[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 69 (Thursday, May 8, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E719-E721]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. ROBERT A. BRADY

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 1, 2014

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4487) making 
     appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes:

  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, earlier during debate 
colleagues criticized the production of secure credentials by the 
Government Printing Office for Federal agencies. Some of the 
statements, particularly the claim that this represents an 
``overreach'' of the GPO's statutory authority and that the GPO has a 
``monopoly on this issue'' are simply not true, and I want to correct 
the Record.
  At the request of then-Public Printer Robert Tapella, the Joint 
Committee on Printing, which I had the honor to chair during the 110th 
Congress, authorized GPO to perform this function. Since that time, 
every JCP chairman has overseen the GPO's production of secure 
credentials and approved the GPO's annual expenditures for this 
purpose.
  Far from an ``overreach,'' secure credential work is firmly within 
the GPO's statutory authority. GPO has a long history of secure 
credential work, such as with the manufacture of U.S. passport blanks 
since 1926. By definition, passports and all other forms of government 
credentials involve ``printing,'' the production of something in 
printed form. With secure credentials, intricate, multi-color modern 
printing embedded with anti-counterfeiting features is utterly 
indispensable to render a document immediately recognizable by handlers 
as the genuine article and thus inspire the confidence necessary to 
establish identity, facilitate border crossings and other purposes.
  While serving as Public Printer, Mr. Tapella once declared that the 
production of secure credentials for the Federal Government does not 
belong in the private sector. I happen to agree with him and believe 
Congress should direct as much secure credential business to GPO as 
possible. In my view, the production of Federal credentials is as 
inherently a government function as the production of United States 
currency, which is produced solely by the Treasury Department's Bureau 
of Engraving and Printing.
  But however much the former Public Printer and I may agree on this 
issue, the GPO today--under the leadership of Public Printer Davita 
Vance-Cooks--has taken a far more reasonable approach and simply makes 
the GPO available to all Federal agencies who wish to use its services. 
GPO asserts no ``monopoly'' nor can it as a practical matter, as 
Federal agencies are able to seek the services of either the public or 
private sector to meet their secure credential needs. With respect to 
the product at issue here, the GPO produces blank border-crossing cards 
for the State Department's visa office, and the cards are subsequently 
personalized by the State Department's own contractor, MorphoTrust. 
Moreover, the State Department continues to employ MorphTrust to 
produce passport cards, another secure credential. As here, the State 
Department and a number of other agencies contract directly with 
private companies for many of their secure-credential needs. To say, 
therefore, that GPO has a ``monopoly'' on the work is silly.
  On December 4, 2013, the House Administration Committee, on which I 
serve as Ranking Minority Member, held an oversight hearing on the 
recent report by the National Academy of Public Administration entitled 
``Rebooting the Government Printing Office: Keeping America Informed in 
the Digital Age.'' Congress ordered the study. Among other things, the 
Academy found that unlike with passports, ``the GPO is not the sole 
provider of smart cards [secure credentials]. Agencies may obtain smart 
cards from private sector vendors as well.'' The Academy's report 
endorsed GPO's work in that field.
  I urge my colleagues to read the Academy report, currently available 
on the Academy's web site. I also urge Members to review the response 
provided by the GPO to questions submitted for the record of the 
December 2013 hearing concerning secure credentials, reprinted below. 
Clearly the GPO does not deserve the criticisms lodged earlier and 
elsewhere. The men and women of the GPO perform a valuable and 
necessary service in providing secure credentials to support the 
missions of Federal agencies involved in securing our borders and other 
law enforcement tasks.

  Excerpted Questions for the Record Submitted to the Public Printer, 
   Davita Vance-Cooks, Following the House Administration Committee 
                     Hearing Held December 4, 2013

       Question 7. GPO produces the millions of passports and 
     related documents provided to Americans every year by the 
     U.S. Department of State. You also provided sizeable 
     quantities of other so-called ``secure and intelligent 
     documents'' to the Department of Homeland Security. Do you 
     foresee this portion of your business expanding in the 
     future? Could GPO also produce such documents for state and 
     local governments, as suggested in the NAPA study's 
     Recommendation #9?
       Response. In the wake of 9/11 and the introduction HSPD-12 
     and related Federal identification requirements, there has 
     been an increase in the Government's need for secure 
     credentials. With the approval of the Joint Committee on 
     Printing, GPO implemented a capability in FY 2008 to help 
     address this need. While GPO is far from the only provider of 
     such requirements for Federal agencies, the volume of work 
     processed by our capability has increased and is projected to 
     increase in future years, as the report of the National 
     Academy of Public Administration recently concluded. 
     Regarding the production of secure credentials for state and 
     local governments, GPO does not have the statutory authority 
     to produce work that is not authorized by Federal law, nor 
     are we equipped and staffed to handle secure credentials for 
     all Federal agencies, much less for state and local 
     governments.
       Question 8. It is my understanding that aside from printing 
     passports, GPO has also undertaken the manufacture of Border 
     Crossing Cards and trusted traveler cards. Government 
     agencies have been procuring from the private sector and 
     issuing to their employees and contractors secure ID 
     documents for decades. When did GPO get into the business of 
     creating and providing secure credentials, other than 
     passports? Can you please provide rationale as to why GPO 
     believes that it should do this work for government 
     agencies as opposed to the private sector, which has 
     invested heavily to develop these new technologies?
       Response. GPO provides a government-to-government solution 
     to fulfill the requisitions of Federal agencies for secure 
     credentials. Our program is staffed by cleared personnel and 
     backed by a secure supply chain.
       The establishment of our secure credential capability was 
     endorsed to GPO management by GPO's Inspector General in 
     2005. GPO's proposal to set up a secure card center with its 
     Security and Intelligent Documents business unit subsequently 
     was approved in FY 2008 by the Joint Committee on Printing, 
     which since then has also approved--on a bipartisan basis--
     all funding for this program in GPO's annual spending plans. 
     In 2010, we became the only Federal agency certified by the 
     General Services Administration to graphically personalize 
     HSPD-12 credentials. In 2012 the Joint Committee on Printing 
     approved the establishment of a COOP capability for our 
     secure credential operations.
       GPO serves as a card integrator, working closely with 
     private sector providers to obtain the products and services 
     needed to fulfill requisitions submitted by Federal agencies. 
     For several years we have been accepted member of the Secure 
     Card Alliance, a consortium of private sector companies and 
     Federal agencies including the National Institute for 
     Standards and Technology, the Department of Homeland 
     Security, the Department of State, the Department of 
     Transportation, and the General Services Administration 
     (http://www.smartcardalliance.org/). We work with the private 
     sector for consulting, fabrication, design, materials, and 
     supplies, essentially incorporating the best that industry 
     has to offer into solutions sought by Federal agencies that 
     requisition the work from us.
       GPO's secure credentials capability serves as a valuable 
     resource to a number of Federal agencies, including the Joint 
     Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and the U.S. 
     Capitol Police, which relied on us to provide secure law 
     enforcement credentials for the 2009 and 2013 Presidential 
     inaugurations. In addition to satisfactorily fulfilling 
     Federal agency requisitions for secure

[[Page E720]]

     credentials, our card production program was endorsed in the 
     recent report of the National Academy of Public 
     Administration. GPO provides secure credential products and 
     services on a reimbursable basis with no appropriated funds.
       Throughout the existence of GPO's secure credentials 
     program, we have been open and transparent about its 
     operation. As noted above, we are a well-known member of the 
     Smart Card Alliance. We are subject to the oversight of the 
     Joint Committee on Printing and our House and Senate 
     legislative oversight and appropriations committees. 
     Additionally, our program has been the subject of oversight 
     by our Office of Inspector General (see for example http://
www.gpo.gov/pdfs/ig/audits/11-06_AuditReport(Issued_
     March_31_2011).pdf); the IG's semiannual reports to Congress 
     for several years routinely tracked oversight of the GPO's 
     secure credentials program as a ``management challenge'' (see 
     for example http://www.gpo.gov/pdfs/ig/semi-annual/11-30-
09.pdf). We have kept the public informed through press 
     releases (see for example http://www.gpo.gov/pdfs/news-media/
press/09news19.pdf, http://www.gpo.gov/pdfs/news-media/press/
10news39.pdf, and http://www.gpo.gov/pdfs/news-media/press/
11news60.pdf), YouTube videos (see for example http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=levIY1qIPy0, http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=ettaBOW4UEA, and http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=mQxH1EZA71I), GPO annual reports to Congress, and 
     other media.
       Question 9. GPO's mission statement, articulated recently 
     in your agency's strategic plan ``is to produce, protect, 
     preserve, and distribute the official publications and 
     information products of the Federal Government.'' Do you 
     consider the production of secure credentials as 
     fundamentally related to or falling under GPO's mission? Do 
     you believe that the manufacture of secure credentials falls 
     within the definition of ``printing'' under Section 501 of 
     Title 44 U.S.C.? If so, has the GPO communicated this 
     interpretation to federal agencies in any of its discussions 
     with federal agencies? For ID cards and passports: what is 
     the cost of the ink and graphics component per security card? 
     What is the cost of the technological component per card?
       Response. Our ``produce, protect, preserve, and distribute 
     the official publications and information products of the 
     Federal Government'' mission statement appears in our 
     strategic plan and elsewhere to describe the informing 
     function that GPO carries out, a function that is traceable 
     to Article I in the Constitution. However, the public 
     printing statutes of Title 44, U.S.C., make it clear that the 
     performance of printing for the Government extends to a broad 
     variety of products and services, some of which do not 
     necessarily relate to an informing function. Over the years 
     GPO has produced or procured tax forms, census forms, Social 
     Security cards, ration cards, letterheads, envelopes, 
     passports, postal cards, and other printed products that are 
     associated with the operations of the Government. These 
     products are produced by printing processes, including the 
     processes of composition, presswork, and binding, which are 
     defmed in Title 44 as within GPO's authority to perform. The 
     production of secure credentials for Federal agencies also 
     involves printing processes, and so GPO is authorized to 
     produce them (though as a practical matter, GPO is able and 
     equipped to produce only a limited amount of secure 
     credential work). As long as Federal agencies submit a 
     requisition that complies with the relevant provisions of 
     Title 44 (certifying that the products requested are 
     authorized by law, necessary to the public business, and 
     backed by the necessary funding), GPO will perform the work. 
     Federal agencies who have contacted us to discuss our secure 
     credential capabilities are aware of this fact. Regarding the 
     cost of ink and graphics component per security card, ink is 
     a very small percentage of the material cost for any of our 
     products (less than 1%). The technological component of our 
     card business (chip and antenna) is about 20-25%.
       Question 10. As you know, only about 16 percent of the GPO 
     is appropriated by Congress. The rest of GPO's funding comes 
     from ``operating profits.'' Did Congress appropriate the 
     money for the Secure Credential Innovation Center--which is 
     what I understand to be a new multi-million dollar GPO 
     facility? Or was that facility funded through operating 
     profits from ID card and other sales? Will the facility 
     affect overhead costs?
       Response. There appears to be a misunderstanding about 
     GPO's Secure Credential Innovation Center (SCIC). This is a 
     small (529 sq ft) work space on the 5th floor of GPO's 
     building C that is staffed by one FTE and equipped with a 
     single opening laminator, laser cutter, CNC mill, plasma 
     torch, UV epoxy curing station, and related equipment for the 
     design and testing of security features requisitioned by 
     Federal agencies for passports and other secure credentials. 
     It is not a ``multi-million dollar'' facility. It was funded 
     through the revolving fund, not appropriated funds.
       We also opened a secure card COOP capability at our 
     Stennis, MS, facility in 2013, with the approval of the Joint 
     Committee on Printing. The capital investment proposed for 
     this project was $2.2 million dollars, including $1.5 million 
     for a card printer and installation, $450,000 for the 
     required IT infrastructure, $175,000 for necessary space 
     renovations and security upgrades, and an estimated $75,000 
     in support and travel costs. All costs were funded through 
     GPO's revolving fund, and the project came in on time and 
     under budget.
       As costs of GPO's SID business unit, neither the Stennis 
     facility nor the SCIC are included in overhead costs for the 
     GPO as a whole. They are direct costs that are recovered 
     through the rates charged for SID products.
       As noted earlier, none of the funds for GPO's secure card 
     capability are appropriated by Congress. Concerning GPO's 
     finances under section 309 of Title 44, U.S.C., GPO does not 
     generate ``operating profits'' but is limited to recovering 
     its costs. Part of these costs includes the ability to 
     generate funds for investment in necessary equipment and 
     plant improvements.
       Question 11. I've heard that GPO ``sales teams'' have been 
     telling the State Department, the Department of Homeland 
     Security, and other agencies that utilize ID card 
     technologies for various programs--for example, to control 
     access to our borders and to verify immigration status--that 
     they are required by law to obtain their secure ID documents 
     from the GPO, because the GPO is the government's printer. Do 
     you believe that this is the case? Do you believe government-
     issued secure ID cards must be manufactured by and purchased 
     from the GPO, rather than the private sector? If so . . . do 
     you believe the GPO has the technological and security 
     capabilities to produce these types of items? If not . . . 
     are GPO sales teams in error if and when they state that 
     federal agencies are required to purchase these items from 
     the GPO by law?
       Response. In hearings before the House Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Subcommittee for FY 2010, former Public 
     Printer Robert C. Tapella said, ``I believe that Federal 
     credentials belong in a Federally-owned, Federally-operated 
     production environment and not in the private sector. And I 
     think it is an inherently governmental activity'' (Hearings, 
     Part II, April 28, 2009, p. 166). GPO management today does 
     not endorse this position nor would it be practical. As a 
     member organization of the Smart Card Alliance, we 
     acknowledge the role of the private sector secure credentials 
     industry in providing products and services to Federal 
     agencies, and we work closely with them in the integration of 
     card components to meet the requirements of products 
     requisitioned from us. We do not compete against private 
     sector companies for secure credential work. GPO provides a 
     limited capability that is available for the use of Federal 
     agencies seeking the provision of services in a govermnent-
     to-government setting, staffed by cleared personnel, and 
     backed by a secure supply chain. As a postscript, GPO's SID 
     business unit has one FTE (no sales teams) responsible for 
     addressing inquiries for SID products and services that come 
     from Federal agencies.
       Question 12. It is my understanding that GPO either will 
     soon or has recently begun manufacturing the US Border 
     Crossing Card. The GPO ``won'' that business away from a 
     private sector vendor. Please explain the process by which 
     GPO ``won'' the contract away from the private sector and the 
     decision-making behind GPO taking over production of the 
     Border Crossing Card.
       Response. We do not compete against private sector 
     companies for secure credential work, and as a result we do 
     not ``win business away'' from them. The Department of State 
     submitted an SF-1 requisition to GPO for the production of 
     the border crossing card. The decision to come to GPO for the 
     production of this card was made by the Department, and the 
     Department's requisition to us fulfilled all lawful 
     requirements. GPO cannot participate in Federal agency RFPs 
     where the private sector is involved. We are required by law 
     to respond to requisitions for printing services from Federal 
     agencies.
       Question 13. Are you aware of testimony before the House 
     Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National 
     Security that said that over 30,000 counterfeit US Border 
     Crossing Cards have been found at our US borders? Now that 
     GPO will be producing Border Crossing Cards, could you please 
     explain to the Committee how you will ensure that these cards 
     have the anti-counterfeit technologies required to make these 
     cards truly secure? Do you feel that GPO has the technical 
     expertise and capability to ensure that these cards are 
     equipped with anti-counterfeit technologies?
       Response. We are familiar with this testimony, which is 
     posted online by the Subcommittee. (In reviewing the

[[Page E721]]

     testimony provided at the hearing, we noted that the number 
     of Border Crossing Cards identified as fraudulent rather than 
     counterfeit by Chairman Chaffetz was 13,000, and that this 
     number was identified in FY 2009, at http://
oversighthouse.gov/hearing/border-security-oversight-part-
iii-border-crossingcards-b1b2-visas/, 2:04:15). GPO received 
     the requisition from the Department of State to begin 
     producing the Border Crossing Card in 2013. We also noted 
     that in the hearing the value of the Nexus card, which used 
     to cross the border with Canada, was described very 
     positively. GPO produces the Nexus card for the Department of 
     Homeland Security.
       Concerning GPO's ability to produce cards with anti-
     counterfeit technologies, GPO has significant expertise in 
     the field of secure document design based on our work with 
     passports. We have designed Government credentials with 
     advanced security features. We work closely with the 
     Department of Homeland Security's fraudulent document lab 
     experts to validate credential designs and utilize both 
     Government and commercial laboratories to test and evaluate 
     our credential performances. For the Border Crossing Card, 
     GPO worked with forensic document examiners at the Department 
     of Homeland Security and with Department of State personnel 
     to develop a product designed to withstand attempts at 
     counterfeiting. We have the expertise and capability to 
     ensure that these cards are equipped with anti-counterfeit 
     technologies.
       Question 14. I have heard that one of the ``selling 
     points'' GPO uses with executive branch agencies is that the 
     GPO can manufacture cards for them while also avoiding the 
     competitive bidding requirements under Federal Acquisition 
     Regulations. Do you believe that the GPO is required to 
     follow the Federal Acquisition Regulations when it buys 
     microchips, antennae, software, laminating materials, 
     substantive expertise and training for its employees? Do all 
     of those items need to be competitively bid to the private 
     sector? Or can GPO buy essentially whatever it wants from 
     whoever it wants, because it is doing so with money from 
     operating profits rather than congressionally appropriated 
     funds? Do you believe that following Federal Acquisition 
     regulations would save the GPO money?
       Response. GPO's Materials Management Acquisition Regulation 
     (MMAR) is based on the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 
     and is used as the authority for all procurements we make. 
     Under the MMAR, GPO competitively bids for the acquisition of 
     products and services used in GPO operations, including those 
     required for the production of secure credentials. GPO's 
     utilization of sole source procurement authority follows the 
     same provisions established in the FAR for other Federal 
     agencies.
       As noted earlier, under the law GPO does not generate 
     ``operating profits'' but is limited to recovering its costs. 
     Part of these costs includes the ability to generate funds 
     for investment in necessary equipment and plant improvements.

                          ____________________