[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 102 (Friday, June 22, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6969-H6982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 502 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2771.

                              {time}  1046


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2771) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with Ms. 
Baldwin in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  Madam Chair and members of the Committee, I am pleased to present the 
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch appropriations legislation for the 
fiscal year 2008.
  The Legislative Branch bill is unique in that it appropriates funding 
for the entire Capitol Building and Grounds as well as nine legislative 
branch agencies and the 435 Members of this body and their offices. As 
a new member of the Appropriations Committee serving as a subcommittee 
Chair, I recognize the tremendous responsibility that comes along with 
being steward of this great institution, and I am honored by the 
confidence and trust that Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Obey, and my 
colleagues have placed in me.
  Historically, the Legislative Branch bill has enjoyed the bipartisan 
spirit that has come to define the Appropriations Committee and my 
experiences in working with the ranking member have been consistent 
with that spirit. Over the past several months, I have worked with 
Ranking Member Wamp, the gentleman from Tennessee, and other members of 
the committee from both parties to shape and determine the 
appropriations for the people's House. We held 14 oversight hearings 
prior to developing this bill, and I am very proud of our 
accomplishments.
  I want to thank the members of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee 
for their help and input, Vice Chair Lee, Mr. Udall, Mr. Honda, Ms. 
McCollum, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Wamp, Mr. LaHood, and Mr. Goode. The 
vast majority of our committee is new to the full committee, and we 
approached our task with zeal and with dedication.
  I would particularly like to thank Ranking Member Wamp for his work 
on this bill. He has been a good partner, and I appreciate his 
cooperation and friendship. While we have not agreed on every issue, we 
worked in partnership to address our differences; and notwithstanding a 
few issues, they were resolved. I would also like to thank Chairman 
Obey for his guidance during this process and Ranking Member Lewis for 
his efforts as well.
  Madam Chair, the bill provides $3.1 billion for the legislative 
branch, not including Senate items. That's an increase of $122 million, 
or just 4 percent, over the actual spending level in fiscal year 2007. 
This reflects a $276 million reduction in the total amended budget 
request, and I think that's an important point that Members should 
note. We are bringing this bill in under the original request.
  We used three guiding principles to develop this bill: fiscal 
responsibility, security and life safety, and accountability.
  In terms of fiscal responsibility, we've emphasized that we need to 
keep this bill tight with a view towards the long term. We've funded 
the must-haves over the nice-to-haves and have focused on critical 
investments. We've held the actual spending increase in this bill to 
only 4 percent, $122 million, compared to the 13 percent, or $398 
million, which was the increase that was requested.
  In terms of security and life safety, we've made sure this bill makes 
the Capitol complex as secure and safe as possible. To this end, the 
bill includes $50 million worth of critical security and life safety 
projects, including, at the suggestion and urging of my good friend 
from Tennessee, interoperable radios for the Capitol Police. It also 
provides substantial increases to agencies with a direct role in the 
health/safety of the complex. The Capitol Police receive an 8 percent 
increase, while the Office of Compliance, which ensures that we protect 
our visitors and our employees in a safe environment, receives a 23 
percent increase.
  Finally, in terms of accountability, we've crafted this bill to 
provide Congress with the resources it needs to perform its 
constitutional oversight role and hold agencies accountable. We've 
fully funded House committees and included resources to bulk up GAO to 
better support our congressional oversight efforts. We've also beefed 
up

[[Page H6970]]

the Capitol Police IG office and established a statutory IG office at 
the Architect of the Capitol to improve oversight within those two 
organizations.
  In closing, we've kept this bill tight so that we're fiscally 
responsible. We've done so by prioritizing investments for critical 
life safety and security needs while providing Congress with the tools 
it needs to hold the government accountable to the American taxpayer.
  Madam Chair, we have a wonderful staff. I'd like to thank my 
committee staff, my personal staff, and Mr. Wamp's staff: Ms. Tracie 
Pough and Ian Rayder on my personal staff; Mr. Tom Forhan, our clerk; 
Rob Nabors, the full Appropriations Committee clerk; Chuck Turner; 
David Marroni; and Mr. Wamp's staff, Jeff Shockey and Liz Dawson, for 
their assistance. They have assisted both myself and Mr. Wamp as a new 
Chair and ranking member with our learning curve and worked countless 
hours to help produce this product.
  Finally, I want to thank, Madam Chair, my colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee for their guidance, patience, understanding 
and encouragement as we endeavored to craft a bill that was fiscally 
responsible with an eye toward ensuring that our employees and visitors 
have a safe and secure environment in which to function, as well as 
make sure that Congress has adequate resources to engage in our 
oversight responsibilities.
  Madam Chair, it is an honor to serve in this role.

[[Page H6971]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN07.001



[[Page H6972]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN07.002



[[Page H6973]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN07.003



[[Page H6974]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN07.004



[[Page H6975]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAMP. Madam Chair, I want to start by saying that it's an awesome 
feeling being in my 11th year as a member of the House Appropriations 
Committee to be standing here as the ranking member offering our first 
bill and to congratulate our chairwoman from Florida on her first 
product. It is a joyous occasion for each of us, and I am grateful for 
this opportunity.
  Let me also say that while I do not support and we do not support the 
overall spending that the Appropriations Committee is recommending for 
the year, we certainly do support this bill. This bill is a fiscally 
responsible product. We did work in a bipartisan way. We kind of went 
through waves where we could do better at times, but towards the end we 
really came together, and especially on the critical issues, in a 
bipartisan way. I commend the gentlelady from Florida on that 
cooperative spirit. I think we both learned a lot along the way about 
how to work with each other and how to reach out to our members and we 
do have a good subcommittee on both sides of the aisle.
  I too want to thank this outstanding staff: Jeff Shockey and Liz 
Dawson on the minority side; Tom Forhan, Chuck Turner and David Marroni 
on the majority; particularly Melissa Chapman and Amanda Schoch on my 
personal staff for all the work that they've done. We're new, we're 
learning, but we are working together and we're grateful for that.
  I want to point out a few things in this bill that I think are very 
noteworthy. As the chairwoman said, the Inspector General of the 
Architect of the Capitol is a very important move. Former chairman and 
now ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Lewis, began this 
initiative in the '07 bill. For the chairwoman to go forward with it I 
think is incredibly important. We've learned a lot. Unfortunately, a 
lot of lessons learned from the CVC, but clearly they need the 
oversight of the Inspector General.
  I also want to commend her on responding to the needs of the Capitol 
Police. If we are not state-of-the-art in communication on Capitol 
Hill, then in the whole country we've got a problem with security. They 
need the money for interoperable communications. It is now in this bill 
and we're grateful for that.
  One caution, and we talked about it some during the rules debate, is 
this FDA building, the swing space, the whole issue of are we in the 
wake or behind the CVC going to go into another major capital 
improvement project and is that necessary or even wise at this time to 
go forward with that. We're going to talk more about that, but my view 
is we need sweeping procurement reforms in the way the AOC operates. I 
know that this is not necessarily an AOC directly driven project, but 
the whole supervision of how we procure capital improvements, 
renovations and do it is not efficient.
  Frankly, we saw the Botanical Gardens a few years ago, we didn't 
learn enough lessons from that. We went into the CVC. It's gotten out 
of hand. We need reforms before we go forward. I look forward to 
discussing that more as the morning goes.
  The Green the Capitol Initiative falls under the category of the 
prerogative of the majority but the responsibility of the minority to 
question, is this real substantive. I think there's widespread 
bipartisan support for environmental improvements on Capitol Hill and 
across the country. I'm the cochairman of the Renewable Energy and 
Energy Efficiency Caucus. The gentleman from Michigan, the ranking 
member of the House Administration Committee, will speak in a few 
minutes with concerns about the Green the Capitol Initiative. He's one 
of the leaders, as am I, on renewable energy and energy-efficiency 
technologies, but does this end up being somewhat window dressing, not 
as much substance as we would like. It's not a large budget issue, but 
we have the obligation to ask these questions.
  One of the questions would be, we have an E-85 pump coming but we 
don't yet have these fleet vehicles or leased vehicles running off of 
E-85. So we've got to connect the dots and make this work, but we're 
respectfully asking these questions with the same desire as the 
majority, to green the Capitol and frankly be as environmentally 
responsible across the board as we can.
  Let me also say another disappointing aspect is that we're still in 
my view not doing enough for the blind and physically handicapped. The 
digital talking books program does still receive a reduction even 
though we made some improvements at the full committee. I want to 
advocate for doing all we can along the way.
  And then let me just say a word about something that's in this bill 
that thankfully the Rules Committee allowed to stay in this bill and 
it's the naming of the hall which some say that this subcommittee or 
even the full committee should not take action on, but I disagree. 
Because time is of the essence. This new Capitol Visitors Center is the 
600-pound gorilla that we've been trying to get our arms around and 
frankly we've both taken a lot of ownership in this. We inherited this 
problem, as did the Acting Architect, Mr. Ayers, inherit the cost 
overruns in this very large project, which is unprecedented. We haven't 
done it in the history of the Capitol, something this large, 580,000 
square feet, $592 million, over twice the original cost; but frankly 
the planning overlapped September 11. $170 million in cost overruns are 
for enhanced security improvements in the wake of September 11. But 
there is a 20,000 square foot space in the middle of this new Capitol 
Visitors Center, and it's going to be the largest congregate space in 
the Capitol. Unfortunately, through, I think bad communication, this 
hall was called the Great Hall, which is exactly the same name as the 
main hall in the Library of Congress for over 100 years. The Great Hall 
is this beautiful, ornate room at the Library of Congress. Early on, 
there was bipartisan agreement at our subcommittee that both of these 
halls on each end of a tunnel should not be called the Great Hall.
  So we took action and I think carefully thought through and felt 
through some of the options, and the most glaring omission in the 
history of the Capitol is the irony that the people that built the 
Capitol were, in large part, slaves who never were honored in any way, 
shape or form for the work that they did building this Capitol. There 
were even periods of time where the people working on the dome were 
Union soldiers and slaves, at the same time, building the dome during 
the Civil War. What an unbelievably awesome thought that the people who 
were fighting for their freedom were working side by side with these 
slaves.
  Listen, this is our opportunity to truly honor them in a way that 
transcends our service, our existence, individuals. And so the naming 
of this 20,000 square foot hall Emancipation Hall is something that is 
ripe with life and tradition and time-honored work for all of us. I'm 
pleased that it was left in the bill, and I'm pleased that our Senate 
counterparts took action on this yesterday by introducing legislation.
  The power to convene is greater than the power to legislate. 
Sometimes we forget that things like this may seem to be symbolic, but 
it means so much more. I've taken 1,700 groups through the Capitol over 
the last 13 years. I give these tours and it inspires young people to a 
life of service. What greater way to honor freedom than to walk people 
through this new 20,000 square foot hall and say, this is Emancipation 
Hall, a great lesson of history.

                              {time}  1100

  We gained our national character by the mistakes that we learned 
from, never to repeat again. That's where we get our character. That's 
why this is so important.
  Some people say we shouldn't spend the money to change the name of 
the signs. We should never have printed the signs. Let's not make 
another mistake by not rectifying this first mistake.
  I really appreciate the bipartisan spirit in which we have worked on 
this particular issue.
  Mr. HOYER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAMP. Madam Chairman, I yield to the distinguished majority 
leader.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I wanted rise not to speak on the issue that 
gentleman just spoke so passionately about, but just to say a word 
about the two new leaders of this committee.
  I have had opportunity of serving in this House for some period of 
time.

[[Page H6976]]

When I first came here, shortly thereafter, Vic Fazio, Congressman 
Fazio and Congressman Lewis, who is now the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee, handled this responsibility that Debbie 
Wasserman Schultz and Zach Wamp are now handling. For almost at least a 
decade, Liz, I think they handled that responsibility. And they handled 
it in an absolutely bipartisan way to reflect the fact that 435 Members 
representing the 300 million people in this country care about this 
institution working well to their benefit, and to the benefit of our 
country.
  I want to congratulate certainly Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who, in 
her third year, has become a cardinal, in large part because of her 
energy and her focus and her talent and her experience in the State 
Senate in Florida and the House in Florida, and what she brings to this 
institution. She is an institutionalist.
  We are also fortunate with Zach Wamp from Tennessee, with whom I 
disagree from time to time and maybe a lot of times when we vote on 
substantive legislation, but who is a good friend of mine. We are 
blessed that the two of them are working on this bill.
  I mentioned Liz Dawson, who has been, really, mothering this bill, I 
was going to say husbanding this bill, but for a very significant 
period of time, since she was a very young girl, and who cares a great 
deal about this institution. I want to thank her as well for her 
leadership.
  But I think we ought to all feel fortunate that we have two people 
like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Zach Wamp trying to make the 
accommodations for this institution to work well to represent our 
people. This is the people's House. To the extent that we have the 
resources to represent our people in a way that will reflect credit on 
this House and a positive result for our people, our country will be 
better. So I wanted to say that and congratulate Mr. Wamp and Debbie 
Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished vice chair of the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, first let me also thank our chair for your 
leadership, for your very focused work, and for your commitment not 
only as chair and to this bill, but to this entire institution.
  I also want to thank our Ranking Member Wamp for your leadership and 
your expertise and, really, your ability to work together in a 
bipartisan way to make the committee truly a bipartisan committee, 
which is what all of our committees are striving for.
  So it's a pleasure to serve as vice chair on this committee. I am 
very proud of the product which we are presenting today.
  I rise in strong support of this legislative branch appropriations 
bill, and really want to just take a moment to thank all of the staff 
who really, as a result of their vigilance and their expertise and 
their hard work, they were the ones who really helped us put this all 
together. I want to especially acknowledge Chris Lee on my staff, 
because this is one of his very first legislative initiatives, and he 
did a phenomenal job in keeping me pointed on looking at the goals of 
what we were trying to accomplish in this legislation.
  This bill also seeks to improve the working conditions of dedicated 
staff who are a vital and integral part of this legislative process. 
This bill also commits the House of Representatives to set an example 
to the Nation on how to reduce the environmental impact of the 
workplace by beginning the greening of the Capitol complex. How 
exciting this is.
  This bill also begins to address the pattern which, unfortunately it 
is, but it's a pattern of exclusion that has gone on for too long in 
contracting and procurement in the House of Representatives. For too 
long businesses owned by women, minorities and the disabled have not 
had a seat at the table. It was appalling, with what we learned at the 
hearings about the exclusion of such a large segment of our qualified 
business community. For too long we have operated without written 
formal policies and reliable reporting on compliance without the 
crucial data that the committee cannot know if real progress is being 
made or if additional action should be required.
  Well, naming the great hall Emancipation Hall in recognition that the 
great Capitol had been built by the expertise, the blood, sweat and 
tears of slaves is appropriate and timely as we also now go beyond the 
name to include the descendants of slaves in the economic vitality and 
opportunity of this Capitol. So we have included in this bill language 
that requires specific contracting with minorities, with women and the 
disabled.
  We required contractor and vending opportunities and access to equal 
opportunities for our disadvantaged businesses and for promoting their 
hiring and development as well.
  We also include language that requires GAO to adopt a formal 
affirmative action plan. They may be doing the right thing, but we 
don't know that. We know that they do need an affirmative action plan, 
so we would require that in this bill.
  We also make sure that there is accountability in this bill, but let 
me just say I am very proud of the fact that for the first time we will 
have requirements now, with our own Capitol contracting opportunities, 
as well as with the Visitors Center, to not exclude minorities and 
women and the disabled, but to include them in the economic 
opportunities that this bill provides.
  Mr. WAMP. Madam Chairman, at this time I yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, Mr. 
Lewis of California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Thank you very much.
  Madam Chairman, to Zach Wamp, I want to express my feelings about 
your work on this bill in a couple of ways.
  First, those of us on the committee who have watched this process go 
together, Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Zach Wamp working 
together, frankly, seeing people develop a relationship in a job that 
involves the real business of the House. It is the bill that funds our 
appropriations process. While it's not the largest bill, it's very 
important to the fundamentals here.
  But I have never been quite so impressed as I watched them working 
with our very fine professional staff, to see them also bring along 
Members of the Appropriations Committee addressing this bill in a very 
special way. I wish the entire House could have observed the 
Appropriations Committee as we discussed Emancipation Hall the other 
day.
  Jesse Jackson was magnificent. The interplay between he and the 
chairwoman and Zach Wamp was worthy of the Appropriations Committee, 
but very much a reflection of the very best of this House. I couldn't 
have been prouder than I was observing that conversation within 
appropriators.
  With that I want to congratulate you very much for this product. It's 
a tremendous reflection of our work.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Chairwoman, I rise for the purpose of 
engaging in a colloquy with the chairwoman.
  Madam Chairwoman, thank you for your leadership on this bill; In 
particular, for your support and leadership of the Green the Capitol 
Initiative, which accounts for the House's global impact on global 
warming.
  Also, I want to thank the ranking member Mr. Wamp, Speaker Pelosi and 
Chairman Brady as well.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Yes.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to congratulate Mr. Welch for his initiative in moving 
this issue forward.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. By making my office carbon-neutral earlier this 
year, my hope was to be able to take a small, but meaningful, step 
towards addressing the impact of my own congressional activity on 
global warming.
  May I clarify my understanding that the committee report on the bill 
directs the Chief Administrative Officer to purchase carbon financial 
instruments to offset carbon produced by all House operations, and that 
these offsets will be fully transparent, verified, American, project-
based offset credits?

[[Page H6977]]

  I yield.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Yes, that's correct. As written in the report, the committee believes 
it is important to offset the greenhouse gases generated by the House, 
which is why we have directed the CAO of the House to purchase carbon 
offsets at the suggestion of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and 
credits to successfully offset carbon produced by all House operations.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. It's my understanding through conversations 
with Dan Beard, the CAO, that he has agreed to develop a plan to 
deliver a report to your committee in a timely fashion for accounting 
the balance of congressional offices' carbon footprints. This plan 
would expand the Green the Capitol Initiative to be inclusive of all 
Member official travel in district office operations.
  I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is the intent of the subcommittee to 
eventually encompass all House operations, including travel and 
district operations. I would welcome this report from Mr. Beard and 
encourage his recommendations on how we will offset the remaining 
carbon footprint of the House.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Thank you, Madam Chair; thank you, Ranking 
Member Wamp. We all really appreciate the way you have worked on this 
bill together. You make us all proud.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Welch.
  I look forward to working together on this important issue.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAMP. Madam Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, let me just underscore what Mr. Lewis said about the work 
of Jesse Jackson, Jr., on the work on Emancipation Hall, but also the 
support from John Lewis, Jim Clyburn and Ms. Norton, who is in the 
Chamber this morning, and all the people who have any jurisdiction or 
involvement in this particular issue.
  Ms. Kilpatrick and the Congressional Black Caucus support his bill, 
in large part because of Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s, leadership. He is 
extraordinarily bright. He was so articulate and passionate about this 
issue. Frankly, it wouldn't have been done to this point. We are not 
complete without him. I just want to underscore that recognition.
  Madam Chairwoman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman of Pennsylvania, 
a member of the full committee, Mr. Peterson.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I want to thank the chairman and the 
ranking member for their bonding of bipartisanship. We could use a lot 
more of that around here. I think it has been great.
  I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for accepting my 
amendment in full committee that was a GAO study on the implications of 
changing our fuel source from coal to natural gas. That's a symbol for 
America to listen to our carbon imprint, so we will go to the clean, 
green fuel, natural gas.
  I see universities doing it. I see State governments doing it 
already. As our symbol, if that happens in all agencies, State, local, 
education, we will have a huge impact on the need of affordable, clean 
natural gas in this country.
  My concern is we have a body here who is very much opposed to the 
production of clean, green natural gas.
  One point, on Green the Capitol, I have not been able to find a 
window that was Energy Star. I have not been able to find a window that 
was not a single-pane glass that is a great transfer of heat out and 
cold in. It seems like we ought to be using fuel-efficient first. Maybe 
that's our next objective.
  We're going to be accepting an amendment in a few minutes, and I am 
not going to protest it, I will not debate it, on light bulbs. It's 
going to mandate energy-efficient Star-rated light bulbs.
  I have them in my home. I have a large home. We have a lot of lights 
going, and I try to put them where I burn them all the time. But they 
are not very bright. They are not good for reading. My wife has 
replaced the one in her reading chair. They buzz sometimes, they just 
buzz like a transformer, so they are not exactly what we are used to.
  Oh, by the way, next year at this time, every light bulb in the 
Capitol will be made in Communist China, will have mercury in it, and 
the incandescent light bulb industry that's left in this industry, and 
I have two plants, those good union jobs will be leaving quicker, not 
later.
  I am not saying Americans shouldn't switch, but we need to know what 
we're doing.

                              {time}  1115

  I believe we need to have a much more thoughtful approach and look at 
where the jobs are in America in that we are transferring jobs to 
China. We're putting mercury into the workplace, and we're eliminating 
some of the best jobs that we have back in our districts. We need to 
think about that.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, at this time I yield 4\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I rise to engage the 
subcommittee chairwoman, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, in a colloquy to 
express my concerns regarding the Comptroller General's implementation 
of the Human Capital Reform Act of 2004 and the resulting unionization 
effort at the Government Accountability Office.
  For the past 18 months, the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal 
Service, and the District of Columbia, which I chair, has been 
investigating certain personnel actions taken by the Comptroller 
General.
  Our investigation culminated in a joint House and Senate hearing on 
May 22, where CRS's legal division and the General Counsel for the 
GAO's Personnel Appeals Board testified that, based on current statute, 
GAO did not have the authority to deny over 300 employees who met and, 
in some cases, exceeded expectations, their 2006 and 2007 annual 
across-the-board increase.
  GAO says that it took this action based upon a compensation-based 
study conducted by Watson Wyatt. However, when the subcommittee's 
staff, working with experts in market-based pay, reviewed the 
documentation, they were unable to validate that the employees who did 
not receive their across-the-board increase were overpaid, as asserted 
by GAO.
  In addition to meeting their performance expectations, these 
employees were among the most experienced, with over 25 years of 
service to GAO.
  The workforce at GAO has been severely disrupted by these personnel 
actions. In reaction to them, a majority of GAO's 1,500 analysts filed 
a petition with the GAO's Personnel Appeals Board to be represented by 
the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers.
  Unfortunately, GAO has responded by hiring the law firm Venable, LLC, 
to represent it before the PAB. It is uncommon for a Federal agency to 
use taxpayers' dollars to hire private sector counsel for such 
purposes. In addition, GAO is asserting that one-third of the 
petitioners are supervisors and, therefore, cannot unionize.
  Furthermore, GAO has indicated that if its challenge is successful, 
and it can show that the alleged supervisors were involved in the 
solicitation of authorization cards for the remaining eligible 
employees, it will not commit to recognize and bargain with the 
employee group.
  I yield to the chairwoman to ask what steps has the Appropriations 
Committee taken to address Member and employee concerns about the 
situation at the GAO.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you for yielding, Chairman Davis. Like 
you, I am very concerned about the Comptroller General's actions and 
have personally spoken to him to express my concerns.
  I am committed to doing all we can to ensure that the Comptroller 
General does not put up obstacles to workers' rights to organize. In 
particular, I am dismayed the GAO, as a legislative branch agency, has 
retained outside counsel, rather than use its own attorneys to 
represent it before the Personnel Appeals Board. This action is 
unnecessarily costly and will likely delay the process of determining 
the outcome of the petition.
  The committee has reiterated these points in report language in this 
bill. We will be closely monitoring the progress of the Comptroller's 
review of

[[Page H6978]]

eligibility, and we are requiring weekly reports on progress in these 
areas.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Thank you, Chairman Wasserman Schultz. My 
committee will continue to closely monitor this situation as well. I 
look forward to working with your subcommittee on this matter in the 
future.
  Representatives Wynn, Van Hollen, and Majority Leader Hoyer regret 
that they could not be here to speak on this issue. However, I have 
statements from them, and will submit them for the Record, along with a 
letter dated June 21, 2007, from the International Federation of 
Professional and Technical Engineers to Comptroller General David 
Walker alleging unfair labor practices.

         International Federation of Professional & Technical 
           Engineers, AFL-CIO & CLC,
                                 Silver Spring, MD, June 21, 2007.
     Hon. David M. Walker,
     Comptroller General, Government Accountability Office, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Walker: Enclosed is an unfair labor practice 
     charge against you. Accept this letter and enclosure as your 
     30 day advance copy of the charge pursuant to GAO Order 
     2711.1Sec. 15(b). We request that you review the allegations, 
     and to prevent any future violations we urge you to cease any 
     activity related to those described herein. Further, we trust 
     that you will instruct all other Agency officials that such 
     improper conduct will not be permitted.
       We anticipate an informal resolution of this charge 
     pursuant to GAO Order 2711.1Sec. 15(b). However, if this 
     matter cannot be resolved informally within the next 30 days, 
     the charge will be filed with the GAO Personnel Appeals Board 
     Office of General Counsel and further action will result.
           Sincerely,
                                              Gregory J. Junemann,
                                                        President.

[[Page H6979]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN07.005
     


[[Page H6980]]

  Instructions for Filing an Unfair Labor Practice Charge Against the 
                    Government Accountability Office

       Use this form if you are charging that the U.S. Government 
     Accountability Office (GAO) or its agents committed an unfair 
     labor practice under GAO Order 2711.1, Sec. 12(a). File an 
     original signed copy of the charge with the Personnel Appeals 
     Board, Office of General Counsel (PAB/OGC) at 820 1st St. NE, 
     Suite 580, Washington, D.C. 20002. If filing a charge by fax 
     (202.512.7522), you must promptly submit the signed original 
     to the PAB/OGC. You may, but are not required to, submit 
     evidence or documents supporting the charge. If you choose to 
     do so, these materials must be delivered, not faxed, to the 
     PAB/OGC.


                       Line by Line Instructions

       1. Give the full name, mailing address, phone and fax 
     numbers, as well as email address, of the Charging Party. If 
     a union, give both national affiliation (if any) and local 
     designation. If an employee, identify the component of GAO at 
     which you are employed.
       2. Identify the GAO official alleged to have committed the 
     unfair labor practice(s) by full name, mailing address, phone 
     and fax numbers as well as email address (if known). Provide 
     the name of a contact person if the charged party is GAO or a 
     component of GAO.
       3. Identify which of the following provisions of GAO Order 
     2711.1, Sec. 12(a) that you allege was violated:
       (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for the GAO to
       (1) interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the 
     exercise by the employee of any right under GAO Order 2711.1;
       (2) encourage or discourage membership in any labor 
     organization by discrimination in connection with hiring, 
     tenure, promotion, or other conditions of employment;
       (3) sponsor, control, or otherwise assist any labor 
     organization, other than to furnish, upon request, customary 
     and routine services and facilities if the services and 
     facilities are also furnished on an impartial basis to other 
     labor organizations having equivalent status;
       (4) discipline or otherwise discriminate against an 
     employee because the employee has filed a charge, complaint, 
     affidavit, or petition, or has given any information or 
     testimony under GAO Order 2711.1;
       (5) refuse to negotiate in good faith with a labor 
     organization as required by GAO Order 2711.1;
       (6) fail or refuse to cooperate in impasse procedures and 
     decisions as required by GAO Order 2711.1;
       (7) enforce any rule or order, other than a rule or order 
     implementing 31 U.S.C. 732(h)(2), which is in conflict with 
     any applicable collective bargaining agreement if the 
     agreement was in effect before the date the rule or order was 
     prescribed; or
       (8) otherwise fail or refuse to comply with any provision 
     of GAO Order 2711.1.
       4. Be concise, complete and factual. Tell what happened in 
     chronological order.
       5. State whether this same matter has already been raised 
     as all or part of a claim brought elsewhere, e.g., the GAO 
     Office of Opportunity and Inclusiveness or grievance 
     procedure.
       6. Type or print your name. Date and sign the statement 
     attesting to the truth of the statements contained therein.

  Unfair Labor Practice Charge Against the Government Accountability 
                                 Office


                              ATTACHMENT 1

     Item (4):
       Comptrol1er General David M. Walker has made remarks 
     regarding the International Federation of Professional and 
     Technical Engineers (``IFPTE'') and its efforts to assist 
     employees of the Government Accountability Office (``GAO'') 
     in their organizing activities, which violate the requirement 
     that management, especially the Comptroller General as head 
     of the Agency, maintain strict neutrality during a union 
     organizing campaign. GAO Order 2711.1 (defining a management 
     action which interferes with protected Union activities as an 
     Unfair Labor Practice). See GAO Order 2711.1 12(a) (requiring 
     management not to ``interfere with, restrain, or coerce any 
     employee in the exercise by the employee of any right'').
       It is well established pursuant to Federal Labor Relations 
     Authority (``FLRA'') precedent that the prohibition on 
     interference with protected Union activities means that an 
     Agency must remain neutral during a Union organizing 
     campaign. See also 5 U.S.C.Sec. 7116(e) (providing that 
     management can only make expressions of personal view, 
     argument, opinion or statements relating to cc representation 
     elections that: (1) publicize the fact of a representational 
     election and encourage employees to vote; (2) correct the 
     record with respect to any false or misleading statement made 
     by any person; or (3) inform employees of the Government's 
     policy relating to labor-management relations and 
     representation as long as these statements do not contain 
     threat or reprisal or promise of benefit and are not made 
     under coercive conditions).
       The objectionable remarks are summarized below:
       In a January 23, 2007 article on www.govexec.com. (See 
     Rutzick, Karen, ``GAO Employees Move Toward Vote on Union 
     Representation'') Comptroller General Walker: (1) 
     Characterized the union movement as coming from a ``handful'' 
     of employees; (2) Stated that, ``a few employees are trying 
     to do something''; and (3) Stated that, ``there are pros and 
     cons'' of the organizing effort that ``[he] would have to 
     present to [his] employees''.
       During the May 9, 2007 quarterly Health Care Team meeting 
     at GAO, held the day after the representation petition was 
     filed Comptroller General Walker: (1) Stated that having a 
     union can seriously impact the decision-making process within 
     an agency, and could ``dramatically'' slow things down; (2) 
     Stated that he wanted employees to ``have all the 
     information'' before deciding on whether or not to bring such 
     a change to GAO; and (3) Stated that some employees are 
     concerned that the workplace is ``not fair'' and ``those that 
     think it is not fair do not understand the situation.''
       Similarly during the June 6, 2007 IT Team staff meeting at 
     GAO, Comptroller General Walker: (1) Stated that, ``[t]he 
     people who want a union are the vocal minority in GAO''; and 
     (2) Stated that ``[d]ue to union organizing efforts, labor 
     law prevents [him] from helping employees unilaterally. Both 
     of [my] hands are tied due to the union organizing efforts''.
       Comptroller General Walker's above-referenced statements to 
     the media and in his addresses to GAO staff meetings are a 
     breach of his obligation to remain neutral regarding the 
     employees' union organizing effort, and constitute a 
     violation of GAO Order 2711.1 Sec. 12(a)(1) and (8).
       On June 19, 2007 the agency circulated a memorandum to GAO 
     employees. The document: (1) Is titled ``Union Update.'' The 
     title of the document is confusing and implies that it is 
     from the Union rather than the Agency; (2) Stated that IFPTE 
     filed the representation petition when in fact the name of 
     the petitioner is GAO Employees Organization, IFPTE; (3) 
     Withholds the fact that in its May 16, 2007 letter to the PAB 
     the employer agreed to the exclusion of PDP employees, and 
     changed its stance during the meeting between the parties on 
     June 13, 2007; (4) Withholds the fact that GAO's offer 
     required the union to waive the right of Band IIB employees 
     to be union represented, in consideration for GAO's agreement 
     to hold the union election in July. Further, GAO withheld the 
     fact that the union offered to hold the election during the 
     summer, and resolve GAO's IIB supervisory challenge post-
     election, in order to expedite the election; and; (5) States 
     that a hearing will be held this summer. The agency has no 
     basis for that assertion, since no hearing date has been set.
       These statements contained within the memorandum are 
     inaccurate and misleading. As noted above, the June 19, 2007, 
     ``Union Update'' contains numerous factual errors and 
     omissions which, in and of themselves constitute violations 
     of Section 2711.1 Sec. 12(a)(1) and (8). In addition, 
     however, section 2711.1 Sec. 12(e) specifies the conditions 
     in which the Agency may provide information about the 
     organizing/election process. The information in the Agency's 
     ``Union Update'' goes well beyond the matters specified. The 
     Agency is not permitted to provide periodic self-serving, 
     spinning of facts related to the ongoing procedures of the 
     union organizing process, and then send these to a captive 
     audience via intranet. Accordingly, the contents of the 
     ``Union Update'' itself constitute a ULP in violation of 
     2711.1 (a)(1) and (8). Moreover, the inaccuracies in the 
     document interfere with employees' free choice and are 
     impermissible pursuant to GAO Order 2711.1 Sec. 12(e) and 
     inconsistent with 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7116(e). Thus, the document 
     constitutes a violation of GAO Order 2711.1 Sec. 12(a)(1) and 
     (8).
         Personnel Appeals Board/Office of General Counsel, U.S. 
           Government Accountability Office,
                                   Washington, DC., June 21, 2007.

                           Request to Proceed

       The undersigned requests the Personnel Appeals Board to 
     proceed with the above-captioned representation case 
     notwithstanding the alleged violation(s) of GAO Order 2711.1, 
     Sec. 12(a) filed directly with the charged party pursuant to 
     GAO Order 2711.1, Sec. 15(b) on June 21, 2007.
           Respectfully submitted,
                                                Julia Akins Clark.

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, at this time I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WAMP. Madam Chair, before recognizing the ranking member of the 
House Administration Committee, Mr. Ehlers of Michigan, I want to just 
point out that the Comptroller General of the GAO, David Walker, has 
stated that he ``supports the right of GAO employees to organize if 
they so choose.'' And I also recognize the presence on the floor today 
of the chairman of the House Administration Committee, the gentleman 
from Philadelphia, Mr. Brady, a friend of mine.
  But to speak eloquently on this bill is a man who knows as much about 
the House as anyone here, a person who I work with very well. I yield 9 
minutes to Mr. Ehlers of Michigan.
  Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chair, I'd like to thank the gentleman from 
Tennessee for yielding to me to speak on this legislation.
  First of all I'd like to respond to his comments earlier about 
greening and also the comments of the subcommittee Chair. I have been 
involved

[[Page H6981]]

in environmental issues even before the first Earth Day. And I also, 
with all the discussion about fluorescent lights, it's more than 15 
years ago that we installed fluorescent lights in the most heavily used 
parts of our house. We have saved immense amounts of energy and, above 
all, have avoided having to change light bulbs very often. It's 
certainly a good thing to do, and we should do it here.
  Also, in connection with the comments made about the carbon footprint 
of the House, let's recognize the most important thing to do is to 
start by conserving energy, and that is key. You can gain more energy 
and greater results by increasing efficiency of the use of energy than 
any other single thing you can do, not just in the Capitol but, 
frankly, anywhere. And every reduction in a kilowatt of energy is a 
reduction in carbon emissions. So you can do two things at once.
  And I applaud the emphasis on the carbon issue, but that's part of 
it. Include energy too, that's a very important part. So I encourage 
the full view. Simply buying credits from someone, if we ever do, and I 
don't think we should, is not really the answer. We have to reduce the 
amount we use, and there are many, many ways we can reduce the use of 
energy in this complex. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) 
for the compliment on that issue.
  The main reason I rise today is to express my concerns with many of 
the administrative provisions in this bill that infringe on the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration. These could 
hamper our ability to provide meaningful and effective oversight of the 
offices and operations within our purview.
  I recognize full well I am no longer the chairman of the committee, 
but I am the ranking Republican. And Mr. Brady, whom I think very 
highly of, is in total agreement on these issues.
  Initially, when I saw these, I thought of taking the route of moving 
points of order against these issues, but I'd prefer to work this out 
with the Chair and ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Let me share just a few of the matters that have raised concern among 
members of the Committee on House Administration. I have also shared 
these with Mr. Brady and with Mr. Wamp, and I know that Mr. Brady 
shares my concern.
  In the section titled ``Legislative Branch-wide Matters,'' the report 
language states in regard to policies governing contracts with women 
and minority-owned businesses that ``all agencies shall provide a copy 
of policies to the Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate 
within 60 days of enactment of this act.''
  It goes on to say that ``the committee further directs all agencies 
provide an annual report of their compliance with this policy.'' One of 
the key reforms in the last decade or so has been giving the Committee 
on House Administration authority governing use of accounts within the 
House. The oversight provided by the House Administration Committee was 
designed to prevent financial abuses and also extended to the creation 
of procurement guidelines, since procurements are made from House 
accounts.
  Those reforms were put in place to guarantee open competition in the 
procurement process and to ensure that the House would get the best 
value for the taxpayers' dollars.
  This bill essentially creates a reporting relationship to the 
Appropriations Committee that circumvents the Committee on House 
Administration and damages our committee's ability to perform the vital 
oversight function that is within our jurisdiction.
  And I would appreciate it if I could have the attention of the Chair 
because I'm going to ask a question about this in a few minutes.
  In the section titled ``Culinary School Students,'' the 
Appropriations Committee requests that the Chief Administrative Officer 
contact culinary schools and explore the possibility for culinary 
school students to enhance their skills and make appropriate 
arrangements for the students to participate on a rotational basis 
among the participants in an on-the-job training or similar program.
  While I certainly appreciate the interest of the Appropriations 
Committee in training students and creating a more enjoyable dining 
experience for Members and staff, the House Administration Committee 
has already tried to do this in the past and found that no culinary 
schools were interested because of the unpredictable hours of 
operation. Again, by circumventing our committee's authority, the 
Appropriations Committee has added another layer of bureaucracy, 
created a duplication of work for the CIO, and created a conflict of 
oversight authority.
  Similarly, in the section titled ``Disability Access,'' the language 
includes a directive to the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, 
with the assistance of the Architect of the Capital, Government 
Accountability Office, and the Office of Compliance, where necessary to 
do a comprehensive assessment of the Capitol complex regarding 
disability access.
  In fact, as required by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, 
the Office of Compliance conducts biennial ADA inspections of the 
legislative branch. Most, if not all, of the corrective actions to be 
taken are under the purview of the Architect of the Capitol. The AOC 
works closely with the OOC to develop abatement plans and includes cost 
estimates for that abatement in their annual budget submissions. The 
CAO is not equipped to conduct this type of study and does not have 
authority to examine the entire Capitol complex.
  Just to conclude, while each of these issues are troubling on their 
own, together with the other concerns I have addressed with Chairman 
Brady, they carry even greater significance as a symbol of an emerging 
pattern whereby report language is being used to establish 
administrative policy that was never intended to be a matter before the 
Appropriations Committee. If continued, this creates a duplicative 
oversight function, threatens to severely hamper the oversight ability 
of the House Administration Committee.
  We've often heard the term ``the power of the purse strings,'' but in 
this case the power's being used to grant oversight authority to the 
Appropriations Committee in a manner that will create additional 
bureaucracy and cause undue harm, particularly to the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on House Administration.
  I would like to yield time to the Chair of the subcommittee to 
respond to this. I hope that we can resolve this amicably, and that's 
why I did not make an issue offering points of order to strike 
language, et cetera. I don't want to make a do-or-die issue of this, 
but I would appreciate assurances from the Chair of the subcommittee 
that we can amicably resolve these jurisdiction issues between 
ourselves and perhaps with the help of the Parliamentarian.
  And I know that Mr. Brady shares my concern. I believe he's had some 
conversations with you as well.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
appreciate the hard work of the distinguished gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Ehlers).

                              {time}  1130

  I appreciated as a freshman his assistance during the orientation 
process and want to assure the gentleman, as I have in conversations 
with Chairman Brady, that the language in our report, specifically as 
it relates to the culinary language, is simply a request for the GAO to 
take a look at that issue so that we can incorporate culinary students 
in an instructional way in the preparation and delivery of food in the 
Members dining room. In addition, the disability language, while it is 
a directive, it was intended to make sure that we could keep the safety 
and security focus of our legislation.
  I do look forward to working very closely with the chairman and the 
ranking member of the House Administration Committee so that we can 
make sure that we cover those needs that we have in the House of 
Representatives and the legislative branch agencies.
  And I appreciate the gentleman's kind words.
  Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentlewoman for the assurance.
  I just want to state I have been on that committee virtually since I 
came to the Congress. I have worked very, very hard on this committee 
to establish a good working administrative system. We have clarified 
jurisdiction

[[Page H6982]]

over the years, and even though I am no longer chairman but the ranking 
member at this point, I just want to ensure that the committee 
continues to enjoy a good relationship with the subcommittee.
  I thank the gentleman for the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________