[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.
____________________