House Report 117-698 - THE REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES of the COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION during the 117TH CONGRESS together with minority views

[House Report 117-698]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Union Calendar No. 514
117th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 117-698
_______________________________________________________________________

THE REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES

of the

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

during the

117TH CONGRESS

together with minority views

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

December 30, 2022.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

50-183 WASHINGTON : 2023

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

----------

House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC, December 30, 2022.
Hon. Cheryl L. Johnson,
Clerk of the House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Johnson: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, I present herewith the
report on the activities of the Committee on House
Administration for the 117th Congress.
Sincerely,
Zoe Lofgren,
Chairperson.

Union Calendar No. 514
117th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 117-698

======================================================================

REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION FOR THE
117TH CONGRESS

_______

December 30, 2022.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______

Ms. Lofgren, from the Committee on House Administration,
submitted the following

R E P O R T

together with

MINORITY VIEWS

Report

Clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives for the 117th Congress requires each standing
Committee, not later than January 2 of each odd-numbered year,
submit to the House a report on the activities of that
Committee, including separate sections summarizing the
legislative and oversight activities of that Committee during
that Congress.

Jurisdiction

RULES OF THE HOUSE

Clause 1(k) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives for the 117th Congress sets forth the
jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration as
follows--
(1) Appropriations from accounts for committee salaries and
expenses (except for the Committee on Appropriations); House
Information Resources; and allowance and expenses of Members,
Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, officers, and
administrative offices of the House.
(2) Auditing and settling of all accounts described in
subparagraph (1).
(3) Employment of persons by the House, including staff for
Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, and committees;
and reporters of debates, subject to rule VI.
(4) Except as provided in paragraph (r)(11), the Library of
Congress, including management thereof; the House Library;
statuary and pictures; acceptance or purchase of works of art
for the Capitol; the Botanic Garden; and purchase of books and
manuscripts,
(5) The Smithsonian Institution and the incorporation of
similar institutions (except as provided in paragraph (r)(11)).
(6) Expenditure of accounts described in subparagraph (1).
(7) Franking Commission\1\;
(8) Printing and correction of the Congressional Record.
(9) Accounts of the House generally.
(10) Assignment of office space for Members, Delegates, the
Resident Commissioner, and committees.
(11) Disposition of useless executive papers.
(12) Election of the President, Vice President, Members,
Senators, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner; corrupt
practices; contested elections, credentials and qualifications;
and Federal elections generally.
(13) Services to the House, including the House Restaurant,
parking facilities, and administration of the House Office
Buildings and of the House wing of the Capitol.
(14) Travel of Members, Delegates, and the Resident
Commissioner.
(15) Raising, reporting, and use of campaign contributions
for candidates for office of Representative, of Delegate, and
of Resident Commissioner; and
(16) Compensation, retirement, and other benefits of the
Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, officers, and
employees of Congress.

Rules for the Committee on House Administration, U.S. House of
Representatives, 117th Congress

(Adopted February 10, 2021)

Rule No. 1--General Provisions

(a) The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules
of the Committee so far as applicable, except that a motion to
recess from day to day is a privileged motion in the Committee.
(b) The Committee is authorized at any time to conduct such
investigations and studies as it may consider necessary or
appropriate in the exercise of its responsibilities under rule
X of the Rules of the House of Representatives and, subject to
the adoption of expense resolutions as required by clause 6 of
rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, to incur
expenses (including travel expenses) in connection therewith.
(c) The Committee is authorized to have printed and bound
testimony and other data presented at hearings held by the
Committee, and to make such information available to the
public. All costs of stenographic services and transcripts in
connection with any meeting or hearing of the Committee shall
be paid from the appropriate House account.
(d) The Committee shall submit to the House, not later than
January 2 of each odd-numbered year, a report on the activities
of the committee under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives.
(e) The Committee's rules shall be made publicly available
in electronic form and published in the Congressional Record
not later than 60 days after the Chairperson is elected in each
odd-numbered year.

Rule No. 2--Regular and Special Meetings

(a)(1) The regular meeting date of the Committee shall be
the second Tuesday of every month when the House is in session
in accordance with clause 2(b) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives. If the House is not in session on the
second Tuesday of a month, the regular meeting date shall be
the third Tuesday of that month.
(2) Additional meetings may be called by the
Chairperson of the full Committee as the Chairperson
considers necessary, or at the request of a majority of
the members of the Committee in accordance with clause
2(c) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
(3) The determination of the business to be
considered at each meeting shall be made by the
Chairperson subject to clause 2(c) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives. A regularly
scheduled meeting may be dispensed with if, in the
judgment of the Chairperson, there is no need for the
meeting.
(b) If the Chairperson is not present at any meeting of the
Committee, the ranking member of the majority party who is
present shall preside at the meeting.
(c) The Chairperson, in the case of meetings to be
conducted by the Committee shall make public announcement of
the date, place, and subject matter of any meeting to be
conducted on any measure or matter. Such meeting shall not
commence earlier than the third calendar day (excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is
in session on such a day) on which members have notice thereof.
If the Chairperson, with the concurrence of the ranking
minority member, determines that there is good cause to begin
the meeting sooner, or if the Committee so determines by
majority vote, a quorum being present, the Chairperson shall
make the announcement at the earliest possible date. The
announcement shall promptly be made publicly available in
electronic form and published in the Daily Digest.
(d) The Chairperson, in the case of meetings to be
conducted by the Committee shall make publicly available in
electronic form the text of any legislation to be marked up at
a meeting at least 24 hours before such meeting (or at the time
of an announcement made within 24 hours of such meeting). This
requirement shall also apply to any resolution or regulation to
be considered at a meeting.

Rule No. 3--Open Meetings

As required by clause 2(g) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, each meeting for the transaction of
business, including the markup of legislation of the Committee,
shall be open to the public except when the Committee in open
session and with a quorum present determines by record vote
that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day
shall be closed to the public because disclosure of matters to
be considered would endanger national security, would
compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend
to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or otherwise
would violate any law or rule of the House. Provided, however,
that no person other than members of the Committee, and such
congressional staff and such other persons as the Committee may
authorize, shall be present in any business or markup session
which has been closed to the public. To the maximum extent
practicable, the Chairperson shall cause to be provided audio
and video coverage of each hearing or meeting that allows the
public to easily listen to and view the proceedings and
maintain the recordings of such coverage in a manner that is
easily accessible to the public.

Rule No. 4--Records and Rollcalls

(a)(1) A record vote shall be held if requested by any
member of the Committee.
(2) The result of each record vote in any meeting of
the Committee shall be made publicly available in
electronic form within 48 hours of such record vote.
Information so available shall include a description of
the amendment, motion, order or other proposition, the
name of each member voting for and against, and the
members present but not voting.
(3) The Chairperson shall make publicly available in
electronic form on the Committee's website not later
than 24 hours after the adoption of any amendment, or
48 hours after the disposition or withdrawal of any
other amendment, to a measure or matter the text of
such amendment.
(b)(1) Subject to subparagraph (2), the Chairperson may
postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on
the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an
amendment. The Chairperson may resume proceedings on a
postponed request at any time.
(2) In exercising postponement authority under
subparagraph (1), the Chairperson shall take all
reasonable steps necessary to notify members on the
resumption of proceedings on any postponed record vote.
(3) When proceedings resume on a postponed question,
notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous
question, an underlying proposition shall remain
subject to further debate or amendment to the same
extent as when the question was postponed.
(c) All Committee hearings, records, data, charts, and
files shall be kept separate and distinct from the
congressional office records of the member serving as
Chairperson, and such records shall be the property of the
House and all members of the House shall have access thereto.
(d) House records of the Committee which are at the
National Archives shall be made available pursuant to rule VII
of the Rules of the House of Representatives .The Chairperson
shall notify the ranking minority member of any decision to
withhold a record pursuant to the rule and shall present the
matter to the Committee upon written request of any Committee
member.
(e) To the maximum extent feasible, the Committee shall
make its publications available in electronic form.

Rule No. 5--Proxies

No vote by any member in the Committee may be cast by
proxy.

Rule No. 6--Power to Sit and Act; Subpoena Power

(a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions
and duties under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee is authorized (subject to
subparagraph (b)(1) of this paragraph)--
(1) to sit and act at such times and places within
the United States, whether the House is in session, has
recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings;
and
(2) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the
attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the
production of such books, records, correspondence,
memoranda, papers, documents, and other materials as it
deems necessary, including materials in electronic
form. The Chairperson, or any member designated by the
Chairperson, may administer oaths to any witness.
(b)(1) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the
Chairperson of the full Committee, in accordance with clause
2(m) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, in the conduct
of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or
activities within the jurisdiction of the Committee, following
consultation with the ranking minority member.
(2) In addition, a subpoena may be authorized and
issued by the Committee in accordance with clause 2(m)
of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, in the conduct of any investigation or
activity or series of investigations or activities,
when authorized by a majority of the members voting ,a
majority of the Committee being present. Authorized
subpoenas shall be signed by the Chairperson or by any
member designated by the Committee.
(3) At least two business days before issuing any
subpoena pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection,
the Chairperson shall consult with the ranking minority
member regarding the authorization and issuance of such
subpoena, and the Chairperson shall provide a full copy
of the proposed subpoena, including any proposed
document schedule, at that time.
(4) The requirements of paragraph (3) may be waived
in the event of an exigent circumstance that does not
reasonably allow for advance written notice.

Rule No. 7--Quorums

No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the House
unless a majority of the Committee is actually present. For the
purposes of taking any action other than reporting any measure,
issuance of a subpoena pursuant to rule 6(b)(2) of the Rules of
the Committee, closing meetings, promulgating Committee orders,
or changing the rules of the Committee, one-third of the
members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum. For
purposes of taking testimony and receiving evidence, two
members shall constitute a quorum.

Rule No. 8--Amendments

Any amendment offered to any pending legislation before the
Committee must be made available in written form when requested
by any member of the Committee. If such amendment is not
available in written form when requested, the Chairperson will
allow an appropriate period of time for the provision thereof.

Rule No. 9--Hearing Procedures

(a) The Chairperson shall make public announcement of the
date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted
on any measure or matter at least one week before the
commencement of that hearing. If the Chairperson, with the
concurrence of the ranking minority member, determines that
there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the
Committee so determines by majority vote, a quorum being
present, the Chairperson shall make the announcement at the
earliest possible date, and the announcement shall be published
promptly in the Daily Digest handmade publicly available in
electronic form.
(b) Unless excused by the Chairperson, each witness who is
to appear before the Committee shall file with the clerk of the
Committee, at least 48 hours in advance of their appearance, a
written statement of their proposed testimony and shall limit
their oral presentation to a summary of their statement.
(c) When any hearing is conducted by the Committee upon any
measure or matter, the minority party members on the Committee
shall be entitled, upon request to the Chairperson by a
majority of those minority members before the completion of
such hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to
testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least
one day of hearings thereon.
(d) All other members of the Committee may have the
privilege of sitting with any subcommittee during its hearing
or deliberations and may participate in such hearings or
deliberations, but no member who is not a member of the
subcommittee shall count for a quorum or offer any motion or
amendment or vote on any matter before the subcommittee.
(e) Committee members may question witnesses only when they
have been recognized by the Chairperson for that purpose, and
only for a five-minute period until all members present have
had an opportunity to question a witness. The five-minute
period for questioning a witness by any one member can be
extended as provided by clause 2(j) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives. The questioning of a witness in
Committee hearings shall be initiated by the Chairperson,
followed by the ranking minority member and all other members
alternating between the majority and minority. In recognizing
members to question witnesses in this fashion, the Chairperson
shall take into consideration the ratio of the majority to
minority members present and shall establish the order of
recognition for questioning in such a manner as not to
disadvantage the members of the majority. The Chairperson may
accomplish this by recognizing two majority members for each
minority member recognized.
(f) The following additional rules shall apply to hearings
of the Committee as applicable:
(1) The Chairperson at a hearing shall announce in an
opening statement the subject of the investigation.
(2) A copy of the Committee rules and this clause
shall be made available to each witness as provided by
clause 2(k)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
(3) Witnesses at hearings may be accompanied by their
own counsel for the purpose of advising them concerning
their constitutional rights.
(4) The Chairperson may punish breaches of order and
decorum, and of professional ethics on the part of
counsel, by censure and exclusion from the hearings;
and the Committee may cite the offender to the House
for contempt.
(5) If the Committee determines that evidence or
testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or
incriminate any person, it shall--
(A) afford such person an opportunity
voluntarily to appear as a witness;
(B) receive such evidence or testimony in
executive session; and
(C) receive and dispose of requests from such
person to subpoena additional witnesses.
(6) Except as provided in paragraph (5) of this
subsection, the Chairperson shall receive, and the
Committee shall dispose of, requests to subpoena
additional witnesses.
(7) No evidence or testimony taken in executive
session may be released or used in public sessions
without the consent of the Committee.
(8) In the discretion of the Committee, witnesses may
submit brief and pertinent sworn statements in writing
for inclusion in the record. The Committee is the sole
judge of the pertinence of testimony and evidence
adduced at its hearing.
(9) A witness may obtain a transcript copy of their
testimony given at a public session or, if given at an
executive session, when authorized by the Committee.

Rule No. 10--Procedures for Reporting Measures or Matters

(a)(1) It shall be the duty of the Chairperson to report or
cause to be reported promptly to the House any measure approved
by the Committee and to take or cause to be taken necessary
steps to bring the matter to a vote.
(2) In any event, the report of the Committee on a
measure which has been approved by the Committee shall
be filed within seven calendar days (exclusive of days
on which the House is not in session) after the day on
which there has been filed with the clerk of the
Committee a written request, signed by a majority of
the members of the Committee, for the reporting of that
measure. Upon the filing of any such request, the clerk
of the Committee shall transmit immediately to the
Chairperson notice of the filing of that request.
(b)(1) No measure or recommendation shall be reported to
the House unless a majority of the Committee is actually
present.
(2) With respect to each record vote on a motion to
report any measure or matter of a public character, and
on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, the
total number of votes cast for and against, and the
names of those members voting for and against, shall be
included in the Committee report on the measure or
matter.
(c) The report of the Committee on a measure or matter
which has been approved by the Committee shall include the
matters required by clause 3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
(d)(1) If, at the time any measure or matter is ordered
reported by the Committee, any member of the Committee gives
notice of intention to file supplemental, minority, additional,
or dissenting views for inclusion in the report, members shall
be entitled to not less than two additional calendar days after
the day of such notice, commencing on the day on which the
measure or matter(s) was approved, excluding Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal holidays, in which to file such views, in
writing and signed by that member, with the clerk of the
Committee.
(2) All such views so filed by one or more members of
the Committee shall be included within, and shall be a
part of, the report filed by the Committee with respect
to that measure or matter.
(3) The report of the Committee upon that measure or
matter shall be printed in a single volume which--
(A) shall include all supplemental, minority,
additional or dissenting views, the form
submitted, by the time of the filing of the
report, and
(B) shall bear upon its cover a recital that
any such supplemental, minority, additional, or
dissenting views (and any material submitted
under clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives) are included
as part of the report. This subparagraph does
not preclude--
(i) the immediate filing or printing
of a Committee report unless timely
request for the opportunity to file
supplemental, minority, additional, or
dissenting views has been made as
provided under clause 2(l) of rule XI
of the Rules of the House of
Representatives; or
(ii) the filing of any supplemental
report upon any measure or matter which
may be required for the correction of
any technical error in a previous
report made by the Committee upon that
measure or matter.
(4) shall, when appropriate, contain the documents
required by clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
(e) The Chairperson, following consultation with the
ranking minority member, is directed to offer a motion under
clause 1 of rule XXII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives relating to going to conference with the
Senate, whenever the Chairperson considers it appropriate.
(f) If hearings have been held on any such measure or
matter so reported, the Committee shall make every reasonable
effort to have such hearings published and available to the
members of the House prior to the consideration of such measure
or matter in the House.
(g) The Chairperson may designate any majority member of
the Committee to act as floor manager of a bill or resolution
during its consideration in the House.

Rule No. 11--Committee Oversight

(a) The Committee shall conduct oversight of matters within
the jurisdiction of the Committee in accordance with clauses 2
and 4(d) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
(b) Not later than March 1 of the first session of a
Congress and in accordance with clause 2(d) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee shall
prepare an oversight plan for that Congress.

Rule No. 12--Review of Continuing Programs; Budget Act Provisions

(a) The Committee shall, in its consideration of all bills
and joint resolutions of public character within its
jurisdiction, ensure that appropriation for continuing programs
and activities of the Federal Government will be made annually
to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the nature,
requirement, and objectives of the programs and activities
involved. For the purposes of this paragraph a Government
agency includes the organizational units of government listed
in clause 4(c) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
(b) The Committee shall review, from time to time, each
continuing program within its jurisdiction for which
appropriations are not made annually in order to ascertain
whether such program could be modified so that appropriations
therefore would be made annually.
(c) The Committee shall, in accordance with clause 4(f)(1)
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, submit
to the Committee on the Budget (1) its views and estimates with
respect to all matters to be set forth in the concurrent
resolution on the budget for the ensuing fiscal year which are
within its jurisdiction or functions, and (2) an estimate of
the total amounts of new budget authority, and budget outlays
resulting therefrom, to be provided or authorized in all bills
and resolutions within its jurisdiction which it intends to be
effective during that fiscal year.
(d) Whenever the Committee is directed in a concurrent
resolution on the budget to determine and recommend changes in
laws, bills, or resolutions under the reconciliation process it
shall promptly make such determination and recommendations and
report a reconciliation bill or resolution (or both) to the
House or submit such recommendations to the Committee on the
Budget, in accordance with the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.

Rule No. 13--Audio and Visual Coverage of Committee Proceedings

Whenever any hearing or meeting conducted by the Committee
is open to the public, those proceedings shall be open to
coverage by audio and visual means as provided in clause 4 of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, subject
to the limitations therein.

Rule No. 14--Committee Staff

The staff of the Committee on House Administration shall be
appointed as follows:
(a) The staff shall be appointed by the Chairperson except
as provided in paragraph (b), and may be removed by the
Chairperson, and shall work under the general supervision and
direction of the Chairperson;
(b) All staff provided to the minority party members of the
Committee shall be appointed by the ranking minority member,
and may be removed by the ranking minority member of the
Committee, and shall work under the general supervision and
direction of such member;
(c) The appointment of all professional staff shall be
subject to the approval of the Committee as provided by, and
subject to the provisions of, clause 9 of rule X of the Rules
of the House of Representatives;
(d) The Chairperson shall fix the compensation of all staff
of the Committee, after consultation with the ranking minority
member regarding any minority party staff, within the budget
approved for such purposes for the Committee.

Rule No. 15--Travel of Members and Staff

(a) Consistent with the primary expense resolution and such
additional expense resolutions as may have been approved, the
provisions of this rule shall govern travel of Committee
members and staff. Travel for any member or any staff member
shall be paid only upon the prior authorization of the
Chairperson or their designee. Travel may be authorized by the
Chairperson for any member and any staff member in connection
with the attendance at hearings conducted by the Committee and
meetings, conferences, and investigations which involve
activities or subject matter under the general jurisdiction of
the Committee. Before such authorizations given there shall be
submitted to the Chairperson in writing the following:
(1) The purpose of the travel;
(2) The dates during which the travel will occur;
(3) The locations to be visited and the length of
time to be spent in each; and
(4) The names of members and staff seeking
authorization.
(b)(1) In the case of travel outside the United States of
members and staff of the Committee for the purpose of
conducting hearings, investigations, studies, or attending
meetings and conferences involving activities or subject matter
under the legislative assignment of the committee, prior
authorization must be obtained from the Chairperson. Before
such authorization is given, there shall be submitted to the
Chairperson, in writing, a request for such authorization. Each
request, which shall be filed in a manner that allows for a
reasonable period of time for review before such travel is
scheduled to begin, shall include the following:
(A) the purpose of the travel;
(B) the dates during which the travel will
occur;
(C) the names of the countries to be visited
and the length of time to be spent in each;
(D) an agenda of anticipated activities for
each country for which travel is authorized
together with a description of the purpose to
be served and the areas of committee
jurisdiction involved; and
(E) the names of members and staff for whom
authorization is sought.
(2) At the conclusion of any hearing, investigation,
study, meeting, or conference for which travel outside
the United States has been authorized pursuant to this
rule, members and staff attending meetings or
conferences shall submit a written report to the
Chairperson covering the activities and other pertinent
observations or information gained as a result of such
travel.
(c) Members and staff of the Committee performing
authorized travel on official business shall be governed by
applicable laws, resolutions, or regulations of the House and
of the Committee on House Administration pertaining to such
travel.

Rule No. 16--Staff Deposition Authority

The Chairperson may authorize the staff of the Committee to
conduct depositions pursuant to section 3(b) of House
Resolution 8, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, and subject to
any regulations issued pursuant thereto.

Rule No. 17--Number and Jurisdiction of Subcommittees

(a) There shall be one standing subcommittee, with party
ratios of members as indicated. The subcommittee shall have
jurisdiction as stated by these rules, may conduct oversight
over such subject matter, and may consider such legislation as
may be referred to them by the Chairperson. The name and
jurisdiction of the subcommittee shall be:
(1) Subcommittee on Elections (3/1)--Matters relating
to voting rights issues and such other matters as may
be referred to the subcommittee.
(b) The Chairperson may establish and appoint
members, consistent with the ratio between majority and
minority members serving on the Subcommittee on
Elections, to serve on task forces, panels, special, or
select subcommittees of the Committee, to perform
specific functions for limited periods of time, as the
Chairperson deems appropriate.

Rule No. 18--Referral of Legislation to Subcommittees

The Chairperson may refer legislation or other matters to
the Subcommittee as the Chairperson considers appropriate. The
Chairperson may discharge the Subcommittee of any matter
referred to it.

Rule No. 19--Powers and Duties of Subcommittees

The Subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,
receive evidence and report to the full committee on all
matters referred to it. The Subcommittee shall not meet during
any full Committee meeting or hearing.

Rule No. 20--Other Procedures and Regulations

The Chairperson may establish such other procedures and
take such actions as maybe necessary to carry out the foregoing
rules or to facilitate the effective operation of the
Committee.

Rule No. 21--Designation of Clerk of the Committee

For the purposes of these Rules and the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Staff Director of the Committee shall
act as the clerk of the Committee.

Membership and Organization of the Committee on House Administration

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

(Ratio: 6-3)

Zoe Lofgren, California, Chairperson
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Ranking
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina Member
PETE AGUILAR, California BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin
TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico

SUBCOMMITEE MEMBERSHIP

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

(Ratio: 3-1)

G. K. Butterfield, North Carolina, Chairperson
Pete Aguilar, California
Teresa Leger Fernandez, New Mexico
Bryan Steil, Ranking Member

Committee Organization

The Committee on House Administration organized on February
10, 2021, the Honorable Zoe Lofgren presiding. During the
organizational meeting the Committee adopted the Rules of the
Committee for the 117th Congress, (Committee Resolution 117-
01). The Committee also reconstituted the Subcommittee on
Elections and established its jurisdiction and membership
(Committee Resolution 117-02). The Committee approved seven
additional Committee Resolutions: Committee Resolution 117-03,
to adopt the Parking Policy for the 117th Congress; Committee
Resolution 117-04, to promulgate regulations regarding
Mandatory Anti-Harassment and Anti-Discrimination Policies for
House Offices; Committee Resolution 117-05, to promulgate
Regulations regarding Displaying a Statement of Rights and
Protections Provided to House Employees; Committee Resolution
117-06, to promulgate Regulations Governing the House Student
Loan Repayment Program; Committee Resolution 117-07, to
promulgate Regulations GoverningHouse Paid Internships;
Committee Resolution 117-08, to amend the Eligible
Congressional Member Organizations Handbook; and Committee
Resolution 117-09, prohibition on use of Exercise Facilities of
the House of Representatives by Registered Lobbyists or Agents
of Foreign Principals.

COMMITTEE STAFF
MAJORITY STAFF

Jamie Fleet, Staff Director
Khalil Abboud, Deputy Staff
Director
Enumale Agada, Oversight Counsel
Patrick Briggs, Professional Staff
Member
Georgina Cannan, Elections Counsel
Kylie Carpenter, Professional
Staff--Communications Standards
Commission
Hannah Carr, Staff Assistant
Mary Kathryn Daigle, Staff
Assistant--Communications
Standards Commission
Matt DeFreitas, Staff Director--
Communications Standards
Commission
Eddie Flaherty, Chief Clerk
Andrew Garcia, Staff Assistant
Sean Gregory, Staff Assistant--
Communications Standards
Commission
Aaron LaSure, Professional Staff
Member
Jim Levine, Counsel
Kulani Jalata, Elections Counsel
Sean Jones, Legislative Clerk
Jose Morales, Professional Staff--
Member Services
Teri Morgan, Deputy Staff Director
Jonathan Murray, Professional
Staff Member
Sarah Nasta, Elections Counsel
Sierra Norton, Press Secretary
Giancarlo Pellegrini, Elections
Counsel
Matthew Schlesinger, Oversight
Counsel
Daniel Taylor, Deputy Staff
Director and Chief Counsel
Peter Whippy, Communications
Director
Sean Wright, Senior Elections
Counsel

MINORITY STAFF

Tim Monahan, Republican Staff
Director
Nick Crocker, Deputy Staff
Director
Caleb Hays, General Counsel and
Deputy Staff Director
Aubrey Neal Wilson, Director of
Modernization Initiatives
Rachel Collins, Senior Counsel
Elisabeth Conklin, Republican
Staff Director--Communications
Standards Commission
Ryan Arient, Staff Assistant
Brittany Caldwell, Senior Staff
Assistant
Alex Deise, Counsel
Robert Fitzpatrick, Special
Advisor
Ryan Giachetti, Professional Staff
Hillary Lassiter, Professional
Staff
Sloane Perkins, Press and Digital
Assistant
Andrea Porwoll, Communications
Director
Reed Powell, Professional Staff--
Communications Standards
Commission
Craig Roberts, Special Advisor
Janet Schwalb, Director of
Administration and Advice and
Guidance
Elliott Smith, Professional Staff
Jordan Wilson, Director of Member
Services

Oversight Plan for the 117th Congress

Clause 2(d) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives states:
(d)(1) Not later than March 1 of the first session of
a Congress, the chair of each standing committee (other
than the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on
Ethics, and the Committee on Rules) shall----
(A) prepare, in consultation with the ranking
minority member, an oversight plan for that Congress;
(B) provide a copy of that plan to each member of the
committee for at least seven calendar days before its
submission; and
(C) submit that plan (including any supplemental,
minority, additional, or dissenting views submitted by
a member of the committee) simultaneously to the
Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Committee on
House Administration.
Accordingly, the Committee submitted the following
oversight plan in accordance with this provision:

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

Oversight Plan for the 117th Congress

The Committee on House Administration (Committee) has
developed the following oversight plan pursuant to clause 2(d)
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The
Committee's oversight activities are key to the operations of
the Legislative Branch, including the House and House Officers,
Legislative Branch agencies, and other related entities. The
Committee's responsibilities also include oversight of federal
elections. The jurisdiction of the Committee, pursuant to
clause House rule X, clause 1(k), is as follows:
(1) Appropriations from accounts for committee salaries and
expenses (except for the Committee on Appropriations); House
Information Resources; and allowance and expenses of Members,
Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, officers, and
administrative offices of the House.
(2) Auditing and settling of all accounts described in
subparagraph (1).
(3) Employment of persons by the House, including staff for
Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, and committees;
and reporters of debates, subject to rule VI.
(4) Except as provided in paragraph (r)(11), the Library of
Congress, including management thereof; the House Library;
statuary and pictures; acceptance or purchase of works of art
for the Capitol; the Botanic Garden; and purchase of books and
manuscripts,
(5) The Smithsonian Institution and the incorporation of
similar institutions (except as provided in paragraph (r)(11)).
(6) Expenditure of accounts described in subparagraph (1).
(7) Franking Commission \2\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\The name of the House Commission on Congressional Mailing
Standards, also known as the Franking Commission, was changed to the
House Communications Standards Commission. COMMS Act., P.L. 116 260.
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8) Printing and correction of the Congressional Record.
(9) Accounts of the House generally.
(10) Assignment of office space for Members, Delegates, the
Resident Commissioner, and committees.
(11) Disposition of useless executive papers.
(12) Election of the President, Vice President, Members,
Senators, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner; corrupt
practices; contested elections. credentials and qualifications;
and Federal elections generally.
(13) Services to the House, including the House Restaurant,
parking facilities, and administration of the House Office
Buildings and of the House wing of the Capitol.
(14) Travel of Members, Delegates, and the Resident
Commissioner.
(15) Raising, reporting, and use of campaign contributions
for candidates for office of Representative, of Delegate, and
of Resident Commissioner; and
(16) Compensation, retirement, and other benefits of the
Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, officers, and
employees of Congress.
The Committee will continue its oversight of operations of
the House, Legislative Branch agencies, and federal elections
in the 117th Congress. This oversight work will include various
forms of Committee activity, including, but not limited to,
regular oversight meetings with Committee staff, Member-level
meetings, briefings, hearings, correspondence, studies,
reports, and cooperation with relevant inspectors general. The
Committee intends to continue and expand its practice of
holding both monthly general oversight meetings for House
Officers and agencies and project-specific recurring oversight
meetings for Legislative Branch programs and activities that
require extra Committee attention.
The Committee's oversight activities will emphasize:
House Officers and operations;
Legislative Branch agencies and related
entities;
Security of the Capitol and throughout the
legislative branch, including the January 6, 2021,
domestic terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol;
Operations of the Legislative Branch during
the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic;
Member services;
Committee funding and activities;
The Congressional Accountability Act of
1995;
Official communications;
House technology use and modernization; and
Federal election law and procedures.

HOUSE OFFICERS AND OPERATIONS

The Committee intends to work with the House Officers to
develop and implement long term plans to ensure that they are
well positioned to serve the House community effectively. These
plans will focus on increasing efficiency, improving management
practices, diversifying the workforce, promoting physical and
cybersecurity, and facilitating interoffice cooperation.

House Officers and Operations, Generally

Oversee collaboration among House Officers and
other Legislative Branch entities with respect to the
institutional response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Provide general policy guidance to the House
Officers.
Provide policy guidance and conduct oversight of
security and safety issues and congressional entities charged
with such roles, ensuring coordination among the various
entities, with an emphasis on the January 6, 2021, domestic
terrorist attack at the Capitol.
Review proposals and oversee efforts to recruit
and retain a more diverse and inclusive workforce.
Analyze management improvement proposals and other
initiatives submitted by the House Officers and relevant
Inspectors General.
Assure coordination among House Officers and other
Legislative Branch entities on the continued development and
implementation of a comprehensive district office support
program.
Coordinate with House Officers and officials to
develop and implement long term plans and goals for the
financial and administrative functions of the House.
Coordinate with the Subcommittee on Legislative
Branch Appropriations on matters impacting operations of the
House and other Legislative Branch entities.
Ensure coordination among House Officers and other
Legislative Branch entities on administrative and technology
matters, including reviewing and improving existing IT security
policies.
Oversee compliance with the House Employees
Position Classification Act (2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 291 et seq.).
Review relevant rules, regulations, and statutes
and, in consultation with the House Officers, revise where
necessary.
Work with House Officers to create more cost
effective and efficient operations within the House, including,
but not limited to, elimination of any duplicative programs or
activities.

Chief Administrative Officer (CAO)

Provide policy direction for the Chief
Administrative Officer (CAO). Continue the review of functions
and administrative operations assigned to the CAO.
Review ongoing process and technology upgrades to
the House financial management system, ensuring appropriate
internal controls are in place.
Oversee the CAO's role in assuring accessibility
to the House wing of the Capitol, the House Office Buildings,
and other House facilities consistent with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
Oversee the House Child Care Center, including
response to the COVID-19 pandemic and efforts to reduce the
waitlist and expand admissions.
Oversee the House Recording Studio, with a focus
on the execution of remote proceedings.
Oversee the use of electronic consent forms for
casework.
Review of the House's new equipment program.
Oversee efforts to improve customer service and
communications across all CAO functions and business units.
Oversee development and implementation of
strategies to increase House staff retention.
Oversee House restaurant operations.
Oversee the Office of Employee Assistance and
House Wellness Center, including efforts to increase capacity
and address the trauma among Members and staff associated with
the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol.
Oversee operations and management of the office
supply store and gift shop.
Oversee the CAO's customer advocate program.
Oversee the Student Loan Repayment program and
recent reforms thereto.
Oversee House Creative Services.
Review alternatives to the current mail delivery
process to strengthen the services and tools available to
Members and staff.
Review and provide direction on the CAO's actions
in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Review and help to facilitate efforts to diversify
the CAO workforce.
Review existing asset management processes.
Review House furniture policy, inventory, and
selection.
Review House procurement policies and monitor the
effectiveness of the CAO's procurement and contract management
functions.
Review issues related to district office leases.
Review new technology initiatives to better serve
Members, committees, and the public.
Review procedures for processing contracts with
the House that exceed the threshold of $350,000.
Review proposals and oversee corresponding efforts
to convert certain services provided by contractors to in-house
services.
Review semi-annual financial and operational
status reports; oversee implementation of changes in operations
to improve services and increase efficiencies.
Review staff benefits offered by the House and
proposals to modify benefits.
Review the officially sanctioned ``Congressional
App Challenge.''
Review the Wounded Warrior Program and develop
recommendations, in consultation with veteran's organizations,
about improvements to the program.
Review the SFC Sean Cooley and SPC Christopher
Horton Congressional Gold Star Family Fellowship Program and
develop recommendations, in consultation with veteran's
organizations, about improvements to the program.
Review training offerings available to Members and
staff through the Congressional Staff Academy, identifying
additional programming opportunities.
Review and oversee information technology services
provided, maintained or hosted by House Information Resources:
Review of the January 6, 2021, domestic
terrorist attack at the Capitol, including
cybersecurity implications and response.
Oversee failsafe procedures to guarantee
continuity of operations.
Oversee House cybersecurity practices,
including network security and threat prevention.
Review of the House Disaster Recovery
Program.
Review of House IT configuration and
redundancy posture.
Oversee web services activities,
including new Member website development.
Oversee pilot and rollout of Quill
letter signing platform.
Oversee development of improvements to
CMS experience for Member offices.
Oversee the Technology Partner Program,
including the marketing thereof.
Oversee efforts to continue movement
toward cloud computing.

Clerk of the House

Review functions and administrative operations
assigned to the Clerk.
Oversee official reporter participation in field
hearings.
Coordinate on matters under the jurisdiction of
the House Fine Arts Board and the Capitol Preservation Board.
Oversee efforts to implement digital signatures in
the House.
Oversee legislative process adjustments
necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, including limited proxy
voting and the electronic hopper.
Oversee participation in the Bulk Data Task Force.
Oversee preparation of congressionally authorized
publications.
Oversee the House document repository.
Oversee the lobbying disclosure process, including
ways to make data more easily accessible for the general
public.
Review and approve contracts and requests for
proposals by the Clerk that exceed the $350,000 spending
threshold.
Review of semi-annual financial and operational
status reports; recommend changes in operations to improve
services and increase efficiencies.
Review other issues related to the COVID-19
pandemic, including staff vaccination.
Review standards for the electronic exchange of
legislative information among the chambers of Congress and
Legislative Branch agencies.
Review the application programming interface
incorporated in the Clerk's website.
Review the Clerk's current IT configuration and
redundancy posture.
Review the printing needs of the Clerk to evaluate
the potential for eliminating duplication.

House Inspector General

Review of functions and administrative operations
assigned to the Inspector General.
Direct Inspector General to conduct management
advisories to improve implementation and operation of key House
functions.
Ensure that audit prioritization is based upon the
assessment of risk to the operations of the House.
Monitor progress of House audits.
Review and approve proposed audit plan and audit
reports, including the annual financial statements audit.
Review comprehensive financial and operational
audits of the House, investigate any irregularities uncovered,
and monitor necessary improvements.

House Office of Diversity and Inclusion

Oversee and support efforts to direct and guide
House employing offices to recruit, hire, train, develop,
advance, promote, and retain a diverse workforce.
Oversee and ensure compliance with the diversity
survey requirement set forth in House Rule II, clause
(9)(b)(2).
Oversee and ensure compliance with the diversity
report requirement set forth in House rule II, clause
(9)(b)(3).

House Office of Whistleblower Ombuds

Oversee efforts to promulgate best practices for
whistleblower intake for offices of the House set forth in
House rule II, clause 10(b)(1).
Oversee the provision of whistleblower intake
trainings for offices of the House set forth in House rule II,
clause 10(b)(2).

House Sergeant at Arms (HSAA)

Review and oversee security operations in the
House, including the House Chamber, the galleries, the Capitol,
House Office Buildings, Capitol Grounds, and district offices.
Review of the events of January 6, 2021, including
consideration and facilitation of security recommendations made
by Lt. General Russel Honore (Ret.) and his task force studying
the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol.
Consult with the HSAA on policies adopted by the
Capitol Police Board and other relevant oversight entities.
Review of functions and administrative operations
assigned to the HSAA.
Examine Sergeant at Arms' role in assuring
accessibility to the House wing of the Capitol, the House
Office Buildings, and other House facilities consistent with
the ADA.
Review and monitor the HSAA amendments to
protocols to ensure the safety of Members' Washington, D.C.,
and district offices and homes.
Review and monitor the HSAA emergency preparedness
and training of all Members, staff, and employees.
Review and monitor the HSAA implementation of new
Member, staff, employee, and visitor tracking protocols and
electronic systems.
Review and monitor the repair/improvement of
Capitol security entry and exit pedestrian points.
Review and oversee initiatives designed to
increase security and security awareness for Members and staff
in district offices.
Review annual financial and operational status
reports; recommend changes in operations to improve services
and increase efficiencies.
Review any and all HSAA improvements to the
identification and badging of Members, staff, employees,
contractors, and visitors.
Review emergency continuity of operations and
continuity of government plans of action, including plans to
communicate to Members and staff.
Review impact of electronic access to controlled
spaces.
Review short and long-term crisis mental health
support for HSAA employees.
Review the effectiveness of district office
security program, including the law enforcement coordinator
program, enterprise-wide security system contract, and
processes for mail sent to the district offices.
Review the policies and procedures for visitor
access to the Capitol.
Review the security operation of House parking
facilities, regulations, and allocation of parking spaces.
Review the use of technology generally in the
protection of the House of Representatives.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND OTHER ENTITIES

Architect of the Capitol (AOC)

Oversee the Cannon House Office Building
renovation, with an emphasis on Phase III progress.
Review lessons learned from Phase II of the Cannon
House Office Building renovation and monitor application to
Phase III.
Oversee the closeout of punch list items in the
Cannon House Office Building renovation, including earlier
phases.
Oversee life safety measures, accessibility
measures, and improved evacuation mechanisms in House
buildings.
Oversee restoration and repairs necessitated by
the January 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack at the Capitol,
including, but not limited to review of any proposed
infrastructure security recommendations made by Lt. General
Russel Honor (Ret.).
Oversee efforts to improve diversity within the
office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), with an emphasis
on senior levels of the agency.
Oversee hiring practices, with an emphasis on
increasing diversity and inclusion at the senior levels of the
agency
Oversee the continued institutional response to
the COVID-19 pandemic.
Oversee the AOC's role in assuring accessibility
to the House wing of the Capitol and the House Office
Buildings.
Oversee the pest management practices of the AOC.
Oversee AOC's maintenance of House Buildings and
the House side of the Capitol.
Oversee caucus and meeting room renovations.
Oversee efforts to create and maintain a
professional workplace culture.
Oversee National Statuary Hall.
Oversee operations of the Capitol Visitor Center,
including public tours, the re-design of Exhibition Hall,
contracting practices and revolving fund status, in conjunction
with the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
Oversee other capital projects, including the
Rayburn Garage refurbishment.
Review AOC efforts to improve discipline program
and accountability systems, including those applicable to
exempt personnel.
Review plans and proposals for future projects in
the House Office Buildings and on the House side of the
Capitol.
Review reports by the AOC Inspector General and
implementation of audit recommendations. Examine options to
improve operation and structure of the AOC Inspector General's
office.
Review the AOC Office of Sustainability's efforts
to reduce energy and waste consumption in the Capitol Complex
by, for example, use of waterless and low-flow plumbing
fixtures in restroom facilities.
Review relevant rules, regulations, and statutes
and, in consultation with the agency, revise where necessary.
Review the electronic and procured services
provided by the Architect.
Review the operations and organizational structure
of the Office of the Architect, considering proposals for
reorganization provided to the Committee by the Architect.
Review workplace safety and health efforts.

Government Publishing Office (GPO)

Continue efforts to reform title 44, United States
Code, particularly provisions related to the Federal Depository
Library Program.
Examine current Government Publishing Office (GPO)
printing and binding regulations to determine advisability of
change.
Monitor implementation of remedial actions taken
by management to address audit issues identified by the GPO
Inspector General and outside financial auditors.
Monitor progress of the GPO committee print
project.
Oversee GPO response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Oversee operations of the GPO, including the
Superintendent of Documents.
Oversee Secure and Intelligent Document (SID)
production, including production of passports.
Oversee Superintendent of Documents' sales and
depository library programs.
Review agency efforts to recruit a diverse and
inclusive workforce.
Review and adopt legislative proposals to reform
government printing by eliminating redundancies and unnecessary
printing, increasing efficiency, and enhancing public access to
government publications.
Review GPO labor practices and labor agreements.
Review the printing needs of the House of
Representatives to identify the potential for eliminating
duplication.
Review use of GPO facilities and other assets to
identify possible alternatives that enhance value to the
Congress and the public.
Under the authority set forth in 44 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 101 et seq, review rules and regulations promulgated
by the Joint Committee on Printing, updating where prudent.

Library of Congress

Conduct detailed oversight of Congressional
Research Service operations and consider any need to modify
management and organizational structure of the service. Areas
of focus to include:
Diversity and inclusion;
Staff morale and attrition rates;
Work environment;
Resource allocation; and
Administrative support for subject
matter experts.
Conduct detailed oversight the Copyright Office:
Review the use of technology generally
in Copyright Office operations, and specifically the
office's modernization efforts. This includes continued
oversight of the development and implementation of the
Enterprise Copyright System, including the recordation
and registration systems, updated application process
and updated user experience platform.
Review the Copyright Office's efforts to
communicate its modernization efforts to stakeholders.
Review security measures and processes
for e-deposits submitted to both the Copyright Office
and Library of Congress.
Review the Copyright Office's spending
authority and its ability to budget for multi-year
capital projects.
Conduct a review of the progress that the Library
has made in providing public access to government information,
especially in electronic form.
Consider legislation proposed by the Library.
Oversee collection development programs and
digital collection plans.
Oversee Law Library operations.
Oversee Library capital projects.
Oversee Library IT modernization consistent with
the guidance from the Government Accountability Office,
including efforts to overhaul records storage, utilize the
cloud, stabilize the core IT structure, improve IT governance
and develop a more centralized and professional IT workforce.
Oversee the Contracts and Grants Directorate,
including acquisition workforce training and acquisition
planning.
Oversee the implementation of the Library of
Congress Fiscal Operations Improvement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-
481, 114 Stat. 2187), the Veterans' Oral History Project Act
(P.L. 106-380, 114 Stat. 1447), the National Recording
Preservation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-474, 114 Stat. 2085), and
the History of the House Awareness and Preservation Act (P.L.
106-99, 113 Stat. 1330).
Oversee the Library's technology hosting
environment transition.
Oversee the National Library Service's efforts to
provide the most effective service to their library partners,
explore ways to increase the number of users under 65, review
the format and content for those users, and oversee plans to
move to a new physical headquarters.
Oversee Library of Congress operations, including
inventory cataloguing systems, preservation efforts, and plans
to grow collections.
Oversee the Library's Visitor Experience
Initiative, including the Thomas Jefferson Building
renovations.
Ensure the continued compilation of educational
websites and materials tailored for students going to school
remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Oversee gift shop financial management and
accounting.
Oversee improvements to the Legislation
Information Service.
Oversee Library storage facilities, including the
shelving replacement project in the Law Library.
Oversee supervisor and employee conduct, workplace
environment and culture, discipline, and other human resources
matters.
Oversee the Library's Overseas Offices program.
Oversee the operation of the Library's various
websites, including Congress.gov and Copyright.gov.
Review and propose changes to the rules and
regulations promulgated by the Joint Committee on the Library.
Review customer order processing procedures.
Review relevant rules, regulations, and statutes
and, in consultation with the agency, revise where necessary.
Review reports by Library of Congress Inspector
General and implementation of audit recommendations. Examine
options to improve operation and structure of the Library of
Congress Inspector General's office.
Review the use of technology generally in Library
of Congress operations, and specifically the ongoing work to
centralize technology operations.

Office of Congressional Accessibility Services (OCAS)

Oversee management and operations of Office of
Congressional Accessibility Services, such as the
implementation of the ADA, in conjunction with Senate Committee
on Rules and Administration.

Smithsonian Institution

Oversee efforts to increase collections storage
capacity, including review of proposed legislation to expand
collections storage capacity.
Oversee efforts to publish educational materials
tailored toward students participating in virtual learning due
to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Oversee efforts to reduce the Smithsonian
Institution's deferred maintenance backlog.
Oversee general museum and research facility
operations of the Smithsonian Institution.
Oversee response to the COVID-19 pandemic,
including museum operations and workplace safety.
Oversee Smithsonian science and research
facilities, including the work being conducted in Panama,
Hawaii and around the world.
Oversee the partnership with the Victoria and
Albert Museum in London.
Oversee the planning for newly authorized
Smithsonian facilities, including the National Women's History
Museum and the National Museum of the American Latino.
Review and evaluate the Smithsonian Institution's
use of federally appropriated funds.
Review relevant rules, regulations and statutes
and, in consultation with the agency, revise where necessary.
Review any proposals to charge fees for admission
to any Smithsonian exhibits.
Review COVID-19 impacts to Trust finances and
labor outlook.
Review efforts to improve diversity and inclusion
within the Smithsonian, including, diversity in exhibits/
collections and diversity in the workforce, with an emphasis on
senior levels of the Smithsonian.
Review operations and conduct oversight of
Smithsonian Enterprises.
Review operations of the National Zoo.
Review proposed appointments of citizen regents to
the Smithsonian Institution's Board of Regents.
Review Smithsonian policies regarding initiation
of planning, design, and construction of projects.
Review the Smithsonian Inspector General reports
on the status of the Smithsonian, with a focus on cybersecurity
and deferred maintenance issues.

United States Capitol Police

Review the events of and related to the January 6,
2021, domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol including
consideration and facilitation of security recommendations made
by Lt. General Russel Honor (Ret.) and his task force studying
attack.
Review and oversee implementation of Inspector
General recommendations
Authorize and oversee of the installation and
maintenance of new security systems and devices proposed by the
Capitol Police Board and other relevant security entities.
Oversee national search for a new permanent
Department leadership, including a new Department Chief.
Oversee any potential structural reforms to the
Department.
Review and monitor the Department's implementation
of Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Action (IDEA) with
recruitment, training, and development of all Department
employees and leadership, with a focus on diversifying the
ranks of the department.
Review and monitor the Department's plan of action
to implement mandatory basic, immediate, and advanced
leadership training of all supervisory personnel.
Review short and long-term crisis mental health
support for Department officers and Civilian Personnel.
Conduct oversight of the effectiveness of
Department pre-screeners.
Conduct oversight of House garages security
implementation.
Continually review physical security requirements
for Members of Congress.
Examine the Department's role in assuring
accessibility to the House wing of the Capitol, House Office
Buildings and other facilities consistent with the ADA.
Monitor administrative operations of the agency,
including budgetary management, over-time use, civilian
components, attrition rates, recruitment efforts and incentive
programs for officers and civilian employees.
Oversee efforts to improve Department
transparency.
Review all reports authored by the Department
Inspector General, along with operations and structure of the
Inspector General's Office.
Review analysis of uniformed officer post/duty
assignments to determine and authorize force levels to meet the
agency's security requirements within the Capitol complex to
include the Capitol Visitor Center, the Library of Congress,
and U.S. Botanic Garden.
Review and consider proposals to improve USCP
training program, especially to counter bias, for new recruits
and in-service training, including the Department's use of
programs at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers.
Review and monitor the Department IG's immediate
recommendations to address insider threats within the
Department.
Review relevant rules, regulations, and statutes
and, in consultation with the agency, revise where necessary.
Review and monitor the revision of the
Department's Use of Force policy.
Review and oversee revisions of all Department
Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) and Memorandums of Agreement
(MOA) with certain federal, state, local, and Department of
Defense entities.
Review Department COVID-19 enhanced testing and
vaccination programs.
Review Department security clearance policy.
Review proposals for additional USCP authorities,
facilities, and equipment.

MEMBER SERVICES

Oversee Members' Representational Allowance (MRA),
including amounts, structure, regulations, and calculations to
ensure that all Members have sufficient resources to
effectively represent their constituents.
Oversee the processing of vouchers and direct
payments, including those for payroll. Continue to monitor the
implementation of the electronic vouchering system.
Provide guidance and outreach to congressional
offices to ensure compliance with Committee regulations.
Review and, if appropriate, revise the Guide to
Outfitting and Maintaining an Office, a set of regulations
governing the acquisition, transfer, and disposal of
furnishings, equipment, software, and related services.
Review and, if appropriate, revise the Members'
Congressional Handbook, a set of regulations governing the
appropriate use of the Members' Representational Allowance.
Work with the Officers of the House, the AOC, and
other Legislative Branch agencies to provide meaningful
outreach to Member offices and provide that the views of member
offices are incorporated into their ongoing work.

New Member Orientation

Plan, implement, and oversee the New Member
Orientation program for newly elected Members of Congress.
Oversee the planning and implementation of the
Congressional Research Service's New Member Issues Seminar.
Oversee continued implementation of the Transition
Aide program.
Oversee implementation of new technologies to help
facilitate New Member Orientation.
Work with the Congressional Research Service and
other support agencies to make available additional on-going
professional development services for new Members and staff.

Intern Program

Continue and expand the Gregg and Livingston
Harper Congressional Internship Program for Individuals with
Intellectual Disabilities.
Oversee the House Paid Internship program,
including oversight of paid interns in district offices.
In coordination with the Senate Committee on Rules
and Administration, organize, administer, and oversee the
intern lecture series.
Review and consider revising the intern handbook
and other publications and communication materials used in
support of the intern program.

COMMITTEE FUNDING AND OVERSIGHT

Review monthly reports on committee activities and
expenditures.
Review and, as necessary, revise the Committees'
Congressional Handbook.
Review primary and any secondary expense
resolutions and approve authorization of committee funding
levels.
Review committees' franking expenditures.
Review committees' requests for the use of
consultant contracts.

CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995

Conduct general oversight of the office of Office
of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR).
Conduct specific oversight of the OCWR IT system.
Ensure compliance with requirements concerning the
posting of workplace rights and procedures for filing claims.
Evaluate resources available to OCWR and House
employing offices to facilitate implementation of the
Congressional Accountability Act (P.L. 104-1, 109 Stat. 3)
(CAA).
Monitor any relevant judicial proceedings to
determine the impact on the CAA.
Monitor implementation of the CAA and the reforms
provided for in the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995
Reform Act (P.L. 115-397, 132 Stat. 5297).
Monitor the development and deployment of the
biannual climate survey.
Oversee updates to the anti-harassment and anti-
discrimination training curriculum, including for district
offices.
Oversee the Office of Employee Advocacy.
Review and introduce, as appropriate, OCWR
proposed regulations for paid family leave for the Legislative
Branch.
Review data on workplace rights information.
Review model harassment and discrimination
policies.
Review regulations adopted by OCWR.
Review suggestions from OCWR regarding potential
updates to employment laws, as set forth in OCWR's Section
102(b) Reports.

OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS

Coordinate with the Clerk of the House and CAO to
identify and implement new applications, resources, and
procedures for the House to be more transparent, accountable,
accessible, and to meet Member and Committee offices'
obligations related to official communications.
Coordinate with the Member Services team to
continue to update, refine, and modernize policies related to
the official use of communications resources.
Implement approved procedures to increase
transparency and improve the accounting of franked mail costs.
Oversee compliance with current prohibition on
mass mailings 60 days before a primary or general election.
Oversee implementation of the regulations
governing unsolicited mass communications as set forth in the
COMMS Act (P.L. 116-260) and the House of Representatives
Communications Standards Manual.
Oversee the Members' use of the congressional
frank and other unsolicited mass communications by providing
guidance, advice, and counsel through consultation or advisory
opinions.

HOUSE TECHNOLOGY USE AND MODERNIZATION

Continue to consult with the Select Committee on
the Modernization of Congress and implement recommendations as
appropriate.
Oversight of House Information Resources and other
technology functions of the House to improve technology
governance, services, and the electronic dissemination of
information.
Review and consideration of recommendations made
by the National Academy of Public Administration regarding
enhancing technology assessment capabilities within the
Legislative Branch.
In cooperation with Member Services team, review
available technology necessary to support New Member
Orientation.
Oversee and continue to implement an enterprise
House disaster recovery program for House offices, standing and
select Committees, and Member offices.
Oversee continuation and streamlining of House
technology assessment in both new media and cloud services.
Oversee plan for deployment of 5G (the fifth-
generation technology standard for broadband cellular
networks).
Review cybersecurity measures and develop
strategic plans to improve policies.
Review procedures and standards for technology
services provided by outside vendors, individuals, and other
entities.
Review technology standards for hearing rooms as
they relate to the committee broadcast program.
Work with Legislative Branch agencies to
communicate available technology services to all Member,
Committee, and Leadership Offices.

FEDERAL ELECTION LAW AND PROCEDURES

Build the congressional record in support of a
reauthorized national Voting Rights Act.
Examine all aspects of election security practices
and consider proposals to improve and strengthen election
integrity.
Examine the impact of amendments made by the Help
America Vote Act (HAVA) and the Military and Overseas Voter
Empowerment Act (MOVE Act) to the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) and consider proposals to
improve voting methods for those serving and living abroad.
Review operations of the Election Assistance
Commission (EAC) and evaluate possible changes to improve
efficiency and improve implementation of HAVA.
Examine the role and impact of political
organizations and non-profit organizations on federal
elections.
Recommend disposition of House election contests
pending before the committee; monitor any disputed election
counts.
Review all aspects of registration and voting
practices in federal elections. Monitor allegations of fraud
and misconduct during all phases of federal elections and
evaluate measures to improve the integrity of the electoral
process.
Review federal campaign-finance laws and
regulations, including presidential and congressional public
financing, and consider potential reforms.
Review operations of the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) and evaluate possible changes to improve
efficiency, improve enforcement of the Federal Election
Campaign Act, and improve procedures for the disclosure of
contributions and expenditures. Consider authorization issues
and make recommendations on the FEC's budget.
Review state and federal activities under the
National Voter Registration Act to identify potential for
improvement to voter registration and education programs and
reducing costs of compliance for state and local government.
Use authority under Article 1, Section 4 of the
United States Constitution to provide equivalent opportunities
for voters to participate in federal elections.

MINORITY OVERSIGHT PRIORITIES 2021

The Minority appreciates the oversight plan developed by
the Majority and looks forward to working on many of the issues
outlined. It was important to also note specific topics and
areas of interest that the Minority will continue to focus on.
House Officers and Operations, Generally:
The Committee must coordinate with House
Officers and Legislative Branch entities to develop a
detailed plan to physically re-open the campus post-
COVID-19 pandemic. This plan should be tiered and
establish clear benchmarks for progress.
The Committee should work to encourage the
Architect of the Capitol, United States Capitol Police,
Capitol Police Board and other Legislative Branch
entities to quickly move forward, in a coordinated
manner, with plans to enhance the security of the
Capitol campus.

Chief Administrative Office [CAO]

The Committee is encouraged by the CAO's plan to
move forward with exploring an enterprise-wide CMS procurement,
development, and launch.
Based on feedback from Members offices and
recommendations from the Select Committee on Modernization, the
Committee believes the roll-out of an office dedicated to
providing Human Resource support for offices is needed.
The Congressional Staff Academy has the
opportunity to be the gold-standard of in-house training and
development staff needs. The Committee encourages the CAO to
continue to expand its offerings, and hire instructors that
have Member office experience.
The Committee believes that there is a more cost-
effective way to offer the required workplace rights training.

Sergeant at Arms [SAA]

The Committee believes we must further
professionalize and independently empower the security experts
to make security related decisions. Politics currently play too
much of a role in security related decision making.
The Committee supports expanding the tracking and
badging system for visitors on campus.

Clerk

The Committee is supportive of the Clerk's
Comparative Print Tool initiative and encourages expanding the
initiative to all Member offices.

Legislative Counsel

There continues to be a need to increase the
bandwidth of the services to support the drafting of
legislation for Member, Committee and Leadership Offices.

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND OTHER ENTITIES

Architect of the Capitol [AOC]

The Cannon House Office Building renovation
continues to be a top priority of oversight. The project is
improving our oldest House Office Building which needed life
cycle replacement of all building systems. However, cost over-
runs continue to be an area of concern for the Committee and
encourages the AOC to incorporate lessons learned from
completed phases with the goal of limiting total project cost.
The Committee continues to be frustrated with the
lack of progress of the Cannon Caucus Room renovation. The
space is more than two years behind schedule. The AOC and CAO
must do everything they can do get the space functioning.
Overall project and contract management within the
AOC continues to be something the Committee needs to work with
the Appropriations Committee to monitor.
CVC Emancipation Hall is an initiative that will
impact millions of annual visitors, and the Committee
encourages the AOC to continue to work with stakeholders in
order to ensure the content of the displays are accurate and
have bipartisan support.

US Capitol Police [USCP]

The Committee recognizes that in the wake of the
January 6th attack on the Capitol there will need to be a
renewed focus on adjusting the mission and resources of the
department. That is a top priority for the Committee.
The Committee supports the proposed regional
approach to cross-country security. This proposal approved by
the Capitol Police Board will allow the department to more
efficiently respond to security threats in the various
congressional districts across the country.
The Committee believes that despite the pandemic
and the events of January 6th, the collective bargaining
agreement negotiations must continue. The current agreement is
out of date and in need of updating.

Library of Congress

The Committee believes there needs to be a focus
on services offered by the Congressional Research Service. In
the 116th Congress, the Committee held a hearing to understand
some of the management challenges faced by CRS. More needs to
be done in this space and hopefully can be supported in a
bipartisan way in the current Congress.
The future of the NLS Headquarters continues to be
a priority for the Committee.
The Committee strongly supports the efforts to
continue to modernize the information technology systems that
are the backbone of the United States Copyright Office.

Government Publishing Office [GPO]

Title 44 reform, specifically the Federal Deposit
Library Program is a top priority for the Committee. The
program is in need to statutory changes to make it more
beneficial for local libraries to participate, which in turn
serves GPO's goal of providing greater access of government
information by citizens.
The Committee believes that the current process of
posting legislation online needs to be reviewed to identify
ways to speed up the process. Delays result in offices waiting
several weeks in many instances to read the actual text of
introduced legislation.

Office of Attending Physician [OAP]

The Committee believes the OAP needs to develop a
comprehensive vaccine distribution plan that would make
available a vaccine for all front-line workers within Congress.
The Committee looks forward to OAP developing a
reopening plan with agreed upon criteria for the House's
physical reopening.

FEDERAL ELECTION LAW AND PROCEDURES

Examine all aspects of election security practices
and consider proposals to improve and strength election
integrity.
Examine the impact of amendments made by HAVA and
the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE Act) to
the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
(UOCAVA) and consider proposals to improve voting methods for
those serving and living abroad.
Examine the role and impact of political
organizations and non-profit organizations on federal
elections.
Recommend disposition of House election contests
pending before the committee; monitor any disputed election
counts.
Review all aspects of registration and voting
practices in federal elections. Monitor allegations of fraud
and misconduct during all phases of federal elections and
evaluate measures to improve the integrity of the electoral
process.
Review federal campaign-finance laws and
regulations, including presidential and congressional public
financing, and consider potential reforms.
Review operations of the Election Assistance
Commission (EAC) and evaluate possible changes to improve
efficiency and improve implementation of the Help America Vote
Act (HAVA).
Review operations of the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) and evaluate possible changes to improve
efficiency, improve enforcement of the Federal Election
Campaign Act, and improve procedures for the disclosure of
contributions and expenditures. Consider authorization issues
and make recommendations on the FEC's budget.

ADDITIONAL MINORITY VIEWS ON OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL ELECTION LAW AND
PROCEDURES

The Majority election oversight plan covers the
jurisdiction of the Committee and we share in most of these
objectives. However, we differ in the priority of these
objectives and wish to include additional items. As the 117th
Congress progresses, we hope to work with the Majority also to
address:
The protection and conservation of the
primary, constitutional role of States with respect to
determining the ``the Times, Places and Manner of
holding Elections for Senators and Representatives'',
as provided for in Article I, Section 4, of the
Constitution, without undue federal regulation or
interference.
The protection and conservation of the
States' constitutional role to appoint members of the
Electoral College as their Legislatures best determine,
as provided for in Article II, Section 1.
Committee Minority Members continue to
believe a prohibition against predatory election
tactics such as ballot harvesting is warranted. The
Committee should investigate these tactics.
The examination of burdensome, unfunded,
federal elections mandates during a time when local
government budgets are under strain from the fiscal
effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Methods to improve the enforcement of
existing federal law that requires States to maintain
their voter registration lists in order to improve the
accuracy and integrity of the elections process.
Investigate and monitor HAVA waste, fraud,
and abuse (including, but without limitation,
allegations of official funds going towards partisan
``get-out-the-vote'' efforts, lack of transparency in
the contract bidding process, and ex parte
communications between vendors and state contracting
officials).
Consideration of a national standard for
transparent HAVA bidding processes and review should be
established to prevent corruption.
Study the appropriate role of partisan firms
engaged in ``get-out-the-vote'' efforts in contracts
funded using HAVA grants.

OVERVIEW

The Committee is responsible for oversight of House
operations, House Officers, the Smithsonian Institution, the
Library of Congress, the Government Publishing Office and the
United States Capitol Police. The Committee also oversees the
administration and financing of federal elections.

JANUARY 6, 2021

On January 6, 2021, a violent mob, summoned and dispatched
by former President Donald J. Trump,\3\ breached the Capitol
security perimeter, entered and remained in the Capitol with
deadly weapons, and assaulted and injured more than 140 police
officers. This was done in an attempt to obstruct, influence,
and impede an official proceeding to stop the lawful counting
of electoral votes and overturn the legitimate results of the
2020 presidential election.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\On December 19, 2020, President Trump tweeted: ``Big protest in
D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!'' Following this tweet, an
analyst at the National Capital Region Threat Intelligence Consortium
observed a tenfold uptick in violent online rhetoric targeting Congress
and law enforcement, and noticed that previously unaffiliated violent
right-wing groups had started to coordinate their efforts. See Select
Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States
Capitol, Final Report (2022).
\4\Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell described the attack as
follows: ``January 6th was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their
own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of
domestic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied
our own police. They stormed the Senate. They tried to hunt down the
Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering
the Vice President. They did this because they'd been fed wild
falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth because he was angry he
lost an election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot
were a disgraceful dereliction of duty. . . There is no question--
none--that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for
provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who
stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and
instructions of their President, and having that belief was a
foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements,
conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated
President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on Earth.'' 167
Cong. Rec. 28 S735 (daily ed. Feb. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), as of
December 6, 2022, ``approximately 900 defendants have been
arrested in nearly all 50 states and the District of
Columbia.''\5\ Of those more than 280 defendants have been
charged with ``assaulting, resisting or impeding officers or
employees,'' including nearly 100 defendants who have been
charged with ``using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing
serious bodily injury to an officer.\6\ DOJ notes that citizens
from around the world have ``provided invaluable assistance in
identifying individuals in connection with the January 6
attack,'' but that the Federal Bureau of Investigation
``continues to seek the public's help in identifying
approximately 350 individuals believed to have committed
violent acts on the Capitol grounds, including over 250 who
assaulted police officers.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\U.S. Dep't of Justice, ``23 Months Since the January 6 Attack on
the Capitol,'' Dec. 8, 2022, available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-
dc/23-months-january-6-attack-capitol.
\6\Id.
\7\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of those brave police officers was United States
Capitol Police (USCP) Capitol Division Inspector Thomas Loyd,
who was among the heroes who protected Members, staff, the
Capitol, and American democracy during the attack. Inspector
Loyd personally battled the rioters alongside the 350 rank-and-
file officers under his command on the West Front of the
Capitol. He described the impact of the attack on his officers:

Several of my officers had to be carried out of the
Capitol Building on January 6 due to injuries. Some
have returned to a Full Duty Status, others are in a
Restricted Duty Status, and a few were not permitted to
return to at all due to the severity of their injuries.
Two Capitol Police Officers perished as a result of
the riot. Officer Brian Sicknick faithfully served the
United States Capitol Police for 13 years. He fought
valiantly for several hours on January 6. He died
suddenly at 8:30 p.m. while returning to the office in
the United States Capitol Building, not far from where
the Defendant led the mob earlier in the day. His body
survived an additional day because his fellow officers
worked so hard to keep him alive so his family could
say goodbye in person on January 7. Despite the
official medical report, there was nothing natural
about the way Officer Sicknick died. He was 42 years
old. Officer Howie Liebengood perished two days later
when he took his own life. It is tough enough to bury
any of my colleagues, but when the cause is suicide, it
makes it that much more heartbreaking. Officer
Liebengood faithfully served the Department for 16
years. He was 51 years old.
The ramifications of January 6 will affect all of my
personnel for the rest of their lives. As a result of
the riot, 20 percent of my team separated from the
Department.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Gov't's Sentencing Supp., U.S.A. v. Jensen, No. 21-cr-6-TJK
(D.D.C.), (Dec. 13, 2022).

Thanks to the valor of USCP officers like Inspector Loyd,
the mob ultimately failed to achieve its unlawful goal: nearly
15 hours after the Joint Session of Congress convened to count
electoral votes, Congress finished its job and affirmed then-
President-elect Joe Biden's victory. Astonishingly, however,
even after the violent attack, which resulted in several
deaths, countless grievous injuries, psychological trauma, and
significant damage to the United States Capitol, nearly 140
House Republicans still refused to accept the results of the
election and objected to certifying the results.
As will be discussed in greater detail below, the Committee
on House Administration (Committee) held more hearings
examining the United States Capitol Police (USCP) response to
the attack than any other standing committee in Congress. Based
on information and evidence presented at these hearings, the
Committee oversaw a multitude of reforms to the Capitol Hill
security apparatus, particularly with respect to the United
States Capitol Police (USCP).

The Committee Directs the Inspectors General of the U.S. Capitol Police
and Architect of the Capitol to Commence an Immediate Review of
the Attack

Immediately after the attack, Chairperson Zoe Lofgren
directed the USCP Inspector General (USCP IG) to set aside his
team's ongoing work and prioritize an urgent, nonpartisan
review of the Department's preparations for, and response to,
the attack. The Committee worked closely with the USCP IG,
seeking to determine, inter alia: 1) whether the Department
established adequate measures to ensure the safety and security
of the Capitol Complex and Members; 2) whether there existed
adequate internal controls and processes to ensure compliance
with Department policies; and 3) whether the Department
complied with all applicable laws, regulations, policies, and
procedures. Importantly, and as Chairperson Lofgren repeated
frequently during the 117th Congress, the review of USCP's
management and performance as a law enforcement organization
did not diminish the valor of those who bravely fought to
defend the Capitol on January 6, many of whom suffered serious
physical and psychological injuries in defense of American
democracy and the congressional community. They are all heroes,
and the Committee, the Congress, and the country will forever
be in their debt.
In addition to the USCP review, given the key role the
Architect of the Capitol (AOC) plays in the physical security
of the Capitol Complex--including the Architect's role as one
of the three voting members of the Capitol Police Board, which
directly oversees the Department--Chairperson Lofgren directed
the AOC Inspector General (AOC IG) to commence an urgent,
nonpartisan review of the attack. The AOC IG, together with the
Committee, sought to evaluate, inter alia: 1) AOC's emergency
preparedness posture; 2) AOC's role in securing the Capitol
Complex for large public gatherings; and 3) U.S. Capitol window
security and infrastructure.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\In addition to the Committee and institutional IG
investigations, the Committee facilitated two additional reviews:
First, Chairperson Lofgren helped lead a group of Members and Senators
in requesting that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conduct a
review of preparation and coordination for, and response to, the
January 6, 2021, attack. In addition, following the attack, Speaker
Nancy Pelosi tasked Lieutenant General Russel Honore (Ret.) with
leading an immediate, nonpartisan review for the purpose of identifying
actions or decisions that could be taken immediately to improve the
security of the Capitol Complex, Members and staff. General Honore's
task force included a team of professionals with law enforcement,
legal, personal protection, intelligence, military and Congressional
experience. The Committee worked closely with the taskforce to provide
information and facilitate dialogue with nonpartisan institutional
staff responsible for Capitol security, including USCP, the House
Sergeant at Arms and others. As with the Committee and institutional IG
reviews, the GAO and Honore reviews were limited in scope and focused
solely on short-term reforms to security infrastructure and law
enforcement preparation and response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The House Passes a Bill to Establish an Independent, 9/11-Style
Commission

While the Committee and respective IG reviews were
necessary, due to the limits of Committee and institutional IG
jurisdiction, they were not sufficiently broad in scope as to
allow a full investigation of the attack in its entirety. As a
result, in the weeks following the January 6 Joint Session of
Congress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced her intention to
establish an outside, independent Commission to investigate and
report on the facts and causes of the attack.\10\ Thereafter,
Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy wrote to Speaker Pelosi,
demanding that the Commission legislation include three
elements: an equal 5-5 ratio in appointments by Democrats and
Republicans; co-equal subpoena power for the Chair and Vice
Chair of the Commission; and no inclusion of findings or other
predetermined conclusions which should be rendered by the
Commission itself.\11\ Leader McCarthy then deputized Committee
on Homeland Security Ranking Republican Member John Katko to
negotiate the contours of the Commission bill with his
Democratic counterpart, Chairman Bennie Thompson.\12\ Every
single one of Leader McCarthy's requests were granted and
incorporated into H.R. 3233, the bipartisan ``National
Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United
States Capitol Complex Act'' (Commission bill).\13\ Ranking
Member Katko described the Commission Bill as a ``a solid, fair
agreement.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Letter from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to Democratic
Members of the House of Representatives (Feb. 15, 2021), available at
https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/21521-0.
\11\Letter from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to Speaker of
the House Nancy Pelosi (Feb.22, 2021), available at https://
www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/Sharp%20MX-
4141_20210518_081238.pdf.
\12\Marianna Sotomayor, Karoun Demirjian & Josh Dawsey, Republicans
divided over whether to support Jan. 6 commission that would put
Trump's actions in the spotlight, Wash. Post (May 18,2021) https://
www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/mccarthy-oppose-commission-capitol-
attack/2021/05/18/7579c386-b7e0-11eb-a6b1-81296da0339b_story.html.
\13\National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the
United States Capitol ComplexAct, H.R. 3233, 117th Cong. (2021).
\14\Deirdre Walsh & Claudia Grisales, Top House Republican Opposes
Bipartisan Commission To Investigate Capitol Riot, NPR (May 18, 2021)
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/18/997836874/top-house-republican-opposes-
bipartisan-commission-to-probe-capitol-riot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inexplicably, however, Minority Leader McCarthy then
declared his opposition to the agreed upon, bipartisan
legislation that included every single one of his demands.
Ultimately, Leader McCarthy was among the 140 Republicans who
voted against the Commission bill.\15\ Nevertheless, the bill
passed the House on a bipartisan basis, including all voting
House Democrats and 35 of 175 voting House Republicans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Senate Fails to Pass the Commission Bill

After its consideration in the House, the bill was then
sent to the Senate. Despite his acknowledgment that the
attackers ``beat and bloodied our police'' and ``used terrorism
to try and stop a specific piece of domestic business they did
not like . . . because they'd been fed wild, falsehoods by the
most powerful man on Earth,'' Senator Mitch McConnell blocked
the Commission bill.\16\ In so doing, Senator McConnell
``ask[ed] wavering senators to support filibustering the bill
as `a personal favor' to him.''\17\ Regrettably, this doomed
any prospect of an outside, independent 9/11-type commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Read McConnell's remarks on the Senate floor following Trump's
acquittal, CNN (Feb. 13, 2021) https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/
mcconnell-remarks-trump-acquittal/index.html.
\17\Jamie Gangel & Michael Warren, McConnell doubles down to
pressure Republicans, asking for `a personal favor' to block January 6
commission, CNN (May 27, 2021) https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/27/politics/
mcconnell-personal-favor-block-january-6-commission/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate's abdication of its duty and failure to pass the
bipartisan legislation only served to increase the significance
of the investigations conducted by the Committee and IGs. Due
to Chairperson Lofgren's direction to the USCP IG that his
office immediately focus all resources on its January 6, 2021,
related work, the USCP IG began to produce a series of ``flash
reports'' in February 2021. The AOC IG produced a series of
similar reports beginning in April 2021.

The Committee Convenes a Series of Hearings

Due, in part, to the Senate's failure to pass the
Commission bill and the absence of any other body specifically
tasked with investigating the entirety of the attack, in April
2021, the Committee commenced a series of hearings on USCP's
and AOC's preparations for and response to the attack. As the
not yet formed Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th
Attack on the United States Capitol (January 6th Select
Committee) went on to note in its Final Report, the Committee's
series of hearings established that there were ``additional
steps that should have been taken [by USCP and other federal
law enforcement entities] to address the potential for violence
on that day.''\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the
United States Capitol, Final Report, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearings centered primarily on the USCP IG and AOC IG
flash reports. Notably, while each report investigated a
discrete topic or topics, the series, taken as a whole, laid
bare the following systemic deficiencies within the Department
and its management by senior leaders: 1) insufficient training;
2) inadequate planning, policies, and procedures; 3) little to
no capability to professionally collect, process, and
disseminate intelligence; and 4) deficient leadership and poor
culture. As the series of hearings illustrated, these
leadership and management deficiencies led to Department-wide
failures in command and control on January 6, 2021, and greatly
hindered the ability of scores of brave rank-and-file officers
to execute their mission. That USCP and partner law enforcement
agencies were able to eventually clear and secure the Capitol
and allow the resumption of the Joint Session of Congress is
indicia of the courageousness of the officers on the line that
day.
Incredibly, after the Committee had already held five of
its eventual six January 6 hearings (described in detail
below), Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy made the outrageous
claim that the Committee held ``[n]o hearings about the IG
report.''\19\ Fact checkers from the Washington Post rated this
assertion, along with Leader McCarthy's similarly brazen claim
that Speaker Pelosi turned down National Guard assistance prior
to the attack, as ``four Pinocchios''--the grade it assigns to
only the most egregious and blatant of lies.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Salvador Rizzo, The false GOP claim that Pelosi turned down
National Guard before Jan. 6 attack, WASH. POST (July 28, 2021) https:/
/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/28/false-gop-claim-that-
pelosi-turned-down-national-guard-before-jan-6-attack/.
\20\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 15, 2021, and April 21, 2021, the Committee held a
multi-day hearing with the USCP IG entitled, ``Oversight of the
United States Capitol Police and Preparations for and Response
to the Attack of January 6th.'' During this hearing, the USCP
IG discussed his office's first two flash reports, which
focused specifically on operational planning, intelligence, and
USCP's Civil Disturbance Unit. Key takeaways from the hearing
included:
USCP lacked a comprehensive operational plan
for the January 6, 2021, Joint Session of Congress and
lacked appropriate guidance for operational planning;
USCP failed to disseminate relevant
intelligence obtained from outside sources;
There was a lack of consensus within USCP on
the interpretation of threat analyses;
USCP disseminated conflicting intelligence;
USCP did not have adequate policies and
procedures for the Civil Disturbance Unit defining its
duties, composition, equipment, and training; and
USCP failed to update and document its
intelligence priorities.
On May 10, 2021, the Committee held a hearing entitled,
``Oversight of the January 6th Attack: United States Capitol
Police Threat Assessment and Counter-Surveillance Before and
During the Attack.'' During this hearing, the USCP IG discussed
his office's third flash report. Key takeaways from the hearing
included:
Counter Surveillance (CS) and Threat
Assessment (TA) Operations had outdated and vague
guidance;
USCP lacked a dedicated CS entity; and
Both CS and TA were inadequately resourced.
On May 12, 2021, the Committee held a hearing with the AOC
IG entitled, ``Oversight of the January 6th Attack: Review of
the Architect of the Capitol's Emergency Preparedness.'' During
this hearing, the AOC IG discussed his office's first flash
report. Key takeaways from the hearing included:
The AOC lacked updated emergency management
policies and procedures for active shooter, protests
and riot/civil disturbance activities; and
The AOC failed to conduct all-inclusive
joint exercises with other Legislative Branch
Organizations.
On May 24, 2021, the Committee held a hearing entitled,
``Reforming the Capitol Police and Improving Accountability for
the Capitol Police Board.'' As part of this hearing, the
Committee received witness testimony from newly installed
Sergeant at Arms Major General William Walker and Architect of
the Capitol Brett Blanton, who as Architect is one of three
voting members of the Capitol Police Board and served in that
role prior to and during the January 6 attack. The Committee
also received a written statement from the also newly installed
Senate Sergeant at Arms, Karen Gibson--who had also served on
the Honore task force--resulting in a hearing record with
testimony from all voting members of the Capitol Police Board.
The Committee also received testimony from experts in force
protection, physical security, and law enforcement from
entities including U.S. Secret Service and National Guard. This
hearing examined the structures, deficiencies, and culture of
the Capitol Police Board and USCP. Key takeaways included:
USCP should shift from a law enforcement
model to a proactive force protection model;
January 6th included failures in equipment,
training, intelligence, command and control, and
communication;
The need for a regulation to allow the Chief
of Police to call upon the D.C. National Guard in cases
of emergency was vital (by this time, Speaker Nancy
Pelosi had approved just such a regulation);
The Capitol Police Board should be more
transparent and accountable, and should have a
permanent staff; and
USCP needs to change its culture to become a
learning organization and overcome its leadership
challenges.
On June 15, 2021, the Committee held a hearing with the
USCP IG entitled, ``Oversight of the January 6th Attack: United
States Capitol Police Containment Emergency Response Team and
First Responders Unit.'' During this hearing, the USCP IG
discussed his office's fourth flash report. In addition, the
Committee received testimony from Dr. Gretta Goodwin, the
Director of Justice and Law Enforcement Issues at the
Government Accountability Office. Key takeaways from this
hearing included:
USCP must increase oversight and define the
missions of the Containment Emergency Response Team
(CERT) and the First Responders Unit (FRU);
CERT should have used the USCP Training
Services Bureau rather than seeking training on its own
from outside contractors;
FRU did not have the proper resources,
including equipment, training, and physical access
management;
USCP did not have adequate access to the
Capitol's physical security infrastructure;
Officers were not qualified to use their
weapons even though law enforcement practice is that
officers are taken offline until all qualifications and
requirements are met; and
The CERT Commander deployed with his unit
rather than stay in the command center to coordinate
responses by other tactical units.
On February 17, 2022, the Committee held a hearing
entitled, Oversight of the January 6th Capitol Attack: Ongoing
Review of the United States Capitol Police Inspector General
Flash Reports. During this hearing, the USCP IG discussed his
final four flash reports. These flash reports concerned the
Command and Coordination Bureau (CCB), Hazardous Incident
Response Division (HIRD), Canine Unit, Dignitary Protection
Division (DPD), and Human Capital. The final flash report
provided a summary of recommendations and security enhancements
since the attack. Key takeaways from this hearing included:
CCB had several deficiencies, including
inadequate guidance, non-compliance with existing
guidance, lack of direction from the chain of command,
lack of law enforcement coordination, and inadequate
incident management training;
Coordination between HIRD and USCP
leadership was flawed, resulting in misinformation
among officers;
HIRD lacked the necessary personnel and
equipment to complete its mission;
Not all Canine Unit officers received canine
training or operational experience;
DPD's training program was inadequate, as
was its equipment, as officers experienced problems
with ballistic vests; and
DPD lacked a Plan of Action for the January
6, 2021, Joint Session of Congress and experienced
equipment failure with its issued ballistic vests.

The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the
United States Capitol is Formed and Committee Oversees Ongoing
Reforms to the U.S. Capitol Police

Soon after the Committee's June 15, 2021, hearing, the
House passed H. Res. 503, establishing the January 6th Select
Committee.\21\ The Committee on House Administration continued
to conduct vigorous oversight of the Congressional security
apparatus, including implementation of reforms at USCP, while
simultaneously supporting the work of the January 6th Select
Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\Establishing the Select Committee to Investigate the January
6th Attack on the United States Capitol, H. Res. 503, 117th Cong.
(2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of Department reforms implemented during the 117th
Congress include:
Hired a new Chief of Police;
Provided the Chief of Police authority to
call upon the D.C. National Guard in the event of an
emergency;
Held USCP's first ever comprehensive active
shooter training;
Trained with National Capital Region law
enforcement partners;
Developed an action plan to improve USCP's
ability to effectively collect, process and disseminate
intelligence;
Established retention bonuses and increased
salaries to address personnel shortages;
Established a Contract Security Officer
(CSO) pilot program to ease the strain on officers
associated with personnel shortages;
Reformed operational planning by
implementing a new process for publishing Incident
Action Plans;
Revised standard operating procedures
related to sourcing, production and evaluation of
analytical products;
Moved CDU riot shields to temperature-
controlled areas to comply with manufacturer
guidelines;
Used the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
Behavioral Analysis Unit Task Force for in-depth
analysis of priority subjects;
Hired experts, including the Director of
Intelligence for the New York Police Department, to
serve in the same role and a U.S. Secret Service expert
in major events.
Established the Howard ``Howie'' C.
Liebengood Center for Wellness, a new mental health
center to support of USCP officers.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\Officer Liebengood died after heroically defending the Capitol
during the attack on January 6. In the 117th Congress, legislative
action was taken both to ensure that, in general, resources and
disability benefits are available to public safety officers who
experience post-traumatic stress disorder following traumatic events in
the line of duty. Within the USCP, a wellness center to support
officers was named in memory and honor of Officer Liebengood. See e.g.,
Luke Broadwater, ``Capitol Officer's Suicide After Jan. 6 Qualifies for
Line-of-Duty Death Benefit,'' N.Y. Times, Nov. 21, 2022, available at
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/us/politics/officer-suicide-jan-6-
benefits.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTIONS

The Committee conducted extensive oversight of the federal
elections process during the 117th Congress. Examining all
facets of the voting experience, the Committee and Subcommittee
on Elections held numerous hearings and sent oversight letters
gathering critical information on the U.S. election process.
The Committee held four election-related Committee hearings,
examining ways to strengthen our democracy, including through
enactment of H.R. 1, the For the People Act; constitutional
interpretation and congressional exercise of legislative and
oversight authority under the Elections Clause of the U.S.
Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 4, cl. 1); election subversion; and
the independent state legislature theory's potential to disrupt
our democracy. All told, through hearings before the Committee
and Subcommittee on Elections, nearly 100 expert witnesses were
called and provided testimony. Additionally, the Committee
engaged in oversight of the Election Assistance Commission and
Federal Election Commission (FEC), including by sending an
extensive oversight letter to the FEC. During the 117th
Congress, the Committee and Subcommittee on Elections published
three staff reports: H.R. 1, The For the People Act, as
Introduced in the 117th Congress (Mar. 2, 2021), Voting in
America: Ensuring Free and Fair Access to The Ballot (July
2021), The Electoral Count Act of 1877: Proposals for Reform
(Jan. 2022).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Comm. on H. Admin. website, http://www.cha.house.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the Committee shepherded through House passage
four major pieces of election-related legislation: H.R. 1, the
For the People Act; H.R. 5746, the Freedom to Vote: John R.
Lewis Act; H.R. 8873, the Presidential Election Reform Act; and
S. 3969 (the Senate companion to H.R. 7326), Protection and
Advocacy for Voting Access Program Inclusion Act. These bills
addressed critical election issues such as equitable access to
American democracy, strengthening election infrastructure,
combatting foreign interference in American elections, reducing
barriers for voters with disabilities, and updating the over
135-year-old Electoral Count Act, the procedural deficiencies
of which contributed to the January 6th attack on the Capitol.
In addition, the Subcommittee on Elections held eight
hearings and additional roundtables on barriers to voting the
dangers of and mis- and disinformation, particularly focusing
on the disparate impact on communities of color. These hearings
enabled the American people to relate their experiences in
voting and gathered evidence of the ongoing discrimination and
voter-suppression efforts happening throughout the country,
especially efforts enabled by the United States Supreme Court
decision in Shelby County v. Holder.\24\ The Committee issued a
report prepared by staff of the Subcommittee on Elections,
which was chaired by Chairman G. K. Butterfield, Voting in
America: Ensuring Free and Fair Access to The Ballot, which was
included in the report accompanying H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\570 U.S. 529 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OPERATIONS

House Officers are provided for in the U.S.
Constitution.\25\ During the 117th Congress, the Committee
worked extensively with the House Officers and other
Legislative Branch agencies to facilitate the operations of the
institution while keeping Members and staff safe while
addressing two generational challenges: the January 6 attack on
the Capitol and the continued COVID-19 pandemic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\U.S. Const. art. I, sect. 2, cl. 5 (``The House of
Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other officers'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While tackling these unique challenges, the Committee also
worked with its institutional partners to reform House
operations and strengthen the institution, particularly in the
context of human capital and staff working conditions.
One of the House's most enduring challenges has been its
ability to recruit and retain talented, diverse staff. High
staff turnover has traditionally weakened the Legislative
Branch and deprived Members of the institutional knowledge and
policy expertise required to make informed decisions on behalf
of their constituents and provide effective oversight of the
Executive Branch. Staffers who leave the House have generally
cited the low compensation, lack of human resources
infrastructure, and burnout as primary motivations for seeking
employment elsewhere.
To address this longstanding issue, the Committee
spearheaded a series of reforms aimed at improving working
conditions for House staff. According to Demand Progress, a
nonpartisan, non-governmental organization focused on
strengthening democracy, the House ``improve[d] the working
conditions for its staff in the 117th Congress than Congress
has over the last three decades combined.''\26\ The
improvements to working conditions included:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\Demand Progress, Statement on House Unionization (Vote +
Establishment of Minimum Wage) May 7, 2022 https://demandprogress.org/
statement-on-house-unionization-vote-establishment-of-minimum-wage/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imposing of a play floor of $45,000 for
full-time House staff;
Decoupling of Member pay and staff pay;
Raising the staff pay cap;
Increasing the lifetime maximum for the
Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) to $80,000;
Exempting SLRP payments from the cap
established in the Speaker's Pay Order;
Adoption of regulations recommended by the
nonpartisan Office of Congressional Workplace Rights
(OCWR) providing for unionization and collective
bargaining for House staff who choose to exercise such
rights;
Adoption of regulations recommended by OCWR
relating to application of rights under the Family and
Medical Leave Act for House staff;
Adoption of regulations recommended by OCWR
relating to application of rights under the Fair Labor
Standards Act for House staff;
Extending the House Paid Internship Program
to committees;
Expanding the Congressional Staff Academy
and launching the CAO Coach Program;
Launching the House of Representatives Human
Resources Hub;
Expanding the House Child Care Center; and
Increasing the capacity of the Office of
Employee Assistance, which has seen historic
utilization of its services.
In addition to the above, and as discussed in greater
detail throughout this report, the Committee conducted robust
oversight of House Officers and Legislative Branch agencies.
The remainder of this section includes brief highlights of the
Committee's oversight activities. More detailed summaries
follow.
The Committee's oversight of the Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer (CAO) included, but was not limited, to,
reviewing processes pertaining to asset management,
procurement, contract management, financial management, payroll
and benefits, information technology, Member and staff
training, customer service, the House gift shop, restaurants,
mail, furniture, accessibility, and staff benefits. As
described later in this report, the Committee also worked
closely with the CAO to develop several new tools for staff,
including the House Human Resources Hub and a new system to
streamline the expense reimbursement process.
The Committee also worked closely with House Information
Resources (HIR), a CAO business unit dedicated to information
technology and cybersecurity of the House. The Committee
oversaw the introduction of Quill, a new e-signature platform
that facilitates the drafting, sharing, signing, and tracking
of Congressional letters. It also oversaw a large-scale data
center migration, modernization of the House's cybersecurity
tools, and the creation of the House Digital Service, a team
dedicated to delivering innovative new services to the House.
The Committee's oversight activities with respect to the
Office of the Clerk included the launch of an updated e-Hopper,
continued implementation of proxy voting during the public
health emergency and, critically, the new Comparative Print
Suite. The Comparative Print Suite allows Members and staff to
see legislative changes in context, including how a bill may
change current law and where different versions of legislation
diverge from one another.
The Committee's oversight activities with respect to the
Sergeant at Arms (SAA) included the launch of the Residential
Security Program, expansion of the District Security Service
Center, enhancements to garage security and safety trainings
for Members and staff. The Committee also oversaw enhancements
to security of the Capitol Complex after the January 6, 2021,
attack at the Capitol.
The Committee also conducted oversight over Legislative
Branch agencies, offices, and cultural institutions, including
the Library of Congress (Library), Government Publishing Office
(GPO), United States Capitol Police (USCP), Architect of the
Capitol (AOC), Smithsonian Institution, and the Office of
Congressional Accessibility Services (OCAS).
The Committee's oversight activities with respect to GPO
included continued monitoring of COVID-19 prevention policies
to ensure continuity of operations, visits to libraries that
were part of the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), and
efforts to protect personally identifiable information in GPO
publications.
The Committee's oversight of the Library of Congress
included monthly meetings with Congressional Research Service
(CRS) leadership to address management issues raised by CRS
staff and oversight of the Visitor Experience enhancement
project, a public-private partnership which includes
renovations to the Thomas Jefferson Building; creation of a
Treasures Gallery; and establishment of a Youth Center. The
Committee also oversaw the continued modernization of the
United States Copyright Office, including the launch of an
Enterprise Copyright System.
The Committee's oversight of the AOC included oversight of
the multiyear Cannon House Office Building Rehabilitation
project, with floors one through four of Phase III turned over
by the end of the Congress, notwithstanding challenges
associated with the January 6 attack on the Capitol and the
myriad complications brought on by COVID-19 pandemic, which
both presented challenges for keeping workers and contractors
safe and created historic disruptions to the global supply
chain. The Committee also directed that free feminine hygiene
products be available in all women's restrooms in House
controlled spaces, coordinated moves based on updated room
assignments and oversaw the office lottery, among other
oversight activities.
The Committee's activities with respect to the Smithsonian
Institution included convening a hearing on the impact of
climate change on the Smithsonian's collections, addressing
deferred maintenance issues and overseeing the establishment
and site selection process for the National Museum of the
American Latino and Women's History Museum.
The Committee also conducted oversight of the Office of
Congressional Accessibility Services (OCAS), including
monitoring implementation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, providing for a Capitol that is accessible to all--
including Members, staff, and visitors alike, and ensuring that
constituents with were able to contact their elected
representatives through accessible websites. The Committee
wishes to recognize the substantial contributions made by David
Hauck, who retired in the 117th Congress after a lengthy
career, for his leadership of this important office and his
many contributions to ensuring that the Congress is truly open
and accessible to all. At this time, following Mr. Hauck's
retirement, OCAS is currently operating under an acting
director. The Committee looked forward to promptly naming a
permanent director during the 117th Congress and is
disappointed that the Senate's delay in engaging on this
important matter did not allow for such an appointment.

COMMITTEE FUNDING

The Committee reports a biennial primary expense resolution
by which standing and select committees of the House (except
the Committee on Appropriations) are authorized operating funds
for each Congress. During the first three months of each new
Congress, clause 7 of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives authorizes interim funding authority for
committees to operate until the House adopts a primary expense
resolution. This funding authority is based upon funding levels
from the second session of the previous Congress.
The funding process begins at the beginning of each new
Congress when each House committee introduces a separate House
resolution requesting a specific funding level for committee
operations. These resolutions are referred to the Committee on
House Administration.
On March 12, 2021, the Committee held a hearing entitled,
``Committee Funding for the 117th Congress.'' By prior
agreement between Chairperson Lofgren and Ranking Member Davis,
it was determined that committees that submitted a bipartisan
budget request would not be required to appear before the
Committee. Vice-Chair Madeleine Dean and Ranking Member Jim
Jordan of the Committee on the Judiciary appeared as witnesses
regarding their committee's budget request.
On April 14, 2021, Chairperson Lofgren introduced H. Res.
316, Providing for the expenses of certain committees of the
House of Representatives in the One Hundred Seventeenth
Congress.\27\ The resolution was reported by the Committee on
April 16, 2021, and agreed to by the House on April 20, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\Providing for the expenses of certain committees of the House
of Representatives in the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, H. Res.
316, 117th Cong. (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amounts provided to each committee under H. Res. 316
were as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee 1st Session 2nd Session Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Agriculture............................... $6,144,497 $6,144,497 $12,288,994
Committee on Armed Services............................ 8,917,992 9,237,992 18,155,984
Committee on the Budget................................ 5,449,723 5,449,723 10,899,446
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis................. 1,915,000 1,950,000 3,865,000
Committee on Education and Labor....................... 7,863,825 7,863,825 15,727,650
Committee on Energy and Commerce....................... 11,417,377 11,417,377 22,834,754
Committee on Ethics.................................... 3,507,696 3,507,696 7,015,392
Committee on Financial Services........................ 8,965,878 8,965,878 17,931,756
Committee on Foreign Affairs........................... 8,653,430 8,653,430 17,306,860
Committee on Homeland Security......................... 8,036,701 8,036,701 16,073,402
Committee on House Administration...................... 5,590,190 5,892,211 11,482,401
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence............. 6,543,075 6,543,075 13,086,150
Committee on the Judiciary............................. 8,406,115 8,406,115 16,812,230
Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress...... 971,250 971,250 1,942,500
Committee on Natural Resources......................... 7,295,361 7,295,361 14,590,722
Committee on Oversight and Reform...................... 13,896,964 13,896,964 27,793,928
Committee on Rules..................................... 3,410,369 3,444,469 6,854,838
Committee on Science, Space and Technology............. 5,816,818 5,816,818 11,633,636
Committee on Small Business............................ 3,253,055 3,253,055 6,506,110
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure......... 9,597,173 9,597,173 19,194,346
Committee on Veterans' Affairs......................... 4,791,977 4,791,977 9,583,954
Committee on Ways and Means............................ 9,800,104 9,800,104 19,600,208
Reserve Fund........................................... 1,500,000 2,500,000 4,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On March 15, 2022, President Joe Biden signed into the law
the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 (Act). Division I
of the Act provided an increased in funding to Committees that
exceeded what had been previously authorized by the Committee
pursuant to House Resolution 316. Pursuant to the Committee's
authority in clause 6 of House Rule X. The Committee reported
and the House agreed to a subsequent resolution adjusting
certain committees' funding levels for the Second Session of
the 117th Congress.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\Adjusting the amount provided for the expenses of certain
committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred
Seventeenth Congress, H. Res. 1035 (117th Cong.) (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The adjusted levels are reflected in the chart below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd session,
Committee 117th Total adjusted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture....................... $12,903,444 $6,758,947
Armed Services.................... 19,499,783 10,381,791
Budget............................ 11,444,418 5,994,695
Select Committee on the Climate 4,060,000 2,145,000
Crisis...........................
Education and Labor............... 16,514,033 8,650,208
Energy and Commerce............... 24,276,492 12,559,115
Ethics............................ 7,366,162 3,858,466
Financial Services................ 18,828,344 9,862,466
Foreign Affairs................... 18,172,203 9,518,773
Homeland Security................. 16,877,072 8,840,371
House Administration.............. 12,071,622 6,481,432
PSC on Intelligence............... 13,740,458 7,197,383
Judiciary......................... 17,862,842 9,356,727
Select Committee on the 2,146,625 1,145,375
Modernization of Congress........
Natural Resources................. 15,320,258 8,024,897
Oversight and Reform.............. 29,183,624 15,286,660
Rules............................. 7,199,285 4,167,807
Science, Space, and Technology.... 12,215,318 6,398,500
Small Business.................... 6,831,416 3,578,361
Transportation and Infrastructure. 20,154,063 10,556,890
Veterans' Affairs................. 10,063,152 5,271,175
Ways and Means.................... 20,880,218 10,780,114
-------------------------------------
Totals........................ $317,610,832 $166,815,153
------------------------------------------------------------------------

MRA

The Members' Representational Allowance (MRA) is the annual
authorization made to each Member of the House to obligate U.S.
Treasury funds. These funds may be used by the Member to pay
ordinary and necessary business expenses incurred by the Member
and his or her congressional office employees in support of the
Member's official and representational duties. In the 117th
Congress, the Committee oversaw the use of appropriations from
the accounts of the U.S. House of Representatives for the MRA
as well as official travel by Members and staff. In addition,
the Committee oversaw the compensation, retirement, and
administration of benefits of Member office employees.
Permissible uses of the MRA are outlined in the Members'
Congressional Handbook, the body of regulations promulgated by
the Committee.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\H. Comm. on H. Admin., Members' Congressional Handbook, 117th
Cong., available at https://cha.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/
cha.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/
2022_117th_members_congressional_handbook_10_19_v296.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annual MRA is available for one legislative year (i.e.,
January 3 of one year through January 2 of the following year).
In March 2022, after substantial efforts to increase to the MRA
to support the recruitment and retainment of a diverse
workforce and to communicate with constituents more
effectively, the Committee oversaw a 21% increase in the MRA
for legislative year 2022. This increase strengthened the
capacity of all Congressional offices to conduct their official
and representational duties and allowed for an increase in
available personnel budgets to implement the historic pay floor
and decoupling of Member and staff pay that the Committee
oversaw during the 117th Congress.

COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS COMMISSION

The House Communications Standards Commission (Commission),
colloquially known as the Franking Commission, was established
by Public Law 93-191 (87 Stat. 737). It is composed of six
Members appointed by the Speaker of the House: three from the
majority, and three from the minority. The Speaker designates
the Chairperson of the Commission who must be: (1) one of the
Members appointed to the Commission, and (2) a Member of the
Committee on House Administration.
In the 117th Congress, the Commission was chaired by Rep.
Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania, with Rep. Kat Cammack serving
as Ranking Member. The Chairperson and Ranking Member were
joined by Commission Members Rep. Brad Sherman, Rep. Mondaire
Jones, Rep. Robert E. Latta, and Rep. Bryan Steil. The primary
functions of the Commission, are as follows:
1. To prescribe regulations governing the proper use of the
franking privilege and other official communications resources
by those entitled to use the privilege under 39 U.S.C. sections
3210, 3211, 3212, 3213(2), 3218, 3219 or in connection with the
operation of section 3215; in connection with any other Federal
law (other than any law which imposes any criminal penalty), or
in connection with any rule of the U.S. House of
Representatives relating to official communications resources
(2 U.S.C. Sec. 501(d)).
2. Upon the request of any person entitled to use the
franking privilege and other official communication resources,
to provide guidance, assistance, advice, and counsel, through
advisory opinions or consultations, in connection with the
distribution or contemplated distribution of franked mail or
official communications regarding the application and/or
compliance with applicable Federal statutes and House rules and
regulations. The staff assigned to the Commission are delegated
authority by the Commission to perform advisory and counseling
functions, subject to review by the Commission (2 U.S.C.
Sec. 501(d), House rule XXIV, and the Regulations of the
Committee on House Administration).
3. To investigate, decide, and dispose of complaints
regarding the misuse of the franking privilege and other
official communications resources (2 U.S.C. Sec. 501(e)).
As of December 5, 2022, the Commission staff reviewed
17,087 requests throughout the 117th Congress. In addition, the
Commission approved 19 frankable stamps for retroactive
approval.
The Commission also reviewed a number of complaints during
the 117th Congress.
On May 24, 2021, the Commission conducted Commission Poll
117-1. Based on a Complaint submitted to the Commission on
April 22, 2021, by Rep. Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter against Rep.
Zoe Lofgren and Rep. Lofgren's Answer to the Complaint,
submitted to the Commission on May 6, 2021, this Commission was
asked to decide if a violation of the House of Representatives
Communications Standards Manual occurred.
The vote was as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Yes No Present Representative Yes No Present
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Scanlon................................... .......... X .......... Ms. Cammack..................... .......... .......... ..........
Mr. Sherman................................... .......... X .......... Mr. Latta....................... .......... .......... ..........
Mr. Jones..................................... .......... X .......... Mr. Steil....................... .......... .......... ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By order of the Chairwoman, no violation was found.
The Commission held two business meetings during the 117th
Congress. The first took place on June 16, 2021, with an agenda
to discuss open staff issues, template opportunities, social
media, and the Commission's procedures and penalties. Initial
discussions included how the Commission should address sources
when referring to a congressional committee, and to address how
the rules were written to regulate criticism against
ideologies. Next, the Commission instructed staff to build a
means for the Democratic Caucus and Republican Conference to
submit template requests on behalf of each's respective
delegations. Staff were also instructed to conduct
informational meetings with the Select Committee on the
Modernization of Congress (Modernization) and the Committee on
Ethics (Ethics) to learn about each Committee's views on
official social media, complaints, and the varying
jurisdictions on such matters. Upon completion of said
meetings, staff were directed to produce abipartisan report on
their findings to the Commission.
On February 1, 2022, Commission staff released the report
``Bipartisan Staff Findings on Social Media'' to the
Commission. The findings included feedback from the staff of
both Modernization and Ethics and from a bipartisan staff focus
group meeting. The report also included both short-term and
long-term bipartisan staff recommendations for the Commission
to consider to address jurisdictional andregulatory concerns
related to the official use of social media profiles.
The Commission received a complaint from Americans for
Public Trust against Representative Val Demings on February 1,
2022, which alleged a violation of the rules governing official
communications. This complaint was adjudicated by three
Commission Polls: 117-2, 117-3, and 117-4.
The Commission conducted Commission Poll 117-2 on the
matter of the Complaint submitted to the Commission on February
1, 2022, by the Americans for PublicTrust against
Representative Val Demings (Respondent); and considering
Representative Demings's February 11, 2022 Answer to the
Complaint; Ranking Member Cammack's February 22, 2022 Letter to
Chair Scanlon, requesting additional information from the
Respondent; and Chair Scanlon's February 23, 2022, response
letter to Ranking Member Cammack; the Commission was asked to
request from the Respondent the additional information noted in
Ranking Member Cammack's letter.
The vote was conducted by written submission from February
23 to February 25, 2022, and ended in a 3-3 tie as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Yes No Present Representative Yes No Present
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Scanlon................................... .......... X .......... Ms. Cammack..................... X .......... ..........
Mr. Sherman................................... .......... X .......... Mr. Latta....................... X .......... ..........
Mr. Jones..................................... .......... X .......... Mr. Steil....................... X .......... ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the question failed to receive majority support from the
members of the Commission, the Ranking Member's request for
additional information was not submitted to the Respondent.
After this vote, the Commission conducted Commission Poll
117-3 on the matter of the Complaint submitted to the
Commission on February 1, 2022, by the Americans for Public
Trust against Representative Val Demings (Respondent); and
considering Representative Demings's February 11, 2022, Answer
to the Complaint; Ranking Member Cammack's February 22, 2022,
Letter to Chairwoman Scanlon, requesting additional information
from the Respondent; Chairwoman Scanlon's February 23, 2022,
Response Letter to Ranking Member Cammack; and Ranking Member
Cammack's February 28, 2022, Letter to Chairwoman Scanlon,
requesting a hearing; the Commission was asked if the
Commission should conduct a hearing on this matter?
The vote was conducted by written submission from February
28, 2022, to March 1,2022, and ended in a 3-3 tie as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Yes No Present Representative Yes No Present
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Scanlon................................... .......... X .......... Ms. Cammack..................... X .......... ..........
Mr. Sherman................................... .......... X .......... Mr. Latta....................... X .......... ..........
Mr. Jones..................................... .......... X .......... Mr. Steil....................... X .......... ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to the Commission's rules of procedure, the
question failed to receive majority support from the members of
the Commission and the Commission did not conduct a hearing on
this matter.
The Commission conducted Commission Poll 117-4 on the
matter of the Complaint submitted to the House Communications
Standards Commission (Commission) on February 1, 2022, by the
Americans for Public Trust against Representative Val Demings
(Respondent), where the Commission was asked to decide if a
violation of the House of Representatives Communications
Standards Manual occurred.
The vote was conducted by written submission from March 1,
2022, to March 3, 2022, and ended in a 3-3 tie.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Yes No Present Representative Yes No Present
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Scanlon................................... .......... X .......... Ms. Cammack..................... X .......... ..........
Mr. Sherman................................... .......... X .......... Mr. Latta....................... X .......... ..........
Mr. Jones..................................... .......... X .......... Mr. Steil....................... X .......... ..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Rules of Practice and Procedures
of the House Communications Standards Commission, the
Commission determined that no violation was found on this
matter.
The Commission also received two other formal complaints.
The first was received on May 20, 2022, submitted by Steve
Sheldon against Representative Young Kim. The second was
received on June 16, 2022, submitted by Kurt Angermeier against
Representative Steve Chabot. The Commission determined that
there was no basis to continue to a proceeding on either of
these matters.
On July 19, 2022, the Commission held its second Business
Meeting of the 117th Congress. By voice vote it unanimously
voted to adopt Commission Resolution 117-1, which addressed
several conforming and technical changes to the Commission
Handbook, as well as updates related to sourcing, hashtags, and
disclaimers. Additionally, by voice vote, the Commission also
unanimously voted to implement templates from the Democratic
Caucus and Republican Conference which would be available for
each corresponding delegation, and to develop an online
complaint form. Members also discussed further updates to the
Commission's rules.
All written staff Advisory Opinions issued on or after
January 3, 1996, are available for public review and
photocopying. In addition, mass mailings issued prior to that
date are available for inspection. The Legislative Resource
Center has made these materials available to the public.
Currently, all new Advisory Opinions are available online,
along with uses of templates and notices of unsolicited mass
emails that did not receive Advisory Opinions. As of December
5, 2022, the Legislative Resource Center had received four in-
person requests to review Advisory Opinions during the 117th
Congress. According to analytics on the public disclosure web
page, there have been 16,225 unique page views since its launch
on January 7, 2020.

JOINT COMMITTEES

Joint Committee of Congress on the Library

Established in 1802, the Joint Committee of Congress on the
Library (JCL) is the oldest continuing joint committee in the
history of the Congress and is made up of certain Members of
the Committee, the chair of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Subcommittee, and certain members of the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\2 Stat. 129, 7th Congress (1802).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairing the JCL switches between chambers each Congress
with the House helming it for the 117th Congress. Members of
the JCL are appointed by resolutions agreed to by the
respective chambers. For the 117th Congress, the House
component of the JCL was comprised of Chairperson Zoe Lofgren
along with Ranking Member Rodney Davis and Representatives Tim
Ryan, G.K. Butterfield, and Barry Loudermilk.\31\ Senators Amy
Klobuchar, Patrick Leahy, Mark Warner, Roy Blunt, and Richard
Shelby were elected to the JCL.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\Electing Members to the Joint Committee of Congress on the
Library and the Joint Committee on Printing, H. Res. 321, 117th Cong.
(2021).
\32\A resolution providing for members on the part of the Senate of
the Joint Committee on Printing and the Joint Committee of Congress on
the Library, S. Res. 244, 117th Cong. (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to each chambers' adoption of their respective
appointment resolutions, the JCL met to formally organize on
June 23, 2021, and elected Chairperson Lofgren as Chairperson
of the Joint Committee for the 117th Congress.
Per statute, the JCL is responsible for acceptance and
oversight of works of fine art in the Capitol collection as
well as supervision of the National Statuary Hall Collection
(Statuary Hall) For the 117th Congress, the JCL approved the
following state requests, each at varying stages of the statue
replacement process:
Amelia Earhart Final Statue and Pedestal
(Kansas)
Billy Graham Replacement to replace Charles
Aycock (North Carolina)
Barbara Rose Johns Statue to Replace Robert
E. Lee (Virginia)
Edmund Kirby Smith Statue Removal (Florida)
Mary McLeod Bethune Final Statue and
Pedestal (Florida)
Mary McLeod Bethune Statue Location
(Florida)
Harry Truman Statue Clay Model (Missouri)
Harry Truman Statue and Pedestal (Missouri)
Billy Frank Jr. Statue to Replace Marcus
Whitman (Washington)
Daisy Lee Gatson Bates Statue to Replace
Uriah Rose Statue (Arkansas)
Willa Cather Statue and Location (Nebraska)
Johnny Cash Statue and Location (Arkansas)
Martha Hughes Cannon Clay Model and Pedestal
(Utah)
Alexander Hamilton\33\ Statue Relocation to
Facilitate Harry Truman Installation (Missouri)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\The Alexander Hamilton statue is not part of the National
Statuary Hall Collection. It was moved from the Rotunda to the Hall of
Columns to facilitate the installation of the Harry Truman statue.
Traditionally, statues of former presidents receive priority for
placement in the Rotunda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relocation of John Gorrie Statue (Florida)
The JCL also approved the following matters under its
jurisdiction:
Landing of Columbus Painting Conservation
Reopening of U.S. Botanic Garden's National
Garden
Reopening of U.S. Botanic Garden's
Conservatory
Library of Congress Hearing Room
Reprogramming
Bob Hope Gallery Reprogramming
Library of Congress Visitor Experience and
Exploring Early America Exhibition Reprogramming

Joint Committee on Printing and the Government Publishing Office

In addition to the oversight authority of the Government
Publishing Office (GPO) and congressional printing generally as
provided to the Committee by House rule X(k)(8), some members
of the Committee also serve on the Joint Committee on Printing
(JCP). By statute, the JCP is granted broad discretionary
oversight power over GPO's operations.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\44 U.S.C. Sec. 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the JCL, members of the JCP are approved pursuant to
resolution agreed to by each chamber. H. Res. 321 provided that
Ranking Member Rodney Davis, along with Representatives Jamie
Raskin, Teresa Leger Fernandez, and Barry Loudermilk, would
serve on the JCP on behalf of the House for the 117th
Congress.\35\ The Senate's analogue resolution, S. Res. 244,
appointed Senators Angus King, Alex Padilla, Roy Blunt, and
Roger Wicker along with Senator Amy Klobuchar, who was
appointed chair of the JCP at the joint committee's formal
organizational meeting on June 23, 2021.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\H. Res. 321, supra note 31.
\36\S. Res. 244, supra note 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 16, 2022, at a hearing entitled ``Big Data:
Privacy Risks and Needed Reforms in the Public and Private
Sectors,'' the Committee received testimony from the GPO
Director about the agency's efforts through its Privacy Program
to protect any personally identifiable information of customers
or the general publication that the agency may find in its
possession.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

The Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is a
nonpartisan House office that provides support services and
business solutions to Members and staff. The 750+ employee
organization is tasked with supporting the finance,
procurement, logistics, and information technology needs of the
House. The Committee oversees and provides policy direction to
the CAO, which in the 117th Congress was led by Chief
Administrative Officer Catherine Szpindor, an officer of the
House and the first woman to ever serve in this key role.
Together with the Committee, the CAO entered the 117th
Congress with a shared vision of continued innovation and
modernization of House business processes, along with improved
customer service. Thanks to the organization's expertise,
professionalism, and dedication, the CAO successfully executed
on this vision during an unprecedented and uniquely challenging
time on Capitol Hill. CAO staff--many of whom were unable to
work remotely due to the nature of their positions--were in the
Capitol Complex during both the January 6th attack on the
Capitol and the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to experiencing
the trauma of the attack firsthand and braving a still-raging
pandemic, CAO staff, together with the Committee and other
Legislative Branch partners, helped lead the institutional
response to these two unprecedented challenges.

House Information Resources

House Information Resources is the CAO business unit
responsible for designing, securing, advancing, and supporting
the House network. During the 117th Congress, the Committee
worked closely with HIR to streamline House business processes,
improve the House's cybersecurity posture, and improve
technology services.
The Committee is particularly enthusiastic about its
collaboration with the CAO to create the House Digital Service.
In consultation with the Committee, this team identifies,
develops, and incubates products and services that solve unique
technology challenges for Members and Committees. Using user-
centered design, product management and agile development
practices, the House Digital Service delivered new, cutting
edge services to the House community.
The Digital Service managed Quill, a new e-signature
platform that allows House staff to easily create, share, sign,
and track Congressional letters. Thanks to Quill, the days of
staff walking the halls of House Office Buildings to physically
collect signatures ended during the 117th Congress. The
platform was adopted by nearly all Member offices, and more
than 300 offices used the system to author or lead a letter.
During the FY2023 appropriations cycle alone, over 2,000 new
letters were created with Quill. While significantly increasing
efficiency in any environment, Quill was particularly important
when, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the House was in a maximum
telework posture and Members and staff were physically apart
from one another.
In addition to managing Quill, the Digital Service created
the Robotic Process Automation Program. This program automated
manual and time intensive tasks, allowing HIR and the CAO to
reallocate staff to provide additional support to the House
community.
The Committee also oversaw HIR's efforts to address issues
raised directly by House staff. For example, the Campus Data
Network team continued to improve Wi-Fi service in the Rayburn
and Longworth House Office Buildings by boosting signal in
nearly 200 locations.
HIR's Server Infrastructure team manages thousands of
virtual and physical servers across multiple geographically
diverse data centers. The team completed Phase III of its vital
Primary Data Center Migration Project. This effort included
migrating more than 14 web and constituent management system
vendors, House websites, over 300 servers, and more than 20
critical House applications, including the House Financial
system. The systems and services were migrated to the new data
center without any disruption to operations.
At the direction of the Committee, the House Web Services
team continued to modernize House websites, with a particular
focus on accessibility. This work, which included use of an
accessibility checker providing continuous monitoring, ensured
that American citizens are able to access the websites of their
elected officials regardless of disability status.
Like any governmental entity, the House must be mindful of
the constantly changing nature of cybersecurity threats. In
consultation with the Committee, the HIR Cybersecurity team,
through its Security Operations Center, continued to maintain a
high level of defense against the evolving threat landscape
during the 117th Congress. The team continued to modernize its
detection methods and generated more than 50 new detection
methods each month. Enhanced toolsets and technologies
containing artificial intelligence and data analysis technology
improved endpoint and network monitoring and reduced the risk
of ransomware attacks. Moreover, the Active Directory team
continued to expand deployment of the advanced authentication
client, used for multi-factor authentication and domain
administration. Through December 2022, more than 280,000
authorizations were completed using the new client. This
significantly improved the security of the House network.
In addition, in August 2022, House Information Resources
(HIR) issued an advisory to the House community cautioning
users against use of the TikTok application on House devices
due to security and privacy concerns. Following additional
review, HIR recommended that the House ban the use of TikTok on
official devices. The Committee concurred in that
recommendation. This decision mirrors policies at a number of
Executive Branch agencies and is in response to concerns that
the Chinese-owned app poses a national security risk.
Individual employees unfamiliar with cybersecurity best
practices are among the most significant threats to any
organization. Accordingly, at the Committee's behest, the
Communications, Awareness, and Policy team produced a variety
of new resources to help educate House network users about
information security, updates to key House policies, and
procedures for addressing cybersecurity threats. HIR also held
monthly information sessions on cybersecurity at the House.
Topics covered included remote workspace security, social media
safety, international travel, phishing, and ransomware threats.
An average of approximately 70 staffers attended each session.
Further, throughout the 117th Congress, the Committee
worked with the CAO to reduce costs by facilitating effective
and efficient operations within the House. Among the many
examples of cost savings was the Network Engineering and
Operations team's acquisition of new services to support the
House network and enhance connectivity between the Capitol
Complex, House data centers, and internet services located
outside the National Capital Region. This acquisition resulted
in both increased resiliency and a cost savings of
approximately $2 million.

House Human Resources Hub and Resume Bank

The Committee was pleased to have closely collaborated with
the CAO to launch the House Human Resources Hub (HR Hub), a
one-stop shop of human resource best practices. Designed to
help managers hire, develop, and retain staff, the HR Hub
provides access to best practices, tips, tools and customizable
templates designed specifically for the needs of Member
offices. A small sample of available resources includes: job
profiles for Member office positions; sample writing tests;
recruitment guides; staff pay resources; the House Compensation
and Diversity study; guides to setting up a new office;
performance evaluation templates; tips providing performance
feedback; office retreat guides and much more. The HR Hub
quickly became a key resource for staff. In the sixteen months
since it launched, 12,859 visitors--including 1,559 unique
visitors--have visited the HR Hub. The 135 resources available
on the HR Hub have been downloaded or accessed more than 6,500
times.
In addition to the HR Hub, the Committee oversaw the
creation of the House Resume Bank, which provides resumes for
House offices seeking to fulfill hiring needs in both
Washington, D.C., and district offices. Creation of the House
Resume Bank was a prime example of the CAO's ability to bring
together various business units to achieve a goal, as it
involved support from House Information Resources,
Communications and Marketing, CAO Coaches, and House Creative
Services. The House Resume Bank was also widely used. In the
twenty months since it launched, more than 8,400 resumes were
received, with 100 resume requests from Member and Committee
offices.

Congressional Staff Academy and CAO Coach Program

The Committee continued its oversight of the Congressional
Staff Academy, which dramatically expanded its offerings during
the 117th Congress to meet the evolving needs of House staff.
Management and Leadership courses were particularly popular, as
were hybrid courses which brought together geographically
dispersed teams, including those working remotely due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, Washington, D.C., office staff and district
office staff. Overall, during the 117th Congress, the Staff
Academy held 1,437 non-mandatory course sessions for 25,322
attendees.
Among the most significant Staff Academy initiatives was
the establishment of the CAO Coach Program. The CAO hired a
bipartisan group of four former Chiefs of Staff and two former
District Directors to serve as CAO Coaches. These individuals
leveraged a combined 113 years of experience in the House to
offer resources, advice, and programming to House staff.
Coaches hosted highly attended professional development
programs, facilitated retreats, recorded a series of 10
podcasts, and provided 62 customized trainings at the request
of Member offices. They also conducted more than 1,200 one-on-
one confidential coaching sessions with individual staffers on
a range of topics, including, but not limited to, managing
staff and budgets, introducing bills, managing difficult
casework, establishing an effective internship program, and
responding to constituent outreach. They also hosted 48 live
programs for more than 6,500 staff, and recorded the 101
Series, short informational videos specific to each staff
position that cover the basics of the job. Jobs included in the
101 Series were Chiefs of Staff, District Directors, Field
Representatives, Scheduler/Operations Managers, Caseworkers,
Legislative Assistants, Legislative Directors, Staff
Assistants, and Communications staff.
CAO Coaches also collaborated with CAO Customer Advocates
to host the first ever bipartisan orientation program for new
staff, which introduced 345 staffers to the House's workplace
culture, operations, benefits, and more. They also, together
with the Committee, launched the District Office Conference
Program to support district office training. District Office
Conferences were held in both Washington, D.C., and Chicago.
Nearly 1,000 attendees participated in these District Office
Conferences.
Additionally, CAO Coaches launched a new internal House
website that hosted more than 550 documents, templates, and tip
sheets as well as 50 hours of video content. The site had more
than 4,250 users and 40,520 page views since it launched.
Finally, for the first time ever, the Staff Academy,
through the CAO Coaches, partnered with the Committee to plan
and execute New Member Orientation (NMO) for the 118th
Congress. These efforts, which included 43 live panels, are
detailed later in this Report.

Logistics and Support

The Office of Logistics and Support is responsible for
building, installing, and breaking down furniture; facilitating
office moves; and managing House equipment assets. The
Committee was particularly proud of its work with the Asset
Management Team to establish and refine the Equipment
Modernization Program and House TV Program.
The Equipment Modernization Program successfully provided
Member, Committee, and Leadership offices with a steady
inventory of computers and related equipment from which to
select when setting up their offices. For the first time,
offices were able to conveniently purchase equipment directly
from the House through the Office Supply Store website,
allowing them to buy in bulk and receive equipment quickly.
In addition, under the Equipment Modernization Program, the
Asset Management team regularly evaluated new equipment
offerings to ensure they met House technical standards. These
evaluations ensured that Members and staff had regular access
to state-of-the-art equipment.
The House TV Program was developed to make the hundreds of
office moves during transitions between Congresses more
efficient and cost effective. In general, CAO and Architect of
the Capitol (AOC) employees facilitate these moves by moving
personal items and equipment from suite to suite. Among the
most taxing items to move are TVs, which must be uninstalled,
moved carefully, and reinstalled. The House TV Program
centralized the installation of TVs across the House, assigning
TVs to specific office suites as opposed to individual Members.
This change eliminated the risks and challenges associated with
relocating TVs from one suite to another, thereby eliminating
the wait Members experience for TV installation after they
move. It also allowed the Logistics and Support Team to
allocate its own resources to other transition
responsibilities. The Program also centralized the purchasing
of House TVs, which are now eligible for replacement every six
years, thereby ensuring compliance with updated equipment
standards.
In all, the House TV Program saves the House approximately
$1.3 million over several years.

House Office of Employee Assistance and Center for Well-Being

The January 6 attack on the Capitol was a traumatic
experience for the entire House community. In the aftermath of
the attack, the Office of Employee Assistance (OEA) provided
vital support for members of the House community, including
Members, staff, families, U.S. Capitol Police officers and,
based upon direction from the Committee, House contract
employees. OEA also launched a secure online video counseling
option for employees working in district offices or remotely
due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
OEA also continued to provide its standard counseling
sessions, trainings, and retreats. The team also created
extensive resources on trauma and resilience, self-care,
healthy teleworking, and productive management of employees.
OEA far surpassed its utilization rate across its range of
support services during the 117th Congress. Participating in
24,233 interactions, 1,775 client counseling cases, 286
training sessions with 7,249 attendees, 70 team retreats with
1,085 attendees and 927 online mental health screenings.
In consultation with the Committee, the House Wellness
Center officially changed its name to the House Center for
Well-Being and opened a storefront in the basement of the
Longworth House Office Building. As many House staffers,
particularly in the beginning stages of the 117th Congress,
worked remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Center for
Well-Being offered webinars that staff could access from their
home offices. It also launched a new website and hosted a Well-
Being Fair. In addition, it launched a House-wide complimentary
premium subscription to a popular meditation and mindfulness
app. Over 2,000 House staffers registered for this new service
within two months of its launch. Other activities included a
Wellness Champions Program and personalized guidance to staff
in one-on-one coaching sessions.

Finance

During the 117th Congress, the Office of Finance played a
key role in implementing the Committee's historic reforms to
working conditions for House staff. Based upon the
recommendation of Chairperson Lofgren, on August 12, 2021,
Speaker Pelosi issued an updated Speaker's Pay Order (SPO)
which decoupled staff pay from Member pay. The change to the
SPO increased the maximum rate of pay for House staff from
$173,900 to $199,300, and, subsequently, to $203,700. Also
based on Chairperson Lofgren's recommendation, on May 6, 2022,
Speaker Pelosi established a salary floor of $45,000 for all
full-time staff. These increases, which enable the House able
to recruit and retain first-rate, diverse talent, required
processing by the Payroll and Benefits team, which rapidly
implemented the changes to the SPO.
Along similar lines, the Committee, pursuant to its
authority under the House Employees Position Classification Act
(HEPCA), issued a revised House Wage Schedule (HWS) for
employees of the House Officers and Office of Inspector
General. The updated HWS, which lessened the pay compression at
the top of the schedule and reflected the updated Speaker's Pay
Order, was implemented by the Payroll and Benefits team.
The Committee also amended the regulations governing the
Student Loan Repayment Program to raise the lifetime maximum to
$80,000 and exempt student loan payments from the Speaker's Pay
Order limit. Payroll and Benefits also implemented these
changes and released special edition newsletters, informing
House staff of the updated program regulations to ensure newly
eligible employees had the tools needed to take advantage of
the changes.
Moreover, the Committee continued efforts from prior
Congresses to modernize the Office of Finance. For example, as
noted in the HIR section, the Office of Finance partnered with
the Committee and HIR to roll out the MyExpenses pilot program.
MyExpenses helps Members and staff more easily pay official
expenses and request reimbursement without the need to keep
physical copies of receipts. Staff feedback on MyExpenses was
excellent, and the majority of participating staff indicated
that the tool made their job easier and that they would
recommend it to a colleague.
The Office of Finance also deployed a new e-forms
application that employs electronic signatures to automate
administrative forms. This new system provided Member,
Committee and Leadership offices the ability to electronically
prepare, route, approve, and submit payroll transactions. These
transactions were validated in real-time against House Rules
and other Committee regulations, which provided considerable
time savings to offices. The e-forms application also saved
time, improved security, and reduced paper stock and costs for
offices.

Food Services

In compliance with protocols and guidance established by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Office
of the Attending Physician, House Food Services operations
returned to pre-pandemic levels of service during the 117th
Congress. In addition, together with the Committee, the CAO
collaborated with local vendors to introduce pop-up offerings
in the Longworth and Rayburn cafeterias, including food from
local barbeque, Peruvian, and Greek restaurants. The CAO also
introduced a new coffee cart in the basement of the Cannon
Rotunda. The Cannon Coffee Cart was a popular destination for
Members and staff who enjoyed its sustainably sourced coffee,
tea, espresso, and pastries.

COVID-19 Pandemic Response Activities

As the COVID-19 pandemic continued during the 117th
Congress, the Committee worked with the CAO to maintain
continuity of operations and ensure the safest possible work
environment for Members and staff. The CAO continued to support
increased information technology requirements associated with
remote work. For example, the CAO expanded its mobile
management and House device distribution portal to include
additional mobile service vendors. This enabled the CAO to
reduce the time needed for the mobile device deployment process
from several hours to thirty minutes and enabled staff working
remotely to have devices delivered directly to their homes.
The CAO, at the Committee's direction, also distributed
COVID-19 test kits at no charge to offices, conducted office
safety workspace consultations and, as discussed above,
provided vital counseling and trauma support through OEA.

Workplace Rights and Responsibilities Training

Together with the Committee and the Office of House
Employment Counsel (OHEC), the CAO continued to provide
Workplace Rights and Responsibilities Training, including
separate courses designed for non-supervisory staff,
supervisory staff and Members. In 2021 alone, the program team
trained more than 14,834 House personnel.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE

The Clerk is an officer of the House and plays a vital role
in a wide range of House operations. In the 117th Congress,
Cheryl Johnson continued to serve as Clerk. The Clerk's primary
responsibilities involve overseeing and administering the
legislative operations of the House. This includes managing
bills originating in the House and overseeing the electronic
voting system. The Office also performs a variety of
administrative functions under the oversight of the Committee.
The Office of the Clerk is comprised of eight divisions, in
addition to the Clerk's Immediate Office. These divisions
include: Office of Legislative Operations, Office of Art and
Archives, Office of Official Reporters, Office of House
Employment Counsel, Legislative Resource Center, Legislative
Computer Systems, Office of Communications, and Capitol Service
Groups.
During the 117th Congress, the Committee conducted monthly
oversight meetings with the Clerk and her senior staff on all
aspects of the Clerk's operations, including oversight of
vacant offices, election certifications, financial disclosures,
and overall IT posture. The Committee also worked closely with
the Clerk to publish an updated edition of Black Americans in
Congress\37\ book covering the years 1870 to 2022. This project
was undertaken by the Office of Art and Archives, together with
the House Historian and the Government Publishing Office, and
featured a foreword by Chairperson Lofgren.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\Black Americans in Congress, 1870-2022, prepared under the
direction of the Committee on House Administration of the United States
House of Representatives, by the Office of the Historian and Office of
the Clerk, United States House of Representatives, U.S. Government
Publishing Office, Washington, DC, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee worked closely with the Office of the Clerk
to ensure legislative operations continued to run smoothly
despite the numerous challenges posed by the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic. A major part of the House's success was its continued
use of the e-Hopper. The e-Hopper, launched in April 2020 under
the direction of Speaker Pelosi, allows Members and authorized
staff to electronically submit bills, resolutions, co-sponsors
and extensions of remarks. This capability has been critical to
continuing legislative operations throughout the pandemic. The
updated e-Hopper was launched House-wide on May 2, 2022. The e-
Hopper application guides the user step-by-step and includes
integrated help to ensure documents meet the submission
requirements. A brief video highlighting its features was
created and made available on-demand through the Congressional
Staff Academy. From the beginning of the 117th Congress through
December 23, 2022, the Bill Clerk team processed 11,445 pieces
of legislation, the vast majority of which (10,596, or 93
percent of all measures filed) were submitted via the e-Hopper
system.
The continued use of proxy voting also allowed the House to
perform its constitutional duties amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Authorized by House Resolution 965,\38\ proxy voting allows
Members to submit a signed letter to the Clerk designating a
specific Member to serve as the Member's proxy during voting.
This meant that Members were not required to physically be in
Washington, D.C., to vote, an important allowance in the midst
of a public health crisis. The Clerk maintained a list of
designated proxies and helped facilitate the voting process on
the House Floor. From the start of the 117th Congress, through
December 23, 2022, there were 987 roll call votes with proxies
and a total of 49,470 proxy votes cast. Notably, proxy voting
was used by both parties, with at least 166 Republican shaving
submitted proxy letters since the House adopted the practice.
Confoundingly, many of the Republican Members who have voted by
proxy had previously joined a lawsuit seeking to block the
practice of proxy voting during a public health emergency; more
than 150 Republicans ultimately removed their names from the
suit. A federal district court ruled against the Republican
plaintiffs, a decision that in turn was upheld by a unanimous
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, and the United States Supreme Court declined to hear
the case.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One
Hundred Seventeenth Congress, and for other purposes, H. Res. 8, 117th
Cong. (2021).
\39\Katherine Tully-McManus, Supreme Court denies Kevin McCarthy's
challenge to proxy voting in House, POLITICO (Jan. 24, 2022) https://
www.politico.com/news/2022/01/24/supreme-court-proxy-voting-house-
00001243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 117th Congress also saw the launch of the Comparative
Print Suite, a set of applications that display legislative
changes in context, including how a bill might change current
law and how two versions of a legislative proposal are
different. Prior to the launch of this multi-year effort, the
project team worked with a Committee Pilot User Group comprised
of more than 150 committee staff. All Members and House staff
were granted immediate access to the Basic Edition with access
to the Bill-to-Bill Differences and the Bill Viewer tools. An
Advanced Edition, granting access to two versions of the How a
Bill Changes Current Law tool as well as the ability to upload
files to generate comparative print reports, was made available
to users who completed an online course available through the
Congressional Staff Academy. To date, approximately 250 House
staff have completed the online course and have been granted
access to the Advanced Edition. This figure does not include
the staff in the Offices of Law Revision Counsel and the
Legislative Counsel--which have access as advanced users for
the entire staff.
The Clerk also continued to co-chair the Bulk Data Task
Force, which the Committee directed be renamed the
Congressional Data Task Force in 2022. The Task Force is a
partnership of representatives from various Legislative Branch
Agencies including the House of Representatives, the Senate,
the Library of Congress, the Government Publishing Office, and
the Government Accounting Office. In her capacity as co-chair,
the Clerk worked with Committee staff to increase transparency
by digitizing legislative material, leading and participating
in a virtual, public meeting of the Bulk Data Task Force on
March 10, 2022. The meeting included presentations from the
House of Representatives, the Government Publishing Office, and
the Congressional Budget Office on each agencies' transparency
efforts and areas of potential collaboration in the future.

SERGEANT AT ARMS

In April 2021, District of Columbia National Guard Major
General William J. Walker was sworn in as the 38th House
Sergeant at Arms (HSAA), the first Black American to serve in
this position. The HSAA is the House's principal law
enforcement and protocol official and is responsible for the
security of the House campus, its office buildings, as well as
Members of Congress, staff, and visitors. HSAA directs
emergency responses and continuity of government operations for
the House, maintains order and decorum in the House Chamber and
coordinates special events for the House of Representatives in
conjunction with Legislative Branch partners. The HSAA, the
Senate Sergeant at Arms, and the Architect of the Capitol make
up the Capitol Police Board (CPB), which oversees the U.S.
Capitol Police (USCP).
During the 117th Congress, the HSAA, in collaboration with
the Committee, took steps to improve security after the January
6 attack on the Capitol and at a time when threats to Members
reached unprecedented levels. These improvements were designed
to protect Members in Washington, D.C., their districts and
while in transit.

Residential Security Program

At the Committee's direction and in an ongoing effort to
strengthen the security of Members of the House and their
families, the HSAA established the Residential Security Program
during the 117th Congress. Under this program, the HSAA assumed
the cost of Member residential security upgrades up to $10,000,
in addition to monthly monitoring and maintenance costs of up
to $150 per month per Member. To utilize the program, Members
selected a security system company and furnished an itemized
quote to the HSAA for review, approval, and additional
guidance. The HSAA also added capabilities for Members to use
current cellular communication methods to monitor their
residences and ensured use of appropriate glass breakage
technology.

District Security Service Center

Together with the Committee, HSAA oversaw the District
Security Service Center (DSSC), which assisted with security
needs of all district offices. Staffed with a team of Security
Specialist, the DSSC served as a single point of contact for
all district office security needs. DSSC security specialists
ensured each district office was provided appropriate guidance,
monitored information received from district offices to better
address threats, provided outreach during natural disasters and
other potential disruptions to operations, and assisted offices
in managing COVID-19 related issues. DSSC also provided risk
assessments for in-district events, assisted with mail
handling, helped Members select district offices and provided
trainings in Event and Travel Security, Active Shooter
Response, Mail Safety Hood Training, and Safety/Security
Awareness.
The DSSC also oversaw the Residential Security Program
discussed above, as well as the Law Enforcement Coordinator
(LEC) Program. LECs were district office employees that served
as the district office liaison with law enforcement agencies
and USCP. LECs enhanced communication with law enforcement,
identified unusual incidents or threats, coordinated district
office security assessments, and managed the installation of
district office security systems. During the 117th Congress,
HSAA Walker personally lobbied Members to encourage them to
designate an LEC for their district offices, resulting in 96%
of Members employing an LEC.

Garage Security Enhancement

The Committee oversaw the HSAA's completion of the Garage
Security Enhancement Project. The goal of this project was to
establish a secure perimeter around the House Office Buildings
that would allow for a comprehensive screening protocol. With
the project completed, there was comprehensive security
screening in all House Office Buildings and garages. The
completion of this project also allowed USCP to reallocate its
limited resources to other sensitive security locations.
In addition, after the January 6 attack on the Capitol, the
HSAA worked with USCP and the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) to
harden and redesign several House Office Building entryways and
vehicle checkpoints.

FINE ARTS BOARD

The House Fine Arts Board consists of the House members of
the Joint Committee on the Library and is chaired by the
Chairperson of the Committee on House Administration. The Board
is primarily charged with supervision of fine arts on display
in House-controlled areas of the Capitol complex and in the
House collection generally. The Board also administers the
portraiture process for Committee chairs for display in the
House's committee rooms. During the 117th Congress, 10
portraits were completed and an additional 10 were initiated
and still in progress. In addition, the Fine Arts Board oversaw
the House Curator's work to install and/or move 551 objects in
the House Collection.

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

The Architect of the Capitol (AOC) is responsible for the
maintenance, operation, development, and the preservation of
the entire Capitol Complex, which includes 17.4 million square
feet of building space and 460 acres of land. The Committee
oversees the AOC with respect to the House side of the Capitol
campus, except for certain decisions that affect the House
Office Buildings and fall under the purview of the House Office
Building Commission (HOBC). In addition, federal law designates
the Architect as one of three voting members of the U.S.
Capitol Police Board, which plays
The AOC continued to coordinate with the Office of
Attending Physician and the Committee to implement COVID-19
mitigation measures which ensured the health and safety of AOC
employees.

Cannon House Office Building Renewal Project

The Committee continued its vigorous oversight of the
Cannon House Office Building Renewal Project (Cannon Project).
On August 5, 2021, the Committee held a hearing entitled,
``Oversight of the Renovations to the Cannon House Office
Building: Lessons Learned.'' The hearing complemented the
Committee's 2019 Cannon oversight hearing, which was the first
hearing on the Cannon Project since 2009, when Democrats held
the majority. During the eight years the Republicans held the
majority, the Committee did not convene a single hearing on the
Cannon Project. During that time, the project cost increased
from the original $753 million estimate\40\ to $890
million.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\Necessary Renovations to House Office Buildings: Hearing Before
the H. Committee on H. Admin., 111th Cong. (2009), statement of Stephen
T. Ayers.
\41\Architect of the Capitol, Integrated Cost-Schedule Risk
Analysis Final Report (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, in large part, to the oversight direction provided
by the Committee during that hearing and the continued
oversight during the 117th Congress, the Cannon Project was
characterized by the AOC Inspector General as being managed
well.
The January 6 attack on the Capitol delayed Phase III of
the Cannon Project by at least 45 days, as the National Guard
occupied the Phase III wing of the building as part of their
efforts to maintain order, provide relief to the Capitol
Police, and secure the Capitol. The COVID-19 pandemic and
historic supply chain delays also presented significant
challenges. However, thanks to the work of AOC employees and
robust oversight by the Committee, floors one through four were
turned over on time. The fifth floor was negotiated separately
from the other floors due to fifth floor window material delays
associated with the pandemic. Even with these material delays,
however, the fifth floor is scheduled to be turned over within
a week of the start of the 118th Congress.
Moreover, at the direction of the Committee, the AOC took
early operational steps to prepare for Phase IV of the Cannon
Project by preplanning work that would have closed House
parking lots and streets on the Capitol Campus. As a result,
the Phase IV wing was cleared out without any interruption to
services. Also, all inground work, security trailers, fencing,
and cameras were completed prior to the Phase III, which also
minimized disruption to Members.
The roof of the Cannon Rotunda was originally intended to
be repaired during Phase I, which was completed in 2018.
However, due to complications with the Temporary Roof
Enclosure, this repair was delayed. The Committee aggressively
pushed to ensure the Cannon Rotunda was repaired during Phase
III. The Committee authorized a full copper repair to the dome
so a consistent warranty, color, and lifespan would protect all
the work just completed underneath the roof.
As part of the Cannon Project, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs hearing room (VA Hearing Room) was renovated. Part of
the renovation included the installation of updated lighting.
Unfortunately, after the updated lighting was installed in
2019, the AOC and CAO determined that while the new lighting
was a significant improvement, it lacked the versatility of new
standards. This delayed delivery of the VA Hearing Room
significantly. The Committee on House Administration was not
notified in a timely manner by the AOC. The Committee directed
that communication between all stakeholders improve and
facilitated communication and collaboration among the various
interested parties. The VA Hearing Room is scheduled to be
completed by March 2023.
Finally, the updated Cannon Caucus Room was delivered and
fully commissioned with state-of-the-art audio-visual
technology during the 117th Congress. Now the most advanced
hearing room on the Capitol Campus, the room hosted nearly all
Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the
United States Capitol televised hearings, which were the most
significant and widely viewed hearings since Watergate.
To honor her historic, ceiling shattering service to the
House, the room was renamed the ``Speaker Nancy Pelosi Caucus
Room,'' pursuant to a resolution introduced by Chairperson
Lofgren and adopted by the House.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\Designating the caucus room in the Cannon House Office Building
as the ``Speaker Nancy Pelosi Caucus Room,'' H. Res. 1495, 117th Cong.
(2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Activities

Other Committee achievements included:
Successfully worked to transfer the O'Neill
House Office Building from the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) to the House and coordinated with
the CAO and HHS on a phased approach that helped HHS
retain working space for senior staff while tracking
for a full departure by the end of 2022.
Coordinated moves based on updated room
assignments for select committees, House Officers,
military liaisons, and more.
Authorized and ensured free feminine hygiene
products in all women's restrooms in all House
controlled space.
Led the process for updated security
screening of employee badges to assist USCP in
identifying staff, with a full prototype ready for
testing.

Inspector General Investigation into Architect Brett Blanton

In March 2021, the AOC Inspector General (AOC IG) informed
the Committee of an investigation into Architect of the Capitol
Brett Blanton (the Architect), who was appointed by former-
President Donald Trump and confirmed by the Senate in 2020.
After receiving an anonymous tip through its hotline, the
AOC Inspector General (AOC IG) initiated an investigation into
the Architect's use of his official AOC vehicle. Ultimately,
the AOC IG investigation concluded that the Architect abused
his authority, misused government property, and wasted taxpayer
money, among other substantial violations, including the
outrageous behavior of impersonating a law enforcement
officer.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\Architect of the Capitol Office of Inspector General, 2021-
0011-INVI P: J. Brett Blanton, Architect of the Capitol, Abused His
Authority, Misused Government Property and Wasted Taxpayer Money, Among
Other Substantiated Violations (Investigative Summary) (2022),
available at https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/
AOC/2021-0011-INVI-P-Oversight-Post-Final-0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2022, the AOC Inspector General provided
congressional committees with a more than 800-page report
summarizing an 18-month investigation of Architect Brett
Blanton. According to the IG's report, within two months of
receiving the March 2021 complaint, the IG had found sufficient
evidence to refer the matter to the Department of Justice
(DOJ). DOJ and the IG conducted a joint investigation for more
than 15 months. Although DOJ ultimately referred the matter
back to the IG, the investigation found evidence of substantial
violations of law, including criminal violations, as well as
violations of AOC policies and ethical standards. According to
the report, within months of being sworn in as Architect,
Blanton began a practice of pervasive personal misuse of
official vehicles provided to him for official purposes. The IG
estimates that Blanton's impermissible use of official vehicles
has totaled nearly 19,000 miles during his time in office,
worth more than an estimated $12,000 in unreported taxable
noncash fringe benefits.
In response, Chairperson Lofgren, along with other relevant
committee chairs in both the House and Senate, wrote to the
Architect demanding his resignation.
According to the AOC IG's report,\44\ the facts may be
summarized as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 7, 2021, the AOC IG received a
hotline complaint from a private citizen concerning the
misuse of an AOC vehicle. According to the complainant,
at approximately 1:15 p.m. ET, March 6, 2021, a vehicle
with AOC tags was observed in the parking lot of a
Virginia Walmart being driven approximately 65 miles
per hour (mph) in a 30-MPH zone by a woman in her 20s
or 30s.
The vehicle, which included emergency
equipment such as lights and sirens, was assigned to
the Architect for home-to-work use only. The driver,
who was observed directing an obscene gesture to the
complainant, was later identified as the Architect's
daughter. Such use of the vehicle would be a violation
of applicable rules and regulations.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\See AOC Order 34-2, Fleet Management (Mar. 10, 2017) (``3.16.
Home-to-Work Transportation. The use of an AOC motor vehicle to
transport employees between their home and place of work. This includes
the use of an AOC motor vehicle solely for the purpose of supplementing
part or all of an employee's commute.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While investigating the complaint, the AOC
IG learned of a previous complaint filed with the
General Services Administration (GSA) on December 18,
2020. The complaint was filed by another ``concerned
citizen'' and alleged a vehicle bearing the same AOC
license plate was being used for ``personal reasons''
in Burke, Virginia, on Thursday, December 17, 2021.
As part of the investigation, the AOC IG
interviewed the Architect, who declined his right to
counsel. The Architect stated that he can waive AOC
policies at any time and that he always needs the
vehicle with him for continuity of government purposes.
Notably, despite being a member of the Capitol Police
Board, the Architect did not use his vehicle to come to
the Capitol during the January 6, 2021, or during any
incident that has taken place at the Capitol during his
tenure. Moreover, the fact that the Architect's
daughter used the vehicle further belies the
Architect's claim that he needed to be ``tethered'' to
the vehicle in case he needed to respond to an
emergency.
In May 2020, within weeks of taking office,
the Architect was involved in an accident at a brewery
in Leesburg, Virginia. The Architect told the other
party involved that it was a government vehicle, he was
an ``agent'' and he did not have insurance information
because the government would handle the insurance
claim.
In June 2020, the Architect used his AOC
vehicle to pursue a suspect involved in a hit and run
that took place near his residence. The vehicle struck
belonged to the boyfriend of the Architect's daughter.
The police report obtained from that incident
identified Architect as an ``off-duty DC police
officer,'' and in-car video footage obtained from the
Fairfax County Police Department depicted the Architect
and a vehicle matching the AOC vehicle parked on the
street in front of the residence of the suspect. The
suspect's counsel corroborated the information in the
police report, stating that because of his belief that
the Architect was off-duty law enforcement, he did not
object to the Architect's presence at the pretrial
meetings. He then described the Architect as making
``an affirmative action'' when asked if he was law
enforcement during the meetings. Additional testimony
obtained from multiple interviews stated that the
Architect advised the witnesses he had ``activated the
emergency equipment'' when pursuing the suspect that
struck the vehicle belonging to his daughter's
boyfriend.
As a member of the Capitol Police Board,
Blanton is issued credentials because he is charged
with oversight and support of the U S. Capitol Police.
The credentials allow the holder access to police
information and secured areas without delay while
carrying out their official duties. The credentials
specifically do not delegate law enforcement authority.
Digital forensic and testimonial evidence
obtained by the AOC IG confirmed the AOC vehicle
traveled to both South Carolina and Florida during the
time the Architect was on annual leave in August 2020.
The vehicle was used for a family vacation and accrued
2,679 miles. The vehicle was also issued a red-light
citation during this trip that has still not been paid.
Throughout the investigation, the AOC IG
obtained multiple social media posts created by the
Architect's spouse, including photographs of
congressional license plates and a photograph of her
and the Architect on September 30, 2020, from the dome
of the Capitol with a comment stating, ``This is
happening!!!'' and ``All PATRIOTS welcome . . . PM
me.'' On the same date, an additional photograph taken
from the Capitol was posted with the comment, ``Contact
me for a private tour. All PATRIOTS accepted!'' While
it is not against AOC policy to post photographs from
the Capitol, the Architect's spouse openly offered
tours of the building while it was closed to the public
due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, on December
28, 2021, M. Blanton publicly published images and
comments on social media stating she took her swim team
on a tour of the U.S. Capitol while it was still closed
to the public.
The Architect's daughter transported both
her friends and boyfriend in the vehicle, referring to
fuel from the AOC as ``free gas.''
The AOC IG identified at least $12,434 in
unreported, taxable noncash fringe benefits to Blanton
that was not reported to the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS). The AOC IG also identified at least $13,926 of
net questioned costs associated with the Architect's
use of AOC vehicles.
In addition to these significant violations,
the AOC IG also found that Blanton provided false and
misleading information throughout the course of the
investigation. Moreover, during the investigation--even
after being questioned by both IG and DOJ investigators
about the allegations--Blanton continued to use
official vehicles for personal purposes.
The AOC IG may also refer allegations
relating to possible appropriations law violations to
the Government Accountability Office and relating to
possible tax violations to the Internal Revenue
Service. The AOC IG has also said there are additional
possible violations that the IG may yet investigate,
and also that a number of senior managers at AOC may be
investigated for their actions or omissions related to
the handling of Blanton's conduct.
On November 1, 2022, Chairperson Lofgren,
along with House Appropriations Committee Chair Rosa
DeLauro, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patrick
Leahy, Senate Legislative Branch Appropriations
Subcommittee Chair Jack Reed, and Senate Rules and
Administration Committee Chair Amy Klobuchar, wrote to
the Architect and demanded his resignation due to the
serious allegations detailed in the AOC IG's report.
Disappointingly, Committee Ranking Member Rodney Davis,
along with the other Ranking Republicans on relevant
committees, declined an invitation to join the letter,
even though they all received the AOC IG's report and
were briefed on its findings.
As of December 2022, the Architect has not
resigned or provided congressional oversight committees
with any response to the IG's report and findings.

Capitol Visitor Center

The Committee continued to, in conjunction with the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration, conduct oversight of the
Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). A significant portion of the
Committee's oversight efforts focused on the redesign work
associated with the Exhibition Hall. The physical renovation
began in the spring of 2019 and was completed during the 117th
Congress. The updated Exhibition Hall is a state-of-the-art
facility that fully and actively engages visitors, with
exhibits dedicated to telling the story of Congress and the
U.S. Capitol. A 40-foot-wide screen displaying an orientation
film welcomes visitors. Three digital interactives challenge
visitors to pass a bill, invites them on a virtual tour of the
U.S. Capitol, and prompts them to discover the history of and
connections between landmark laws. Exhibition Hall also debuted
a new space called the Democracy Lab. Designed with students in
mind, this hands-on educational area offers an array of
activities for students and others visiting the Capitol.
The Committee also oversaw the gradual resumption of
Capitol tours, which are organized by the CVC. The CVC began
Phase I of a limited reopening in March 2022 and launched Phase
2 of the reopening plan in May 2022. Phase III began in
September 2022 with the opening of the House and Senate
Galleries. During this time, the CVC continued to provide
support and training for staff, included updated safety
trainings in light of the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
Admirably, the CVC also provided tours to members of the
National Guard stationed at the Capitol after the January 6,
2021, attack.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Throughout the 117th Congress, the Committee held monthly
meetings with the House of Representatives Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) to implement its annual Committee-
sanctioned workplan for the continued improvement of House
operations. This year, the workplan focused on performance and
financial audit services, information systems, and management
advisory services. This year, the OIG completed a total of
eighteen (18) reports regarding House-wide support (e.g. audits
of district office leases, the House Student Loan Repayment
Program, and House Emergency Communications), back-office
efficiencies (e.g. audits of accounts payable for equipment and
supplies, Financial Counseling Metrics, and CAO Human
Resources), physical safety, cybersecurity, and post-pandemic
planning. These reports were transmitted to the Committee and
the relevant House officers. Additionally, the OIG produced a
special advisory project for the CAO on Member Office Structure
and Staff Compensation in response to a request from the Select
Committee on the Modernization of Congress. The OIG also
continued ongoing management advice assistance to the House
Legislative Counsel and CAO payroll. In addition to these
reports, the OIG worked closely with the Committee and the CAO
to significantly reduce the number of open recommendations to
focus its efforts on those deemed higher risk and emphasized
the importance of open recommendations to House officers and
the Committee throughout monthly reporting and periodic
discussions.
Regarding internal operational items, the OIG expanded the
use of internal audit systems and improved its SharePoint site
with new workflow software, improving the office's efficiency
and controls in processing various forms. The OIG modified its
onboarding processes to address changes in the work environment
and established a remote work policy and infrastructure support
to maintain and enhance staff productivity throughout the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The OIG was able to maintain
consistency in its internal processes and staff productivity
despite the office's changes in leadership this year. The OIG
issued an internal employee morale survey, the results of which
will be shared with OIG staff in February 2023. Finally, the
House IG worked to resurrect regular meetings of all Inspectors
General operating within the Legislative Branch.

UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE

As detailed throughout this report, Capitol security was a
substantial focus of the Committee during the 117th Congress.
In addition to both the various United States Capitol Police
(USCP) oversight activities discussed in the January 6th
section and other sections herein, the Committee draws
attention to the additional items of note below.

Capitol Police Board Reform

As the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol elucidated,
USCP governance required significant reform. The entity
primarily responsible for USCP governance has been the Capitol
Police Board (Board), which has a broad oversight role and
shares management responsibilities with the USCP Chief. The
Board consists of three voting members: the House and Senate
Sergeants at Arms and the Architect of the Capitol (Architect).
The USCP Chief is an ex-officio, non-voting member.\46\ The
Board's duties include appointing the Chief and Inspector
General, setting pay schedules, and approving terminations of
USCP employees and officers. The Board, which had only one
permanent employee, is unique among law enforcement oversight
entities, as such entities are typically responsible for
setting strategic and policy direction but do not have
authority over day-to-day matters like officer
terminations.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\Pub. L. 108-7, div. H, title I, Sec. 1014, Feb. 20, 2003, 117
Stat. 361.
\47\See generally U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO 17-
112, Capitol Police Board: Fully Incorporating Leading Governance
Practices Would Help Enhance Accountability, Transparency, and External
Communication, (2017), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-17-
112.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee provided oversight of the Board through its
authority to oversee the House Sergeant at Arms and Architect.
The Committee's oversight authority notwithstanding, however,
the Board has historically tried to resist efforts for
meaningful oversight. For example, the Board had previously
refused the Committee efforts to obtain a copy of its Manual of
Procedures and denied Committee staff's request to attend Board
meetings.
As a means of facilitating change to the Board and USCP
governance, on May 24, 2021, the Committee convened a hearing
entitled, ``Reforming the Capitol Police and Improving
Accountability for the Capitol Police Board.'' The Committee
invited both the full Board and external experts to testify.
The Board was represented by House Sergeant at Arms Major
General (Ret.) William Walker and Architect Brett Blanton. The
Senate Sergeant at Arms was also invited but submitted a
statement for the record rather than testify; it is unusual for
Senate officials to testify at House hearings. The Committee
also received testimony from experts in force protection,
physical security, and law enforcement, including: Major
General (Ret.) Dr. Linda Singh, former adjutant general of the
Maryland National Guard; Lynda Williams, the former Deputy
Assistant Director of the United States Secret Service; and Lt.
General (Ret.) Jeff Buchanan, who served as the commander of
both the United States Army North and the United States Army
Military District of Washington/Joint Force Headquarters-
National Capitol Region.
Many of the takeaways from this hearing are discussed in
the January 6 section of this report, supra. Among the most
important takeaways was the need for the Board to be more
transparent and accountable, and for it to have a permanent
staff. In addition, virtually all witnesses at the hearing
noted the need for USCP to shift from a law enforcement agency
to a protective agency. This change was also recommended by the
USCP IG in other Committee hearings and by Lt. General Russel
Honore in his Task Force 1-6 Report. The distinction between
the two models lies in the fundamental mission of the
organization. While both share the common goal of finding bad
actors and preventing attacks, a law enforcement agency's goal
is to prosecute crimes by building a case with admissible
evidence. A protective agency's purpose, on the other hand, is
to protect the grounds and Members without regard to
prosecution. For example, during the 2018 calendar year, USCP
issued 8,735 traffic citations.\48\ It also responded to
reports of criminal activity off the Capitol campus. If USCP
was a protective agency, it would shift its focus from general
law enforcement both on and off the Capitol campus to strictly
protecting the Capitol campus and its occupants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\United States Capitol Police Letter to H. Comm. on H. Admin.
Chairperson Zoe Lofgren, dated May 9, 2019, response to April 12, 2019,
Request for Information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Board and USCP transformation is still a work in
progress, meaningful changes began to take place during the
117th Congress. For example, witnesses at this hearing noted
the need for a regulation to allow the USCP Chief to call upon
the D.C. National Guard in cases of emergency. At the time of
this hearing, Speaker Nancy Pelosi had already approved such a
regulation. Moreover, during the 117th Congress, Board meetings
were opened to relevant oversight committees and documents like
the Manual made available. The Committee looks forward to
continuing to work in the 118th Congress and beyond to increase
transparency and accountability of the Board and to continue to
reform USCP.

Northern Red Training Center

While conducting its Committee-directed investigation into
the January 6, 2021, attack, the USCP Inspector General (USCP
IG) identified a matter of immediate concern, prompting the
issuance of a Management Advisory.\49\ Namely, the USCP
Containment and Emergency Response Team (CERT) contracted with
an entity called Northern Red, a private company located in
North Carolina founded by former special forces operators that
provided a variety of military and firearms training services.
The IG found that Northern Red had disturbing content on its
website, including prominently displayed symbols with
connections to Nazi Germany that have been appropriated by
white supremacy groups in North America and Europe. For
example, it featured a ``Devil's Guard'' patch in several
locations on its website and social media. This symbol is based
upon a 1971 book of the same name that follows a Nazi SS
officer who, as World War II ends, flees Germany, joins the
French Foreign Legion and creates a unit made up of fellow SS
officers. According to the Washington Post, although it is
characterized as a true and historical account, there are many
aspects of the book that are dubious and the book is ``overly
sympathetic to the Nazis, especially the SS.''\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\Management Advisories are issued when the IG determines a
matter to be time sensitive and of such vital import that agency
management must address it immediately.
\50\Thomas Gibbons-Neff, This is the Nazi-apologia war novel that
apparently inspired SEAL Team 6 combat tactics, Wash. Post (Jan. 10,
2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/01/10/
this-is-the-nazi-apologia-war-novel-thatapparently-inspired-seal-team-
6-combat-tactics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The website also contained other imagery utilized by neo-
Nazis and other white supremacists. The company logo, which
appeared on every page of the Northern Red website, is a
combination of two Nordic runes known as the Tyr rune and
Othala rune. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL),
``The Tyr rune is one of many ancient European symbols
appropriated by the Nazis in their attempts to create an
idealized `Aryan/Norse' heritage . . . Nazi Germany used the
Tyr rune as a symbol for a number of Nazi entities, including
the leadership schools (Reichsfuarerschulen) of Hitler's
brownshirts, the Sturmabteilung, and a Waffen SS of infantry
division, among others.''\51\ Moreover, ``Nazis in Germany
adopted the Othala rune, among many other similar symbols, as
part of their attempt to reconstruct a mythic `Aryan' past.
Nazi uses of the symbol included the divisional insignia of two
Waffen SS divisions during World War II. Following World War
II, white supremacists in Europe, North America, and elsewhere
began using the Othala rune.''\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\Anti-Defamation League, Hate on Display Hate Symbols Database:
Tyr Rune, available at https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-
symbols/tyr-rune.
\52\Anti-Defamation League, Hate on Display Hate Symbols Database:
Othala Rune, available at https://www.adl.org/education/references/
hate-symbols/othala-rune.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During 2018 and 2019, USCP spent nearly $100,000 for CERT
to train with Northern Red. It is notable that Northern Red is
headquartered in North Carolina and its training facility is in
Danville, Virginia, about 250 miles and a ten-hour round trip
from Washington, DC. By comparison, the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (FLETC) facility in Cheltenham, Maryland, is
about 16 miles from Capitol Hill; the U.S. Secret Service
training facility in Belleville, Maryland, is about 15 miles
from Capitol Hill; and the FBI Academy in Aquatic, Virginia, is
about 40 miles from Capitol Hill.
Based on this disturbing finding, the USCP IG issued the
above-referenced Management Advisory and recommended that USCP
immediately review the appropriateness of utilizing Northern
Red for further training. Notably, the USCP IG believed this
matter was so urgent that it could not wait for the flash
report itself to be issued to USCP less than one week later. In
addition, the USCP IG provided information about this issue to
the Department of Justice Inspector General, in light of the
possibility of other federal entities using the company.

Assault on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Husband, Paul Pelosi

In the early morning hours of October 28, 2022, a man broke
into the San Francisco, California, home of Speaker Nancy
Pelosi and viciously assaulted her husband, Paul Pelosi,
causing injuries so severe that Mr. Pelosi required emergency
surgery hours after being attacked. The suspected assailant was
indicted by federal prosecutors with charges that make clear
the attack targeted the Speaker's home and family specifically
because of her government position. The criminal complaint
noted that the suspect had ``zip ties, tape, rope, and at least
one hammer with him,'' when he broke into the Speaker's home.
After breaking into the Speaker's home, according to
prosecutors, the suspect specifically asked where the Speaker
was and said he that intended to hold the Speaker hostage and
``show other Members of Congress there were consequences to
actions.''\53\ The Speaker was not at her home at the time of
the attack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\Complaint, U.S. vs. DePape, Case No. 3:2022cr00426 (N.D. Cal.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 1, 2022, Chairperson Lofgren sent a letter to
USCP Chief Thomas Manger with a number of questions about
USCP's strategic plan for its San Francisco field office,
USCP's memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the San Francisco
Police Department (SFPD), USCP reviews of the physical security
posture for members of the presidential line of succession, and
more.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\Comm. on H. Admin. Chairperson Zoe Lofgren letter to U.S.
Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger, dated November 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 15, 2022, Chief Manger responded to Chairperson
Lofgren's letter. The Committee was not satisfied with this
response. While Chairperson Lofgren's letter sought specific
answers to specific questions, the response to the letter
provided generalities that were of little use to the
Committee.\55\ As such, Chairperson Lofgren responded with an
additional letter on November 29, 2022, asking more detailed
questions. These questions pertained to the following subject
areas: 1) USCP security monitoring protocols for the Speaker's
home; 2) USCP Field Office and other USCP standard operating
procedures; 3) USCP communications regarding the Memorandum of
Understanding with the San Francisco Police Department; 4) USCP
collaboration with the United States Secret Service on physical
security countermeasures for the protection of the Capitol and
other venues; 5) USCP security policies and practices for
Members in the presidential line of succession and their
families; 6) USCP threat assessment analysis protocols and
prosecution referrals, 8) USCP intelligence exchanges with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); and 9) USCP internal
security review processes.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\U.S. Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger letter to Comm. on H.
Admin. Chairperson Zoe Lofgren, dated November 15, 2022.
\56\Comm. on H. Admin. Chairperson Zoe Lofgren letter to U.S.
Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger, dated November 29, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 8, 2022, Chief Manger responded to Chairperson
Lofgren's November 15, 2022, letter. Once again, USCP failed to
provide answers beyond vague generalities, citing security
concerns with providing detailed information in its written
response to the Committee.\57\ This was, put plainly,
completely unacceptable. A would-be assassin broke into the
home of the Speaker of the House--second in the line of
presidential succession--and, unable to find the Speaker,
assaulted her husband in an act of political violence. It is
improper for USCP to deny its primary oversight committee with
detailed responses to valid requests for information about the
attack. The Committee will continue to conduct vigorous
oversight over USCP during the 118th Congress and expects to
receive all information necessary to ensure such an attack
never occurs again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\U.S. Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger letter to Comm. on H.
Admin. Chairperson Zoe Lofgren, dated December 8, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBA Reinstatement and Ratification

Finally, the Committee is pleased that, at the Committee's
urging, USCP reinstated its collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) with frontline officers, and, for the first time in more
than a decade, ratified a new CBA.
The Committee did not support the USCP's unilateral
suspension of the CBAs during the 116th Congress, and the
Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) found that this
action constituted an unfair labor practice. As such, the
Committee repeatedly urged USCP to reinstate its CBA with the
Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). Thanks to pressure from the
Committee, the CBA was reinstated in April 2021. The
reinstatement of the CBA led directly to the reopening of
negotiations on a new CBA. The new CBA was ratified in February
2022 and replaced the long-expired 2010 CBA. The new CBA was a
breakthrough after years of court battles and included advanced
notice to officers for scheduled additional duty, enhanced
wellness/resiliency services, and several other key updates to
USCP policies.

SMITHSONIAN

The Committee serves as the primary legislative and
oversight body for the Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian) a
quasi-federal institution of 19 museums, 21 libraries, the
National Zoo, numerous research centers, and several education
centers. Approximately two-thirds of the Smithsonian's funding
is provided by federal appropriations. The Smithsonian is
overseen by a Board of Regents, which is composed of the Chief
Justice, Vice President, Members of the House and Senate, and
other private citizens known as ``Citizen Regents'' who are
appointed to six-year terms by joint resolution of Congress.
The Institution's day-to-day operations are led by the
Secretary of the Smithsonian. The current Secretary, Lonnie G.
Bunch III, assumed his position on June 16, 2019. Secretary
Bunch was previously the founding Director of the Smithsonian's
National Museum of African American History and Culture.
On December 16, 2021, the Committee held an oversight
hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Smithsonian Institution:
Protecting Smithsonian Facilities and Collections Against
Climate Change.'' Witnesses at the hearing included Nancy
Bechtol, Director of Smithsonian facilities since 2012; Cathy
L. Helm, the Smithsonian's Inspector General since 2014; and
Phetmano Phannavong, a Senior Project Manager at Atkins North
America with 20 years of experience in water resources
engineering, project and program management, national flood
resilience policies, and the Washington, D.C., floodplain. In
convening the hearing, the Committee sought to build a
legislative record on the risks climate change poses to the
Smithsonian, its facilities, and collections, as well as the
actions the Smithsonian had already taken or planned to take to
address the threat. During the hearing, witnesses characterized
the problem climate change posed to the Smithsonian and its
collections as being twofold--the risk of rising sea levels and
other flooding, along with the increasing challenge of safely
maintaining collections and facilities. Witnesses also
discussed the Smithsonian's 2021 Climate Change Action Plan,
which focused on priority areas of public programs, research,
collections, management, and facilities in the Smithsonian's
efforts to address the climate change threat and offered
updated assessments of the Smithsonian's vulnerabilities to
flooding and other natural disasters.
During the 117th Congress, the Committee participated
heavily in the site selection process for two new Smithsonian
museums authorized by Congress. The enacted versions of the
Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act and the
National Museum of the American Latino Act directed the
Smithsonian to consult with the Committee, among others, as
part of the site selection process.\58\ The Smithsonian
reviewed more than 25 potential sites for the new museums and
narrowed its search to four sites for further consideration:
the Arts and Industries Building, the Northwest Capitol Site,
South Monument Site, and the Tidal Basin Site. However, there
is conflict within the authorizing legislation which has caused
ambiguity regarding site selection. The authorizing legislation
directs the Smithsonian to consider the South Monument Site for
both museums. This site sits in ``the Reserve,'' a no-build
zone on the National Mall established in 2003 to maintain open
space. However, the legislation also contains a prohibition on
locating either museum in the Reserve. The Committee
recommended addressing the Reserve issue by amending the law to
mirror the language in the initial House-passed museum bills
which did not contain such a prohibition. Unfortunately, the
Senate ignored the overwhelming public support for locating the
museums on the National Mall and blocked legislation removing
the prohibition. The Committee hopes that the Senate will
reconsider its position during the 118th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, H.R.133, 116th Cong.
(2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee also continued its oversight of renovations
to the National Air and Space Museum (NASM). The museum started
a seven-year renovation in 2018 and included the redesign of
all 23 exhibitions and presentation spaces, complete refacing
of the building exterior, replacement of outdated mechanical
systems and more. Prior to the much-needed renovations, NASM
has regularly been one of the most-visited museums in the
United States. Although the project is not scheduled for
completion until 2025, in October 2022 the museum partially
reopened with eight new and renovated galleries in the west
wing of the building
In addition, the Committee continued to hold regular
bipartisan oversight meetings with the Smithsonian throughout
the 117th Congress. Topics of discussion during these monthly
meetings included the Smithsonian's major capital projects
(e.g., Pod 6 Construction for additional Smithsonian and
National Gallery of Art storage and Revitalization of the
Smithsonian's Historic Core), funding of the Smithsonian and
trends in Smithsonian operations. The Committee also met with
the Smithsonian Office of the Inspector General (Smithsonian
OIG) on a regular basis to discuss audits on topics like
acquisition management, the Smithsonian's Privacy Office and
collections management.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

The Committee met regularly with the Library of Congress
(Library) management and the Library Office of Inspector
General during the 117th Congress to monitor and review
operations, services and planning initiatives. Areas of focus
for the Committee included information technology (IT)
modernization, reimagination of the Library visitor experience,
the Copyright Office modernization, and the operations of the
Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Information Technology

In response to a 2015 Government Accountability Office
(GAO) finding that the Library's IT needed to be improved, the
Library, with oversight from the Committee, continued its IT
modernization effort throughout the 117th Congress.
This modernization effort includes an overhaul of records
storage, utilization of both the cloud and a new data center, a
more stabilized core IT structure, improved IT governance, and
a more centralized and professionalized IT workforce.
The office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) supports
the overall IT Service management framework in identifying,
characterizing, quantifying, and prioritizing potential IT
services as sources of strategic, financial, operational, or
technical value. Among OCIO's responsibilities is the
management of Congress.gov, which celebrated its tenth
anniversary in September 2022. Maintenance of Congress.gov is a
joint effort between the OCIO, the Congressional Research
Service, the Law Library of Congress, and other Congressional
data partners. Maintenance includes continuous site development
and updating the sites content and features every three weeks
based on user feedback. OCIO also launched the Application
Programing Interface (API), which provides automated access to
many of the Congress.gov collections, and GitHub, which
provides a community space for users to engage with the
Congress.gov team. In September of this year, the Library
hosted the third Congress.gov Virtual Public Forum,
highlighting the new site enhancements and API and including
panels with Congressional data partners. There were 144 unique
attendees and 50% of the three-hour forum was dedicated to user
feedback.

Visitor Experience and Thomas Jefferson Building Renovations

During the 117th Congress, the Committee provided oversight
as the Library continued its renovation of the Thomas Jefferson
Building and its Visitor Enhancement (VE) Initiative. The
overall objective of the VE Initiative is to democratize and
elevate the Library's experiential storytelling via exhibitions
emphasizing the Library's history and collections. Underlying
the VE Initiative is the idea that the Library's collections,
art, and architecture should be experienced by the many, not
the few.
This project includes the creation of a Youth Center,
improvement to exhibit infrastructure through the creation of a
Treasures Gallery, and the means to provide more collection-
based civics and history education to visitors. The Youth
Center will be made up of ``learning labs'' that will let young
people interact with the Library's collections. In addition,
the Library is constructing a new orientation space for
visitors. The VE project is funded through a public-private
partnership in which appropriated funds are matched by private
funds raised by the Library. This year, the Library continued
its project of remaking the visitor experience for all those
who travel to the world's largest library.
In July 2022, the Library closed the Northwest Gallery, 2nd
floor of the Thomas Jefferson Building, to re-design and
relocate the Exploring the Early Americas exhibition, and
prepare the space for the Treasures Gallery. A fabrication
contract was awarded for new display cases, which will be
installed next year. The inaugural theme of the space will be
remembrance. In December 2022, the Library completed 100% of
its exhibit design development for the Youth Center while
making continued progress on content development and
audiovisual/interactive development work. The Library also
completed 75% of its exhibit design development for the
Orientation Gallery/Welcome Area. Designs were also completed
for the LOC Entry, which includes the Capitol Visitors Center
Tunnel Entry, Carriage Entry/Security Vestibule, Welcome Area
and Spine, a Donor Recognition Wall, and the Congressional
Crossroads area.

United States Copyright Office

During the 117th Congress, the United States Copyright
Office (USCO) contributed to the broader Library's
modernization efforts by developing a new enterprise IT system
that integrates and improves all USCO technology. The
Enterprise Copyright System (ECS) will include USCO
registration, recordation, public record, and licensing IT
applications. The ECS pilot program was launched in April 2020
and made available to the general public in August 2022. Since
the 2020 launch of the ECS, the USCO has received 10,450
documents and recorded 408,117 works. The USCO has reported
that processing time for online submissions is markedly less
than that of paper submissions. For next steps, the USCO plans
to design and develop additional document type submission
options, to focus on direct integration of this system with the
new Copyright Public Record System, and to improve the
useability of the system.

Congressional Research Service

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) operates under the
Library of Congress and serves Congress throughout the
legislative process by providing comprehensive and reliable
legislative research and analysis, thereby contributing to an
informed national legislature. CRS services come in many forms,
including reports on major policy issues; tailored confidential
memoranda, briefings and consultations to the requesting
office; seminars and workshops; expert Congressional testimony;
and responses to individual inquiries. Throughout the 117th
Congress, CRS met regularly with the Committee to discuss its
effectiveness and efficiency in serving members of Congress,
diversity and inclusion within the various CRS departments, and
to clarify CRS' working relationship with the Library's Office
of Inspector General (OIG).
In the Second Session of the 117th Congress, the Committee
collaborated closely with CRS to plan New Member Seminar (NMS)
for new incoming Members, which is to be held in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, in January 2023. This is the first time in
decades that NMS will be held in a location other than
Williamsburg, Virginia. NMS will offer an opportunity for the
newly sworn-in House members to get to know one another, hear
from inspiring speakers, and participate in moderated
discussions across various policy areas, including reproductive
rights, pharmaceutical prices, foreign policy, and immigration,
among others.

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL WORKPLACE RIGHTS

The Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) was
created by the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) to
facilitate the application of fourteen workplace, health,
safety and accessibility laws applied Congress by the CAA.
Bipartisan Committee staff meets monthly with OCWR leadership
to discuss the office's work and initiatives and any issues
arising in the course of its operations.
The CAA had its first major reform in 115th Congress, with
passage of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform
Act (CAA Reform Act), an important reform measure championed by
the Committee on a bipartisan basis. Despite several workplace
reforms prescribed by the Act, such as expanding certain
protections to unpaid staff, and mandating a biennial survey of
the legislative branch workplace environment the Committee had
not performed an assessment of the Act since its enactment in
December 2018.
Exercising the committee's oversight jurisdiction and its
commitment to improving the Congressional workplace, the
committee held a series of hearings on improving the workplace.
The first held during the 117th Congress examined how the
impact of the workplace protection reforms enacted in 2019. The
second hearing explored the historic issue of unionization and
collective bargaining in Member and committee offices.

CAA Reform Oversight Hearing

The first hearing, ``Oversight of the Office of the
Congressional Workplace Rights: Lessons learned from the
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act'', was held
October 29, 2021. This hearing dealt with gaining insight as to
how implementation of the CAARA reforms were working, any
notable changes pre-versus post-reform, any challenges that
OCWR may have encountered in the implementation of reforms, and
whether OCWR has any recommendations for strengthening the
reforms.
Three witnesses testified, all from OCWR: two OCWR Board
Members, Chair Barbara Childs Wallace and Board Member, Barbara
Camens, and OCWR Deputy Executive Director for the House,
Teresa M. James.
The then-Executive Director of OCWR, Susan Tsui Grundmann,
who served as Executive Director of OCWR since January of 2017,
shepherded the agency through media interest surrounding a
series of hearings on sexual harassment in Congress and
successfully oversaw the implementation of workplace reforms
resulting from those hearings that culminated in the CAA Reform
Act. Ms. Grundmann was nominated by President Joe Biden to
serve as a member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority and
was confirmed by the Senate. Ms. James was appointed as the
interim Executive Director during the transition resulting in
her appearance as a witness. The committee appreciates Ms.
Grundmann's dedication to improving workplace conditions for
employees as well as leading her agency through important and
groundbreaking reforms.
During the November 9, 2021, hearing the Committee also
asked about issues related to of unionization for Congressional
staff. During the hearing, Ms. Camens, a member of the OCWR
Board, testified that OCWR's Board recommended proposed
regulations to Congress in 1996 to govern the unionization of
House and Senate offices. Ms. Camens also testified that,
``those regulations were issued by our board 25 years ago,
before the current iteration of the board . . . We have not
looked at them, we have not reexamined them, and we have not
taken a position on them.''

Unionization

In response to the November hearing finding that no
meaningful review of the regulations had occurred since 1996,
Chairperson Lofgren sent a letter dated February 8, 2022, to
the Chair of the OCWR Board requesting the Board review the
1996 regulations. OCWR responded February 22, 2022, and stated
that OCWR had reviewed the 1996 regulations as proposed and
continued to support their adoption by Congress. Between the
exchange of those letters, on February 9, 2022, Representative
Andy Levin introduced legislation to approve the 1996
regulations recommended by OCWR for House offices.
The Committee held a hearing on the specific topic of
unionization on March 2, 2022, titled, ``Oversight of Section
220 of the Congressional Accountability Act: Implementing the
Rights of Congressional Staff to Collectively Bargain.'' CHA
heard testimony from two witnesses, John Uelmen, General
Counsel for the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, and
Mark Strand, President of the Congressional Institute.
Among other findings at the hearing, the legislative text
as introduced by Representative Levin did not comply with the
technical requirements specified in the CAA and would need to
be changed before consideration by the full House.
Subsequently, Representative Levin introduced a similar
resolution that addressed the technical issues and the House
approved it it the same day, on May 10, 2022, becoming the only
chamber in Congress to provide Congressional employees in
Member offices and committees with the option to be represented
by a union. Since then, staff in a number of Members' offices
have opted to exercise their rights under the CAA to take steps
to form unions.

Climate Survey

As a continued effort to ensure the Congressional workplace
is a more fair and equitable place to work, the Committee
worked with OCWR to approve the launch of the second House
climate survey. The voluntary biennial survey measures the
workplace experience of employees, focusing primarily on issues
of harassment and discrimination. This year's edition also
covered questions on how well offices responded to employees
throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was open to House
employees from September 14, 2022, through November 18, 2022.
The House achieved a margin of error of +/-2.4 percent,
which exceeds best practices. The results are being compiled
and will be delivered to the Committee in early 2023.
The committee also worked with OCWR to develop and provide
a executive summary of results from the prior survey. Those
results from the 116th survey for the House have been posted on
the OCWR website per the Committee's request. The results
summary can be found in the reports section of the website.

OFFICE OF WHISTLEBLOWER OMBUDS

The Committee continued its oversight of the Office of the
Whistleblower Ombuds (Ombuds).\59\ In its second year since
establishment, the Ombuds made significant progress in
advancing its mandate to institutionalize within the House best
practices for working with whistleblowers from the public and
private sectors. Notably, the Ombuds' flagship training
resource, Best Practices for Working with Whistleblowers, is
one of the longest running and most viewed programs featured by
the Congressional Staff Academy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\House Rule II, clause 10(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The work of the Ombuds has enhanced the House's Article I
oversight responsibilities of Members and Committees and
allowed these offices to better support their whistleblower
constituencies. To further facilitate the Ombuds' mission, the
Committee authorized a higher employee ceiling for the office
during the 117th Congress. The Committee looks forward to
working with the Ombuds in the coming Congress.

OFFICE OF DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION

The House Office of Diversity and Inclusion (ODI) was
established during the 116th Congress with the objectives of
fostering diversity among House employing offices, studying
existing diversity and barriers to diversity in the House, and
advising both diverse job candidates searching for work on
Capitol Hill, and House employing offices searching for diverse
job candidates. During 117th Congress, the Committee managed
the national search for a new permanent ODI Director.
Ultimately, Dr. Sesha Joi Moon was selected to lead ODI.
Under the leadership of Dr. Moon, ODI continued
establishing itself within the Capitol Hill community through
its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Barrier Analysis, which
saw an external contractor, under the direction of ODI and in
consultation with the Committee, conduct 20 focus groups with
approximately 100 House staffers on topics such as the lack of
diversity at senior job levels, advancement ceilings for
diverse staffers, and limited knowledge of existing diversity,
equity, and inclusion resources within the House. ODI also
built its reputation beyond Capitol Hill by participating in
the Society for Human Resource Management Inclusion Conference,
the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Leadership
Conference, and the White House HBCU Initiative. For fiscal
year 2022, House appropriators validated and endorsed ODI's
work by expanding its budget, allowing the office to add two
Professional Staffers and a Research and Data Analyst to its
team and expand its national outreach operations.

FEDERAL ELECTIONS

Overview

During the 117th Congress, the Committee continued to
prioritize its historic role in conducting oversight of federal
elections, election administration, campaign finance, the
integrity and security of U.S. elections, and ensuring access
to the franchise for all Americans. Building upon the
Committee's extensive oversight and legislative work during the
116th Congress, in this Congress, the Committee held four
election-related Committee hearings, examining ways to
strengthen our democracy, including through enactment of H.R.
1, the For the People Act, constitutional interpretation and
Congressional exercise of legislative and oversight authority
under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. I,
Sec. 4, cl. 1), election subversion, and the independent state
legislature theory's potential to disrupt our democracy.
The Committee shepherded through House passage four major
pieces of elections-related legislation: H.R. 1, the For the
People Act; H.R. 5746, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis
Act,''; and H.R. 8873, the Presidential Election Reform Act,
and S. 3969 (H.R. 7326), Protection and Advocacy for Voting
Access Program Inclusion Act. These bills addressed critical
election issues such as equitable access to American democracy,
strengthening election infrastructure, combatting foreign
interference in American elections, reducing barriers for
voters with disabilities, and updating the over 135-year-old
Electoral Count Act. Additionally, during the 117th Congress,
the Committee and Subcommittee on Elections published three
staff reports: H.R. 1, The For the People Act, as Introduced in
the 117th Congress (Mar. 2, 2021), Voting in America: Ensuring
Free and Fair Access to The Ballot (July 2021), The Electoral
Count Act of 1877: Proposals for Reform (Jan. 2022).
The Committee conducted oversight over the two federal
agencies under its purview, the Federal Election Commission
(FEC) and the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), held
multiple hearings on the history and purpose of the Elections
Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and administered an extensive
election observer program, which included sending observers to
more than 24 Congressional races during the 2022 general
election in 10 states, including Arizona, California, Colorado,
Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
and Virginia.
The Committee continued to respond to the once-in-a-
generation challenges of voting during a global pandemic by
conducting virtual and hybrid hearings throughout the 117th
Congress, bringing together witnesses from around the country
to share their expertise with the Committee and the American
public.
The Subcommittee on Elections conducted extensive oversight
of federal elections administration and access to the
franchise, taking Congress to the American people by convening
eight hearings and additional roundtables during the 117th
Congress.

Legislation

The Committee marked-up and reported, and the House passed,
three significant pieces of election reform legislation in the
117th Congress.
H.R. 1, the ``For the People Act of 2021,'' is
comprehensive, democracy reform legislation that will advance
the democratic promise by eliminating barriers to voting for
all eligible Americans, combatting dark money in politics,
enhancing transparency in campaign finance while empowering
small donors, ending partisan gerrymandering, and strengthening
ethical standards in government.
H.R. 5746, the ``Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act,'' a
historic legislative package that combined key reforms from
H.R. 1, the ``For the People Act of 2021'' with H.R. 4, the
``John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021,'' a bill
that restores the protections and enforcement of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965.
H.R. 8873, the ``Presidential Election Reform Act,'' which
aims to reform the 13-year-old Electoral Count Act by making
certain improvements to the electoral process of appointing
Presidential electors and counting electoral votes.
H.R. 1--For the People Act of 2021
H.R. 1, the ``For the People Act of 2021'', was introduced
during the 117th Congress by Representative John P. Sarbanes of
Maryland on January 4, 2021. This comprehensive legislation to
advance American democracy is a collection of reforms
introduced over the years by various Members of Congress that
would expand access to the ballot box, protect the right to
vote, bolster the integrity of our democracy, and boost sorely
needed confidence in self-government. An earlier version of the
bill was first introduced by Rep. Sarbanes during the 116th
Congress on January 3, 2019.
The Federalist No. 57 states:

Who are to be the electors of the federal
representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor; not
the learned, more than the ignorant; not the haughty
heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons
of obscurity and unpropitious fortune. The electors are
to be the great body of the people of the United
States.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\The Federalist No. 57, in The Federalist Papers, available at
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist_papers/text-51-60#s-lg-box-wrapper-
25493433. A series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James
Madison, and John Jay, appeared anonymously in New York newspapers
under the pen name ``Publius.'' Federalist No. 57 is considered to be
the work of either Alexander Hamilton or James Madison.

H.R. 1 advances this bedrock principle of American
democratic self-governance. It is legislation for the ``great
body of the people'' to hold government accountable and to
protect the precious right to vote for all Americans.
Too many Americans feel shut out of the electoral process,
face barriers at the ballot box, or choose not to vote. About
two-thirds of the voting eligible population voted in the 2020
general election.\61\ Despite the historically exceptional
turnout in 2020, the 2020 general election was fraught with
long-standing challenges in our electoral system: legal and
structural efforts to disenfranchise voters, especially
African-American, Native American, and Latino voters; extreme
partisan gerrymandering; outsized spending by wealthy special
interests; the continued proliferation of dark money; deceptive
practices; and disinformation campaigns about election results.
Further, following the 2020 general election, some states
rushed to enact voter restrictive laws, which were in effect
for the 2022 midterms, that restricted access to the ballot
box, such as by making it harder to vote by mail, requiring
documentary proof of citizenship to vote, establishing new ID
requirements, making it difficult for people who do not have
traditional addresses to vote, and imposing faulty voter
purges.\62\ In 2022, only about one-half of the voting eligible
population voted in the 2022 midterm elections.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\Kevin Schaul, Kate Rabinowitz & Ted Mellnik, 2020 turnout is
the highest in over a century, Wash. Post (Nov. 5, 2020), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/elections/voter-turnout/.
\62\Voting Laws Roundup: October 2022, The Brennan Center for
Justice, Oct. 6, 2022, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
reports/voting-laws-roundup-october-2022.
\63\2022 November General Election Turnout Rates, US Elections
Project (Last updated: 11/23/2022), https://www.electproject.org/2022g.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1 would combat these threats to our democracy. It
includes key provisions from the late Rep. John Lewis' ``Voter
Empowerment Act'' that would modernize voter registration
systems by implementing online voter registration, automatic
voter registration, and same-day voter registration, set
nationwide standards that expand access to absentee and early
voting, improve access to voting for individuals with
disabilities, prohibit deceptive practices, combat voter
intimidation, protect against faulty purges from voter
registration lists, and restore the federal voting rights of
Americans with felony convictions who are no longer
incarcerated. It would also combat voter ID laws that restrict
voting by eligible Americans, end partisan gerrymandering,
provide grants to states to replace outdated voting infra
structure, and require the disclosure of dark, undisclosed
money so that Americans know who is influencing their votes and
their views. Further, the legislation would establish a small
dollar financing system for congressional campaigns which would
empower small donors. Finally, it would introduce an array of
new reforms to raise ethical standards in government.
Prior to the passage of H.R. 1, on February 25, 2021, the
Committee held a one-panel, full Committee hearing, entitled
``Strengthening American Democracy'' to review the structural
and administrative barriers to voting following the 2020
elections and examine the need for Congress to pass H.R. 1. The
following witnesses testified: Stacey Abrams, Founder and
Chair, Fair Fight Action; The Honorable Shenna Bellows,
Secretary of State, Maine; Guy-Uriel Charles, Edward and Ellen
Schwarzman Professor of Law, Duke Law School; and Ricky Hatch,
CPA, County Clerk/Auditor, Weber County, Utah.
When H.R. 1 was considered on the House floor, 56
amendments were offered by more than 50 Representatives. H.R. 1
passed the House on March 3, 2021, by a vote of 220 to 210.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Clerk, Roll Call
62, Bill Number: H.R. 1, 117th Cong., 1st Session, available at https:/
/clerk.house.gov/Votes/202162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 5746--Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act
On January 13, 2022, H.R. 5746, the ``Freedom to Vote: John
R. Lewis Act'', was introduced on the House Floor through a
motion by Rep. G. K. Butterfield that the House agree to a
House amendment to a Senate amendment. The House amendment
moved by Rep. Butterfield replaced the text of the Senate
amendment with the full text of the ``Freedom to Vote: John R
Lewis Act.''
H.R. 5746 is a historic legislative package of democratic
reforms that combines key provisions from H.R. 1, the ``For the
People Act,'' described above, with H.R. 4, the ``John R. Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2021,'' which modernizes and
restores the preclearance formula in the Voting Rights Act of
1965, codifies standards for vote dilution and vote denial
federal cases, and protects the voting rights of Native
Americans by incorporating the Native American Voting Rights
Act.
The motion made by Rep. Butterfield was agreed to on
January 13, 2022, by a vote of 220 to 203\65\ and the amended
bill was sent to the Senate for consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Clerk, Roll Call
9, Bill Number: H.R. 5746, 117th Cong., 2nd Session, available at
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/20229.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 8873, the Presidential Election Reform Act
The Electoral Count Act of 1887 (ECA) governs Congress's
certification of presidential elections every four years. The
ECA is outdated, vague, and confusing, as was demonstrated when
former President Trump's surrogates in Congress attempted to
exploit the law's arcane provisions, culminating in the January
6 attack on the Capitol. ECA reform is necessary to reaffirm
that neither Congress nor any individual has the constitutional
authority to overturn the will of the people in presidential
elections.
To achieve this goal, Chairperson Lofgren and
Representative Liz Cheney, Vice Chair of the Select Committee
to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States
Capitol, introduced H.R. 8873, the Presidential Election Reform
Act (PERA). PERA makes several critical reforms to protect the
integrity of presidential elections.
PERA enacts a new set of clear, comprehensive counting
rules that reaffirm that the vice president's role at the count
is ministerial, raises the objection threshold during the count
to one-third of each house (rather than a single Member of each
House), and lists the explicit Constitutional grounds upon
which Members may object to a state's electoral votes.
PERA also ensures that Congress receives a single, accurate
electoral certificate from each state. PERA achieves this by
setting a deadline by which governors must transmit their
states' appointments to Congress. If a governor fails to do so,
or if he or she transmits inaccurate certificates of
appointment, PERA authorizes candidates to obtain a federal
court order requiring the governor to transmit the state's
lawful certificate. If the governor refuses, then the court
must order another appropriate state official to issue the
lawful certificate. The governor's certificate (or the
certificate of the other state official, as the case may be)
shall be conclusive for Congress's purposes at the electoral
count.
PERA also requires states to select electors pursuant to
state laws as they exist prior to Election Day. This reaffirms
and clarifies that there is no legal authority allowing state
legislatures to ``take back'' their electoral appointment power
after the election if they do not like the results, as the
former president falsely suggested to his supporters.
PERA also ensures that presidential elections are only
extended for genuine catastrophic event. The bill amends the
ECA's ``failed elections'' provision to provide that a state's
presidential election can only be extended if a federal court
agrees that the state has experienced a genuine catastrophic
event affecting enough ballots to swing the outcome of the
state's election.
Lastly, PERA prohibits state and local election officials
from refusing to certify presidential elections. The Equal
Protection and Due Process clauses of the United States
Constitution prohibit election officials from willfully
refusing to count ballots or certify elections in accordance
with state election laws that exist on Election Day. PERA
allows presidential candidates to seek federal injunctive
relief against election officials to enforce these
constitutional requirements in presidential elections if
necessary.
The House passed PERA on September 21, 2022, by a vote of
229 to 203. A Senate version of the bill was included in the
omnibus spending bill signed into law at the end of the 117th
Congress.

Additional Legislative Activities

S. 3969 (H.R. 7326)--Protection and Advocacy for Voting
Access Program Inclusion Act
Representative Ruben Gallego reintroduced the bipartisan
PAVA Inclusion Act in the 117th Congress (H.R. 7326), with
Reps. Tom O'Halleran (D-AZ), Gregorio Sablan (D-MP), Teresa
Leger Fernandez (D-NM), and John Curtis (R-UT) as original
cosponsors on March 31, 2022. The bill was referred solely to
the Committee on House Administration. The Senate companion (S.
3969) was introduced by Senator Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), along
with Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Tina
Smith (D-MN), and Martin Heinrich (D-NM).
When Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in
2002, the law authorized funding for the Protection and
Advocacy for Voting Access (PAVA) program. The PAVA program
advocates for voters with disabilities to have access to all
aspects of the voting process and is administered by the HHS
Administration on Disabilities. PAVA funds are currently
awarded to eligible Protection and Advocacy (P&A) Systems. P&As
are federally mandated programs working at the state level to
protect individuals with disabilities. There are 57 P&As across
all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), as well as the American
Indian Consortium, also known as the Native American Disability
Law Center, which serves Native Americans with disabilities in
the Four Corners region of the Southwest U.S. Because of an
interpretation of the law under HAVA, the P&As in CNMI and the
American Indian Consortium do not receive PAVA funding because
they are not considered ``states'' under the HAVA definition.
The PAVA Inclusion Act makes a technical fix to HAVA to
explicitly include the CNMI and the system serving the American
Indian Consortium as eligible recipients of funding under the
PAVA program. The bill does not change the program's overall
authorization level or other elements of the PAVA program.
Language providing for the inclusion of CNMI and the American
Indian Consortium as recipients of PAVA funding was included in
the For the People Act, passed by the House in 2021, and in the
``Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act,'' passed by the House in
2022. Revisiting the limitation on PAVA funds was also included
as a recommendation in the Report of the Interagency Steering
Group on Native American Voting, published by the White House
in 2022.
The PAVA Inclusion Act passed the Senate by unanimous
consent on March 31, 2022. The bill passed the House by voice
vote on September 29, 2022, and was signed into law by
President Biden on September 30, 2022, as Public Law No. 117-
182.

Hearings

The Committee held four elections-related hearings in the
117th Congress, including two historic hearings on
constitutional interpretation and congressional exercise of
authority under the Elections Clause.
Prior to the passage of H.R. 1, on February 25, 2021, the
Committee held a one-panel, full Committee hearing, entitled
``Strengthening American Democracy'' to review the structural
and administrative barriers to voting in our elections
following the 2020 elections and examine the need for Congress
to pass H.R. 1. The following witnesses testified: Stacey
Abrams, Founder and Chair, Fair Fight Action; The Honorable
Shenna Bellows, Secretary of State, Maine; Guy-Uriel Charles,
Edward and Ellen Schwarzman Professor of Law, Duke Law School;
and Ricky Hatch, CPA, County Clerk/Auditor, Weber County, Utah
(minority witness).
On July 12, 2021, the Committee held a hearing entitled,
``The Elections Clause: Constitutional Interpretation and
Congressional Exercise.'' The hearing examined the Congress'
broad constitutional authority to regulate and legislate under
the Elections Clause and historical precedents of federal
legislation enacted under such powers. The expert witnesses
that testified were Jack Rakove, Coe Professor of History and
American Studies, Stanford University; Daniel P. Tokaji, Fred
W. & Vi Miller Dean and Professor of Law, University of
Wisconsin Law School; Franita Tolson, Professor of Law and Vice
Dean for Faculty and Academic Affairs, University of Southern
California Gould School of Law; and the Honorable Michael G.
Adams, Secretary of State, Commonwealth of Kentucky.
The Elections Clause is a source of vast federal power that
has been significantly under-utilized in the two centuries long
battle over the regulation of federal elections. Under the
Clause, states can set procedural regulations, but Congress can
also enact its own laws and, more importantly, veto state
regulations at will. Despite this unique structure, some
Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court and legal scholars tend to
view exercises of federal authority under the Clause as a
somewhat unwelcome intrusion on the states' authority to
legislate with respect to federal elections.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution states:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for
Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in
each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress
may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations,
except as to the Places of chusing Senators. (emphasis
added).

The Elections Clause thus allows states to prescribe rules
for the conduct of congressional elections, as the Supreme
Court has stated, ``only so far as Congress declines to pre-
empt state legislative choices.''\66\ Dean Franita Tolson,
Professor of Law and Vice Dean for Faculty and Academic
Affairs, University of Southern California Gould School of Law,
specifically addressing the constitutional authority of
Congress to enact H.R. 1, observed that, ``H.R. 1 is a
constitutional use of Congress'' authority under the Elections
Clause,'' and that ``[m]ost of its provisions does not approach
the outer limits of Congress'' power under the Elections
Clause, which empowers that body to make or alter state law;
commandeer state law, state officials, and state offices; and,
in certain circumstances, regulate voter qualifications
standards.''\67\ This Committee continued examining the meaning
and purpose of the Elections Clause in a subsequent hearing in
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67, 69 (1997).
\67\See The Elections Clause: Constitutional Interpretation and
Congressional Exercise, Hearing Before H. Comm. on H. Administration,
117th Cong. (2021), written testimony of Vice Dean Franita Tolson at
22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the 2020 election, a survey of election workers
commissioned by the Brennan Center for Justice found that one
in three election workers feels unsafe because of their job,
and nearly one in five listed their lives being threatened as a
job-related concern.\68\ On July 28, 2021, the Committee held a
hearing examining the growing threat of election subversion,
entitled ``Election Subversion: A Growing Threat to Election
Integrity.'' Witnesses included the Honorable John P. Sarbanes
(D-MD); the Honorable Nikema Williams (D-GA); and the Honorable
Burgess Owens (R-UT) on a Member panel, followed by a second
panel which included Adrian Fontes, former County Recorder,
Maricopa County, Arizona; Gowrin Ramachandran, Senior Counsel,
Brennan Center for Justice; Janice Winfrey, City Clerk,
Detroit, Michigan; and Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, Chairman,
Election Transparency Initiative. The hearing focused on
Representative John Sarbanes' bill, H.R. 4064, the Preventing
Election Subversion Act of 2021, the ways misinformation and
disinformation undermine the public's confidence in American
elections, and the safety and security of the individuals
supporting our democracy. Notably, several provisions of H.R.
4064 were adopted by the House through passage of the H.R.
5746, the ``Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\Election Officials Under Attack, The Brennan Center for Justice
and Bipartisan Policy Center, (June 16, 2021) at 3-4, https://
www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/BCJ-
129%20ElectionOfficials_v7.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 28, 2022, the Committee held a hearing titled ``The
Independent State Legislature Theory and its Potential to
Disrupt our Democracy.'' The hearing examined the independent
state legislature theory, which claims that state legislatures
have unfettered authority to regulate federal elections
pursuant to Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 and Article 2,
Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The hearing
witnesses were Richard Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of
Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law; Carolyn
Shapiro, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic
Administration and Strategic Initiatives, Chicago-Kent College
of Law; and Eliza Sweren-Becker, Counsel, Democracy Program,
Brennan Center for Justice. In their testimonies and during
questioning at the hearing, all three witnesses disagreed with
the premise of the independent state legislature theory and
noted that the theory lacks historical and legal support. The
witnesses also explained that the theory contradicts
traditional principles of federalism and checks and balances.

Additional Oversight

The Committee engaged in oversight activities, including
meeting with EAC and FEC staff, and sending a lengthy and
comprehensive oversight letter to the FEC. For example, the
Committee conducted a bipartisan oversight meeting with
majority and minority committee staff with the Inspector
General of the FEC, and staff from the Inspector General's
office. This meeting informed several questions posed to the
Commission in the Committee's oversight letter.
The Committee also sent an oversight letter to the FEC in
July 2022 posing more than 53 questions to the agency regarding
its operating posture, key vacancies at the agency, challenges,
and enforcement actions, among others. The FEC's response
spanned 68 pages and included an additional 58 pages of
supplemental material.

Subcommittee on Elections

During the 117th Congress, Representative G. K. Butterfield
chaired the Subcommittee on Elections. In exercising the
Committee's powers to conduct oversight of federal elections,
throughout the 117th Congress the Subcommittee on Elections
undertook a series of investigative hearings to examine the
state of voting in America. During the 116th Congress, the
Subcommittee's extensive investigative hearings identified
voting and election administration practices that exhibited the
most significant evidence of discriminatory impact. In the
117th Congress, the Subcommittee investigated those practices
further. In doing so, the Subcommittee determined that a number
of specific practices warranted a more in-depth examination,
specifically: (1) voter list maintenance and discriminatory
voter purges; (2) voter identification (``voter ID'') and
documentary proof of citizenship requirements; (3) lack of
access to multi-lingual voting materials and language
assistance; (4) polling place closures, consolidations,
reductions, and long wait times; (5) restrictions on additional
opportunities to vote; and (6) changes to methods of election,
jurisdictional boundaries, and redistricting.
During the initial five investigative hearings, the
Subcommittee received hours of testimony from more than 35
witnesses and collected numerous reports and documents,
culminating in a Subcommittee report Voting in America:
Ensuring Free and Fair Access to the Ballot, in which the
testimony and data show definitively that the voting and
election administration practices examined can and do have a
discriminatory impact on minority voters and can impede access
to the vote and provided the evidence underpinning the
inclusion of the known covered practices components of H.R. 4,
the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\H. Comm. on H. Admin., Subcomm. on Elections, staff print,
Voting in America: Ensuring Free and Fair Access to the Ballot, 117th
Cong., 1st Sess. (2021), available at https://cha.house.gov/sites/evo-
subsites/cha.house.gov/files/2021_Voting%20in%20America_v5_web.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following this series of hearings, the Subcommittee held an
additional three hearings on the state of voting in America,
specifically discussing the states of Texas, New Mexico, and
Florida, as well as a Committee roundtable in Pennsylvania.
Furthermore, following a Committee roundtable in Miami,
Florida, the Subcommittee convened three hearings examining the
growing threat of election-related misinformation,
disinformation, and malinformation (MDM) and its impact on
American democracy.

Examining Voting in America

Following the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby
County v. Holder, which held the preclearance formula of the
Voting Rights Act to be unconstitutional, numerous states
across the country enacted restrictive and discriminatory
voting laws. The increases in voter turnout in both the 2018
and 2020 elections were not met with celebration in statehouses
across the country but instead with backlash and false claims
of fraud--claims that were used to justify voter suppression
and the passage of laws that disenfranchise voters.
During the Subcommittee's first hearing of the 117th
Congress, ``Voting in America: Ensuring Free and Fair Access to
the Ballot,'' Allison Riggs, Interim Executive Director/Chief
Counsel, Voting Rights, Southern Coalition for Social Justice;
SonjaDiaz, Founding Director, Latino Policy & Politics
Initiative, UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs; Marcia
Johnson-Blanco, Co-Director, Voting Rights Project, Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Debo P. Adegbile,
Partner, WilmerHale, LLP; and the Honorable Kim Wyman,
Secretary of State, State of Washington (minority witness)
testified regarding the 2020 election, the perpetuation of
barriers to voting, structural, legal, and administrative
barriers to voting faced by Black, brown, Indigenous, and other
communities of color, as well as voters with disabilities. This
hearing began a series of five hearings that gathered testimony
to continue building the record of contemporaneous data called
for by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder, and to
inform the crafting of a fulsome restoration of the protections
of the Voting Rights Act.
Next, the Subcommittee held a hearing examining the
practice of voter list purges and the potential for this
practice to disproportionately burden minority voters. At the
virtual hearing, ``Voting in America: The Potential for Voter
List Purges to Interfere with Free and Fair Access to the
Ballot,'' the Honorable Josh L. Kaul, Attorney General, State
of Wisconsin; Sophia Lin Lakin, Deputy Director, Voting Rights
Project, American Civil Liberties Union; Marc Meredith,
Associate Professor, University of Pennsylvania Department of
Political Science; and Kaylan Phillips, Litigation Counsel,
Public Interest Legal Foundation (minority witness), testified
about the key federal statutes and regulations governing state
maintenance of voter registration rolls, the recent efforts by
states and localities to remove tens of millions of registrants
from their rolls, the potential for such efforts to
disproportionately (and perhaps intentionally) burden minority
voters, and recent litigation matters related to state voter
purge efforts.
At the third hearing in the series--``Voting in America:
The Potential for Voter ID Laws, Proof-of-Citizenship Laws, and
Lack of Multi-Lingual Support to Interfere with Free and Fair
Access to the Ballot''--witnesses across two panels discussed
voter identification laws, proof-of-citizenship laws, and lack
of access to multi--lingual voting materials. On the first
panel, Dr. Lonna Rae Atkeson, Professor, University of New
Mexico; Matthew L. Campbell, Staff Attorney, Native American
Rights Fund; Dr. Nazita Lajevardi, Assistant Professor,
Michigan State University; Andrea Senteno, Regional Counsel,
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund | MALDEF;
and Lori Roman, President, American Constitutional Rights Union
(minority witness) testified about voter identification and
proof-of-citizenship laws. Witnesses for the majority testified
as to how these requirements disproportionately burden minority
voters. Discriminatory strict voter ID laws were some of the
first voting laws implemented in the wake of Shelby County.
Studies have consistently demonstrated that minority voters are
disproportionately likely to lack the forms of ID required by
voter ID laws and are disproportionately burdened by the time
and expense of acquiring the underlying documents and IDs. The
consequence is a negative impact on turnout amongst minority
voters.\70\ On the second panel, Dr. Matt Barreto, Professor,
University of California, Los Angeles; Terry Ao Minnis, Senior
Director of Census and Voting Programs, Asian Americans
Advancing Justice | AAJC; Kira Romero-Craft, Managing Attorney,
Southeast Office, Latino Justice PRLDEF; and Harmeet Dhillon,
Founding Partner, Dhillon Law Group, Inc. (minority witness)
discussed access to multi-lingual voting materials and
assistance. Failure to provide these materials and services can
negatively impact millions of potential voters, a
disproportionate number of whom are minority voters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\H. Comm. on H. Admin., Subcomm. on Elections, staff print,
Voting in America: Ensuring Free and Fair Access to the Ballot, 117th
Cong., 1st Sess. (2021), available at https://cha.house.gov/sites/
evo_subsites/cha.house.gov/files/2021_Voting%20in%20America_v5_web.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the fourth hearing, ``Voting in America: The Potential
for Polling Place Quality and Restrictions on Opportunities to
Vote to Interfere with Free and Fair Access to the Ballot,''
witnesses testified as to how each of these practices
disproportionately burden minority voters and can be
implemented in a discriminatory manner. The hearing's first
panel, Dr. Stephen Pettigrew, Director of Data Sciences,
University of Pennsylvania; Jesselyn McCurdy, Interim Executive
Vice President for Government Affairs, Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights; Kevin Morris, Quantitative Researcher,
Democracy, Brennan Center for Justice; Mimi Marziani,
President, Texas Civil Rights Project; and Donald Palmer,
Chair, U.S. Election Assistance Commission (minority witness),
followed by a second panel consisting of Dr. Michael C. Herron,
Professor, Dartmouth College; Gilda Daniels, Director of
Litigation, Advancement Project; Danielle Lang, Director,
Voting Rights, Campaign Legal Center; Isabel Longoria,
Elections Administrator, Harris County, Texas; and Ashlee
Titus, Board Member and Corporate Secretary, Lawyers Democracy
Fund (minority witness) provided testimony on various changes
to opportunities to vote. The Subcommittee examined the impacts
of changes that reduce, consolidate, or relocate voting
locations; wait times; changes made to early, absentee, and
election-day voting locations; and reductions in days or hours
of in person voting on weekend early voting, and the potential
for such changes to disproportionately burden minority voters.
Issues related to polling place locations, quality,
accessibility, and the ensuing long wait times to vote are
pervasive. Over the past decade, it has been well documented
that racial minorities wait longer to vote on election day than
White voters.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\See e.g., Voting in America: The Potential for Polling Place
Quality and Restrictions on Opportunities to Vote to Interfere with
Free and Fair Access to the Ballot: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on
Elections, 117th Cong. (2021), written testimony of Kevin Morris at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fifth hearing in the Voting in America series, ``Voting
in America: A National Perspective on the Right to Vote,
Methods of Election, Jurisdictional Boundaries, and
Redistricting,'' examined issues related to changes to method
of election, changes to jurisdictional boundaries, and changes
made through the redistricting process, and the potential for
all these practices to disproportionately burden or
disenfranchise minority voters. This hearing also included a
national-level discussion on the discriminatory and suppressive
impact of voting laws post-Shelby County. The first panel of
witnesses, which included Jerry Vattamala, Director, Democracy
Program, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
(AALDEF); Patty Ferguson-Bohnee, Director, Indian Legal Clinic,
Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University;
Eric H. Holder, Jr., former Attorney General of the United
States & Chairman, National Democratic Redistricting Committee;
and Thor Hearne, Founding Partner, True North Law Group
(minority witness) primarily discussed issues related to
methods of election, redistricting, and jurisdictional boundary
practices, and how they can be wielded to disenfranchise and
dilute the voting power of minority voters. On the second
panel, Thomas A. Saenz, President & General Counsel, Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (AALDEF); Janai
Nelson, Associate Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc.; Michael Waldman, President, Brennan
Center for Justice; Wade Henderson, Interim President & CEO,
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; and Sara
Frankenstein, Partner, Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson & Ashmore
(minority witness) extrapolated on the discussion of these
practices and the others the Subcommittee discussed throughout
the hearing series. The panel included a discussion of the
national litigation landscape in the post-Shelby County era and
how the claim that the suppressive laws and tactics the
Subcommittee has discussed this Congress are necessary for
``election integrity'' was false.
Following completion of the Subcommittee report, the
Subcommittee held additional hearings continuing to focus on
the state of voting in America. The State of Texas has a long
history of restricting access to the ballot and was covered in
its entirety under the Voting Rights Act prior to Shelby County
v. Holder decision. Most recently, despite no evidence of
irregularity or fraud, the state legislature passed Senate Bill
1, a sweeping, restrictive elections bill that placed numerous
new barriers on voting and rolled back several of the voting
opportunities utilized during the 2020 election. Following the
March 2022 primary election, reports across the state showed
widespread issues and significant increases in mail-in
application and ballot rejection rates, some shortages of poll
workers, and issues with some voting equipment. The
Subcommittee held a hearing entitled ``Voting in America:
Ensuring Free and Fair Access to the Ballot in Texas''' to
discuss these issues. Gary Bledsoe, President, Texas NAACP
State Conference; Andy Brown, County Judge, Travis County,
Texas; Hani Mirza, Legal Director, Voting Rights Program, Texas
Civil Rights Project; Nina Perales, Vice President of
Litigation, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
| MALDEF; and Cindy Siegel, Chair, Harris County, Texas
Republican Party (minority witness) provided testimony at the
hearing.
The Subcommittee traveled to Santa Fe, New Mexico, to hold
a field hearing on ``Voting in America: Access to the Ballot in
New Mexico'' to examine the pro-democracy, pro-voter policies
New Mexico has implemented to improve and expand access to the
ballot throughout the state, additional steps supported by many
in the state that would continue to expand access, and any
ongoing issues related to elections in New Mexico. The
Honorable Maggie Toulouse Oliver, Secretary of State, State of
New Mexico; Heather Ferguson, Executive Director, Common Cause
New Mexico; Ahtza Dawn Chavez, Executive Director, NAVA
Education Project; and Andrea Serrano, Executive Director,
Organizers in the Land of Enchantment (OLE) provided testimony
on the many election administration policies New Mexico employs
that improve and expand access to the ballot, including
automatic voter registration, online voter registration, same-
day registration, early in-person voting, and no-excuse
absentee voting, and improvements to access for Native American
voters.
In the wake of the 2020 election, despite statements made
by the state's leaders that Florida's election was fair and
secure, Florida made several changes to its voting laws that
erect barriers to the ballot and could lead to voter
disenfranchisement--including placing new limitations on the
use of drop boxes, mail-in ballots, and the provision of food
and beverages to voters waiting to cast a ballot, among others.
Additionally, the state enacted a new elections police force
under the guise of bolstering election integrity and enacted a
discriminatory redistricting plan. The Subcommittee held a
field hearing in Tallahassee, Florida, entitled ``Voting in
America: Access to the Ballot in Florida'' to examine these
issues. Witnesses at the hearing included Brad Ashwell, Florida
State Director, All Voting Is Local; Brenda Holt, County
Commissioner, Gadsden County, Florida; Cecile Scoon, President,
League of Women Voters of Florida; Matletha Bennette, Senior
Staff Attorney, Voting Rights Program, Southern Poverty Law
Center; and Chris Anderson, Supervisor of Elections, Seminole
County, Florida (minority witness).
Additionally, the Subcommittee held a roundtable in Upper
Darby, Pennsylvania, entitled ``Voting in America: Access to
the Ballot in Pennsylvania'' to examine ways in which voters in
Pennsylvania can access the ballot freely, fairly, and
securely, the security of Pennsylvania elections, ways in which
ballot access and elections can continue to be improved, and
ongoing attempts to undermine ballot access in the
Commonwealth. Members heard from the Honorable Leigh M.
Chapman, Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth, Pennsylvania
Department of State; Dori Sawyer, Director of Elections,
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania; Joan Duvall-Flynn, Past
President, NAACP Pennsylvania State Conference of Branches &
NAACP Media Branch; Benjamin Geffen, Staff Attorney, Public
Interest Law Center of Philadelphia; and Al Schmidt, President
& CEO, Committee of Seventy about these issues.

Examining Election-Related Mis- and Disinformation

The spread of mis- and disinformation in American elections
gained national attention following the 2016 election. The
spread of false information continued in 2018, and the 2020
election saw the spread of domestic misinformation and
disinformation take center stage. America also experienced a
rise in mis- and disinformation targeted specifically at Black
and Latino communities, and the spread of mis- and
disinformation in the Asian American and Pacific Islander
community. Misinformation is ``information that is false, but
not created or shared with the intention of causing harm.''
Disinformation is ``false information that is deliberately
created to mislead, harm, or manipulate a person, social group,
organization, our country. Increasingly, experts are also
discussing malinformation, which is ``based on fact, but used
out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.''\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, Mis, Dis, Malinformation, available at https://
www.cisa.gov/mdm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proliferation of election-related misinformation and
disinformation seen during the 2016 and 2018 elections
continued throughout the 2020 election cycle, and experts
warned that the onslaught would continue throughout the 2022
election, becoming more widespread as the midterm elections
drew nearer. Following the spread of the Big Lie that the 2020
election was stolen, lies and misleading information about the
integrity of U.S. elections, voting systems and processes, and
election officials were used as false justifications for
restrictive voting laws, attempts at election subversion
legislation, and a dramatic rise in threats to election
officials.
A roundtable on the ``Impact of Mis- and Disinformation on
Elections in the Spanish Speaking Community'' held in Miami,
Florida, began the committee's examination of election-related
mis- and disinformation in the 117th Congress. Debbie Mucarsel-
Powell, former Member of Congress, Florida's 26th Congressional
District; Raul L. Martinez, former Mayor of the City of Hialeah
& Host of Sin Mordaza con Raul Martinez; Andrea Mercado,
Executive Director, Florida Rising; Eduardo Gamarra, Professor,
Department of Politics and International Relations and Director
of the Latino Public Opinion Forum, Florida International
University; and Ameer Patel, Vice President of Programs, Voto
Latino & Latino Anti Disinformation Lab provided information on
the targeting of communities with Spanish-language election-
related mis- and disinformation across multiple platforms such
as Spanish-language radio, television, and newspaper
programming, particularly in South Florida, and across the
United States on social media apps, messaging apps, and other
online forums.
Building upon the roundtable, the Subcommittee held a
hearing entitled, ``A Growing Threat: The Impact of
Disinformation Targeted at Communities of Color.''At this
hearing Stephanie Valencia, Co-Founder & President, EquisLabs;
Emily Chi, Director of Telecommunications, Technology, and
Media, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC; Joi Chaney,
Executive Director of the Washington Bureau & Senior Vice
President of Policy and Advocacy, National Urban League; Dr.
Samuel Woolley, Program Director of the Propaganda Research
Lab, Center for Media and Engagement, University of Texas at
Austin; and Carlos Curbelo, former Member of Congress,
Florida's 26th Congressional District (minority witness)
discussed the impact election-related disinformation has on
communities of color, including voters who consume information
primarily in a language other than English, and what can be
done to combat the impact of that disinformation.
The Subcommittee next examined how mis- and disinformation
poses a threat to American democracy. A hearing entitled ``A
Growing Threat: How Disinformation Damages American Democracy''
examined the damage done by mis-, dis-, and malinformation
(MDM) during the 2020 election through present day. Mike
Rothschild, Journalist and Author; Yosef Getachew, Media &
Democracy Program Director, Common Cause; Edgardo Cortes,
Election Security Advisor, Brennan Center for Justice; Lisa
Deeley, Chairwoman, Philadelphia City Commissioners; and Gary
Lawkowski, Senior Fellow, Institute of Free Speech, Counsel,
Dhillon Law Group (minority witness) testified as witnesses at
the hearing. Witnesses called by the Majority focused on four
categories of harm related to the spread of MDM--threats to
election officials, the passage of restrictive voting laws,
discouraging voters in communities of color from participating
in the democratic process, and undermining public confidence in
American democracy.
Finally, the Subcommittee on Elections held a hearing on
the sources of disinformation. ``A Growing Threat: Foreign and
Domestic Sources of Disinformation,'' focused on domestic and
foreign sources of mis-, dis-, and malinformation, particularly
how foreign disinformation differs from domestic disinformation
and how they interact. The Subcommittee examined the trends and
targets of these different disinformation campaigns ahead of
the 2022 election. Witnesses John D. Cohen, former Acting
Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security & Adjunct Professor, Georgetown
University; Mark Juergensmeyer, Distinguished Professor
Emeritus of Sociology and Global Studies, University of
California, Santa Barbara; Jiore Craig, Head of Digital
Integrity, Institute for Strategic Dialogue; and Renee DiResta,
Research Manager, Stanford Internet Observatory provided
testimony on the U.S. government approach to foreign and
domestic MDM, the risk of violence posed by domestic
originating MDM, how the global rise of right-wing religious
neo--nationalism is manifesting in the U.S. and the ties to
election-related MDM, trends in MDM around the globe, the
commercial market for MDM, and how election-related social
media content morphs from rumor to MDM.

Additional Subcommittee Activity

House Resolution 8, establishing the rules of the House for
the 117th Congress, requires that ``each standing committee
(other than the Committee on Ethics) or each subcommittee
thereof (other than a subcommittee on oversight) shall hold a
hearing at which it receives testimony from Members, Delegates,
and the Resident Commissioner on proposed legislation within
its jurisdiction'' during the first session of the 117th
Congress.\73\ Fulfilling this requirement, the Subcommittee on
Elections held a Member Day hearing and received testimony from
Representatives Claudia Tenney, Peter Meijer, John Katko, John
Sarbanes, Larry Bucshon, Buddy Carter, Mike Johnson, and Van
Taylor, as well as statements for the record from Reps. Pete
Stauber and Mike Levin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\H. Res. 8, supra note 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contested Elections

The Constitution vests substantial and broad authority in
Congress with respect to federal elections, including to hear
and decide contests brought to challenge the results of
congressional elections that have been certified by the States.
Article I, Section 5, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution
provides that, ``Each House shall be the Judge of the
Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members . .
.'' Article I, Section 4, clause 1 provides that, ``The Time,
Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law
make or alter such Regulations . . .'' As a preeminent
constitutional and elections law scholar recently described
this authority at a Committee hearing:

In a word--one the U.S. Supreme Court has used
repeatedly for 142 years--Congress's power over
congressional elections is ``paramount.'' Under the
unambiguous text of the Elections Clause and a long
line of Supreme Court precedent, Congress has broad
plenary authority to regulate the time, place, and
manner of conducting congressional elections. The most
recent explication was Justice Scalia's opinion for
seven justices in Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of
Arizona back in 2013 where he referred to the ``broad''
and ``comprehensive'' scope of the Elections Clause
power.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\The Elections Clause: Constitutional Interpretation and
Congressional Exercise: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on H. Admin., 117th
Cong. (2021), written statement of Daniel P. Tokaji, Fred W. & Vi
Miller Dean and Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School.

In addition to the broad authority vested in Congress under
the Elections Clause, ``Under express provisions of the U.S.
Constitution, the final authority over the `Elections, Returns
and Qualifications of its own Members' is clearly lodged within
each House of Congress.''\75\ Thus, ``Together, `these two
sections invest Congress with near-complete authority to
establish the procedures and render final decisions relating to
the election of its members.'''\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\L. Paige Whitaker, Contested Election Cases in the House of
Representatives: 1933 to 2009, Cong. Res. Svc., Nov. 2, 2010.
\76\H. Comm. on H. Admin., A History of the Committee on House
Administration: 1947-2012 115 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House has been vested with not only the authority but
the responsibility from our nation's very beginning, and it has
consistently and regularly exercised it from the First Congress
through the 117th. Over our history, election contests have
remained a normal and regular part of the biennial process for
electing, recognizing, and seating new Members of the House.
Although Congress has opted to revise the statutory framework
by which it considers election contests, consideration of such
contests has been a regular and recurring part of the House's
constitutional prerogatives and work. Across our nation's
history, more than 600 elections have been contested in the
House, an average of more than five per Congress. Indeed, even
discounting the Reconstruction period and its surge in election
contests, there have been 110 contested election cases
considered in the House since 1933--an average of more than two
contests per a Congress.
As discussed below, this regular pattern continued in the
117th Congress. In 2021, contestants properly filed two
elections contests under the FCEA to challenge a state-
certified election, one in Illinois's 14th Congressional
District and one in Iowa's 2nd Congressional District. The
Illinois case was brought by a Republican contestant against a
Democratic contestee who was certified by her state as the
winner; the Iowa case was brought by a Democratic contestant
against a Republican contestee who was certified by her state
as the winner.
Although the authority for the House to determine the
``Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members''
was clearly established by the Constitution and exercised
immediately in the First Congress, since then, Congress has
continued to refine a statutory framework to provide guidelines
for how elections contests are to be considered and resolved.
Initially, the Committee on Elections was guided by informal
practice and precedent. Then, ``In 1798 the Fifth Congress
(1797-1798) enacted a statute governing the process and
procedures relating to contested elections. This statute
expired at the end of the First Session of the Sixth Congress
(1799-1800).''\77\ A half century later, ``In 1851, Congress
enacted a second contested election statute, which, with the
exception of minor amendments made in 1860, 1873, 1875, 1879,
and 1887, remained substantially unchanged until enactment of
the Federal Contested Elections Act of 1969 (FCEA).''\78\ The
FCEA, which was last updated more than 50 years ago, remains
the primary statutory framework which guides the House in
considering elections contests today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\Id.
\78\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Observer Program

To administer its responsibilities under the Constitution,
FCEA, and oversight of federal elections generally, the
Committee coordinates efforts on a bipartisan basis to ensure
that all ballots in close congressional races are counted
fairly and accurately. The Committee has a long-standing
practice of working collaboratively on a bipartisan basis to
send observers to congressional districts as part of this
program every two years to proactively monitor elections for
which there was a reasonable basis to expect a contest might be
filed. There is a record of the Committee sending observers in
these circumstances in Committee summary of activities reports
dating back to at least the 99th Congress.
When requested by a candidate, the Committee deploys at
least two observers, one from the Majority and one from the
Minority, to the congressional district at issue. Specific
observer responsibilities include: documenting the state of
ballots during an extended count and/or recount and observing
the security of voting machines, equipment, voter rolls,
records, and stored ballots. The observations are critical to
the United States House of Representatives and to the
Committee, particularly in the event the House or Committee is
directed to investigate or resolve any contested election.
During the first month of the 117th Congress, the Committee
continued its observation in New York's Twenty-Second
Congressional District, which was the last House race to be
certified after litigation delayed the certification.
For the 2022 general election, the Committee received 24
requests for observers from Members and/or candidates for
congressional office. Two candidates later determined observers
were unnecessary after consultation with the Committee. The
Committee sent observers to 22 congressional districts. The
Committee sent observers to ten states, including Arizona,
California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. In addition, the Committee
sent two observers to observe a recount in Colorado's Third
Congressional District.

Election Contests

Election contests remain a regular and expected part of the
federal election cycle. This regular pattern continued in the
117th Congress. In 2020, contestants properly filed two
elections contests under the FCEA to challenge a state-
certified election, one in Illinois's 14th Congressional
District and one in Iowa's 2nd Congressional District, each of
which was adjudicated during this Congress. The Illinois case
was brought by a Republican contestant against a Democratic
contestee who was certified by her state as the winner; the
Iowa case was brought by a Democratic contestant against a
Republican contestee who was certified by her state as the
winner.
On December 2, 2020, Rita Hart, a candidate for the House
in Iowa's Second Congressional District, announced that her
campaign would file a contest under the FCEA with the House to
challenge the results of a district-wide recount. The recount
resulted in a historically narrow six-vote margin between the
candidates. Contestant Rita Hart properly filed a notice of
contest under the Federal Contested Elections Act on December
22, 2020, and Contestee Mariannette Miller-Meeks filed a motion
to dismiss on January 21, 2021. After a response to the motion
from the Contestant and a reply from the Contestee, the
Committee decided on March 10, 2021, to postpone the motion to
dismiss. On March 31, 2021, Contestant Hart announced she would
be withdrawing her contest.
On December 4, 2020, the Illinois State Board of Elections
certified Representative Lauren Underwood as the winner of the
November 2020 general election for Illinois' Fourteenth
Congressional District by 5,347 votes. On January 4, 2021,
Contestant James ``Jim'' Oberweis filed a notice of contest
under the Federal Contested Election Act. On February 3, 2021,
Contestee Underwood filed a motion to dismiss, citing two
grounds. First, Contestee claimed the Contestant did not timely
serve the Notice of Contest. Second, the Contestant failed to
set forth with particularity, as required by 2 U.S.C.
Sec. 382(b), grounds sufficient to change the result of the
election. On April 28, 2022, the Committee voted unanimously in
favor of a resolution to dismiss the contest. The resolution
was agreed to by the House as a simple resolution on May 12,
2021.
On February 19, 2021, the Committee adopted a resolution to
govern both contests. This resolution provides a general
framework for future filings by the contestant and contestee in
contested elections cases in the 117th Congress and serves as a
model of impartial administration of contests for future
Congresses. First, the resolution restricted filings from
either party to those expressly authorized or directed by the
FCEA or by the Committee on House Administration. It set
standards for responses to motions to dismiss and replies to
those responses. For all other filings the resolution set
specific word limits--13,000 for a motion or brief and 6,000
for a reply brief. It also provided that the Committee on House
Administration would decide on any motion filed under 2 U.S.C.
Sec. 383 on the papers, without a hearing or oral arguments.
Finally, the resolution informed the parties that, if the
motion to dismiss was denied or postponed, the Committee might
request that each party file a brief within 10 days that
answers specific questions put forward by the Committee.

Election Deniers

During the 2022 election, a substantial number of
candidates who were deemed election deniers (i.e., those who
rejected or questioned the results of the 2020 presidential
election) were on the ballot. These candidates were extremely
dangerous to the health of American democracy, and they ran for
offices at all levels, from local school boards to the United
States Congress.
According to a report from the Washington Post, nearly 300
Republicans who sought congressional and state offices in
forty-eight states were election deniers.\79\ Several election
deniers in battleground states ran for offices which oversee
elections, creating a very worrisome prospect that the
elections in states that could potentially decide the 2024
presidential election would be administered and certified by
individuals that cast doubt on the security and integrity of
U.S. elections. Fortunately, most of those candidates lost
their elections, but election deniers who are running for
office continue to be a threat to American democracy. This is
an issue the Committee should explore further in the 118th
Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\Adrian Blanco & Amy Gardner, Where Republican election deniers
are on the ballot near you, Wash. Post (Nov. 8, 2022), available at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2022/election-
deniers-running-for-office-elections-2022/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

During the 117th Congress, a wide range of media stories
reported significant and troubling accounts about failures to
comply with financial disclosure obligations and financial
conflicts of interest in relation to stock trading and
ownership across the entire federal government. These stories
addressed, among other related issues, Members of Congress
failing to file timely reports of securities transactions;
allegations of possible insider trading by Members of Congress
and other senior government officials, including at the White
House, in the early weeks of the coronavirus pandemic;
widespread problems with financial disclosure and conflicts of
interest in the federal judiciary, including the failure by
more than 130 federal judges to recuse themselves from cases in
which they or their family members held stock in a party in the
litigation possible financial conflicts of interest of Federal
Reserve officials; and shortcomings of existing substantive
financial disclosure requirements, particularly with respect to
the wealthiest filers.
The issues and shortcoming exposed in these news stories
undermine the American people's faith and trust in the
integrity of public officials and our federal government. In
light of these concerns, the Speaker of the House tasked the
Committee on House Administration with conducting a
comprehensive review of deficiencies in our financial
disclosure system and various legislative proposals introduced
by Members to address financial disclosure issues and conflicts
of interest in government, including imposing new restrictions
on stock trading and ownership.
In addition, 2022 marked the tenth anniversary of the
enactment of the STOCK Act.\80\ That measure, which President
Barack Obama signed into law in April 2012, amended the Ethics
in Government Act of 1978, and imposed new financial disclosure
requirements, among other provisions. The STOCK Act enhanced
public disclosure requirements by introducing a requirement to
report securities transactions throughout the year, closer in
time to the transactions, rather than just the following year,
on an annual financial disclosure statement. Among other
things, the STOCK Act also affirmed that insider trading
prohibitions apply to federal officials and clarified that all
federal officials have a duty of confidentiality and trust to
the United States and its citizens with respect to material,
non-public information that they derive from their positions.
The experience of a decade of the law in practice also provided
an opportunity to review how officials have complied with the
law and whether there are ways it could be updated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\STOCK Act, Pub. L. No. 112-244, 126 Stat. 291 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, on April 7, 2022, the Committee held a full
Committee hearing entitled, ``Examining Stock Trading Reforms
for Congress'' to examine the underlying issues that have
prompted the various legislative proposals, their details, and
variations. The following witnesses testified: Jacob Straus,
Specialist on the Congress, Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress; Donald Sherman, Senior Vice President and
Chief Counsel, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington; Liz Hempowicz, Director of Public Policy, Project
on Government Oversight; Donna Nagy, C. Ben Dutton Professor of
Business Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law; and
Jennifer Schulp, Director of Financial Regulation Studies,
Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, CATO Institute.
Following the hearing, the Committee asked substantial written
questions for the hearing record of all of the witnesses, each
of whom provided meaningful and important responses for the
hearing record in addition to their important hearing
testimony.
Following development of that substantial hearing record--
the only hearing by any congressional committee in the 117th
Congress to focus on this issue--and informed by a review of
the more than 20 various legislative proposals by Members to
address financial conflicts of interest in the federal
government, including those that aim to restrict stock trading
and ownership, on September 28, 2022, Chairperson Zoe Lofgren
introduced H.R. 8990, the ``Combatting Financial Conflicts of
Interest in Government Act.''\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\Combatting Financial Conflicts of Interest in Government Act,
H.R. 8990, 117th Cong. (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This government ethics reform bill includes a strong and
comprehensive approach to combatting financial conflicts of
interest across the entire federal government. It imposes new
restrictions on financial activity by senior government
officials and their spouses and dependent children, enhances
transparency by strengthening financial disclosure requirements
and ending disclosure loopholes, strengthens penalties for
noncompliance with financial disclosure requirements and
restrictions on financial activity, and ensures accountability
by requiring public disclosure of enforcement efforts. These
complementary measures, taken together, can help restore the
American people's faith and trust in the integrity of public
officials and our federal government.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS

The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress
(SCMC) was established by the House at the beginning of the
116th Congress and was initially intended to exist for only the
first session of the 116th Congress. The House then extended
the SCMC, first for the remainder of the 116th Congress and
then for the 117th Congress. Its mission was to investigate,
study, hold public hearings, and develop recommendations to
make Congress more effective, efficient and transparent.
The SCMC passed a total of 204 recommendations, many of
which addressed issues in the jurisdiction of the Committee on
House Administration. The Committee implemented many of the
recommendations, through legislation, Committee regulation, and
policy direction to the officers of the House. Of the 204
recommendations, 43 were fully implemented and 89 were
partially implemented by the end of the 117th Congress. These
recommendations included proposals to improve staff
recruitment, diversity, retention, compensation, and benefits;
professionalize internships and fellowships; improve
accessibility; encourage civility and bipartisanship;
strengthen Congressional oversight capacity; modernize district
office operations; improve Congressional continuity; modernize
the legislative process; and improve constituent engagement and
constituent services. Upon the disbanding of the SCMC at the
end of the 117th Congress, the SCMC recommended the House
provide a home for ongoing modernization work within the
Committee, and that the House should authorize a Modernization
Select Committee at least every fourth Congress.

MEMBER SERVICES AND EDUCATIONAL/OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

Through the Member Services Division (Division), the
Committee provided guidance and performed outreach to Member
and Committee offices to ensure compliance with Committee
regulations. In support of these efforts, the Division received
and responded to over 2,000 inquiries from congressional
offices, including receiving and formally responding to 80
waiver letter requests from Member and Committee offices. As
regulations changed through the 117th Congress, the Division
provided various briefings to ensure that all Member and
Committee offices had the adequate resources to maintain their
continuity of operations.
In addition, the Member Services team served as expert
panelists for various professional development conferences
hosted by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Assistant Speaker Katherine
Clark, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), and the
Congressional Research Service (CRS).
In further support of the efforts to ensure compliance with
committee regulations, the Member Services Division reviewed
and revised the Members' Congressional Handbook, the
Committees' Congressional Handbook, the Guide to Outfitting and
Maintaining an Office, and the Eligible Congressional Member
Organizations Handbook. Because these sets of regulations often
contained disclosure requirements, the Division routinely
provided meaningful outreach to Member offices, committees,
Eligible Congressional Member Organizations, and other House
offices to ensure offices understood and complied with existing
disclosure requirements.
At the beginning of the 117th Congress, the Committee
authorized a series of necessary measures to ensure the
essential functions of the House of Representatives. These
measures included authorizing the initial funding of the
Members' Representational Allowance (MRA) and committee funds,
establishing certain reimbursement rates, and setting various
House fees. In cooperation with the Office of the Speaker, the
Committee provided weekly administrative updates to Majority
Chiefs of Staff.

Residential Security Program and Security Related Expenses

In August 2022, in cooperation with the House Sergeant at
Arms (SAA), the Committee established the Residential Security
Program, under which the House paid for certain residential
security upgrades, maintenance and monthly monitoring fees.
Members were allotted up to $10,000 for security equipment and
associated installation costs for their personal residence(s).
Additionally, the House covered up to $150 per month in
monitoring fees for each Member. Through both electronic Dear
Colleagues and virtual forums, the Committee and SAA briefed
the House community and addressed frequently asked questions on
the details of the new program. In addition to the Residential
Security Program, House rules and Committee regulations allowed
the use of the MRA for certain security related expenses. As
part of the Committee's dedication to the safety of the
Congressional community, the Committee conducted briefings and
provided materials to congressional offices regarding
permissible use of the MRA for security related expenses.

Educational Expenses

In October 2022, under the authority of and pursuant to 2
U.S.C. Sec. 4313, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 5341(d), clause 1(k)(1) of rule
X, clause 1(k)(6) of rule X, and clause 1(k)(9) of rule X, the
Committee amended the Members' Congressional Handbook and
Committees' Congressional Handbook to allow reimbursement of
expenses related to professional development programs or
courses that directly related to the employees' official duties
and provided a direct benefit to the office, even if the
program provided a certification upon completion. This is an
important tool for Member offices and committees alike to
retain staff and provide staff with essential professional
development trainings to directly support their professional
growth and support Members' official and representational
duties and the work of committees.

New Member Orientation

The Committee is responsible for planning and executing the
New Member Orientation (NMO) program, a bipartisan
comprehensive orientation program for newly elected Members of
Congress, along with the related travel and logistics for
Members-elect and their designated aides and transition aides.
As part of the transition to the 118th Congress, the Committee
hosted 78 Members-elect for NMO. The in-person program was held
in Washington, D.C., from November 13, 2022, to November 19,
2022, and from November 28, 2022, to December 2, 2022. In
addition, Members-elect and aides participated in virtual
programming from November 21, 2022, to November 23, 2022.
For the 118th Congress NMO, the Committee leveraged the
newly established CAO Coach Program to facilitate the program.
Working closely with the Committee, CAO Coaches planned and
executed 43 live, bipartisan briefings and panels of Members,
senior staff and other institutional partners. Programming
included but was not limited to: Finding and Working with the
Right Chief of Staff; Member Security in the District; Member
Security in Washington, D.C.; Cybersecurity; Responsibilities;
MRA Budgeting Basics; ``If I Knew Then What I Know Now;''
Mandatory Ethics Training; Hiring a Diverse and Inclusive
Workforce; Office Design; and much more. Members-elect also
participated in the highly anticipated room selection lottery
and suite selection.
Moreover, the CAO Coaches, in consultation with the
Committee developed a 265-page briefing book with a panoply of
resources for incoming Members on topics ranging from starting
an office from scratch and finding a district office, to
constituent service and online presence.
After the first week, Members-elect were provided with an
anonymous survey to provide feedback on the NMO Program. The
feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Comments from incoming
Members included: ``It's fantastic--so much info. Really well
done,'' ``Y'all have been wonderful,'' and ``The first week or
orientation has been phenomenal.'' The survey also asked
incoming Members what they liked best and least from the first
week. These answers helped the Committee slightly adjust
programming for the second week to provide the incoming Members
the exact information they desired.
Many staff from the Committee, CAO, and other offices made
NMO such a success and the Committee is grateful for all of
their hard work. In particular, the Committee wishes to thank
Edward ``Eddie'' Flaherty, its longtime Chief Clerk, for his
leadership of the planning of NMO, which began early in 2022,
and was a significant factor in its success.

HOUSE PAID INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

The Committee continued its collaboration with the CAO to
expand the House Paid Internship Program established in the
116th Congress. In 2022, the Committee adopted Committee
Resolution 117-19, which permitted Committees to participate in
the House Paid Internship Program and increased Member
personnel office budgets to $35,000. In the first six months of
2022 alone, approximately 3,000 paid interns were appointed in
the House Paid Internship Program, with over 95 percent of
Member offices, 100 percent of Leadership offices and 74
percent of Committees participating. In cooperation with the
Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Office of Payroll and
Benefits, the Committee provided guidance and materials to both
Member and Committee offices through internal channels of
communications and virtual forums.

Hearings and Meetings

Hearings

Organizational Meeting for the 117th Congress

Full Committee

February 10, 2021

A Committee Resolution to establish procedures in contested election
cases properly filed under the Federal Contested Election Act,
and related matters.

Full Committee

February 19, 2021

Strengthening American Democracy

Full Committee

February 25, 2021

Witnesses:

Ricky Hatch, CPA, County Clerk/Auditor; Stacey Abrams,
Founder and Chair, Fair Fight Action; Guy-Uriel Charles, Edward
and Ellen Schwarzman Professor of Law, Duke University School
of Law; Hon. Shenna Bellows, Secretary of State, State of
Maine.

Contestee Mariannette Miller-Meeks's Motion to Dismiss Notice of
Contest Regarding the Election for Representative in the 117th
Congress from the Second Congressional District of Iowa, and
for other purposes.

Full Committee

March 10, 2021

Witnesses:

N/A

Committee Funding for the 117th Congress

Full Committee

March 12, 2021

Witnesses:

Hon. Madeleine Dean, Vice Chair, Committee on the
Judiciary; Hon. Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, Committee on the
Judiciary

Voting in America: Ensuring Free and Fair Access to the Ballot

Subcommittee on Elections

April 1, 2021

Witnesses:

Allison Riggs, Interim Executive Director/Chief Counsel,
Voting Rights, Southern Coalition for Social Justices; Sonja
Diaz, Founding Director, Latino Policy & Politics Initiative,
UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs; Marcia Johnson-Blanco,
Co-Director, Voting Rights Project, Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights UnderLaw; Debo Adegbile, Partner, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP; Hon. Kim Wyman, Secretary of State,
State of Washington.

Oversight of the United States Capitol Police and Preparations for and
Response to the Attack of January 6th

Full Committee

April 15, 2021

Witness:

Michael A. Bolton, Inspector General, United States Capitol
Police.

H. Res. 316, Providing for the expenses of certain committees of the
House of Representatives in the One Hundred Seventeenth
Congress, and Committee Resolution 117-13, a Resolution to
Approve Franked Mail Allowances for Committees for the 117th
Congress

Full Committee

April 15, 2021

Witnesses:

N/A

Disposition of Contested Elections, and for Other Purposes

Full Committee

April 28, 2021

Witnesses:

N/A

Voting in America: The Potential for Voter List Purges to Interfere
with Free and Fair Access to the Ballot

Subcommittee on Elections

May 6, 2021

Witnesses:

Hon. Joshua L. Kaul, Attorney General, State of Wisconsin;
Sophia Lin Lakin, Deputy Director, Voting Rights Project, ACLU;
Dr. Marc Meredith, Associate Professor, University of
Pennsylvania; Kaylan Phillips, Litigation Counsel, Public
Interest Legal Foundation.

Oversight of the January 6th Attack: Review of the Architect of the
Capitol's Emergency Preparedness

Full Committee

May 12, 2021

Witness:

Christopher P. Failla, Inspector General, Architect of the
Capitol.

Voting in America: The Potential for Voter ID Laws, Proof-of-
Citizenship Laws, and Lack of Multi-Lingual Support to
Interfere with Free and Fair Access to the Ballot

Subcommittee on Elections

May 24, 2021

Witnesses:

Dr. Lonna Rae Atkeson, Professor, University of New Mexico;
Matthew Lee Campbell, Staff Attorney, Native American Rights
Fund; Dr. Nazita Lajevardi, Professor, Michigan State
University; Andrea Senteno, Regional Counsel, Mexican American
Legal Defense Fund; Lori Roman, President, American
Constitutional Rights Union; Dr. Matt Barreto, Professor,
University of California, Los Angeles.

Voting in America: The Potential for Polling Place Quality and
Restrictions on Opportunities to Vote to Interfere with Free
and Fair Access to the Ballot

Subcommittee on Elections

June 11, 2021

Witnesses:

Dr. Stephen Pettigrew, Director of Data and Science,
University of Pennsylvania; Jesselyn McCurdy, Interim Executive
VP for Government Affairs, Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights; Kevin Morris, Quantitative Researcher, Democracy,
Brennan Center for Justice; Mimi Marziani, President, Texas
Civil Rights Project; Donald Palmer, Chair, U.S. Election
Assistance Commission; Dr. Michael C Herron, Professor,
Dartmouth University; Gilda Daniels, Director of Litigation,
Advancement Project; Danielle Lang, Director, Voting Rights;
Campaign Legal Center; Isabel Longoria, Elections
Administrator; Harris County, Texas; Ashlee Titus, Board Member
and Corporate Secretary, Lawyers Democracy Fund.

Oversight of the January 6th Attack: United States Capitol Police
Containment Emergency Response Team and First Responders Unit

Full Committee

June 15, 2021

Witnesses:

Michael A. Bolton, Inspector General, United States Capitol
Police; Gretta L. Goodwin, Director, Justice and Law
Enforcement Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Voting in America: A National Perspective on the Right to Vote, Methods
of Election, Jurisdictional Boundaries, and Redistricting

Subcommittee on Elections

June 24, 2021

Witnesses:

Jerry Vattamala, Director, Democracy Program, Asian
American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Patty Ferguson-
Bohnee, Director, Indian Legal Clinic, Sandra Day O' Connor
College of Law; Eric H. Holder, Chairman, National Democratic
Redistricting Committee; Thor Hearne, Founding Partner, True
North Law Group; Thomas Saenz, President & General Counsel,
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Janai
Nelson, Associate Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense Fund;
Michael Waldman, President, Brennan Center for Justice, NYU
School of Law; Wade Henderson, Interim President & CEO,
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Sara
Frankenstein, Partner, Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson & Ashmore.

The Elections Clause: Constitutional Interpretation and Congressional
Exercise

Full Committee

July 12, 2021

Witnesses:

Jack Rakove, Coe Professor of History and American Studies,
Stanford University; Franita Tolson, Professor of Law and Vice
Dean for Faculty and Academic Affairs, University of Southern
California Gould School of Law; Daniel P. Tokaji, Fred W. & Vi
Miller Dean and Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin
School of Law; Hon. Michael G. Adams, Secretary of State,
Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Election Subversion: A Growing Threat to Electoral Integrity

Full Committee

July 28, 2021

Witnesses:

Hon. John P. Sarbanes, Member of Congress; Hon. Nikema
Williams, Member of Congress; Hon. Burgess Owens, Member of
Congress; Gowri Ramachandran, Senior Counsel, Brennan Center
for Justice; Adrian Fontes, former County Recorder, Maricopa
County, Arizona; Janice Winfrey, City Clerk, City of Detroit;
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Chairman, Election Transparency
Initiative.

Oversight of the Renovations to the Cannon House Office Building:
Lessons Learned

Full Committee

August 5, 2021

Witnesses:

J. Brett Blanton, Architect of the Capitol; Christopher P.
Failla, Inspector General, Architect of the Capitol; Terrell G.
Dorn, Managing Director, Infrastructure Operations, Government
Accountability Office.

Oversight of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights: Lessons
Learned from the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995
Reform Act

Full Committee

November 9, 2021

Witnesses:

Barbara Camens, Member, Board of Directors, Office of
Congressional Workplace Rights; Teresa James, Deputy Executive
Director for the House, Office of Congressional Workplace
Rights; Barbara Childs Wallace, Chair, Board of Directors,
Office of Congressional Workplace Rights.

Oversight of the Smithsonian Institution: Protecting Smithsonian
Facilities and Collections Against Climate Change

Full Committee

December 16, 2021

Witnesses:

Nancy J. Bechtol, Facilities Director, The Smithsonian
Institution; Cathy Helm, Inspector General, The Smithsonian
Institution; Phetmano Phannavong, Senior Projects Manager,
Atkins North America.

Member Day

Subcommittee on Elections

December 17, 2021

Witnesses:

Hon. Larry Bucshon, Member of Congress; Hon. Earl L.
``Buddy'' Carter, Member of Congress; Hon. Mike Johnson, Member
of Congress; Hon. John Katko, Member of Congress; Hon. Mike
Levin, Member of Congress; Hon. Peter Meijer, Member of
Congress; Hon. John P. Sarbanes, Member of Congress; Hon. Pete
Stauber, Member of Congress; Hon. Van Taylor, Member of
Congress; Hon. Claudia Tenney, Member of Congress.

Big Data: Privacy Risks and Needed Reforms in the Public and Private
Sectors

Full Committee

February 16, 2022

Witnesses:

Hugh Halpern, Director, Government Publishing Office;
Daniel Castro, Vice President, Information Technology &
Innovation Foundation; Marshall Erwin, Chief Security Officer,
Mozilla Corporation; Caitriona Fitzgerald, Deputy Director,
Electronic Privacy Information Center; Shoshana Zuboff, Charles
Edward Wilson Professor Emerita, Harvard Business School.

Oversight of the January 6th Attack: Ongoing Review of the United
States Capitol Police Inspector General Flash Reports

Full Committee

February 17, 2022

Witnesses:

Michael A. Bolton, Inspector General, United States Capitol
Police; Daniel Schuman, Policy Director, Demand Progress
Education Fund.

Oversight of Section 220 of the Congressional Accountability Act:
Implementing the Rights of Congressional Staff to Collectively
Bargain

Full Committee

March 2, 2022

Witnesses:

Mark Strand, President, The Congressional Institute; John
D. Uelmen, General Counsel, Office of Congressional Workplace
Rights.

Voting in America: Ensuring Free and Fair Access to the Ballot in Texas

Subcommittee on Elections

March 17, 2022

Witnesses:

Gary Bledsoe, President, Texas NAACP State Conference; Andy
Brown, Travis County Judge, Travis County, Texas; Hani Mirza,
Legal Director, Voting Rights Program, Texas Civil Rights
Project; Nina Perales, Vice President of Litigation, Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Cindy Siegel,
Chair, Harris County Republican Party, Houston, Texas.

H. Res. ___, Adjusting the Amount provided for the expenses of certain
Committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred
Seventeenth Congress

Full Committee

April 7, 2022

Witnesses:

N/A

Examining Stock Trading Reforms for Congress

Full Committee

April 7, 2022

Witnesses:

Liz Hempowicz, Director of Public Policy, Project on
Government Oversight; Donna C. Nagy, C. Ben Dutton Professor of
Business Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law; Jennifer
J. Schulp, Director of Financial Regulation Studies, CATO
Institute; Donald Sherman, Senior Vice President and Chief
Counsel, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington;
Jacob Straus, Specialist on the Congress, Congressional
Research Service.

Voting in America: Access to the Ballot in New Mexico

Subcommittee on Elections--Field Hearing in Santa Fe, New Mexico

April 11, 2022

Witnesses:

Ahtza Dawn Chavez, Executive Director, NAVA Education
Project; Heather Ferguson, Executive Director, Common Cause New
Mexico; Hon. Maggie Toulouse Oliver, Secretary of State, State
of New Mexico; Andrea Serrano, Executive Director, OLE.

A Growing Threat: The Impact of Disinformation Targeted at Communities
of Color

Subcommittee on Elections

April 28, 2022

Witnesses:

Joi Chaney, Executive Director of the Washington Bureau and
Senior Vice President for Policy & Advocacy, National Urban
League; Emily Chi, Directorof Telecommunications, Technology,
and Media, Asian Americans Advancing Justice; Hon. Carlos
Curbelo, former Member of Congress; Stephanie Valencia, Co-
Founder and President, Equis; Dr. Samuel Woolley, Program
Director, Propaganda Research Lab, Center for Media and
Engagement, University of Texas, Austin.

Voting in America: Access to the Ballot in Florida

Subcommittee on Elections--Field Hearing in Tallahassee, Florida

May 25, 2022

Witnesses:

Chris Anderson, Supervisor of Elections, Seminole County,
Sanford, Florida; Brad Ashwell, Florida State Director, All
Voting Is Local; Matletha Bennette, Senior Staff Attorney,
Voting Rights Group, Southern Poverty Law Center; Brenda Holt,
Commissioner, Gadsden County Board of County Commissioners,
Gadsden County, Florida; Cecile Scoon, President, League of
Women Voters of Florida.

A Growing Threat: How Disinformation Damages American Democracy

Subcommittee on Elections

June 22, 2022

Witnesses:

Edgardo Cortes, Election Security Advisor, The Brennan
Center for Justice; Lisa Deeley, Chairwoman, Philadelphia City
Commissioners, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Yosef Getachew,
Media & Democracy Program Director, Common Cause; Gary
Lawkowski, Senior Fellow, Institute for Free Speech; Mike
Rothschild, Journalist.

A Growing Threat: Foreign and Domestic Sources of Disinformation

Subcommittee on Elections

July 27, 2022

Witnesses:

John D. Cohen, Adjunct Professor, Security Studies Program,
Georgetown University; Jiore Craig, Head of Digital Integrity,
Institute for Strategic Dialogue; Renee DiResta, Research
Manager, Stanford University Internet Observatory; Mark
Juergensmeyer, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Sociology
and Global Studies, Department of Global Studies, University of
California, Santa Barbara.

The Independent State Legislature Theory and its Potential to Disrupt
our Democracy

Full Committee

July 28, 2022

Witnesses:

Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of
Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law; Carolyn
Shapiro, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic
Administration and Strategic Initiatives, Chicago-Kent College
of Law; Eliza Sweren-Becker, Counsel, Democracy Program,
Brennan Center for Justice.

Committee Resolutions

The Committee passed 24 resolutions over the course of the
117th Congress. These resolutions are reprinted in Appendix I--
Committee Resolutions.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

MINORITY VIEWS

Throughout the 117th Congress, the Minority is thankful for
the partnership shown across the aisle regarding a number of
oversight and operational initiatives. The Minority is
similarly thankful for the comprehensive approach taken in this
Summaries of Activities report compiled by the Majority.
The inclusion of the Minority Oversight Priorities,
beginning on page 33 of this report, showcase the Minority's
top initiatives and priorities over the last two years.
Although progress has been made on the initiative of staff, the
Minority is disappointed by the lack of Member involvement in
holding the House Officers and directorates accountable.
In the 117th Congress, during which the House has withstood
a pandemic, the adoption of teleworking technologies, proxy
voting, the attack on January 6, and more, the Majority has
failed to host consistent oversight hearings to learn firsthand
about the health of our institutional partners. During this
Congress, the Majority did not call any House Officer before
the Committee to discuss strategic plans, budget authorization,
or organizational health and needs. The Clerk of the House and
the Chief Administrative Officer were neither called before the
Members of the Committee on House Administration in the last
two years--this is especially noteworthy given the large amount
of organizational growth within the CAO and the great
alterations in the Clerk's standard operating procedures during
and post-pandemic, all of which is summarized in this report.
The lack of involvement of the Members of the Committee in
overseeing the operations of the House runs counter to the
Committee's purpose. The Minority looks forward to re-
establishing regular committee business in the 118th Congress
by re-instituting a regular and comprehensive oversight hearing
schedule.

FEDERAL ELECTIONS

To the Minority's disappointment, the Majority continued in
the 117th Congress its recent tradition of hyper-partisan
efforts in the federal elections space.
Despite the Minority's stated goal of returning to
bipartisan oversight of the nation's federal elections, the
Majority refused to engage in any meaningful way, pushing
through their priority legislation, The For the People Act
(H.R. 1), the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act (H.R.
4), the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act (H.R. 5746), and the
Presidential Election Reform Act (H.R. 8873), without any real
efforts to negotiate and over the Minority's concerns with the
constitutionality and practicality of each of those bills, none
of which became law. Further, with respect to H.R. 8873, the
Majority engaged in a concerted effort to exclude the
Minority's involvement in ongoing, bipartisan, and bicameral
conversations concerning reform of the Electoral Count Act of
1887.
To achieve this, the Majority used a variety of methods
ranging from radio silence and refusal to engage to creating
the fiction that Members not even on the Committee could stand
in for the Committee Minority in bicameral conversations on
this topic to veiled threats made to any outside experts
interested in working with both sides of the Committee on such
an important issue. As it stands, H.R. 8873 passed the House on
a partisan basis and was immediately discounted by the Senate,
which had engaged in months of bipartisan conversations on
workable reform. During debate over this failed legislation,
Ranking Member Davis recounted the Majority's efforts to
exclude the Committee's Minority remarked that the Senate's
bipartisan Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition
Improvement Act of 2022 (S. 4573) would have been a good place
to begin conversations on the House side.
The Committee's Minority notes that, despite unprecedented
efforts by the Majority to disrupt the legislative process, the
text of the bipartisan S. 4573 will become law as part of the
FY2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2617).
In the 117th Congress, the Committee Minority formalized
its federal election oversight efforts under the banner of the
``Faith in Elections Project'', a unified approach to
strengthen our nation's decentralized elections system,
highlight its successes, and offer a constructive approach for
the resolution of weaknesses by state and local officials. This
project builds on Ranking Member Davis' work since 2019 and
provides a comprehensive effort to offer educational
opportunities with respect to how American elections are
administered, to engage with key stakeholders, and to put forth
thoughtful, conservative reforms for the improved
administration of federal elections, protection of free speech,
and protection of the right to vote for military members and
their families.
The Project trained hundreds of staff members on issues
relating to election administration, election policy, free
speech, and campaign finance through a series of webinars over
the summer of 2021, each taught by experts in the field.
Further to that point, Ranking Member Davis hosted a series of
Member Dinners for Members of the Republican Conference. Each
dinner featured one or more trusted election experts who
engaged in colloquy with Members on elections issues.
Since the beginning of concerted engagement efforts, the
Committee Minority has traveled to approximately 20 states and
territories to meet with state/territorial and local elections
officials, state/territorial legislators, and members of the
regulated communities to learn about and highlight the
successes of election administration in those jurisdictions and
learn about policy areas where the federal government has
overstepped its authority or where the federal government's
involvement is otherwise detrimental and areas of federal
authority where Congress can make helpful improvements.
Ranking Member Davis also hosted a podcast series, the
Faith in Elections Podcast, where he discussed key elections
issues with experts in the field. Podcast topics and guests
included
(1) How the Federal Election Commission Works and Its Role
and Impact on Free Speech with Allen Dickerson, Chair of the
FEC, Lee Goodman, former FEC Chair, and Prof. Bradley A Smith,
former FEC Chair and current Chair of the Institute for Free
Speech.
(2) The Fundamentals of Campaign Finance with Joy Lee,
General Counsel for the Republican State Leadership Committee,
Caroline Hunter, former FEC Chair, and Chris Winkelman,
election law partner at Holtzman Vogel and former NRCC General
Counsel.
(3) Understanding the Different Types of Equipment Used to
Facilitate Elections and the Security Measures to Protect Them
with Chris Anderson, Supervisor of Elections for Seminole
County, Florida, Aaron Ockerman, Executive Director for the
Ohio Association of Election Officials, and Christy McCormick,
an EAC Commissioner.
(4) Behind the Scenes of How an Election is Run from Start
to Finish with now-Representative-elect Nick LaLota, former
Republican Commissioner for the Suffolk County, N.Y., Elections
Commission, and Terry Burton, Director of the Wood County,
Ohio, Board of Elections.
As both history and recent events have shown, in the
limited situations when it is prudent for federal election
legislation is even to become law, it must be bipartisan. In
contrast to the hyper-partisan legislation brought forth by the
Majority this Congress, none of which was ever considered in
Committee, Minority Committee Members have spent the 117th
Congress engaging with elections officials of both parties and
stakeholders across the spectrum through the Faith in Elections
Program to develop--publicly and over the course of years--a
proposal for federal election, The American Confidence in
Elections (ACE) Act. The ACE Act, which will be the key
Republican election integrity bill in the 118th Congress, also
makes the biggest legislative effort in a generation to protect
political speech and addresses continued disappointing
challenges faced by military and overseas voters and their
families.
The ACE Act focuses on three main pillars,
(5) Providing States with the tools necessary to implement
election integrity measures and removing federal impediments to
implementation;
(6) Exercising Congress' constitutional responsibility to
ensure effective governance in the nation's capital city by
implementing election integrity measures in Washington, D.C.--
all based on proven policy from the States; and
(7) Protecting free speech.
The bill emphasizes that the Constitution reserves to the
States the primary role in establishing federal election law
and administering federal elections, all eligible Americans who
want to vote must be given the opportunity to do so--and all
lawful votes must be counted, and political speech--regardless
of voice--is protected by the First Amendment.
State Tools to Improve Election Integrity and Voter Confidence
The ACE Act will
(1) Provide States with tools to protect election integrity
and will remove outdated federal policies that get in the way;
(2) Prohibit non-citizen voting in federal elections;
(3) Allow States to use REAL ID as proof of citizenship;
and
(4) Establish a ``federal forum'' at the EAC for state
elections officials to share best practices and learn from
other states.
Further, the ACE Act will be paired with model state
legislation and model state referenda (based on policies the
ACE Act implements in D.C.). for consideration by state
legislators.

D.C. as an Example

The ACE Act will
(1) Exercise Congress' constitutional responsibility
to ensure effective governance in the nation's capital
city by implementing proven election integrity and
voter confidence measures--the same that will be
included in model language given to states;
(2) Requires photo voter ID to vote in person or to
request an absentee ballot;
(3) Requires annual list maintenance;
(4) Prohibits same-day registration;
(5) Prohibits ballot harvest;
(6) Prohibits automatically mailed ballots; and
(7) Requires post-election audits.

Protecting Free Speech

The ACE Act
(1) Protects all voices--including conservative
voices--and Americans' First Amendment rights to speak
political views and support candidates, causes, and
organizations of their choice without fear of
retribution;
(2) Strengthens state party committees and non-profit
organizations;
(3) Curbs the use of private funds for public
election administration, including so-called
Zuckerbucks; and
(4) Forbids the establishment of any ``Misinformation
Czar''.
Additionally, Subcommittee on Elections Ranking Member
Bryan Steil introduced the Confirmation of Congressional
Observer Access Act (H.R. 8517), a Committee Minority bill
designed to resolve bipartisan issues with congressional
observer access and developed in conversation with the
Majority. In fact, the two sides of the Committee had an
agreement in principle to move the bill on suspension. However,
when push came to shove, the Minority resorted to its old PERA-
style tricks and refused to speak to the Minority about the
bill, apparently inventing nominal and previously unstated
concerns about the text when pressed on the issue during debate
on the House Floor. Again, had the Majority simply engaged in
the standard legislative process, the Minority is sure both
sides could have kept their agreement in principle and solved
this serious issue.
Further, the Committee Minority published two reports this
Congress:
(1) The Elections Clause: States' Primary Constitutional
Authority Over Elections, August 12, 2021. Republicans believe
that every eligible voter who wants to vote must be able to do
so, and all lawful votes must be counted according to state
law. Through an examination of history, precedent, the Framers'
words, debates concerning ratification, opinions of the Supreme
Court, and the Constitution itself, this report explains the
constitutional division of power envisioned by the Framers
between the States and the federal government with respect to
federal election law, policy, and administration. Article 1,
Section 4 of the Constitution explains that States have the
primary authority over election administration--the ``times,
places, and manner of holding elections''. Conversely, the
Constitution grants Congress a purely secondary role to alter
or create election law only in extreme cases, such as invasion,
legislative neglect, or obstinate refusal to pass election law
or to election Members of Congress. As do other aspects of our
federal system, this division of sovereignty continues to serve
to protect one of Americans' most precious freedoms, the right
to vote.
(2) An Unprecedented and Unconstitutional Power Grab: How
Democrats are Abusing the Constitution to Nationalize
Elections, August 24, 2021 (joint staff report with the
Committee on the Judiciary Minority). This extensive joint
report examines the legal and constitutional issues with H.R.
4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, a partisan
bill not marked up in our Committee, which did not pass the
Senate. The Report disproves Democrats' false claims of
widespread voter suppression and details how the legislation in
question would take away the people's power to decide election
law, instead giving that authority to unelected bureaucrats at
the federal Department of Justice.
Finally, pursuant to constitutional authority (Art. 1, Sec.
5) delegated by the House to the Committee, the Minority
Members again operated a robust Election Observer Program,
which trained dozens of Republican congressional staff in
professional election observation and deployed such observers
to monitor close House races across the country or those
experiencing particularly difficult election administration
issues. With the stated goal of ensuring productive cooperation
with the state and local officials who administer federal
elections while also meeting the strict requirement that the
House serve as the final ``Judge of the elections, returns and
qualifications of its own Members'', the Minority Members
engaged in coast-to-coast outreach to ensure each State and
each territory with a federal election knew the program's
parameters and how it would operate. As always, the House uses
the independent record developed by its Official Election
Observers to prepare for possible seating challenges or
election contests in the following Congress.
The Committee sent the following correspondence with
respect to its oversight of federal elections:
1. Date: March 19, 2021. Subject: GOP Members Raise
Conflict Of Interest, Ethical Issues With Democrat Attorney
Marc Elias Working To Unseat Rep. Miller-Meeks. Addressee:
Chairperson Zoe Lofgren (D-CA, 19th District). Response: None.
2. Date: February 10, 2022. Subject: 2020 Puerto Rico
Primary not having enough ballots on Election Day. Addressee:
David Skeel Jr., Chairman of Financial Oversight and Management
Board for Puerto Rico. Response: Yes, April 29, 2022.
3. Date: March 11, 2022. Subject: Report that Harris
County, Texas located 10,000 ballots not counted during the
primary. Addressee: Isabel Longoria, Elections Administrator,
Harris County. Response: None.
4. Date: March 29, 2022. Subject: Nine House Republican
Committee Leaders Raise Concerns over Biden's Executive Order
on Promoting Access to Voting. Addressee(s): Susan Rice,
Director of Domestic Policy Council, Shalanda Young, Director
of the Office of Management and Budget. Response: Yes, on July
15, 2022 from OMB Director Young.
5. Date: April 1, 2022. Subject: Illinois Refusal to
Release Voter Registration List. Addressee: Ian K. Linnabary,
Chair of the Illinois State Board of Elections. Response: None.
6. Date: April 19, 2022. Subject: Request immediate
evacuation assistance from Pakistan for Mohammad Ali Setegh,
the former Chief Executive Officer of the Afghanistan Electoral
Complaints Commission. Addressee: Uzra Zeya, Under Secretary of
State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights
Department of State. Response: None.
7. Date: April 21, 2022. Subject: Concerns Stacey Abrams'
New Georgia Project conducted voter education in Georgia high
schools. Addressee: Brad Raffensperger, Secretary of State,
Georgia. Response: None.
8. Date: May 16, 2022. Subject: Report that 104 live
ballots were found unattended in a mail tray on a sidewalk in
East Hollywood. Addressee: Dean C. Logan, Registrar-Recorder/
County Clerk, Los Angeles County, California. Response: None.
9. Date: June 3, 2022. Subject: Report that early ballots
were illegally tabulated in primary elections. Addressee: Mike
Kaplan, Chair, Macon-Bibb County Board of Elections, Georgia.
Response: None.
10. Date: June 3, 2022. Subject: Report that early ballots
were illegally tabulated and request information on the
security of the early-tabulated results. Addressee: Janine
Eveler, Director of Elections & Registration, Cobb County,
Georgia. Response: None.
11. Date: June 3, 2022. Subject: Last minute software
update caused polling locations to be open at less than full
capacity. Addressee: Cathy Woolward, Chair, Fulton County
Elections Board, Georgia. Response: None.
12. Date: June 3, 2022. Subject: Report that Rockingham
County's electronic pollbooks (EPBs) were inoperable for an
extended period of time during the recent primary election.
Addressee: Ophelia Wright, Chair, North Carolina. Response:
None.
13. Date: June 3, 2022. Subject: Report that some of Gates
County's voting equipment was inoperable for nearly 4 hours on
the day of the recent primary election. Addressee: Jimmy Eure,
Chair, Pennsylvania. Response: None.
14. Date: June 3, 2022. Subject: Report that Berks County's
electronic pollbooks (EPBs) were inoperable for an extended
period of time on election day, which resulted in extended
polling hours. Addressee(s): (1) Christian Y. Leinbach Chair,
Board of Commissioners Berks County, Penn. (2) Kevin S.
Barnhardt Vice-Chair, Board of Commissioners Berks County,
Penn. (3) Michael S. Rivera Commissioner, Board of
Commissioners Berks County, Penn. Response: None.
15. Date: June 8th, 2022. Subject: Report that up to 60,000
ballots in the recent primary election had blurry barcodes.
Addressee: Sherry Hall, Clackamas County Clerk, Oregon City,
Oregon. Response: No.
16. Date: June 15, 2022. Subject: Reports of voter fraud
and ballot stuffing in Philadelphia. Addressee(s): (1) Lisa M.
Deeley, Philadelphia City Commissioner, (2) Seth Bluestein,
Philadelphia City Commissioner, (3) Omar Sabir, Philadelphia
City Commissioner. Response: No.
17. Date: June 15, 2022. Subject: Errors in New Jersey
Voter Rolls. Addressee: Tahesha Way, Secretary of State of New
Jersey, New Jersey Department of State. Response: No.
18. Date: June 15, 2022. Subject: Concerns over legal and
constitutional authority over Biden Executive Order Promoting
Access to Voting. Addressee: Several Executive Branch
Department Heads. Response: The EEOC responded on July 11,
2022. The National Labor Relations Board responded to this
letter on July 18th, 2022. The Department of Education
responded to this letter on August 15, 2022. The Department of
Agriculture responded to this letter on September 15, 2022.
19. Date: July 11, 2022. Subject: Hand recount leads to
different results from initial machine tabulation. Addressee:
Dele Lowman Smith, Chair, Board of Registration & Elections
Dekalb County, Georgia. Response: No.
20. Date: July 15, 2022. Subject: No logic or accuracy
tests performed on voting machines in Nevada before primary
day. Addressee: Joe Gloria, County Clerk, Clark County.
Response: None.
21. Date: July 15, 2022. Subject: Printer malfunctions at
voting locations in Nevada on primary day. Addressee: Joe
Gloria, County Clerk, Clark County. Response: None.
22. Date: July 15, 2022. Subject: 16,000 ballots with a
coding error caused significant delay in elections results and
required volunteers to re-mark and count the ballots.
Addressee: Christa L. Miller, Chief Registrar/Chief Clerk of
Elections Board of Elections, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Response: None.
23. Date: July 15, 2022. Subject: Incorrect ballots
delivered to several precincts. Addressee: Sandra Merlino,
County Clerk, Nye County, Tonopah, Nevada. Response: None.
24. Date: August 24, 2022. Subject: Recent report that an
estimated 63,000 erroneous ballots were sent out to voters for
the primary election. Addressee: Virginia Ross, Director, Pinal
County Elections Department, Coolidge, Arizona. Response: None.
25. Date: September 1, 2022. Subject: Congratulatory letter
to Paul Pete for his appointment to serve as Co-chair of the
National Association of Secretaries of State's Elections
Committee. Addressee: Paul Pate, Secretary of State, Des
Moines, IA. Response: None.
26. Date: September 1, 2022. Subject: Response to Clark
County over significant technical issues with ballot printers
during the 2022 primary election. Addressee: Joseph Gloria,
County Clerk, Clark County, North Las Vegas, NV. Response:
None.
27. Date: September 30, 2022. Subject: Concerns over pre-
filled absentee ballot applications distributed by a private
group for the general election. Addressee(s): (1) Peter S.
Kosinski, Co-Chair, New York State Board of Elections. (2)
Douglas A. Kellner, Co-Chair, New York State Board of
Elections. Response: None.
28. Date: October 10, 2022. Subject: Concerns about a
privately-funded, government-sponsored get out the vote effort
endorsing the Mayor of Milwaukee in his reelection campaign.
Addressee: Cavalier Johnson, Mayor, City of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. Response: None.
29. Date: October 20, 2022. Subject: Letter to D.C. Mayor
urging her to abandon the bills: the Local Resident Voting
Rights Amendment Act and the Elections Modernization Amendment
Act. Addressee: Muriel Bowser, Mayor of the District of
Columbia. Response: None.
30. Date: October 26, 2022. Subject: Status of any funding
requests being developed by the State Elections Commission in
preparation for the upcoming federal general election in 2024.
Addressee: Francisco J. Rosado Colomer, Chairman, Puerto Rico
State Elections Commission. Response: None.
31. Date: November 1, 2022. Subject: Letter to President
Biden that he immediately cease spreading election
misinformation. Addressee: President Joe Biden. Response: None.
32. Date: November 4, 2022. Subject: Reports of voting
irregularities in the June 2022 primary in Champaign County,
IL. Addressee: Aaron Ammons Champaign County Clerk, Urbana, IL.
Response: None.
33. Date: November 4, 2022. Subject: Voters casting ballots
in the wrong congressional district. Addressee: Jeff Roberts,
Administrator, Davidson County Election Commission, Nashville,
Tennessee. Response: Yes, on November 10th.
34. Date: November 16, 2022. Subject: Inadequate ballot
paper on election day. Addressee: Denise Williams, Chair,
Luzerne County Board of Elections and Registration. Response:
None.

MEMBER SERVICES AND EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH OPPORTUNITIES MINORITY

The Member Services Minority department communicated
directly with Members of Congress, Chiefs of Staff, Staff
Directors, and Schedulers monthly, sometimes multiple times
each month, through a robust email newsletter program. This
newsletter provides House operations updates, rules and
regulations updates, use of MRA best practices, and a preview
of programming from House Administration Republicans.
The Member Services Minority department also processed
routine requests from personal and committee offices on a range
of requests that fall under House Administration oversight. Due
to lack of preparedness, a lack of oversight hearings, and a
lack of a transparent and efficient oversight operation by the
Majority, completing Member and staff requests was often a
delayed and/or inefficient process.
The Member Services Minority department worked with the
Majority and Senate counterparts to plan the annual Summer
Intern Lecture Series. In addition to the bipartisan, bicameral
lectures, House Administration Republicans also offered six
career track panels and six networking, House operations, and
resume workshop opportunities. The department co-sponsored the
first ever Oversight Educational Briefing Series (five total
briefings) with Republican Leader McCarthy's office on how to
conduct and communicate effect oversight. The department
cosponsored with Leader McCarthy's Office, the Republican
Conference, and the Minority Leader's Office the first ever
Level Up: House GOP Staff Development Course for future
aspiring Chiefs of Staff, Legislative Directors, Communications
Directors, and Schedulers. Level Up is an intensive training
session tailored to each of the above mentioned positions and
served as a conduit to train the next generation of senior
Republican Congressional staffers. There were over 100
graduates of the four Level Up tracks with over 25% within the
first 60-90 days being promoted to a new position upon
completion. By offering exemplary programming, House
Administration Republicans continued to carry out its mission
of making the House work for Members and staff thus empowering
them to better serve their constituents.

COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS COMMISSION MINORITY

Briefings:
Individual briefings: 131
GOP only & best practice briefings: 24
Bipartisan House-wide briefings: 13
Franking challenges:
The GOP Conference hosted (2) Franking Challenges in 2021
before primary blackout periods started. The goal was to
increase email subscribers and social media followers (since
they can message to subscribers/followers as much as they want
during the blackout) and by doing so, develop stronger
communication plans. All House GOP offices were invited to
compete against each other over the course of 4 weeks to claim
the title of ``Top Franker'' and boost the overall messaging of
the Republican Conference.
Freshman Franking Challenge numbers:
Kat Cammack won with 20,845 new
subscribers gained.
Participating freshman offices
collectively gained 58,271 new subscribers
during the challenge.
Conference Franking Challenge numbers:
GOP Members gained 175,392 new
subscribers during the challenge
Requests:
Total in 117th: 17,561
GOP: 10,428
DEM: 7,133
Rodney Davis,
Ranking Member.

[all]