[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING TO APPROVE COMMITTEE RULES AND OVERSIGHT PLAN,
APPROVE THE HOUSE PERIMETER SECURITY PLAN, AND MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF
ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER INTERIM AUTHORITY
=======================================================================
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Hearing Held in Washington, DC, February 5, 2003
Printed for the Use of the Committee on House Administration
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-543 WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
BOB NEY, Ohio, Chairman
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Ranking Minority Member
JOHN LINDER, Georgia JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California California
THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
Paul Vinovich, Staff Director
George Shevlin, Minority Staff Director
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING TO APPROVE COMMITTEE RULES AND OVERSIGHT PLAN,
APPROVE THE HOUSE PERIMETER SECURITY PLAN, AND MAKE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF
ACTIONS TAKEN UNDER INTERIM AUTHORITY
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2003
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 7:05 p.m., in room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Ney
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Ney, Ehlers, Linder, Doolittle,
Larson, Millender-McDonald and Brady.
Staff Present: Paul Vinovich, Staff Director; Jeff Janas,
Professional Staff Member; Fred Hay, Counsel, Channing Nuss,
Deputy Staff Director; Bill Cable, Minority Staff Director;
George Shevlin, Administrative Assistant to Mr. Larson; and
Matt Pinkus, Minority Professional Staff Member.
The Chairman. Today the Committee on House Administration
will be holding its first meeting of the 108th Congress, and
today we will be adopting our committee rules and oversight
plan for the 108th Congress as well as considering a motion for
approval of the House perimeter security plan, on which I
understand now that all Members have been briefed and had the
opportunity to be briefed. In addition, we will be voting to
report a resolution favorably to the House dismissing an
election contest arising from the 6th Congressional District of
Tennessee.
Before I proceed, though, any further, I would like to take
a moment to welcome all of our Members to the committee for
this session of Congress, particularly our new Democratic
Members, including our new Ranking Member, the gentleman from
Connecticut Mr. Larson, who has had great reviews by Senator
Dodd, I will tell you that, who we worked with, of course, last
year. He and I have already had the opportunity to discuss our
expectations for, I think, a productive Congress. We both look
forward to working together on many important issues.
In addition, I want to also welcome the gentlewoman from
California, Juanita Millender-McDonald, and also the gentleman
for Pennsylvania that borders Ohio, Robert Brady. We are
excited to have you on this committee and really look forward
to a very productive Congress.
And, of course, returning are Members Vice Chairman Vern
Ehlers. And Mr. Mica of Florida is here. And also reappointed
is John Linder of Georgia, John Doolittle from California, and
Tom Reynolds from New York.
So I am glad to be back, and I am sure you are glad to be
back also, and I look forward to working with all of you in the
next few years.
In addition to the campaign and election jurisdiction,
which I am sure we will be doing some work in the upcoming
months, the primary responsibility of the committee on House
Administration is to make sure that the House runs smoothly so
that Members can better represent their constituents, and that
allows for full constituent service, which is what we all
strive for. I also plan to continue the work of the committee
improving the tools and technology Members have at their
disposal, and we will look for ways the committee can assist
Members in the committees of the House to better serve the
people who elect us to this institution.
And in addition, as evidenced by the consideration of our
perimeter security plan we will be undertaking shortly, let me
emphasize that the safety and security of all who serve, work,
or visit this institution will remain the highest priority of
the committee as we continue to build upon many improvements we
have made since September 11th. This community had a large
volume of work when Steny Hoyer was here as a Ranking Member,
and all the Members of the committee worked together. It was a
very difficult time, but we always made sure that we were
cautious but calm, and made sure that we had security, we kept
the people's House open.
Again, I look forward to working with all the Members, and
welcome our new Members and our new Ranking Member. And at this
point I will yield to the gentleman Mr. Larson.
Mr. Larson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And may I
say from the outset what an honor it is to serve on this
committee and to succeed Steny Hoyer and the outstanding job
that he did on this committee. He is also an individual who has
enormous respect for the institution.
I am also pleased--it is a position that was also held by
Sam Gejdenson from my State of Connecticut as well as Senator
Dodd on the Senate side, who you mentioned before. So to say
that I come to the committee humbly and with a grounded sense
for the institution would be an understatement. And everything
that I have heard from my predecessor and anyone that has been
associated with this committee only has laudatory remarks for
your role here as Chairman and what is a unique bipartisan
opportunity to assist the Members here and to help this
institution grow.
I would also add that the professional staff that services
this committee on both sides of the aisle again receives
enormous accolades for the kind of diligent work that they
perform on behalf of this institution and its Members and
staff.
I am honored to be joined by two distinguished Members who
have served the United States Congress well, Juanita Millender-
McDonald, the gentlelady from California, and Bob Brady, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania. And I think all of us are excited
about the prospect of working with you, Mr. Chairman, and with
all of our colleagues here on House Administration.
Leader Pelosi embraces the very themes that you have
addressed, with the added emphasis on technological innovation,
membership-orientation, and a keen concern about diversity on
our committees. I know these are issues that everyone shares,
and we on this side of the aisle come to the committee with our
sleeves rolled up and prepared to work with you. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Other Members. Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Let me just comment. Mr. Chairman, I haven't
had the opportunity to work with Mr. Brady yet, but I serve on
committees with both Mr. Larson and Ms. Millender-McDonald.
They are both outstanding Members of both committees and also
wonderful people to work with. They are genuinely interested in
doing what is good for the House and for the people of this
country, and it is a pleasure to have them on this committee.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Now that Mr. Ehlers has spoken, I
suppose I will speak just briefly just to say I do look forward
to working with all of you. It is a great excitement to be a
part of such a committee and to work with my dear friend John
Larson. And so I thank you. I thank my dear friend Vern Ehlers,
whom I have had the opportunity of working with on many
committees, and I look forward to working with you, Mr.
Chairman, as I hear that you are an outstanding chairman. And
so I look forward to working with you on that.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Mica.
Mr. Doolittle.
Mr. Doolittle. Welcome, everyone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I am receiving my signal from my right here,
my immediate right. Before we proceed with the adoption of the
committee rules and oversight, I want to, as a matter of old
business, notify the committee no action was taken under
interim authority requiring full committee approval. We will
certainly bring all Members, and particularly our new Members,
up to speed on all matters currently before the committee.
The Chair lays now before the committee resolutions
adopting the committee rules, the oversight plan for the 108th
Congress. I want to thank the Ranking Member and staff for
working with the Majority on these issues. Both of these items
have been discussed by the Minority and Majority, and with
bipartisan cooperation, I believe we have an agreement.
The committee rules as presented only contain one change
from the rules which governed the committee for the 107th
Congress, and that is to reflect a change made to the House
rules and include the rule which grants the chairman the
authority to postpone ordered recorded votes on the approval of
measures or matters before the committee. It does not authorize
the Chair to postpone any procedural votes, although it is
unlikely this committee will need this flexibility, frankly,
but it is our determination that it would be included if it
would be necessary.
The committee oversight plan as presented contains
revisions proposed by both the Minority and Majority to reflect
changes to our oversight priorities, primarily to reflect the
continued need to focus on the security of the Capitol complex
as a result of September the 11th of 2001, as well as changes
to the section related to our jurisdiction in the Federal
election law which was necessitated by our accomplishments last
Congress with the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
and the Help America Vote Act, which Congressman Hoyer was the
main sponsor with me.
Is there any discussion on the resolution or the rules?
Mr. Mica. Move both the rules, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Recognize Mr. Mica, who has made a motion to
move the rules. The question is on the motion. Those in favor
of the motion will say aye.
Those opposed will say nay.
And with that, hearing no objection, the rules will be
adopted.
Mr. Larson. Mr. Chairman, I would just add that as you have
suggested, that the Democratic staff is in complete concurrence
with the rules as they were reviewed and the interim report
that you referred to as well, And again, I thank you for the
stellar work that you have done and thank the staff as well.
the Chairman. Thank you.
The Chair now lays before the committee a committee
resolution approving the House perimeter security plan. I do
want to publicly thank the Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood, the
Architect of the Capitol Alan Hantman, and the Chief of the
Capitol Police Terry Gainer and all of their staff who have
worked so hard to brief this committee on the plan before us
and, more importantly, for all the ongoing work they are
continuing to do to help ensure the security of this House. And
I know I am speaking for the entire committee when I express
our sincere appreciation.
By voting to approve this plan, the committee is taking
comprehensive action to provide a more secure perimeter for the
House campus, providing enhanced security for all who serve,
work, or visit here. While we will always live in a world of
risk, this plan represents concrete steps that will mitigate
certain threats and provide us with a level of protection not
present today.
Make no mistake, however. Adoption of this plan only
represents only one of a series of steps which began at this
committee months ago towards greater physical security and
ensuring the continuity of operations for the institution. Now,
because we are in a public forum, in order to protect the
security-sensitive nature of this matter, I will refrain from
any further comments on the specifics of the plan at this time.
I would note also aesthetically it is going to be easier to
move around the Capitol complex, and the great big round flower
pots, whenever you want to call them, will be a thing of the
past soon.
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Larson. Mr. Chairman, if I could just remark briefly
that again I appreciate and echo your sentiments with respect
to the amount of detail and work and effort that has gone into
this proposal, and thank you as well for assisting us in
arranging a briefing for myself and new Members of the
committee this afternoon, and are in complete agreement with
the resolution.
The Chairman. Thank you, I appreciate the support.
Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise an issue I
raised in the discussion when we were presented with the plan,
and I want to reinforce that. I have not heard back from the
Architect's office, and maybe it wasn't clear that I would like
to have heard more from them, but it bothers me greatly that
the proposed plan, instead of including the Botanic Gardens,
deliberately goes around the Botanic Gardens. The response at
the presentation when I asked about it, I was told this would
cost $1 million more. On reflection, that simply can't be,
because it is not much greater distance.
The importance of this is that the Botanic Gardens have no
protection at this point. There are many events there at which
Members participate, and there are several events each year at
which there is a majority of the Members participating. There
is no police protection now.
I have been working on a bill and have been working with
the Senate on that because this issue came up. It is under the
jurisdiction of the Library Committee, which I chaired the last
2 years, and we have a bill prepared to require the Capitol
Police to provide police protection during events there. But
its is a very vulnerable spot, and I really think that the
Botanic Gardens should be included within the House perimeter
security plan.
I have a motion here to approve it, but I would like to
propose an amendment first that we approve the House perimeter
security plan, but ask that the Botanic Gardens be enclosed
within the perimeter rather than excluded, and particularly at
that--unless the committees meets again and negates that
suggestion.
The Chairman. I actually have had the same discussion, by
the way, about the Botanical Gardens.
The Ehlers. And I just don't believe the answer I got.
The Chairman. I just would like to ask if we could approve
the perimeter security, and then come back within a short
period of time to see if we could modify the contract. I don't
know how that all runs. Would that be acceptable?
Mr. Ehlers. Well, I don't want them to sign the contract
first, because then an add-on, as you know, is always more
expensive than including it in the original bid. Have they gone
out for bids at this point? I don't even see them here.
Obviously they are not that concerned about our action on this.
The Chairman. The only thing I can assure you, I guess is
that if the committee would support this at another time, they
would have to amend the plan, I am sure; they would have to
come back and amend if the committee would approve it.
The only hesitation I have is I want the perimeter security
plan to proceed. I just don't know how this, in fact, affects
possibly having to rebid. I mean, there might be--I am not
saying I disagree. This might be a legal problem.
Mr. Ehlers. Have they gone out for bid?
The Chairman. Well, they also tell me technically it has to
be in writing because it is an amendment to the resolution. But
beyond that, I don't want to get real technical. I am just
saying I don't know if, in fact, this would alter the contract.
Does anyone know about if it has gone to bid? I am informed
possibly there would have to be a new R F P issued because it
wasn't in the original. And again, the only hesitation I have
is to stop the whole perimeter security at this point in time.
Mr. Larson. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Larson. While--and I certainly appreciate the spirit of
the amendment and the spirit in which the Chairman is trying to
work with the Member. And obviously, upon the staff's
intervention that this would be a violation of the rules, but
perhaps, as you indicated--and clearly I speak for the
Democratic side, this is something that we would be open to
even if it means an added R F P. While I concur with Mr. Ehlers
that it probably will cost more, and that is unfortunate, but
the protection of the Botanical Gardens and a possible security
problem that that poses, I think, is equally warranted, and
clearly would like to work with the Members to try to bring
that about, understanding the problem with making sure that we
have a resolution adopted this evening that deals with the
immediate security so that the process can get under way.
The Chairman. Let me just restate. I again had raised this
issue myself at one point in time. The only hesitation I have
is this is ready to go, and if we would have to do a new R F P
and it took, you know, 30, 60, 90-some days. I think if the
committee comes back and takes a look at this, and the R F P
goes as planned, and we can come back and amend this and
include it, then I believe they could do it, and it wouldn't
hold up the process.
Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, if, in fact, this has gone out
for bids, and bids have been received, I would consider that. I
am not convinced that has happened yet. There is no dollar
amount given here. It also says: Hereby approves the House
perimeter security plan attached hereto and incorporated
herein. And that is also not--it is not attached hereto and not
incorporated herein.
I don't want to be a big pain about this, but, frankly, the
Architect's office has not given us great cooperation on
suggestions we have made, and I am concerned about this going
ahead and then them coming back with a totally inflated figure
of what it would cost. And I just can't believe their off-the-
cuff estimate to me was correct. I could certainly write an
amendment to the resolution in one line, but I don't want to
create a roadblock here----
Mr. Linder. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Ehlers [continuing]. But I want to make sure there is
some leverage here that we can listen to.
I will be pleased to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Linder. I am curious to know how they would have moved
ahead with the R F P if they didn't have the approved
resolution.
Mr. Ehlers. That is my question, too. And I am not sure
that they have actually gone out.
Mr. Linder. Until we approve this resolution, they don't
have the authority to go out, do they?
Mr. Ehlers. They may have put out an R F P, but that is a
different situation than going out for bids.
The Chairman. The only thing I really hesitate on this very
clearly is that if, in fact--and I didn't know this is coming.
So if, in fact----
Mr. Ehlers. I am sorry.
The Chairman. That is okay. But if, in fact, we would do
this, and something would happen, and you know how the law is,
and they have to go through an entire process, it worries me
that we have stopped the perimeter security plan, which has
been in the works for quite a while and everybody has had the
opportunity to be briefed on. But I am not saying I am against
what Mr. Ehlers is trying to do; I just think that we move
ahead with the perimeter security, and we can come back and
then amend it and get the estimates. And I mean, frankly, I
don't think it is a bad idea. It is just the fact that I don't
want to stop the perimeter security plan.
Mr. Larson. Will the gentleman yield?
Typically, wouldn't--and again, I don't profess great
knowledge in this area, but particularly even if the R F P had
been submitted already, and if the committee instructed the
Architect immediately to seek a change order prior to them
breaking ground, it seems that they ought to be able to come
back with an estimate in a relatively short period of time that
would incorporate not the inflated costs--and I agree with you
there, Vern, but something that is more in line with some of
the balustrades that they showed us in the schematics there. So
it would seem that they might be able to incorporate that.
The Chairman. Just let me reiterate. I think it is a good
idea, and I have questioned all along why we haven't had it,
but I still don't want to stop the perimeter security plan at
this point in time.
Mr. Linder. Mr. Chairman, I move the committee resolution
approving the House perimeter security plan be adopted.
The Chairman. It has been moved. Questions on the--yes.
Ms. Millender-McDonald. Mr. Chairman, can we not approve
this with a proviso that we return to look at the Botanical
Gardens security, and it can ride on that premise?
The Chairman. Absolutely. And I make a commitment that we
will come back and look at it.
We have a motion.
Mr. Ehlers. Soon, I hope.
The Chairman. Soon.
And the question is on the motion. Those in favor of the
motion will say aye.
Those opposed will say nay.
With one objection, and the motion is agreed to, and the
committee resolution approving the House perimeter security
plan is adopted.
The next item on the agenda is the resolution dismissing an
election contest arising from the 6th Congressional District of
Tennessee. And the clerk will read the motion.
The Clerk. Resolved, that the election contest relating to
the office of the Representative from the 6th Congressional
District of Tennessee is dismissed.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Connecticut, Mr. Larson, for the purpose of offering the
motion.
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a bipartisan agreement that
the election contest relating to the 6th Congressional District
of Tennessee is completely frivolous. It should be dismissed
without consuming any additional time of the committee. And,
therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee report
favorably to the House an original resolution, the text of
which is before the Members, to dismiss the election contest in
the 6th Congressional District of Tennessee.
The Chairman. The Chair agrees with the gentleman from
Connecticut. Is there any questions or discussions on it? If
not, the question is on the motion. Those in favor of the
motion will say aye.
Those opposed, no.
Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would just like
to make a comment.
The Chairman. You don't have an amendment to this, do you?
Mr. Ehlers. No. But I have another motion in a minute. But
I just want to commend you for this. You certainly dealt with
this one far more expeditiously than we dealt with the last
contested case--election, which I chaired.
The Chairman. I was there with you.
Mr. Ehlers. and as some of you may remember, it took almost
2 years.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out, when we
considered the rules and the oversight plan earlier, the motion
was made by a Member who mentioned only the rules. Therefore, I
move that the oversight plan for the 108th Congress also be
approved. We did not officially approve that.
The Chairman. The motion is on--do you want to read your
motion one more time?
Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I move that the resolution on the
oversight plan for the 108th Congress be approved.
The Chairman. The question is on the motion. Those in favor
of the motion will say aye.
Those opposed, say nay.
And with that, the motion is agreed to.
I want to thank all the Members again for being here today
and helping us with the planning and preparation of this
meeting. I now ask unanimous consent that Members----
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes, Mr. Doolittle.
Mr. Doolittle. Did you actually announce the results of
that vote?
The Chairman. I'm sorry?
Mr. Doolittle. Did you actually announce the result of the
vote dismissing the election? Maybe you did. I didn't hear it.
The Chairman. It was unanimous on the dismissal. The motion
is agreed to, and the resolution dismissing the election
contest will be reported favorably to the House. And I ask
unanimous consent that members have 7 legislative days to
submit material into the Record for those statements, material
be entered in the appropriate place in the Record. Without
objection. Hearing none, the material will be so entered.
I ask unanimous consent that the staff be authorized to
make technical and conforming changes on all the matters
considered by the committee at today's meeting. Without
objection? Noting no objection, so ordered.
Having completed our business for today, the committee is
hereby adjourned. I appreciate the time of the members.
[Whereupon, at 7:32 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]