindor. Thank you, Chairman Amodei, Ranking Member 
Espaillat, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the 
opportunity to discuss the Chief Administrative Office's fiscal 
year 2024 priorities and subsequent budget request.
    Our budget request is $227.9 million, which is $16.3 
million, or approximately 7.7 percent, above the fiscal year 
2023 enacted budget. To continue to support existing services 
and respond to new requests, our fiscal year 2024 budget needs 
to increase.
    We are requesting $2.5 million to fund existing personnel, 
recruitment efforts, and cost-of-living adjustments; $7.9 
million increase to enhance cloud security and support licenses 
for current software and the expansion of a data storage 
environment for robust data archiving retrieval services; $2.8 
million for consultants in the CAO Coach Program to develop 
content for professional development and training courses and 
for creative services contractors to work on popular multimedia 
design and photography services on behalf of the House; $1.2 
million for the House Recording Studio to support two 
audiovisual contractors and the much-needed 7-year-lifecycle 
replacement of recording studio equipment.
    $1.1 million is to support existing logistics and support 
contractors, the furniture warehouse contract, and the supplies 
and material costs associated with the Member Furniture 
Program.
    Finally, $750,000 of our requested increase is for 
sustainment of the House mail contract, the Human Resources 
Hub, and the House Resume Bank.
    With adequate funding, the CAO undertakes projects on 
behalf of Members and staff. For example, we are modernizing 
HouseNet, the House intranet, to evolve the platform into a 
single hub for easy user access to all CAO services in the 
House. This cloud-based platform has new capabilities, 
including improved search, user-personalized content, and 
creates a mobile-friendly and application-based experience. The 
new HouseNet will launch this year.
    In 2023, the CAO begins a multiyear process to modernize 
and replace our payroll and human resources systems, as the 
current system is near end of life. During the requirements 
phase, we will examine how to automate current manual 
procedures and processes. Also, we will evaluate possible 
changes to the House pay cycle, which is currently monthly for 
both Members and staff pay.
    The CAO is working with the Modernization Subcommittee for 
improved e-discovery tools for House oversight and 
investigative committees. The goal is to select a single 
platform for managing and expanding the House's institutional 
oversight capacity. I plan to request funds from the 
Modernization Account for this initiative next month.
    I am proud of the commitment to the CAO's motto, ``Member-
focused. Service-driven.'' In the past few years, our services 
evolved to be more comprehensive than ever. I am confident that 
we can continue to mature our services while providing the full 
support and protection that Members and staff need.
    It is imperative our cyber defense remains strong--a 
posture we cannot afford to compromise. Whether it is 
safeguarding more than 3,000 House servers or deploying more 
than 250,000 software patches annually, the HIR team blocks 
approximately 2.8 million attempted cyber attacks against the 
House every month of every year.
    If our fiscal year 2024 funding is reduced, I will work 
with this subcommittee and the Committee on House 
Administration to protect core services and ensure Members have 
what they need to serve their constituents. We will move 
forward with those initiatives deemed most critical to the 
successful execution of our services and operations for the 
House. The CAO staff is talented, resilient, and innovative. We 
look for opportunities to make the best use of taxpayer funds 
to ensure quality services for the House.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to present the CAO's 
fiscal year 2024 budget, and I look forward to answering your 
questions. Thank you.
    Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Chief.
    Before we start questions, I don't want to put too fine a 
point on it; however, these three witnesses are in charge of if 
you get paid, if your legislation moves, and if you are going 
to be allowed on the floor to do any of those things.
    So, with that, Mr. Ranking Member, you are first up.
    Mr. Espaillat. Well, I am glad you brought that up.
    Mr. Amodei. Go get 'em, tiger.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you all for being here today. But we 
do want to ask some questions, and I will start with the Clerk, 
of course.
    I know that you have been modernizing, and we saw how nice 
and slick this new equipment is. What other efforts in 
modernization are you undertaking to make it easier for us to 
move forward? Are there any other initiatives that require some 
funding that you would like to highlight besides this?
    Ms. Johnson. Well, Congressman, I am certain you have made 
use of the eHopper that allows Members of Congress now to 
introduce bills electronically.
    The eHopper has gone from a simple email to an actual 
application. So, in the past, Members would only come to the 
floor and drop the bill physically in the hopper. Members now 
can carry out their constitutional duties of introducing bills 
from their living rooms, which is very convenient for Members 
and certainly makes the House operate more efficiently and more 
effectively.
    In addition to an advanced eHopper system, we have the 
Comparative Print Suite, which allows you to look at your 
proposed bill and look at the law that you are looking to amend 
and see exactly where that proposal is going to fit in a law 
that has been on the books for years that may be 500 pages or 
more. You can actually do a side-by-side comparison and see 
what your proposal will do and where it is going to fit.
    Mr. Espaillat. So, if some of the proposed cuts are 
implemented, would Mr. Amodei not be able to put the bills on 
the hopper from a nice tropical beach?
    Ms. Johnson. We would certainly--as my colleague here said, 
we would sit down with the stakeholders, which are you, the 
committee members, and House Administration and the 
Modernization Committee, and to prioritize. Maybe some of our 
priorities will be delayed, but we look forward to working with 
you to find whatever cuts that we can find without impeding the 
effectiveness of Members.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you.
    And, Mr. McFarland, how is the House Residential Security 
Program coming along? How is that doing? And could you give us 
an update on that?
    Mr. McFarland. Sure. Ranking Member Espaillat, as I stated 
in my opening statement, I think we have a great, robust, 
bipartisan, you know--meaning that basically we are making sure 
that almost every Member is knowing about the Residential 
Security Program and letting people know exactly how to go 
about doing it.
    We have spoken to the Member spouses in both retreats about 
it. I think they seemed a little bit more excited, that they 
are looking forward to using it.
    So I think one of the challenges we have is getting every 
Member to use it. We can't talk about the levels, but I think 
we have a great bipartisan effort going on, and I would like to 
continue seeing it going on.
    Mr. Espaillat. And you mentioned that you are looking at 
other technologies. So what other technologies are you looking 
at to make our offices and staff and visitors safer?
    Mr. McFarland. Sure.
    So we have started, like I said, a mobile duress button 
that we are currently working with a contractor, that you would 
be able to hit the button at any given time to let people know 
if you are in distress, and it would go back to the Capitol 
Police.
    Mr. Espaillat. And you will be able to implement these even 
with your proposed 13-percent decrease?
    Mr. McFarland. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Espaillat. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. McFarland. We also have an online portal that is going 
to make it a lot easier for Members to track their requests to 
the Sergeant at Arms Office.
    And we have a floor-mapping design that will basically be 
able to help with the evacuation procedures that exist today.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
    Going in order of arrival, Ms. Wexton, the floor is yours.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    I would also like to say that, it is great to have 
everybody here. I would not say quite the same things that the 
chairman did, but, in the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, we 
love all of our children equally, but we love you guys best. 
So, great to have you here with us.
    Also, I think it is good to note that I don't think anybody 
needs to worry about me becoming a court transcriber, because 
this is what I managed to transcribe during this conversation. 
I got: ``You, the defendant, are mad. Have Palm Beach. If it is 
Social Security or if it is''--something--''all right?''
    So that is totally what I heard. I don't know if that is 
what you said, but, in any event, that is----
    Mr. Amodei. If you would yield back for a minute.
    We will pay to fix the machine after she touched it.
    The floor is yours again.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Now, Mr. McFarland, we talked a little bit about including 
cybersecurity as one of the parts of the home security program. 
How is that going?
    Mr. McFarland. Ma'am, we have been actually talking with 
the CAO in conjunction with trying to include this into the 
Residential Security Program. We are all on board with it. We 
are just trying to figure out exactly the right path to go 
about getting the right vendors involved.
    Ms. Wexton. Very good.
    And do you think--if you can do it administratively, or are 
you going to need statutory language in order to make that 
happen?
    Mr. McFarland. No, I think we can do it administratively.
    Ms. Wexton. Very good. Nice. And please keep us posted and 
let us know when it happens.
    Mr. McFarland. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Wexton. Ms. Johnson, you were speaking my language when 
you were talking about modernizing the way that you display the 
bills and stuff like that. Because it really is one of my pet 
peeves that we can't look at the code and actually see where--
you know, not just see the changes to the code but actually 
get, a redlined version to the code. So thank you very much for 
that.
    Do you have any idea when that might actually take place, 
when the actual----
    Ms. Johnson. It is in effect now. There was a pilot program 
most of last year. But the Comparative Print Suite is fully up 
and running.
    And we actually also have a help desk for Members or staff 
that need assistance with it. And if you would like a 
demonstration, we would be
    Ms. Johnson. We would be happy to arrange to come to your 
office to give you a demonstration.
    Ms. Wexton. Good. That would be great.
    And where is it? It is not housed under Congress.gov? Or 
where is it housed under?
    Ms. Johnson. It is housed under compare.house.gov.
    Ms. Wexton. I would love that tutorial. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Szpindor, I see that the CAO is currently working on a 
number of different modernization efforts in Congress, 
including improvements to the House intranet, pay and human 
resources programs, and e-discovery tools in order to equip us 
for oversight and investigative duties.
    Can you explain how these tools would work? Some of the 
things that you are working on, the e-discovery and things like 
that, can you explain how they work?
    Ms. Szpindor. How we go about it?
    Ms. Wexton. Yes.
    Ms. Szpindor. We have our Digital Services team, which we 
formed a little over a year and a half ago, that is working on 
many of those projects, particularly the investigative tool 
that they are looking to roll out.
    We have really just started work on that. We are evaluating 
what it would take and looking at possible tools that we would 
consider. But it is in its formation stage. We kind of got a 
discussion going on that earlier this month and the last part 
of February.
    Ms. Wexton. Is it for internal investigations within CAO, 
or is it just for, the Oversight Committee and things like 
that, to be able to use that tool?
    Ms. Szpindor. We would be developing it probably along with 
any partners that we decide to bring in to help us with it----
    Ms. Wexton. Uh-huh.
    Ms. Szpindor [continuing]. Technology partners to help us 
with it, looking at vendors and things of that sort, along with 
the intent of including any of the committees that would be 
using that tool.
    Ms. Wexton. Very good.
    Ms. Szpindor. We have to, because they have the expertise 
on what they are going to need.
    Ms. Wexton. Right. Yeah.
    Ms. Szpindor. We can work in partnership with them to make 
sure that we deliver it as needed.
    Ms. Wexton. Wonderful.
    Ms. Szpindor. So it would be very much a partnership.
    Ms. Wexton. My last question with the time I have 
remaining: Could you just please explain a little bit about the 
services of the Congressional Excellence Program and what the 
sort of issues you have----
    Ms. Szpindor. Sure. I would love to do so.
    The Congressional Excellence Program is a program we 
started in pilot last year. It was intended specifically for 
the Members and their staff, to work with them to help them set 
a vision for their office, be able to help them set strategic 
objectives for what they want to accomplish during their term 
in Congress, and to really sit down and work with them in a 
partnership with their staff to define how they are going to 
accomplish the Member's vision for what he wants to have as his 
accomplishments while he is in the Congress.
    Currently, the Congressional Excellence Program is working 
with about 30 Members. We have added some more, quite frankly, 
since I first mentioned it during the Modernization hearing a 
couple of weeks ago.
    Ms. Wexton. As more Members heard about it.
    Ms. Szpindor. It is just a way to improve the distinction 
of the office and what the Member wants to do with his time 
here in the House.
    Ms. Wexton. Uh-huh. Very good.
    And does that communication between that consultant and the 
Member office stay privileged between those two offices?
    Ms. Szpindor. The consultant works as a partner with the 
Member office.
    The consultants we use are skilled consultants, have been 
doing this, working with corporations, working with other 
government agencies, working with major issues that 
corporations have had, to kind of set the mission and vision 
for them so that they can improve upon the operations of their 
business and things of that sort. That is the background that 
they have.
    They are here. They are talented. They have a world of 
experience to provide to the House and to provide to our 
Members.
    I hope the Members do take advantage of what we have to 
offer there.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you so much.
    And I will yield back. Before I yield back, Mr. Chairman, I 
would just say that we have many great programs here in the 
House of Representatives. I think one of the issues is just 
awareness of them, I think. So I hope that now people are more 
aware of some of those good things that we have going on here.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you for that. You know, goals, effort, 
teamwork--I am not sure we can support any of those sorts of 
things, but we will certainly take it.
    Mr. Franklin?
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I guess my questions--I just want to sort of zero in a 
little bit more on cybersecurity, because that scares me to 
death when I start looking across all of our agencies and all 
the things we do. So a couple things for you, Mr. McFarland, 
also CAO.
    On the Residential Security Program, I was looking into 
that and talking with some vendors, and I was very pleased to 
see that there are some requirements in there about, you know, 
the camera systems that we use. And a lot of that goes--the 
requirements, if I remember right--and you can correct me if I 
am wrong or even if you want to elaborate--go back to some NDAA 
language that was put into place. For example, these cameras--
like, if you wanted to put in security cameras, they can't be 
Chinese cameras, and there is a laundry list of approved 
vendors.
    Can you talk a little bit about that?
    And I guess, really, where I want to go with that is: Are 
we just lucky that that happens to be there? Should we be doing 
more robust guidance across all of our departments as to the 
equipment we buy? What is the vetting process? And do we have 
the bumpers, the guardrails in place now that we should, now 
knowing how much of this stuff is being exploited?
    Mr. McFarland. Mr. Franklin, what I can tell you about the 
vendor list: We did a vetted vendor list for the Residential 
Security Program just to make sure that the right people are 
using it--or, right people are providing the services.
    With that, we are also--if there is somebody that is more 
comfortable with their mom-and-pop security, you know, we do 
recommend that they reach out to the U.S. Capitol Police so 
that they can do a security assessment and then be able to 
provide that information to the Member and let them make that 
determination if they still want to use the mom-and-pop or go 
to the vetted vendor list, is what we try to do.
    As it relates to more of the cybersecurity, Catherine is 
the expert at that, but I do want to say that, in my 30 years 
of being on Capitol Hill before leaving and coming back, I do 
know that I have seen different things that have been 
concerning to me regarding technology that comes into the 
Capitol. I think we used to do some things that--we wanted to 
make sure that the right companies were coming in. Some were 
mostly USA companies, but we would see some getting underbid by 
foreign companies.
    And we would still try to make that argument today, that, 
listen, we want to try to go USA first in this. But mostly the 
foreign companies, they come in at a lower bid, and 
unfortunately they get the work.
    Mr. Franklin. Well, unfortunately, even if it is an 
American company, they are price-conscious, and they know that 
the job is going to go to the lowest bidder, so a lot of the 
components that they are purchasing are where the 
vulnerabilities lie. So, I mean, that is what worries me.
    I have a group back in my district that is working with the 
DOD looking at, just as an example, they have one weapon system 
they have been looking into, and they found over a thousand 
vulnerabilities just in this one piece of military gear from 
the subcomponents. And I just--I really--I worry. That is more 
of a broader concern.
    But I am glad to hear that the program is being looked at. 
And is that--I think some of your budget decrease year over 
year is from one-time expenses that have fallen off, but is 
that----
    Mr. McFarland. Correct.
    Mr. Franklin. Is that a recurring line, the residential 
program, in your budget amount?
    Mr. McFarland. Yes, sir, that is a recurring line.
    Mr. Franklin. And how much was that for?
    Mr. McFarland. The residential program was a 60-percent 
decrease, but that was for residential program as well as a 
lifecycle replacement of escape hoods and VRU units.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay. So that is something that comes up 
every few years or----
    Mr. McFarland. That comes up every 10 years, is what we 
have.
    Mr. Franklin. Ten years. Okay. All right. Thank you.
    And, Ms. Szpindor----
    Ms. Szpindor. Yes.
    Mr. Franklin [continuing] I would like to hear a little of 
your thoughts on the DC Health Link breach.
    And, again, back to vendors, what is our process for 
vetting outside parties? And I feel pretty confident, I know 
there is a high awareness on the Hill of strengthening our 
networks and making sure our things are in order. But when we 
are relying on outside parties, what is our process for making 
sure vendors we choose are doing the things they should be 
doing?
    Ms. Szpindor. Well, we do have a process within the CAO's 
office whereby we do vet vendors. We work very closely with our 
Acquisitions Management group, which is part of the CAO, as 
well as my Admin Counsel that I have. They work with our 
technology staff. We review the soundness of companies that we 
are working with.
    We do not purchase outside of the United States, companies 
that are not corporately registered within the United States. 
We go with just those that are.
    I will get to your point about components in a minute, but 
we do have a process that we follow. We vet all of the vendors 
that we are using. Any contracts that we enter into have to 
meet certain requirements, as far as speech and debate rules, 
as far as anything that could hold us accountable to the 
vendor. We make sure that we have the proper language in place 
in all of our contracts.
    Now, I can identify with what you are saying, and it keeps 
me up at night, worrying about a possible situation where there 
is a component piece that is used in a product or software that 
is pushed from a vendor that has a vulnerability in it.
    We have experienced some of this in the past. We have been 
able to prevent anything bad from happening because I have one 
of the best cybersecurity groups, I think, that any government 
agency has, in my organization.
    We have grown significantly with our cybersecurity program 
since I have been at the House in the past 12 years. I worked 
to champion additional improvements in cybersecurity when I was 
CIO. I am very, very conscious of how we have to constantly be 
upgrading our strategies for cybersecurity and ensuring that we 
do not take our foot off the gas.
    We have outside consultants. I don't have a piece of 
equipment, but I do have a chart. We have outside consultants 
that come in periodically to review how we are doing on 
cybersecurity.
    Back in 2017, we knew we needed help, so we had them come 
in and evaluate where we were in comparison to other 
corporations, other agencies, other individuals, as far as 
cybersecurity at that point in time. You can see the gray bars 
here. That is pretty much where we were. We were not in good 
shape.
    We had the same company come back a year ago and give us 
another comparison on where we were in cybersecurity. The blue 
line indicates where we are today. We have made substantial 
progress, but we are not where I want us to be. We have to 
continue to improve.
    Mr. Franklin. But what is the process for the vendors? For 
example, like, all of, you know, our health information that 
has been compromised, I have no choice----
    Ms. Szpindor. Yes.
    Mr. Franklin [continuing]. I have to provide that 
information. I trust that, you know, we are using vendors that 
are reliable and will keep that data secure, and then they 
don't.
    I mean, what are we doing to ensure that those vendors are 
doing what they tell us they are going to do when they win the 
business?
    Ms. Szpindor. For the vendors I work with--and DC Health 
Link was not one that we chose, okay? Me and my team, in 
particular James Butler here, have spent I don't know how many 
extra hours over the past 3 weeks because of that. It 
infuriates me, okay, basically.
    For our vendors, we go with companies that we know use good 
cyber practices themselves. Our vendors are not individuals 
that come in, as I have said before, and just are here and 
maybe a company that doesn't even understand cybersecurity. We 
are very cautious, and our cybersecurity team takes great 
strides in reviewing any submission by a vendor, any products 
coming in by a vendor.
    We have had, probably about 2 years ago, one of our CMS 
vendors--and I won't mention the name, but a CMS vendor who had 
a vulnerability. It was not good, what happened. I moved 
immediately to begin the process of no longer having that 
vendor here. So they are gone. They are no longer a part of the 
House and no longer support us.
    We had accountability that we had to talk with one of the 
vendors about a year ago. Many of you may have heard about 
VMware, which we use, which is a reliable vendor, by all 
estimates, and we still use. But when they rolled out an 
upgrade to some of the server software, they had an issue with 
some of the upgrade. It had a vulnerability in it. Luckily, 
nothing was taken from us, but there was a possibility where 
they could have allowed individuals to get into our system.
    And they tried. As soon as a vulnerability comes up, any 
hacker around will start trying to take advantage of it. So, as 
soon as they broadcast that they had a vulnerability, we knew 
that we better check really, really quick. Our cybersecurity 
team went to work, and they found that they had tried to get 
in, but they did not compromise any of the data for the House.
    It scares me. I worry about our constituent data and 
protecting it. I worry about all of our financial data. All of 
the things that we work very, very hard to protect here at the 
House keeps me up at night.
    Mr. Franklin. All right. Thank you.
    Ms. Szpindor. Thank you.
    Mr. Amodei. Before we go to Mr. Clyde, Ms. Szpindor, you 
said, referring to a vendor, that that particular vendor was 
not somebody you selected. Who selected that vendor?
    Ms. Szpindor. DC Health Link was not selected by our firm. 
I think this was years ago. OPM was the one who selected that 
vendor for use by the House.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay. Thank you.
    And since Mr. Franklin used up all of Mr. Clyde's time, I 
trust you Navy guys will work that out.
    Mr. Clyde, the floor is yours.
    Mr. Clyde. I am going to come in over top.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
    And thank you to three very important individuals for the 
operations of the House.
    Ms. Szpindor, the fiscal year 2024 budget request includes 
significant increases for transition activities, from $6 
million to $13 million, and business continuity and disaster 
recovery, from just over $22 million to $27 million. And before 
that, it was $14 million in 2022, so literally almost double in 
2 years, and that is a significant amount.
    Can you please provide more details on the specific 
projects and initiatives that will be funded by these increases 
and how they align with the financial priorities of the House?
    Ms. Szpindor. Sure. I will try not to take as long as I did 
with the cybersecurity part.
    Mr. Clyde. No. One minute would be good.
    Mr. Amodei. That is all he has left.
    Ms. Szpindor. So, usually, when we enter into contracts 
with companies, like Microsoft or Oracle for PeopleSoft 
particularly, we have multiyear contracts with them. On the 
years when those contracts come due, we usually have a pretty 
significant increase, because we know that they are going to be 
higher than what they were before. We just know. It always is. 
Every option year we have with a contract, there is usually an 
increase. It could be 2 percent, 3 percent, 4 percent, but 
there is usually an increase, particularly with contractors. I 
think everyone here experiences that.
    So we know that we have a 7-year replacement of our 
recording studio equipment that we have to do this year. I 
think it is in all of our best efforts to make sure that it 
gets done if we want to continue to have the hearings that we 
are having and everything and be able to support them 
adequately.
    We know that we have a major option year renewal with 
Microsoft for all of our email, for Teams, which is the 
teleconferencing that we use, and there will be additional 
dollars for that.
    We also have ongoing needs for our servers in our data 
centers. We have almost 3,000, I think, servers that we have 
that we support, and those have lifespan associated with them. 
That adds to the cost.
    So we are wanting to continue to grow and expand some of 
the services that we have been able to provide to the House 
over the past couple years, which, I think, to me, is the 
reason the CAO is here, to provide those services and make sure 
that you have what you need to run your offices.
    And we have really done a wonderful job with our CAO Coach 
Program, delivering training to our staff and to your staff, 
hosting conferences for the caseworkers, for the chiefs of 
staff, and others so that they can be able to better understand 
what their jobs are within each Member office and be able to 
perform more.
    Mr. Clyde. Where do you hold those conferences?
    Ms. Szpindor. We hold them here at the Capitol.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay.
    Ms. Szpindor. Last year, we held three conferences, and it 
was a bipartisan group of individuals that we offered this to, 
from both sides of the House. We had hundreds of individuals 
here from the districts. I met with some of them. They were 
very supportive of the information that we were providing to 
them. We had our CAO coaches, who, by the way, are ex-staff 
from Member offices, sit down with them. We had discussions, 
roundtable-type discussions, with them for them to better 
understand.
    Mr. Clyde. Let me ask you another question.
    Ms. Szpindor. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Clyde. In your written testimony, you mention a $7.9 
million increase for enhancements to House cloud security and 
enterprise licenses for software like Zoom and Webex.
    You know, now that the Capitol has reopened, Committee 
business is conducted in person, we are not using Webex and 
Zoom anymore. In fact, it is prohibited. Witnesses are required 
to appear in person. Proxy voting has been eliminated. Why such 
a significant need for funding for Zoom and Webex? I mean, we 
are prohibited from using Zoom and Webex.
    Ms. Szpindor. For hearings, yes.
    Mr. Clyde. For hearings, yes.
    Ms. Szpindor. Yes. There are individuals in quite a few 
offices that still use the Zoom and the Webex for other 
teleconferencing and meetings outside of hearings.
    Office 365, the Teams that is offered--comes bundled into 
everything you get with your email anymore. We usually have, on 
an average basis, just between our organizations, thousands of 
those meetings that occur every week.
    A lot of it is because we are dispersed. We have 
individuals--I have individuals at our data centers out in 
Manassas. I have individuals in Ford and O'Neill and here. If 
we are meeting and--like everybody else, every hour you have a 
meeting, just about. Many of mine are in person, but many of 
mine are still over Teams, because of our ability to be able to 
get from one place to the other.
    So, even though it is not used for hearings, it is still 
being used within the House.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay. Thank you.
    Ms. Szpindor. Now, one thing we might be able to do is take 
a pulse from the different Member offices and find out how much 
do they really need Zoom and Webex any longer and look to 
reduce the number of licenses that we are providing.
    Mr. Clyde. I think my office has used it maybe once in the 
last 3 months. So, just some info for you.
    Ms. Szpindor. Yeah, that is helpful.
    Mr. Clyde. And just one last real quick note for Mr. 
McFarland, our Sergeant at Arms.
    I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you yesterday. 
And I appreciate that your number-one concern is the safety of 
Members of Congress, wherever they reside. And, as we spoke 
yesterday, probably, you know, the greatest vulnerability is in 
traveling, in traveling either back and forth from here to 
where we reside.
    And I appreciate your efforts in working with us to make 
sure that there are no policies in the Sergeant at Arms or the 
Police Board--because you are a member of it--that would 
inhibit us from protecting ourselves, as well, when you are not 
there or when others are not there. So I appreciate your 
efforts in that regard.
    Mr. McFarland. Thanks.
    Mr. Clyde. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
    According to my clock, Mr. Quigley, you have 4 hours and 32 
minutes. The floor is yours.
    Mr. Quigley. I got a text from the Air Force that they 
usually get done on time, and I think Navy does.
    Ms. Johnson, I want to--it is interesting, I have been here 
14 years, and you keep learning about how this place operates. 
I want to at least help educate the committee and the public on 
one of your other roles, and that is the role your office plays 
when Members leave office before they----
    Ms. Johnson. Vacant office.
    Mr. Quigley. Yeah, leave their office. And there is a dark-
humor joke in Chicago politics that the only time a Chicago 
alderman leaves office, there is a box involved--a ballot box, 
a jury box, or a pine box. It is different here; people somehow 
leave.
    But you told me there is a range, that at one time--you 
currently have zero that you are operating, but it has been as 
high as what number?
    Ms. Johnson. In the 117th Congress, we had 22 vacant 
offices. We never had more than 7 at one time, but we had a 
total of 22 vacant offices.
    Mr. Quigley. So I am curious how you budget for that. And 
then I want you to elaborate on what your roles are. I mean, 
how do you budget for a year? Do you know something we don't 
know about how many of us aren't going to be here?
    Or, more specifically, that range is so involved, but, you 
know, if you could elaborate a little bit of just what role you 
do play when this takes place and how long that time can be 
before there is a new Member and, again, how you plan to budget 
that.
    Ms. Johnson. And, fortunately--the House rules state that 
all staff that are on the payroll at the time of the vacancy 
remain on the payroll. Also, fortunately, the budget for the 
vacant office comes out of the vacant office account. In a 
sense, that Member's MRA continues. It does not come from the 
Clerk's Office.
    Mr. Quigley. But it is a snapshot. You can't change what 
they are doing internally.
    Ms. Johnson. We cannot. I cannot increase any of the staff 
salaries. The staff continue to operate, because they are 
providing constituent services, so they continue to order 
supplies. But that is deducted from their vacant office 
account.
    We provide resources. We provide management. My human 
resource director--so, in addition to managing and paying 
attention to the annual leave of the 240 Clerk staff, she is 
now looking at another 100, 120 staffers that are from the 
vacant offices.
    And it is a matter of management more than anything else. 
It is not necessarily budgetarly. But it is taking resources 
from our time that we would dedicate to our own office staff.
    Mr. Quigley. So are you able to--you know, just to maintain 
the services that district deserves, what would happen if you 
had to hire somebody?
    Ms. Johnson. In a rare instance, the Member might take half 
of his staff or staff might begin seeking other jobs. We will 
not let the office fall below three staffers. And we are able 
to hire new staff.
    Mr. Quigley. You mean three over the whole thing?
    Ms. Johnson. Three in the DC office, maybe two in the 
district office, because those constituents are still entitled 
to have constituent services.
    Mr. Quigley. What I am going to suggest is, on passports 
alone right now, we need three people. But it just seems like a 
low number when you have to help people get the services they 
need.
    Ms. Johnson. I will tell you, in a case where staff leaves, 
if there are 15 in the DC office and 12 leave and you are down 
to 3, it is very difficult to hire additional staff because it 
is for a short period of time. You want qualified people, so 
you are asking a person who may already have a permanent job to 
come and work in an office for 3 months or 4 months. It is very 
difficult to hire for a vacant office.
    Mr. Quigley. Very good. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Normally, this is the point where I would ask 
if there are any additional questions. However, at this point, 
I would only offer that to the ranking member and Ms. Wexton, 
who were very conscious of the committee rules.
    If there are additional questions from the ranking member 
or the lady from the Old Dominion, the floor is yours.
    Mr. Espaillat. No, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you all did a 
great job of answering all my questions already.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you all very much.
    I have a couple of questions--briefly, so I am not a 
hypocrite.
    Mr. Kilmer from Washington State, who is on the 
Modernization Committee, testified during Member Day and talked 
about this mythical thing that I guess is out there for all 
other legislative--or, many other legislative organizations but 
not us, and it is called meeting deconfliction software.
    If we gave that to them, would that be under your office?
    Ms. Szpindor. Yes. We are giving it to them, actually, the 
product.
    Mr. Amodei. So we don't need to fund that? It is already 
paid for?
    Mr. Clocker. Oh, no, we need lots of money.
    Ms. Szpindor. No. We have been working on that. We met with 
Representative Kilmer and also some of his staff and also with 
Representative Timmons back before the first of the year and 
understood better what they were asking for.
    We have our Digital Services team, once again, which is 
doing a great job right now, to work with different committees 
and come up with a system that should allow us to better 
understand when there are some conflicts in schedules with the 
Members in the committee.
    Mr. Amodei. Well, we can help you. There is absolutely no 
consideration given to schedules when meetings are scheduled, 
at least in the 118th Congress. So what I would like is, if we 
could get kind of an update on where you are at, since if that 
ever happens, it will be under your umbrella so we can 
intelligently draft the bill accordingly.
    Ms. Szpindor. Yes. We will do that.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
    Ms. Szpindor. We will work with you.
    Mr. Amodei. One other thing. Following up on Mr. Clyde's 
questions, I know when I go to use the House studio, I am 
charged for that out of my MRA, and appropriately so. For Zoom 
services and stuff like that, is that not something that is 
charged back to the Members?
    Ms. Szpindor. We have not in the past. We negotiated the 
contracts, and we have given each Member office X number of 
licenses--I don't know the exact total--who called and asked 
for assistance. This started a couple years ago, when we first 
started distributing that.
    But there are a lot of services that we do that we do not 
charge the offices for. We do it through our budget.
    Mr. Amodei. So those Members that rely on it particularly 
heavily, that is just kind of part of general admin; and those 
that don't use it, thanks for being a team player.
    Ms. Szpindor. But we do support most of the services that 
we provide to the users and to the staff and your offices 
without any charge.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay.
    And I am just thinking out loud here; that doesn't mean it 
is entitled to any attention. However, at a time when we are 
being asked to economize--and we will see what that is defined 
as. But when we look at MRA, whatever you call it, allocations 
because those are not going down, at least yet. And so that is 
something that maybe we want to think about if this end is 
being funded--and I know there is a lot of pressures on 
everybody, including running an office, but that is just a 
thought out loud.
    Madam Clerk, the side-by-side thing, that is--I think that 
is something that has been around in other legislative 
organizations for a while. But, now, if I understood your 
testimony correctly, once you know it is out there, as a Member 
or a part of a leg. shop or chief of staff or whatever, it is 
like, hey, learn how to use it, and that is a great tool in 
terms of efficiency, so you are not sitting there, like some of 
us not-so-young people used to do, going----
    Ms. Johnson. ``Delete'' or----
    Mr. Amodei. Yeah. Okay.
    Ms. Johnson. Yeah.
    Mr. Amodei. Do you have an idea of how that is--if its 
utilization is cool, medium, hot? I mean, is that something 
that has been accepted? Or is there an opportunity for more, 
going, ``Hey, by the way''? LDs or somebody?
    Ms. Johnson. The question is, are we continuing to enhance 
it? Or are you asking how much is it being used currently?
    Mr. Amodei. Are you publicizing its availability?
    Ms. Johnson. Oh, yes. Yes. We have sent a couple of ``Dear 
Colleagues.'' And the staffers are taking advantage of it, 
particularly committee staffers, because that is where the 
legislation is made.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay.
    Ms. Johnson. For the longest, it was only a pilot program, 
only available to Committee staffers, but now it is House-wide.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay. Thank you.
    Before we close, I do want to say that we also have here in 
the room--for members, if you have questions, this is your 
opportunity to get with those people and schedule further 
meetings or something else like that, but--Office of Diversity 
and Inclusion, Dr. Moon--thank you, ma'am--Inspector General 
Mr. Picolla--thank you, sir--General Counsel Matthew Berry, Law 
Revision Counsel Ralph Seep, and Legislative Counsel Wade 
Ballou.
    Thank you folks for coming.
    Please feel free to accost them at your leisure, on your 
own time.
    And so, if there are no further questions--and there 
aren't--I would like to thank all the House witnesses here 
today. Your testimonies will be reflected in the record.
    Members may submit additional questions for the record.
    Mr. Amodei. The subcommittee stands adjourned.
    Thank you.

    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

                                           Tuesday, March 29, 2023.

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                                WITNESS

CHERE REXROAT, ACTING ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL AND CHIEF ENGINEER
    Mr. Amodei. The subcommittee will come to order.
    I will yield back on opening remarks.
    Welcome, everyone. The subject of today's hearing is the 
``Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request of the Architect of the 
Capitol.''
    I would like to thank Ms. Rexroat--how bad did I do that?
    Ms. Rexroat. You got it right.
    Mr. Amodei. Don't get used to it--for being here.
    I now recognize the ranking member from the congressional 
district with the Apollo Theater, Mr. Espaillat, for his 
opening remarks.
    Mr. Espaillat. That is a great jump from the Empire State 
to the Apollo Theater, huh?
    Mr. Amodei. I am training, but quickly.
    Mr. Espaillat. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for 
everyone here.
    And thank you, Ms. Rexroat, for being here today. Today is 
your first time, I believe. Is it your first time?
    Ms. Rexroat. I had the Senate last week.
    Mr. Espaillat. Oh, the Senate.
    Mr. Quigley. We are much nicer.
    Mr. Espaillat. You know what Tip O'Neill used to say: The 
opponent on the other side of the aisle is the Senate.
    So, anyway, congratulations to you and the entire AOC team 
for your hard work and commitment and contributions to the 
118th Congress and the transition.
    You requested $1.1 billion for fiscal year 2024. This 
request includes, of course, key security upgrades and 
addresses critical infrastructure needs across the Capitol 
complex.
    So I am here to help, and I am sure the chairman is also 
here to help, and we are happy that you will be here answering 
questions. Thank you so much.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
    Please proceed with your opening statement.
    Ms. Rexroat. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member 
Espaillat and members of the subcommittee. Thanks again for the 
opportunity to provide testimony for the Architect of the 
Capitol's fiscal year 2024 budget request.
    To begin, I would like to acknowledge and thank the 
dedicated AOC employees who work diligently every day to 
support the functions of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the 
Library.
    I am proud to have served with the agency in various roles 
over the past 5 years. Since assuming this new role, I have met 
with the subcommittee's clerks and the House and Senate 
oversight staff to learn more about key initiatives and 
identify areas of concern.
    I am now taking all of this into account to outline a plan 
for the future and to formulate recommended solutions.
    The AOC's $1.128 billion fiscal year 2024 budget request is 
focused on three key priorities: security, safety, and 
accountability.
    Security remains the agency's top budgetary requirement. 
With the recommendations and the support of this subcommittee, 
the AOC has made significant progress to improve the security 
posture across campus. While some of these security changes are 
more visible than others, we will continue to balance and 
maintain the critical physical infrastructure while remaining 
prepared to respond rapidly to any new developments.
    Safety is another key priority. Across the agency, we 
dedicate time and attention to safety training, processes, 
procedures, and operations. This budget request recognizes 
these essential measures, with a concentrated effort to avoid 
hazards, risks, and interruptions.
    Last but not least is accountability--fiscal 
accountability, especially as it relates to the overall AOC 
culture and corresponding cultural change to be good stewards 
of the taxpayer dollar.
    Our typical budget approach has been activity-focused, 
which allocates resources based on historic spending patterns. 
Moving forward, we need to reevaluate this approach to make 
sure the most important parts of the budget are prioritized to 
provide the most value, which is required to meet mission 
objectives. This value proposition is fundamental when looking 
at future operations, the pooling of resources, major building 
upgrades, and Capitol renewals.
    At the same time, we must continue to evaluate our current 
siloed organizational structure. This structure is antiquated, 
sluggish, and rigid. It has not kept up with current industry 
standards, setting an inconsistent approach to policies and 
procedures. This causes inequities in application, thus 
impacting agency morale. This inconsistency has resulted in a 
lack of accountability, as we have seen, and if not solved now, 
it will remain our standard, business-as-usual practice.
    Serving as the Chief Engineer, I am very familiar with the 
AOC's project management processes. We have traditionally 
managed our programs through a design, bid, then build 
environment, prompting the completion of one step before 
starting another. This process causes inefficiencies through 
duplications of effort, lack of clarity of roles and 
responsibilities, resulting in unbalanced workload assignments, 
thereby delaying project development, leading to redesign, 
scope creep, and modifications.
    The above, mixed with the ongoing economic and labor 
challenges, has resulted in what we have seen with our 
increased project costs and schedule delays. The Cannon House 
Office Building Restoration Project, for example, experienced 
COVID-related impacts, limited availability of materials, and 
skilled-labor shortages. These factors, combined with working 
on a historic structure while remaining operationally open, 
produced some of the recent cost increases.
    To keep up with current standards of practice, the AOC 
needs to realign operational functions in order to streamline 
management and form a collaborative, matrixed organization. 
These challenges will be considered as we look forward to the 
future renewals of the Rayburn and Longworth.
    Ultimately, we have to change how we operate to ensure that 
we are achieving our goals to deliver value while speaking as 
one AOC with one voice. So I ask for your support as we 
continue to transform and modernize the agency.
    Chairman Amodei, Ranking Member Espaillat, and members of 
the subcommittee, thank you again for your consideration of the 
Architect of the Capitol's fiscal year 2024 budget request.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, ma'am.
    Mr. Ranking Member, the floor is yours.
    Mr. Espaillat. Okay.
    We know that cybersecurity is a major concern, and threats 
and attacks have unfortunately become too familiar for all of 
us. At the AOC particularly, concerns are the takeover the 
grid, the power grid, or heating and cooling systems of the 
Congress and Supreme Court being compromised.
    What is AOC doing to avert cybersecurity attacks?
    Ms. Rexroat. Thank you, sir.
    Currently underway--it was funded in 2021--we did have an 
exercise to take a look at an initial assessment of our overall 
structure. That effort was also continued in 2022, and, as of 
2023, we are still preparing some follow-on evaluations.
    Mr. Espaillat. And what will your fiscal year 2024 
request--how would that enhance--what particular enhancement 
will we see in your cybersecurity posture?
    Ms. Rexroat. Let me take that one back, sir, and I will 
have to get back to you on that one. I will definitely be able 
to answer that for you.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Mr. Quigley.
    Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Chair.
    One of the things your predecessor talked about was 
sprinkler systems here. I am not sure if you have had time to 
brief up on that, but they expressed concerns that, if there 
was a fire, without support from the outside, it would be very 
difficult to suppress a fire and a significant amount of damage 
would take place.
    I see sprinklers in some parts of the Capitol complex but 
not in all. What is your understanding of where we are with 
that and if there are plans to do more?
    Ms. Rexroat. I will get back to you definitely on the 
overall plans, but I know we have made progress in getting some 
of the fire sprinklers updated and integrated into some of our 
buildings, I know here in the Capitol, for instance, for one. 
But we are not complete by any way, shape, or form.
    So I will get back to you and provide----
    Mr. Quigley. Yeah. I mean, what percentage of it is 
covered?
    Ms. Rexroat. I will get back to you on that, sir.
    Mr. Quigley. Okay.
    Mr. Quigley. And you may have to do the same with the power 
plant, an assessment of its status or what improvements it 
needs. Obviously, it burns natural gas with the coal backup, if 
that is still the situation, I believe?
    Ms. Rexroat. It is my understanding, but I can verify that 
for you.
    Mr. Quigley. Okay. And what the plans are and, if any, to 
use sustainable energy, to shift toward that in the future. If 
there are plans, if you could let us know as well.
    Ms. Rexroat. Will do, sir.
    Mr. Quigley. All right. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Mr. Clyde.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you. Appreciate you being here today.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    One of the projects that AOC has been working on is Cannon 
House Office Building. And you all mentioned it; you mentioned 
it in your statement. I mean, my office is there. I was on the 
fifth floor last term, so I had to vacate the fifth floor, and 
I have had nothing but construction to deal with my entire time 
in Congress.
    So I am a little bit concerned about that project. From 
what I understand, the initial cost was $752,700,000. Is that 
right?
    Ms. Rexroat. Correct.
    Mr. Clyde. And the current projected costs to complete it, 
are they still $971,300,000?
    Ms. Rexroat. To date, yes, sir.
    Mr. Clyde. To date. Okay. That is a $220 million increase. 
So how could they go so wrong, in such a huge disparity of 
projected cost and then actual cost? That is a lot.
    Ms. Rexroat. Let me do some homework on that for you, sir, 
to get the answers to your question.
    I know for projects we have seen just over the years, the 
majority of our projects have increased in cost. One of the 
examples to that is the fact that we did design so early in 
just the overall planning process. So, with design starting 
early, the cost estimates starting early, and then, as I noted 
in my statement, as factors come into play, those factors can 
exponentially increase the cost.
    But I can get back to you for specifics on----
    Mr. Clyde. Okay.
    Mr. Clyde. When are you actually going to finish?
    Mr. Quigley. When are you leaving?
    Ms. Rexroat. I didn't say that.
    Current schedule right now is 2025. We have some completion 
within the courtyard that we need to do, so----
    Mr. Clyde. 2025. Like, December 31, 2025?
    Ms. Rexroat. As of right now, yes, sir.
    Mr. Clyde. All right. Okay.
    So what kind of steps have you taken, are you taking, do 
you plan to take, to keep the current projected cost at where 
it is and in the next 3 years we are not adding another $100 
million to this cost, to the final phase of Cannon?
    Ms. Rexroat. We do, at each end of the phase, take a look 
at lessons learned. We are taking those and we did take those 
into consideration as we----
    Mr. Clyde. Okay.
    Ms. Rexroat [continuing]. Moved into this phase four.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay.
    Ms. Rexroat. We will continue to do that. And we will 
continue to track any change order requirements that come in 
from the contractor to make sure that those are addressed 
appropriately.
    And then, ideally, too, as construction progresses, if 
there is anything that does--for example, an unforeseen that 
comes up, we will be able to address those and tackle those 
early, and then, of course, get back to you or the committee, 
as need be, with any updates on those things.
    Mr. Clyde. Is this, like, a cost-plus contract or----
    Ms. Rexroat. No, sir.
    Mr. Clyde [continuing]. Just a--it is a fixed-price 
contract?
    Ms. Rexroat. Correct. Correct.
    Mr. Clyde. It is a fixed-price contract?
    Ms. Rexroat. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay.
    And the last question I have for you is: According to a 
February 2023 report, AOC has still not satisfied Office of 
Inspector General requirements for $16,500 in unsupported 
costs. Additionally, the AOC has determined that nearly $30,000 
in unallowable reimbursements from phase zero and one are not 
possible to recover.
    How do you account for paying the contractor money that he 
actually isn't owed and then not being able to get it back?
    Ms. Rexroat. I am familiar with that one. I have not had an 
opportunity to dive into the entire report to take a look at 
that for you, so let me do some research on that one as well, 
sir.
    Mr. Clyde. All right.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you very much. And I am counting on you 
being done, okay?
    Ms. Rexroat. Okay. Before you go. Gotcha.
    Mr. Clyde. Yeah. Thank you.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
    When you responded to Mr. Clyde, if it is appropriate--I am 
not telling you what the reasons are, but, to the extent that 
there is COVID-related stuff, supply-chain-related stuff, those 
sorts of things--now, if there aren't, there aren't, so I don't 
expect you to--but, anyhow, I think that is part of, you know, 
figuring out how it is $200 million more than when it started, 
which is a fair question to want to know the answer to.
    Any other questions?
    Mr. Quigley.
    Mr. Quigley. No, sir.
    Mr. Amodei. Okay.
    Then thank you, Ms. Rexroat, for appearing today. We will 
look forward to working with you as we go through drafting the 
bill.
    Members may submit additional questions for the record.
    Mr. Amodei. The subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Questions and answers submitted for the record follow:]
    
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                         Wednesday, March 29, 2023.

                      UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE

                                WITNESS

J. THOMAS MANGER, CHIEF, UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE
    Mr. Amodei. The subcommittee will come to order.
    I am going to forego my opening remarks.
    The subject of today's hearing is the fiscal year 2024 
budget request for the United States Capitol Police.
    I would like to thank our witness, Chief Manger, for being 
here today.
    And I now recognize the ranking member from the 
congressional district with the highest percentage of people 
living in buildings with 20 or more units, Mr. Espaillat, for 
his opening remarks.
    Mr. Espaillat. My God, Mr. Chairman. All these--are you 
looking to run against me?
    Mr. Amodei. No. No, sir.
    Mr. Espaillat. Well, let's make sure we--I have got to 
check your registration first.
    But thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chief Manger, thank you for everything you have done. 
Thanks to the men and women of the Capitol Police for their 
relentless efforts to assist us, to help us, particularly 
during the January 6 insurrection. They were so critical to 
preserving our democracy and ensuring we were all safe.
    Particularly, I want to also highlight, Mr. Chairman, a 
Sergeant Aquilino Gonell, who is not from my district. He is 
actually from the People's Republic of Brooklyn. And--he is of 
Dominican descent. I am of Dominican descent. I am the first 
Dominican American elected to Congress, and I am not a 
shortstop or a pitcher, but I did play third base here and 
there.
    But Mr. Gonell proved also to be very courageous during 
January 6. I met him and his family, and I want to wish him--he 
retired now, but I want to wish him the very best, and, again, 
stress to you, Chief, that you proved to be critical that day.
    And the funding that--whatever funding we agree on, Mr. 
Chairman, which I hope is not a decrease, will never be enough 
for the courageous men and women of the Capitol Police. We 
should be doing more. And they should be protected, because of 
course, you know, they are on the front lines. They are in the 
trenches. And, if I am ever in a foxhole, I want to be there 
with a Capitol Police officer.
    So thank you, Chief. I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
    I would like to thank our witness, Chief Manger, for being 
here today.
    And, Chief, the committee understands how important this 
budget cycle is to you in terms of following along with what 
happened in the last budget cycle as far as your appropriations 
and what you have done with that to make that appropriation 
look smart in how we follow up on lessons learned and going 
forward.
    So, with that, Chief Manger, the floor is yours for the 
summary of your budget submittal.
    Chief Manger. Thank you. Chairman Amodei, Ranking Member 
Espaillat, and members of the subcommittee, thank you all for 
allowing me to present the United States Capitol Police budget 
request for fiscal year 2024.
    I am joined here today by my senior staff, and I am also 
honored to be joined by the chairman of my Fraternal Order of 
Police, Gus Papathanasiou.
    The Department greatly appreciates the subcommittee's 
consistent support of the women and men of the Capitol Police 
who courageously carry out their duties every single day.
    Congress' support has been invaluable in providing the 
resources needed to continue our transformation into a 
stronger, more effective, protective-oriented law enforcement 
agency while meeting the dramatic workload increases and 
increasing volatile threat environment.
    The United States Capitol Police is unique among Federal 
law enforcement agencies. We patrol a campus that is completely 
open. Our officers work 24/7 to keep you safe, whether you are 
here on Capitol Hill, whether you are traveling to your home 
districts, whether you are traveling abroad as part of a 
congressional delegation. We staff doors, corridors, plazas, 
garages, street corners--in sum, every square foot of the 
Capitol Grounds, which includes, of course, you know, the 
Capitol itself, the 8 Congressional Office Buildings, as well 
as three Library of Congress buildings, and the botanical 
gardens.
    Prior to the pandemic, the Capitol was visited every year 
by an estimated 7- to 10 million people from around the world. 
Now that the campus is fully reopened, the Department is once 
again managing this increased level of visitor activity, all 
within the context of evolving and increasing threats against 
Members of Congress and their families. The fiscal year 2024 
budget request reflects this reality.
    Thanks to the Emergency Security Supplemental Act that was 
enacted in fiscal year 2023, the Department was able to direct 
its efforts into bolstering salaries, general expenses, mutual 
aid to partner law enforcement agencies as stopgap measure. 
These appropriations, while invaluable, represented the next 
step in the United States Capitol's evolution but not our final 
destination.
    Thus, the fiscal year 2024 budget is predicated upon the 
Department's continued transformation, one increasingly defined 
by evolving technologies, an increased threat climate, and a 
shift towards a more protective model of law enforcement.
    In my testimony today, I will present the fiscal year 2024 
budget request within the context of three general themes that 
explain the Department's forward trajectory and support our 
request for funding needed to keep us on the path.
    I will talk about the enduring impact of the deficiencies 
and failures of January 6, as well as the impact of the 
pandemic, the Department's future challenges and continued 
transformation, and the need to usher in a new phase of 
protective policing.
    The January 6 attack on the Capitol exposed failures and 
weaknesses within the organization that were profound. There 
were more than a dozen after-action reports that shifted the 
Department's priorities and accelerated the timeline for 
executing them. Working closely with Congress, we have 
increased staffing levels for our Intelligence and the 
Interagency Coordination Division, formally established the 
Howard Liebengood Center for Wellness, procured additional 
civil disturbance equipment for our sworn officers, provided 
funding for our dignitary protection agents to travel and 
protect Members of Congress, update Department technology to 
enhance investigative--I am sorry--intelligence analysis and 
investigative capabilities, provided iPhones to the entire 
sworn workforce for information dissemination, and supported 
the Department-wide specialty training.
    The emergency appropriation also allowed for the 
installation of physical barriers at vulnerable vehicular 
access points on Capitol Grounds. Congress' support at that 
time cannot be sufficiently overstated. It was absolutely 
vital.
    The Department has--as a result of the pandemic and those 
challenges that it brought, the Department has had to manage 
the delayed recruitment efforts due to the closure of the 
Federal Law Enforcement Officer Training Center, a move that 
affected the hiring and deployment of new sworn officers, 
essentially bringing our sworn hiring to a halt.
    Low officer morale, the public's declining confidence in 
law enforcement put a further strain on the organization. 
Hiring within law enforcement remains a challenge in the post-
pandemic environment, not just for our Department but 
nationwide.
    January 6 and the pandemic were unforeseen crises. The 
Department's overall resource and staffing needs were not 
sufficiently recognized or addressed internally in order to 
develop more appropriate budget requests. Thus, the fiscal year 
2023 and 2024 budget requests reflect a critical reality--that, 
prior to January 6, the Department was operating at a reduced 
staffing and resource baseline.
    Subsequent requests, therefore, have been attempts to 
rightsize the Department by elevating its budgetary baseline to 
a more normalized level. The fiscal year 2024 budget request 
incorporates both the lessons learned from January 6, as well 
as the Department's articulation of its vision for the future 
as it moves toward a more protective law enforcement model.
    It reflects the need to improve intelligence functions by 
increasing analytical expertise and operational planning and 
support.
    It reflects the need to strengthen physical security, 
fortify the capability of our civil disturbance frontline 
responders, and enhance coordination with the Nation's Capital 
regional partners, strengthening our physical infrastructure, 
and expanding dignitary protection and security.
    While the fiscal year 2024 budget request is asking for 
increased salaries to fund 2,126 sworn officers at a full-year 
rate and 78 sworn officers at a half-year rate, which equates 
to 2,165 full-time sworn employees, the Department requests 
also funding for 555 civilian employees at a full-year rate and 
81 civilians at a half-year rate, which equates to 596 full-
time civilian employees.
    The general expense request is 228.672 million. The total 
fiscal year 2024 budget increase is 106.366 million.
    I fully recognize the Department's request increase is 
significant, but equally significant are the Department's 
growing responsibilities and challenges. Unlike all law 
enforcement--unlike other law enforcement agencies, we have 
been asked in the last 2 years to develop and implement 
transformational, structural, and strategic changes with 
extremely compressed timelines, while simultaneously 
maintaining the staffing and resources needed to carry out the 
Department's daily core mission.
    The opening of doors throughout the congressional campus 
exemplifies this challenge. Adequately staffing a campus door 
requires three to four officers per shift to ensure the proper 
level of security, three shifts per day, often 5 to 6 days per 
week. Long lines are not only an inconvenience to Members, 
staff, and visitors; they represent a security risk that, in 
these increasingly volatile times, the Department must address.
    While the big-picture reforms are significant and 
important, staffing daily mission requirements are critical. We 
engage in a no-fail mission every day recognizing there is no 
tolerance for leadership or organizational failures post-
January 6.
    The Department's 2024 budget request reflects the realities 
that the Department's mission environmental changes have 
evolved. So too must its staffing and resources evolve. 
Therefore, the United States Capitol Police fiscal year 2024 
budget request focuses on nine areas that continue to be 
central to its efforts to grow and transform.
    They are continued normalization of sworn and civilian 
staffing levels; enhanced intelligence capabilities; expanded 
dignitary protection capabilities; expanded capabilities to 
address threats against Members, cybersecurity, and 
investigative activity; expanded physical and technical 
security capabilities to secure the Capitol complex; enhanced 
event planning, command, and control coordination; enhanced 
response and special operations capabilities; strengthened 
training capabilities for recruit officer, in-service, physical 
skills, professional development, and leadership development; 
and, finally, enhanced administrative support infrastructure to 
support operational and mission-oriented requirements.
    The increase in the number of threats against the Members 
of Congress, approximately 400 percent over the past 6 years, 
requires new and innovative techniques to identify, deter, and 
mitigate threats before they materialize. Upcoming elections, 
the campaign activities that precede them, and the increasingly 
heated political rhetoric further heighten the prospect of 
future security risks and challenges.
    The fiscal year 2024 budget request accounts for these 
growing risks. The Department recognizes the new and evolving 
challenges that will continue to emerge, rendering it 
imperative that the United States Capitol Police be positioned, 
equipped, and resourced to meet and defeat threats to the 
Members of Congress and the Capitol complex.
    Strategic planning, forward thinking, proactive versus 
reactive policing is the new operational model that is best 
suited to confront the operational challenges facing the 
Department today and in its future.
    The USCP's traditional model of law enforcement no longer 
applies to the current situation. The old approach of Member 
protection has been replaced by the need to protect a Member's 
environment as well as a Member's family. Keeping you and your 
family safe is our paramount objective.
    While the Department has made significant strides toward 
rightsizing its number of personnel and pivoting toward a more 
protective operational model, more work remains to be done. 
Thus, it is critically important to maintain this momentum. The 
United States Capitol Police has risen to meet emergency 
challenges at every turn, and the fiscal year 2024 budget 
reflects the Department's determination to continue this upward 
trajectory.
    Mr. Chairman, we thank the subcommittee for its support and 
greatly appreciate our continued partnership with Congress.
    I welcome any questions or comments.
    Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Chief. I appreciate that.
    And I also want to point out for the record that anybody 
who can pronounce Mr. Gus' name correctly on the first try in a 
public testimony setting like this has obviously got quite a 
few skills. That is noted for our record.
    And I now yield to our ranking member, Mr. Espaillat, for 
your questions. The floor is yours.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you. My name is equally challenging. 
It is hard to pronounce but easy to remember. So, at another 
time, Mr. Chairman, I am going to give you an exercise to see 
if you can roll that R, and it is: Que rapido corren los carros 
para ferrocarril.
    Mr. Amodei. You know, we try to avoid showing off in this 
committee, so I would appreciate it----
    Mr. Espaillat. All right. Well----
    Mr. Amodei. The floor is yours, sir.
    Mr. Espaillat. But thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Manger. You have eloquently explained to us 
how critical your work is to not just our safety and the safety 
of our families and our staff and visitors but of democracy 
really. And I just want to know, how do you feel a cut--a 
budget cut would impact the department? Will it dramatically 
impact that goal and objectives that you have set forward as a 
Department?
    Chief Manger. Well, it would have a dramatic impact. We are 
still--as I mentioned, we are still addressing the more than 
100 recommendations that came to us as a result of after-action 
reports from January 6. So we are addressing those, and we are, 
I think, over 80 percent completed with those recommendations.
    But, along the way, things have changed since January 6. 
The threat level against Members of Congress, the threat levels 
against families, the fact that we can't just say, ``Well, we 
will--as long as you are on the Capitol campus, we will protect 
you, you will be safe, but as soon as you leave here, you are 
on your own''; we can't do that anymore. And just--I think the 
new reality is that the protection that we provide has to 
extend all--from here all--while you are traveling until you 
get to your destination, to your home, or to codels where you 
travel.
    We can't do that with the budgets that we had pre-January 6 
or even in the couple years after that because these are new 
challenges that have emerged. And these aren't things that I 
would--I could look any Member of the Congress in the eye and 
say, ``Well, look, we will--you know, let's cross our fingers 
and hope that, you know, we can get money next year or the year 
after that or year after that to address these threats.'' We 
have got to do this now. It is imperative.
    I mentioned in my comments we operate every day on a no-
fail mission.
    Mr. Espaillat. Uh-huh.
    Chief Manger. That is, we cannot fail. If we fail, someone 
could get hurt or worse. And so we have had enough failures 
over the years that we have got to learn by those. And what I 
am asking for I think I can explain fully about what we are 
trying to accomplish with that money.
    And I do realize--and the elephant in the room is the 
increase that we have seen in our budget from, you know, back 
before I was here to what we are asking for today. And I heard 
on the news today that, you know, it is--oh, our budget is 
going to be bigger than several cities in the United States.
    Well, our--there is not a city in this country that has a 
national responsibility. We do. This police department does 
have national responsibilities. We have national--
    Mr. Espaillat. That is correct.
    Chief Manger [continuing]. Jurisdiction, and we have 
responsibilities all over this country. And so it is--we are 
not being--we--compare apples to apples.
    And I realize that what we are asking for is a huge 
increase. But, again, if you look at the workload, if you look 
at the expectations of the Members of Congress, and if you look 
at the threats that we are facing, I am asking for the 
resources to be able to address those because, again, that is 
our responsibility. And I would be derelict in my duty if I 
didn't point out what the issues were and what we are trying to 
do to fix them.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Manger.
    Now, you know, I have been very concerned that--Mr. 
Chairman, I will share that concern with you--that another 
attack may not necessarily be a racist mob. It could be a bomb. 
We saw how two bombs were placed outside of campus. It could be 
a drone attack. It could be of a different nature.
    And so I am very concerned about three buckets, right, 
which is a bomb--and I know you have increased the K-9 unit, 
and I have asked that last time around; drones; and then, of 
course, cybersecurity. Those three things are areas that are 
not sort of, like, the traditional area, the ones they look at 
when considering a potential attack, but it is very much 
possible that it won't be the same.
    So I want to know what are the results of your expansion of 
the K-9 unit and the sweeps that you do. And let me just say 
that I am glad to see the sweeps going on before we come in to 
vote. I don't know if you have seen them, Mr. Chairman. The 
dogs are around sweeping every car that comes in--I think--that 
is important--inside the Capitol campus.
    But also in the perimeter, I will say going as far as Union 
Station and the botanicals and the RNC and DNC buildings, where 
we saw a distraction, right, during January 6 by some mobs 
being placed there.
    So I just want to know how we are doing with regards to 
that?
    Chief Manger. So this is all part of, as I mentioned in my 
earlier remarks, of being--taking a proactive approach versus a 
reactive approach. We learned lessons from January 6. We have 
learned lessons from looking at other incidents around the 
country. We have learned lessons from attacks on Members of 
Congress and their family.
    And, with each one of those incidents, we understood that 
our responsibility is to put something in place where we would 
prevent something from happening again. And so what you talked 
about with the--a bomb--you know, a bomb threat, a drone 
attack, cybersecurity attacks, these are realities. And every 
single one of those things, we are working proactively to deal 
with. We are not going to wait for something to happen and say, 
``Oh, guess we ought to, you know, staff up our K-9s so we can 
do more sweeps.''
    In fact, that has been done. And we are currently working 
on legislation to give us more authority and more ability to 
address drones. We have things in place now, but that could be 
improved on, and we are working on that.
    And then the cybersecurity, trying to keep--you know, to 
make sure we are keeping pace with the bad guys, with those 
that would do us harm, that is a part of what our threats folks 
and our criminal investigation folks are dealing with.
    But, in addition, there is preventive measures that we need 
to take to prevent those kinds of attacks from occurring in the 
first place. And we are working with both Sergeant at Arms on 
that as well. So--but all of these things that you mentioned 
are one of the many reasons that our budget continues to 
increase because we know our responsibilities and the threats. 
The reality of the threats that we deal with are increasing.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
    Ms. Wexton, the floor is yours.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chief, it is great to see you again.
    Also, I really want to commend you on everything you have 
done since you were last before us because you have done a lot 
in terms of getting the Department staff back up. I saw the 
recruits out there in the morning doing their PT and 
everything, having a nice time, and----
    Chief Manger. Were they smiling?
    Ms. Wexton. They seemed to be, yeah. They seemed to be 
happy. I saw them running down Constitution Avenue. They were, 
``Good morning, ma'am, Good morning, ma'am, Good morning''----
    Chief Manger. Yeah. If they were going downhill, they might 
be smiling.
    Ms. Wexton. They were coming from downhill. They had to go 
back up. I don't think they were very pleased about that. But, 
in any event, yeah, they looked really happy to be here, and it 
is great to have them, so--as you know, Howard Liebengood was 
my constituent. His birthday would have been yesterday. So it 
is good to--I really appreciate you guys, everything you have 
done with the Liebengood Center and making sure it is up and 
running and everything is running well.
    For anybody who is not familiar with the work of the 
Liebengood Center, can you please tell us a little bit about 
what it is about and what it does there?
    Chief Manger. I would be very--be honored to.
    The Howard Liebengood Center, prior to January 6, we--
employee assistance was available through other----
    Ms. Wexton. Other entities?
    Chief Manger [continuing]. Entities, you know, and----
    Ms. Wexton. Yeah.
    Chief Manger [continuing]. We really didn't have anything 
on our own within the United States Capitol Police.
    January 6 certainly pointed out that we needed--we needed 
two things. We needed, one, an employee assistance program that 
addressed just comprehensively----
    Ms. Wexton. Numerous things, right.
    Chief Manger [continuing]. You know, issues, whether you--
it was health issues, whether it was, you know, exercise; 
whether it was financial issues, just a whole host of anything 
that could help our employees live healthier and live better.
    But we also needed to address the trauma that occurs----
    Ms. Wexton. Yeah.
    Chief Manger [continuing]. You know, in a police officer's 
life, and anybody that works within a police department, both 
sworn and civilian. And so we--we have not only put together a 
world-class employee assistance program, but we have brought in 
trauma-informed counselors so that we can address the trauma 
that occurs with--you know, with our employees on a day-to-day 
basis and whether it is responding to a particularly critical 
incident or just, you know----
    Ms. Wexton. The intensity----
    Chief Manger. Just over the years, as it builds up.
    Ms. Wexton [continuing]. Each and every time you go to 
work.
    Chief Manger. Yeah.
    Ms. Wexton. Yeah. Yeah.
    Chief Manger. So I am very proud of the center that we put 
together. And one thing I did want to mention to you is that we 
are--we want to make sure that folks are able--that we--we 
continue on the path to best practices with regard to our 
wellness center and the Liebengood Center, and so we are going 
to--I want to put together a group to--that makes sure that we 
continue on the right track and give folks, not only the family 
members of our fallen, but the FOP, the--you know, just a 
cross-section of the Department that gives them--continues to 
give them a voice about the work that the wellness center is 
doing to make sure that we are being responsive to the needs of 
our employees.
    Ms. Wexton. And one other thing that you may be aware of is 
that one of the things that we keep hearing from officers is 
that one thing that would be very helpful to them would be 
having a space within the Capitol Grounds within, the House or 
Senate office Buildings that they might be able to go and see 
somebody in the middle of their shift, just things like that, 
like on their lunch break because, right now, they have to go 
all the way back to the D Street headquarters----
    Chief Manger. Right.
    Ms. Wexton [continuing]. And it makes it kind of hard for 
them.
    Chief Manger. Right.
    Ms. Wexton. So----
    Chief Manger. Yeah. Yeah. Well, the Fairchild Building.
    Ms. Wexton. Yeah.
    Chief Manger. Yes.
    Ms. Wexton. Yeah. So thank you for that.
    And thank you also for whatever role you played in helping 
the DOJ do the right thing and declare Howie's death a line-of-
duty death. So it means a lot to the family. I just want to 
express my appreciation as well.
    We talked a little bit about some of the training that you 
have been going through, you know, we have been having the 
officers engage in. And I know that we talked last time about 
crowd control, that not only the CTU is going to do that; you 
are going to have all the officers doing crowd control 
training.
    How is that going?
    Chief Manger. It is going well. In fact, we are--you know, 
one of the big issues on January 6 was the fact that officers 
didn't have the equipment that they needed this--the Civil 
Disturbance Unit. We are now to a point where we are about 98 
percent deployed with equipment--good, new, state-of-the-art 
equipment for our Civil Disturbance Unit folks.
    But, in addition, you--we have been doing--and I appreciate 
Congress' willingness to let us train where we work. And this 
is so critical if you want to do training right. We are doing 
active-shooter training in the buildings.
    Ms. Wexton. Right.
    Chief Manger. Typically on the weekends when nobody is 
here.
    Ms. Wexton. I happened to come here on a Sunday. I was 
giving a tour to some friends of mine who were in from out of 
town, and then we--they had the--the CVC was closed down for 
active-shooter drills. They had five different scenarios. It 
sounded like it was really cool and everybody really learned a 
lot out of it, so----
    Chief Manger. Well, this is critical. I mean, I think--and 
you just need to look at what happened in Nashville when you 
can see where officers are properly trained and equipped, how 
they can react to an active shooter versus a department that 
doesn't invest in the training.
    And, you know, it has got to become routine. It has got to 
become instinctive. And what the training does, it gives the 
officers the confidence that, when they go into a very 
dangerous situation like that, that they are going to be able 
to accomplish their mission.
    Ms. Wexton. Thank you very much.
    And, Chief, I would just add one more thing, which is that, 
when you think about the long-term plans for the physical space 
and everything for the Capitol Police, one thing that I heard 
over and over again from cops is that they want to have a gym 
within the Capitol Grounds here. And there was a space in the 
CVC that was set aside for them, and it got taken over, so----
    Chief Manger. I would love to.
    Ms. Wexton. I would say eventually.
    Chief Manger. Yeah.
    Ms. Wexton. It may be a little beyond our budget at this 
moment, but something just for the long-term planning, even 
though you don't have a women's locker room in the House gym, 
but, I think it would make sense for you guys to get that, so--
--
    Chief Manger. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Wexton. That was my final thought.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. Before I--one thing I 
will say before that is that, you know, Mr. Chairman seemed 
very sympathetic to your budget plates in his opening 
statement, so I don't know whether that is a good sign for you 
or not, so thank you.
    Mr. Amodei. The chair wishes to extend its thanks to 
Congresswoman Wexton for her help on that. I appreciate that.
    I also--before we go to Mr. Quigley, I want to let the 
ranking member know on the record that he challenges me to roll 
my Rs, but yet nobody on his side of the committee has an R in 
their name, so I will have to butcher some Republican names in 
order to prove how much work I need on that.
    Mr. Quigley, the floor is yours.
    Mr. Quigley. And there will be lessons on how to talk 
Chicago later.
    Chief, thank you and all for your service. I was in the 
room on January 6. I wasn't sure--not sure I would be here 
without the extraordinary efforts on that day. Thank you.
    You were, in your testimony, talking about retention, 
hiring. If you could go a little bit deeper on that, the 
challenges of recruitment you talked about earlier. What are 
the advantages and disadvantages the USCP has compared to other 
local police jurisdictions, and what additional resources might 
help you in that vein?
    Chief Manger. Well, so I brag to my friends, my fellow 
colleagues, police chiefs around the country that, when I hear 
them talking about how desperate they are in terms of 
recruiting and they can't get folks and they are operating 
hundreds of positions below their staffing levels, and we have 
been very blessed that our--we have not had a problem 
recruiting, getting people through the door. It is always a 
challenge to make sure you are hiring the right people for the 
job, but we have got plenty of people applying.
    And the reason for that is--I think is severalfold. One, 
the--Congress passed a new pay scale for us, so it makes us 
very competitive in terms of our starting salary. In fact, when 
an officer graduates from the academy, their first day out of 
the academy, they are making about $74,000 a year. That is--
compared to other police agencies around the country, that is 
really good.
    Mr. Quigley. What about locally, compared to, like, suburbs 
of Maryland?
    Chief Manger. I can tell you it is easily 10- to $12,000 
more than other agencies in the region.
    We have also been very blessed that, in the last few years, 
that Congress has approved a retention bonus. And this is--you 
know, while a number of agencies around the country are getting 
money for signing bonuses, they are--there is one agency--
former agency that I worked for that is going to give somebody 
$20,000 over the course, I think, of a couple of years if they 
sign on and come on the department.
    I would rather invest in the officers--the great officers 
that I have here now in keeping them here. And so the retention 
bonuses that we have had in the last couple of years has 
lowered our attrition. It has lowered the number of people that 
have left.
    Mr. Quigley. But through time--you talk about the initial 
pay coming out of the academy. Through time, you are still 
competitive with the----
    Chief Manger. Yes.
    Mr. Quigley [continuing]. Proximities as well?
    Chief Manger. Yes. Yes. The--we are also--I have extended--
the mandatory retirement age for Federal law enforcement and 
for Capitol Police is 57 years old. Frankly, I think that is 
very young, and I have extended it to 60. And so--and I have 
gotten great feedback from a lot of officers who were looking 
at, you know, having the mandatory retirement. And this ability 
to stay on for a few extra years, it is a win-win.
    It is great for us because we are keeping good, experienced 
officers. And, frankly, it is good for them, because they want 
to continue to work. And they would leave here and go work 
somewhere else. Why can't we keep those good employees here?
    So we put a number of strategies in place, student loan 
repayment program. We need to continue, and we will continue to 
hire about 280 officers per year to keep pace with the 
increased workload that we have, to stay ahead of attrition. I 
mean, one of the things that----
    Mr. Quigley. I am sorry. You mentioned student loans. Do 
you have a minimum requirement of education coming in?
    Chief Manger. I believe it is a high school--yeah. High 
school diploma, but most of the officers that we hire have some 
college. And then--I mean, every--every academy graduation, it 
is pointed out to me we have a couple of people that have 
master's degrees. So we are doing very--we can be very 
selective with the folks that are applying here.
    But we--the key for us is to stay ahead of attrition, which 
we were not doing right after January 6. And we have--so we are 
adding--every year, we have, I would say, around a hundred more 
officers that are deployed out in the Department. And it gives 
us--it is starting to be able to allow us to fix one of the big 
problems that we had, and that was officers being burned out 
because they are being held over, forced to work overtime, you 
know, because we were short of minimum staffing.
    That still occurs. It is getting a little bit better, but 
it still occurs, so we have still got some work to do to make 
sure that we continue to add the number of officers so that 
these officers can get the days off they deserve, that--when 
they--you know, if they--if they think they are getting off at, 
you know, you know, 5 o'clock in the afternoon, that they 
actually get off instead of being told, ``No, I am sorry, you 
have got to work extra hours because we are short in the 
following shift.''
    Again, that still happens a little bit too often to suit 
me. And I am sure that Gus would agree with me. And so we will 
continue and have to continue to keep our recruitment and 
hiring at the level that we have done in the last couple years. 
It is critical for us to get--every other goal we have is 
conditioned on our ability to increase our staffing.
    Mr. Quigley. Very good. Thank you, Chairman.
    Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Quigley.
    The chair now recognizes Mr. LaTurner. The floor is yours.
    Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you for being here today, and thank you for your 
service.
    I want to talk about--you have talked about in your 
testimony and you have talked about it a little bit today, but 
specifically what do you think the future is when it comes to 
making sure that Members and their families are safe and 
protected at home?
    And I think we have made a good--you know, with the--the 
allowance for home security is a great step, but what is the 
future of this because I see no reason to believe that the huge 
increase we have seen in threats is going to go down.
    Chief Manger. Yeah, I am afraid you are right about that. 
And so I think that the allowance for the security systems in 
folks' homes is a good start. But I think there is more that we 
can do, and that is to get--we want to set up--and one of the 
things that--one of the goals we have with--in our fiscal year 
2024 budget is to set up a protective operations room so that 
we can monitor not only the leadership who have protection 
details, but, you know, we--I would love to get to a point 
where we are monitoring every Member of Congress, monitoring 
their home security system.
    I realize that the alarm company that puts things in, but 
having that redundancy and having that--one of the things that 
we are expanding and part of--in answer to your question is 
more partnerships with State and local police.
    We have now dozens and dozens of memorandums of agreement 
with State and local police departments, but every Member--and 
you may live in a jurisdiction that has a large police 
department that covers your area, and so it would be very easy 
for us to have an agreement saying: Look, put--put this Member 
in the computer-aided dispatch file so that, if you get a 911 
call from this address, they know it is a Member of Congress 
lives at that address, you know, that responding officers know 
that. Make sure that, if--if we call you and say that Mr. 
LaTurner is going to a townhall meeting and expects, you know, 
3 or 400 people, and there could be counterdemonstrators or 
whatever at the--that, you know, could you assign a couple of 
officers to be there for security?
    And the incentive there is we have the money to reimburse 
them for doing that, and this is the way we are getting the 
cooperation from the State and local, is--look, having been on 
the other side of this for many years, when people call and 
say, ``Hey, could you have a couple officers do this or do 
that,'' you know, sometimes you can do it; sometimes your 
staffing just doesn't allow it. But if I can say, hey, I can 
pay somebody overtime to do it, or I can, you know, bring 
somebody in off duty who wants to, you know, make a little bit 
of extra money, you know, and someone else is--will reimburse 
the Department for that, it is much more easily accomplished.
    So I think that we have got to continue to work with State 
and local. We have got to continue to look at, whether it is 
when you are traveling, when you are at your home--when you are 
at your home district, whether you have--the offices in your 
home district, we are--activities in your home district. All of 
those things, I think we can enhance what we are doing with 
additional resources.
    And, frankly, I think we need to establish a baseline of at 
least having every--not just--and I think it is just the 
Members of the House that are getting the allowance now. It 
needs to be every Member of Congress that gets it. And--you 
know, and, frankly, I think it is a good start. My 
recommendation would be, instead of, you know, ``Oh, here is 
some money, get what you want,'' I would rather have a 
standardized package of here is the money, here is the 
standardized package of what--you know--and, look, people have 
different sized houses. They have different needs.
    And some people don't--may or may not want cameras, you 
know--and I am not talking about cameras inside the house. I am 
talking about cameras outside their house. Everybody has got 
different preferences, but I think that we should standardize 
that so that everybody has a good baseline of security when 
they are at home.
    Mr. LaTurner. Undoubtedly. And I know from your testimony 
there is more that you want and believe needs to be done here. 
But I--to me, this is going to be the biggest issue in the 
future going forward as threats continue to increase.
    We had a--and I want to publicly thank you and your 
Department. We received a death threat this last year and went 
through the arrest and the trial and the whole--we have gone 
through all of that. And--and the Capitol Police were great to 
work with throughout the process, and great coordinating with 
local law enforcement so that--you know, so that there was a 
proper security.
    For me--and I think virtually every Member of Congress 
would agree with this--it is not so much that--I am not 
thinking about security for myself. I don't feel concerned 
about it. It is family back home when you are here. That is the 
biggest issue.
    Chief Manger. Right.
    Mr. LaTurner. So, anyway, I thank you, and I look forward 
to continuing to talk to you about this because it is a major 
issue that we are, sadly, going to be keep dealing with.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
    The gentlelady from Oklahoma, the floor is yours.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Chief, for being here. I had the great 
pleasure of visiting the headquarters last week and was sorry 
that we missed you, but learned a lot and got a lot of great 
insight.
    So a couple of questions for you. You mentioned that you 
were looking to extend the retirement age from 57 to 60 to be 
able to retain some of those employees. Can you talk a little 
bit about retirement enhancements or benefits that may be 
offered along with that?
    Chief Manger. So I think there are some opportunities to 
look at retirement enhancements. I mean--and I know that Gus 
would actually be a much more expert--because Gus has, you 
know, actually talked about some of the proposals that I think 
make good sense.
    The question is, look, I would--you know, do we want to 
calculate in overtime, you know, into the retirement 
calculation? And, you know--there are just questions that I 
think we can look at.
    But I guess my experience in--because, as a police chief in 
two other jurisdictions, I actually was able to get retirement 
enhancements done. But here is what my--I learned. They have 
got to be sustainable, and this is--and what I don't want to do 
is say, ``Oh, yeah, let's do this and this and this,'' and--
whatever we do needs to be sustainable, because I would love to 
see these enhancements done, but I don't want them to go away 5 
years from now and people say, ``Oh, my God, we can't afford 
this.''
    And you only need to look at some States around this 
country where there is 15 different, you know, retirement 
systems because people--you know, they got things, and then 
they realized they couldn't continue to afford them.
    So I think there are some enhancements that--and I would be 
happy to get back to you. In fact, I think Gus and I could 
probably get back to you together to give you some ideas that 
we both support. But, you know----
    Mrs. Bice. That is great. Yeah, I appreciate that.
    Let me pivot, if I may. You mentioned--and I am sorry that 
I missed some of the earlier comments, but you mentioned when I 
arrived that you are on pace to hire 280 officers annually. Is 
that correct?
    Chief Manger. That is the goal.
    Mrs. Bice. What is your--goal, yes, you are correct.
    What is the current staffing numbers for Capitol Police, 
and what is the projection of where you should be?
    Chief Manger. So my staff gave me that, and I am going to--
here we go. Good.
    So I have sworn, as of just this week, we have--we are 
authorized 2,126. We have filled 1,977.
    Civilian, we authorized 567. We have filled 403.
    Mrs. Bice. Okay. So, based on these numbers, you only have 
about a 200-person shortage, 150, something like that?
    Chief Manger. True, but----
    Mrs. Bice. For sworn officers. Is that right?
    Chief Manger. Yeah, but if I hire 280, I will lose 120 
through retirement, resignation, whatever, so--but we have made 
progress in terms of attrition over the last couple of years, 
but we have still got a--we have still got a ways to go.
    Mrs. Bice. There was a conversation we had at the 
headquarters about contract officers that you all have. I think 
it is a fairly low number; 50 to 60, as I recall.
    Chief Manger. Correct.
    Mrs. Bice. Is that something that you are looking to 
expand?
    Chief Manger. The short answer to the question is no. I 
think we have identified the posts where they are appropriate, 
and I--there are--I think there is certain posts that require 
an armed United States Capitol Police officer. And there are 
some secondary posts that I think are appropriate for the 
contract security officers, and so I would like to keep them 
for as long as we need them.
    But I would say--you know, 10 years from now, hopefully we 
are at a staffing level where everything will be back to 
Capitol Police. So, to me, it is a temporary thing, but it is a 
long-term temporary. But I don't have any--I don't have any 
notion that there are additional posts that we could--that they 
would be appropriate for. I think we are at the level we are 
going to be for a while.
    Mrs. Bice. As we were walking through the Capitol to visit 
the headquarters, we passed some of those folks, and I think 
Chairman Steil and I sort of joked that, you know, they are 
internal, and they are providing sort of assistance, but not 
necessarily doors or providing security, per se.
    Chief Manger. Right.
    Mrs. Bice. Everybody----
    Chief Manger. Everybody that they see should have already 
been----
    Mrs. Bice. Screened?
    Chief Manger [continuing]. Gone through security and been 
screened.
    Mrs. Bice. Excellent. Last question that--well, I want to 
say thank you. You have a difficult job. I recognize that there 
has been some challenges over the last couple of years. I am 
new to this committee and fairly new to Congress. And I know it 
has been a difficult couple of years, but thank you for the 
service to you and to the men and women that serve underneath 
you.
    And, Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Mr. Clyde, the floor is yours.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you. There we go.
    Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, Chief Manger, for being here.
    First, I want to give my utmost appreciation for all the 
officers of the U.S. Capitol Police who work day and night to 
ensure our safety, both Members and the safety of the 
legislative process and the Capitol Building and all the folks 
that work here. So thank you.
    Chief Manger. Thank you.
    Mr. Clyde. You bet.
    Now, since the events of January the 6th, 2021, a number of 
reports have surfaced detailing the significant intelligence 
failure that transpired that day, including numerous reports 
detailing poor decisions and failures at the helm of the U.S. 
Capitol Police's lead intelligence component, the Intelligence 
and Interagency Coordination Division, or, for this--for my 
use, I will just call it the Intelligence Division.
    According to a Government Accountability Office report from 
February of this year, the Intelligence Division did not 
consistently incorporate complete information into assessments 
of threats prior to the events of January 6.
    And, furthermore, the GAO report finds that the 
Intelligence Division did not properly share threat assessments 
agencywide, resulting in some officers, agents, and 
intelligence staff not having complete information on that day.
    Additionally, the five Members of--that former Speaker 
Pelosi rejected from her so-called bipartisan select committee 
released their own report detailing the massive intelligence 
failures at the helm of the Intel Division that her committee's 
report did not address.
    The testimony of these officers and analysts details how 
the still standing assistant director to the Intelligence and 
Interagency Coordination Division, Ms. Farnam, sent the 
division into chaos and confusion in the weeks leading up to 
January 6.
    Page 53 of the report details how Ms. Farnam turned the 
lead Intel Division of the Capitol Police to become, quote, 
``nonfunctional,'' explaining how, at the time of January 6, 
that they were not doing proactive searches of social media 
like they had been before. Furthermore, the report details how 
Ms. Farnam designed 3 analysts of the division's 12 total 
analysts at the time to compile research on--and I quote--all 
political assassinations in the history of the world in 
December of 2020, just a few weeks prior to the violence at the 
Capitol.
    Chief Manger, you have previously testified in committee 
hearings regarding your plans to overhaul the intelligence-
gathering arm of the Capitol Police. Therefore, I would like to 
ask you, first, is Ms. Farnam still in the same position as the 
assistant director of Intel?
    Chief Manger. I would--I believe so, yes. I mean, I don't 
know her title, but----
    Mr. Clyde. Okay. All right. Well, that is what the report 
says, all right?
    So how can we be sure that the Capitol Police's 
intelligence-gathering operations have improved if this person 
responsible for their failure still runs the division?
    Chief Manger. So I think that this goes back to, you know, 
where we assign blame, and I will tell you that, with--the day 
that I took this job, there were over a dozen after-action 
reports, and many of them, if not most of them, focused on the 
intelligence failures----
    Mr. Clyde. Right.
    Chief Manger [continuing]. Which were significant.
    Mr. Clyde. Uh-huh.
    Chief Manger. And it was not--the intelligence failures 
were not the result of one person, two persons. I mean, you 
could--there was a director of Intelligence. There were--there 
was an assistant chief. There was a chief. There was Sergeant 
at Arms. Everybody had a--either a--an oversight responsibility 
or a direct responsibility for the way we handled our 
intelligence.
    Mr. Clyde. Uh-huh.
    Chief Manger. But you can look back at, prior to January 6, 
and just the way we operated then and how we interacted in the 
intelligence community was deficient from the start. And you 
can blame whoever you want to blame for that. But that is what 
needed to be changed, and that is what has changed.
    We have a--we do have a new director of Intelligence. He 
has been here a year now. He has made great strides, but we 
have--as a Department, we recognized that we needed to change 
our posture in the intelligence community. We didn't have 
people on task forces. We were basically consumers of 
intelligence, all right?
    If you are an intelligence agent, you tell me what you 
think I should know. We weren't actively participating in the 
intelligence community. We are now. We have, I think, at least 
eight, if not more, task force analysts that are with the FBI, 
Homeland Security, with other regional intelligence operations.
    So we have people in the intelligence community that are 
gathering information, analyzing information, disseminating 
information, and making sure it gets back to us so that we can 
use it for operational planning.
    Sir, the--we could talk for a week about the deficiencies--
--
    Mr. Clyde. Uh-huh.
    Chief Manger [continuing]. In our intelligence operation, 
and every bit of it is absolutely true.
    Mr. Clyde. Uh-huh.
    Chief Manger. But that has been one of the things that we 
have overhauled and ensured that we have got the right people 
in charge, the right oversight, and we are doing the right 
things.
    It has taken an investment. I mean, a lot of what we have 
asked for in the past few budgets and what we continue to ask 
for is to bolster our intelligence operation so that it is 
where it needs to be. And we--and I--right now, I have great 
confidence in the work that our analysts are doing, that we are 
gathering that information; we are sharing it; we are 
interacting with other--again, throughout the intelligence 
community. And that is exactly what we should have been doing 
several--you know, prior to January 6, but that is what we are 
doing now.
    And, if folks aren't on board with it, then they don't need 
to be with the Capitol Police. But the folks that are on board, 
everybody who is on board, from my director to the assistant 
chief that oversees it, all those folks understand the critical 
nature of this--and that we are--and I said this a couple of 
times already--that we have a no-fail mission.
    Mr. Clyde. Uh-huh. I hear you.
    Chief Manger. And there will be no tolerance, no patience 
from--if we have failure like that again. And there is not one 
person--me at the top of the list--that I should be held 
accountable if there is ever any other failure like that. And I 
have done everything I know how to do to make sure that that 
won't happen again.
    Mr. Clyde. Well, I appreciate that, because I see you have 
a nearly $4 million increase in your intelligence analysis 
budget for this particular year.
    One last thing I want to ask you real quick, if the 
chairman will indulge me: You are a member of the Police Board, 
of the three, the Architect of the Capitol, the----
    Chief Manger. Yes.
    Mr. Clyde [continuing]. Sergeant at Arms.
    Chief Manger. Yes.
    Mr. Clyde. Right. And one of the things that greatly 
concerns me, because I believe that, you know, one of your 
priorities is safety of every Member, and I think some of the--
our greatest vulnerable times are when we travel, either to and 
from the Capitol, going home, or coming in in the morning, like 
we saw the Congresswoman that was assaulted in her apartment 
complex in the morning, and then going home at night, et 
cetera.
    And I am very concerned that we do not have the ability to 
protect ourselves because of policies that the Police Board has 
put forward, and I mean carrying--personally carrying.
    So I would really like your attention to that and the 
entire Police Board's attention to that, that would allow us to 
more easily carry and protect ourselves when you are not there 
because----
    Chief Manger. Understood.
    Mr. Clyde. Okay.
    Chief Manger. Yeah. And, you know, it is--wouldn't it be 
nice if the Police Board could just wave a wand and say, 
``Okay, this is what we are going to do''? But we do have--
there are laws in place both in the District of Columbia as 
well as statutes that we have to abide by, so it--there is--it 
is--I think that we do need to pay more attention to the safety 
just in those kinds of situations.
    And so I--we are taking a more comprehensive look, but I 
think--but including what--you know, your suggestion, we can 
certainly look at that, but I think we shouldn't limit 
ourselves. We should look at what--everything that we can do in 
terms of----
    Mr. Clyde. I concur.
    Chief Manger [continuing]. Enhancing people's safety.
    Mr. Clyde. Absolutely concur with you.
    Thank you very much, and I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. Mr. Ranking Member, do you have any further 
questions?
    Mr. Espaillat. Just one quick one, Mr. Chairman.
    I know that, Chief, that there is, over 400 officers that 
are scheduled to retire or to be on that list. What is the 
reality in that? How many of them will actually leave, and do 
we have a plan to recruit to replace them?
    Chief Manger. Yes. I think--yes, I think that many of them 
will leave because there was a big hiring push around 9/11, and 
so those folks are now eligible to go if--and so we have got to 
continue, I think, to employ the strategies where we extend 
the--and, look, I am administratively extending the mandatory 
retirement age from 57 to 60. Let's just--I mean, my preference 
would be let's just change the law, you know, and do it 
permanently.
    Frankly, somebody who is 60 years old still--I advocate for 
old people. So I think that that would make sense. But to 
continue with the retention bonuses----
    Mr. Espaillat. Us 35-year-olds are not with you.
    Chief Manger. Trust me, I have got to--yeah. I got a couple 
of young people that live in my house that aren't with me 
either.
    But I think to continue the retention bonuses, to continue 
the incentives that we have been able to incorporate in our 
budget to keep officers--you know, incentivizing them to stay, 
we have got to just keep that up. There is going to be people 
that go, that want to go, and--but--and that also puts the 
pressure on us on the front end to make sure we continue to 
hire the number of officers that we will hire so that we stay 
ahead of attrition.
    But I am very attentive to that, and I think that the 
biggest thing to hold them is the ability for them to stay a 
few extra years and the retention bonus, which gives them 
incentive to stay, you know, one year at a time, you know, and 
that is--I think it is helping a lot so far.
    Mr. Espaillat. Thank you. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Amodei. Mrs. Bice.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you.
    One final question. Actually, sort of--or comment that ties 
into what Representative Clyde brought up, and that is safety 
and security in D.C. We have seen all of these really awful 
situations--carjackings, stabbings of the staffer, that sort of 
thing.
    Also something to consider--and I didn't really think about 
this until last night, but there are buildings in this city 
that house many Members.
    Chief Manger. Uh-huh.
    Mrs. Bice. And I think that should also be something that 
is maybe, you know, brought forward and thought through and how 
we make sure that, in a particular building that has dozens of 
Members, how we ensure that they are kept safe.
    So thank you. I yield back.
    Chief Manger. And we, in fact--one of the things that we 
make sure of is that we actually have officers that patrol, and 
they--we know where those buildings are, and we ensure that 
they are patrolled regularly. So--and, again, I think there is 
additional--with additional resources, we can have additional 
enhancements in terms of making sure that the folks that live 
in and around the complex--and I know we are--I don't want to 
belabor this, Mr. Chairman, but one of the things that I heard 
when I first came to this job was, you know--you know, when my 
officers, you know, would make an arrest somewhere, you know, 
on the campus or maybe a couple blocks from the campus, what 
are they doing there? Why aren't they on the campus?
    I am telling you, the work that they do--that officers do 
who patrol around here keep this campus safer.
    Mrs. Bice. And I think we learned that in visiting your 
headquarters, that that radius around the actual Capitol 
Grounds is where a lot of incidents occur and that we are able 
to apprehend those individuals that maybe have nefarious 
thoughts, yeah.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Amodei. If there are no further questions, I would like 
to thank you, Chief Manger.
    I want to just add a couple of things. One is I don't think 
there is any argument that it is cheaper to pay them than it is 
to replace them. If you folks have a figure of what you figure 
your cost is, if you could get that to the committee in terms 
of, if Gus there decides he is leaving, by the time you go 
through the recruiting process, identify your people, put them 
through your screening, put them through their formal training, 
blah, blah, blah, what that cost is, because I know it is not 
minimal, and I just think it is an important fact for us to 
have as we move forward in making some of those decisions.
    I also appreciate your comments where you talk about a no-
fail mission every day and that, quite frankly, your 
organization's responsibility is a national one. I think those 
hit home pretty well.
    I also want to tell you that, while this process is 
anything but predictable, this committee has a challenge to 
walk that fine line between how do we go forth responsibly with 
Federal dollars. But I can tell you this: As long as I am 
around, which could be not tomorrow or a long time, we aren't 
going to defund our own police.
    So I want to thank you for your testimony.
    And members may submit any additional questions they want 
for the record.
    I would like you, if you could, to remain a few minutes 
after adjournment because I need to talk with you about a 
couple other things offline.
    And, with that, the committee is adjourned.
                        
                          [all]