Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
FIRE SAFETY IN THE HOUSE COMPLEX
Thursday, February 11, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, Hazardous Materials and Pipeline Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Franks [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. FRANKS. Good morning. The meeting will now come in order. I wish to welcome not only the members of the subcommittee but the public as well at today's hearing, because it concerns a topic that is not only of personal interest to us but to the millions of visitors who have a need or desire to visit the House complex. That issue is fire safety.
Candidly, I was stunned and surprised when I opened the newspaper while home over the Christmas holiday to find that our place of work flunks some important life safety tests. According to the House of Representatives Inspector General report issued December 18, 1998, the Capitol and the five House office buildings have flunked virtually every test of fire safety. According to the report, sprinklers are not hooked up to a water source, smoke detection systems are not wired to a necessary electrical source, there are unsprinklered areas, fire alarms are inaudible and fire escape routes are inadequate.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Today's hearing will provide the subcommittee an opportunity to discuss these findings with the report's author, the House Inspector General, and the person responsible for implementing fire safety in the Capitol, the Architect of the Capitol. We will also hear from the National Fire Protection Association about fire safety standards.
Whether it is a home, a business, a public facility, Americans deserve at a minimum adequate fire safety standards. I am eager to hear from our witnesses so we can have a better understanding today of the extent of fire safety efforts here in the House complex. The tenor of the report submitted by the IG concerns me, and I look forward to hearing his testimony as well as the architect's testimony in terms of their efforts to make the Capitol a safe place to work and to visit.
At this time I would recognize the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Wise of West Virginia.
Mr. WISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this very important hearing. This hearing is important not only to the men and women who work in these buildings, the Capitol and the House office buildings. This is important to the millions of Americans who will visit this Capitol and these House office buildings as tourists, as advocates for a number of causes, and as school children from West Virginia.
What we hear today I hope goes a long way towards making this a much safer place to visit. Last summer the aura of security here on Capitol Hill was shattered by the tragic deaths of two Capitol Hill police officers.
More recently, the Inspector General of the United States House of Representatives issued a report which also pierced the secure environment here on Capitol Hill. In his report the IG concluded that the fire systems within the House complex were deficient. Specifically, he concluded the following: One, fire protection systems were incomplete, inadequate or absent; two, fire protection systems contained sprinklers which the Consumer Product Safety Commission had identified as defective; three, there are inadequate building emergency escape routes and action plans.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Architect of the Capitol is responsible for the fire protection program for the Capitol and its grounds. As with many other governmental entities, the Office of the Architect has been challenged to do more with less. In addition, the Architect is further challenged by a very unique working situation here, and appreciates the fact that he cannot move Members out of their offices or move the public out of hearings to install sprinklers and other fire protection devices. However, I am anxious to hear from the Architect's Office, to hear how best to remedy this situation.
Let me add a personal note. There is some benefit to term limits not being in effect, because what that means is that some of us have been around long enough to remember the last time this came up in the 1980s. And I remember specifically the Speaker then was Jim Wright, because it was his personal office in the Longworth Building, where I then had my office, which suffered the most fire damage, and I still remember being evacuated from the Longworth Building and my staff being evacuated for many hours while that situation was dealt with. And what we learned to our horror at the time, and what was vowed would never happen again, was that we didn't comply in the Longworth Building or in the House with the D.C. Fire Code, that we had exempted ourselves from the D.C. Fire Code and the very protections that it sought to bring about.
I thought particularly with the passage by Congress of the Accountability Act and the one that brought Congress under many of the same provisions that govern the private sector, I had assumed and many others I believe had assumed—and also because of the representations made back in the 1980s that we had come into compliance with the D.C. Fire Code and that we had the basic protections that you find when you walk off Capitol Hill. You know, this thing isn't supposed to be cross one line and you are in an area of fire protection, and you walk across the street and you are not in the area of fire protection.
I don't think that the tourists that come into this building, I don't think that the advocates, I don't think the staff, I don't think the Members and the American people who walk through this complex every day have the slightest idea that they are not covered by the same basic protections that are afforded them anywhere else they go in this country, and I don't think that it is fair to expose them to that. I hope that by the fact that you called this hearing, Mr. Chairman, my hope is that this begins the process of making this as safe from fire as we can possibly do. It is time that the American people know when they visit the Capitol they are not stepping back 30 years in fire protection. Thank you very much.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRANKS. I am now pleased to recognize a Member with a distinctive interest and commitment to these Federal buildings and the public safety in these buildings.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I particularly want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Franks, and the ranking member, Mr. Wise, for cooperating on this hearing so soon after this report was issued. I think a larger question alluded to by Mr. Wise is raised by this report in the finding, and that is enforcement of the 1994 Congressional Accountability Act, and actually the House passed that act in 1993. In 1994, however, the Senate did not. Finally in 1994 both the House and the Senate passed the act.
If of course we were a Federal agency, where enforcement lies and how the act is to be carried out would be clear. We of course do have an agent that helps us certainly with filing complaints and the rest, but I am not at all clear what the status of the act is as I read what we have learned from this hearing.
I am particularly concerned that among the findings has been that the Architect of the Capitol has a haphazard approach to planning and implementing and installing and completing fire protection systems. That would appear to mean that when he gets around to it or when someone brings it to his attention, something is done, otherwise this matter is not systematically attended to.
I was concerned to learn that—I was particularly concerned to learn that the Architect has periodically requested that funds dedicated to enhancing fire protection be reprogrammed to other projects, because I can't imagine what project could be more important than making sure this place is safe from fire.
I have a bill that I introduced last session and intend to reintroduce this session that would establish a visitors center. We should be reminded that idea, which was originally brought up in the early 1990s, fell off the table until there was a tragedy in this complex.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I certainly hope that we do not intend to wait until the next fire to ensure that the Architect does what I regard as his most basic duty, to see that this place is safe from fire which could devastate not only human life but one of the city's most historic structures. So I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, without any hesitation, for calling this hearing so we can get to the bottom of this and be ensured that the necessary work proceeds forthwith, without further delay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
I would now like to ask our witnesses to begin their testimony, and I will start with the House Inspector General, Mr. Lainhart.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. LAINHART, IV, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ACCOMPANIED BY BOB FREY, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND RICHARD KLINKER, CONSULTING FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER, KLINKER AND ASSOCIATES; HERBERT M. FRANKLIN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL; AND ANTHONY R. O'NEILL, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION
Mr. LAINHART. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am very pleased to appear before you today in my capacity as the House's Inspector General to discuss the issue of fire protection systems within the House complex. With me today is my deputy, Bob Frey, and our consulting fire protection engineer, Richard Klinker of Klinker and Associates.
As you indicated, our December 18, 1998 report, ''Fire Protection Systems Do Not Adequately Protect the House,'' concluded that the fire protection systems within the House complex are deficient. Specifically, we reported that the House complex has incomplete, inadequate or absent fire protection systems and inadequate building escape routes and action plans.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
During our review we found deficiencies in water-based and chemical extinguishing systems; fire alarm and detection systems; fire extinguishers; and fire doors. These deficiencies included unsprinklered areas in all buildings; sprinkler systems, fire pumps, smoke detectors and fire extinguishers not being inspected, tested or maintained; sprinkler systems installed improperly or lacked water; inadequate sprinkler systems installed in three kitchen areas; fire alarms inaudible in certain sections of three buildings; incomplete smoke detector planning, installation and activation; improper fire doors and associated equipment installed; and fire protection systems that contained Omega sprinklers which the Consumer Product Safety Commission had identified as defective.
Compounding the risks associated with these deficiencies, we also found that the building emergency escape routes and evacuation plans were inadequate and could hinder evacuation in the event of a fire emergency. These inadequacies included limited exits and poor signage for building egress; hallways blocked with furniture, recycling bins and supplies; usable exits always locked or locked during specific periods of time; and the lack of adequate and comprehensive and coordinated evacuation plans.
These deficiencies existed because the AOC failed to provide and adequately maintain fire protection systems. The AOC took a haphazard approach to planning, implementing, installing and completing fire protection systems. The AOC ignored compelling industry information with regard to the Omega sprinklers, and fire safety emergency escape route strategies were improperly planned and implemented.
As a result, the safety of the Members, staff and visitors has been jeopardized and these historic buildings have been left vulnerable to a fire that could cause damage, destruction, severe injury or loss of life. Moreover, the House complex is not in compliance with OSHA and those NFPA standards which specifically address the safety and health of employees.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Therefore, we recommended that the Committee on House Administration provide increased oversight over the AOC by designating a House entity to closely monitor the AOC's development and implementation of a comprehensive fire protection program for the House complex. Additionally, we recommended that the designee monitor AOC actions to develop a comprehensive plan to correct the deficiencies we identified; connect building fire alarm systems to a central station service; develop and implement a comprehensive testing plan for each of the fire protection systems; review the recommendations made in our individual fire protection survey reports, and incorporate them into the comprehensive plan; and coordinate the recall and replacement of the Omega sprinklers.
We also recommended that the designee monitor AOC actions to replace revolving doors with ADA and OSHA compliant doors, and install emergency exit hardware on exits that are closed or locked for security reasons. We also recommended that they continually ensure that exit routes are clear of recycling bins and trash; review current signage and develop plans to improve the signing in each building; and determine building occupancy loads for use in evacuation planning. In addition, we recommended that the designee monitor actions to continuously ensure that exit routes are clear of furnishings, and ensure the development of individual office evacuation plans and a coordinated overall House complex evacuation plan.
As a result of our audit report, on December 18 the Chairman and Ranking Minority member of the Subcommittee on Legislative, Committee on Appropriations, requested that the AOC provide a full accounting of the AOC's use of funds appropriated for fire safety systems. The subcommittee stated that during the period 1986 to 1998 approximately $35 million had been appropriated to the AOC for projects specifically intended to equip the Capitol complex with up-to-date and effective fire safety systems and to correct the types of deficiencies that we identified in our report.
Also on December 23, the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration requested that the AOC develop a plan to address the deficiencies noted in our report. In addition, in this letter the Chairman indicated that the Office of Inspector General would monitor the AOC's progress in implementing the plan.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We are encouraged that the AOC agreed with the general findings in our report, and the emphasis placed on life safety in the AOC's Fiscal Year 2000 budget submission. We also look forward to working with the Architect, in our monitoring capacity, in implementing improvements in the House's fire protection program.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal statement. I would be happy to answer any questions that you or the members of the subcommittee might have.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Lainhart. I think we are going to proceed with testimony from the other two witnesses and then we will ask questions to whatever witness we choose.
Mr. Franklin is here representing the Architect of the Capitol. Welcome.
Mr. FRANKLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, the Architect is unable to be here because of a preexisting commitment. I am pleased to represent the Architect at this time. We greatly appreciate the committee's interest in fire protection systems for the Capitol complex. You have the Architect's written statement, and I would like to highlight a few points.
The buildings of the Capitol complex are not firetraps. The buildings, however, would benefit from improved fire protection systems to bring them up to the standards otherwise required for newly constructed buildings, a program that the agency has been implementing for some time. We are fully committed to making the Capitol complex a model of modernized fire protection and life safety systems above the standard applicable to our monumental historic buildings.
For instance, notwithstanding the fact that automatic sprinklers are not required in such old buildings, we have been pursuing a multiyear program to install them in accordance with the most current NFPA and BOCA new construction standards. The architectural design, decorative arts and historical significance of the Capitol and its related buildings, together with a need to avoid disrupting the ongoing functions of the Congress, require that such work be done in a carefully designed, scheduled and controlled manner.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Although we take strong issue with some aspects of the Inspector General's report, we welcome the elevation of attention to these issues which has resulted. An agency with 2,000 employees responsible for 13 million square feet of space and with our important mission can always benefit from professional, responsible and balanced comments of third party inspectors or regulators.
The Architect's personal and professional commitment to making life safety the major ingredient of the core mission of the agency has been demonstrated by action. No more dramatic example of this commitment need be cited than his decision to inform the Congress within a few months of his taking office in 1997 of his intention to close the U.S. Botanic Garden Conservatory as unsafe not only for public visitation but for our own employees, an action unprecedented in the 206-year history of this agency.
Our fire protection plan has three basic components: First, restructuring and augmenting a newly centralized life safety division, independent of underlying functions, to assure more focused direction over all AOC life safety plans and projects; second, installing upgraded fire protection systems in all of the buildings that will facilitate appropriate enhancements in the future as they become technologically possible; third, enhancing training of our personnel to ensure the necessary inspection, testing and maintenance of installed systems.
Starting in March 1997, the agency began to procure the services of three outside firms with professional expertise to address certain fire protection program requirements. This included a study of exit doors throughout the Capitol to assure proper egress in an emergency, and installation of integrated security devices as required by the U.S. Capitol Police, with whom we have a close working relationship.
At the present time 40 doors in the House, Senate and Capitol have been reconfigured to meet life safety requirements, 18 additional doors are under construction, and 23 more are being designed with construction to begin in a phased manner as soon as fiscal year 2000 funds become available. I should add these are not simple construction projects. Doors under design include the replacement of revolving and monumental doors throughout the Capitol complex.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In October 1997 a contract was initiated to procure professional services, material and equipment necessary to provide sprinkler protection and other services within the 2 million square foot Rayburn Building in which we are now sitting, and we are currently reviewing design drawings for this project.
In September 1998 another firm was contracted to respond to a variety of task orders: fire protection system designs in areas still not presently designed or requiring modification; emergency egress implementation, including signage and lighting; ADA compliance and fire alarm system equipment development; and further development of emergency preparedness plans for each building based on initial work coordinated with the U.S. Capitol Police.
All in all, we have 26 professional technicians and engineers among our consultant teams working on all of these programs. The AOC has also entered into a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide architectural, engineering and construction support services as required to commission and test fire protection systems in the field.
Now without going into great detail on specific projects, it is important to stress that our ability to carry them out on an accelerated basis will require support from the House leadership. We may need to temporarily vacate certain offices from time to time to permit necessary construction work that would otherwise await recess periods or premium nighttime work. This requires swing space in which people can be relocated. We will also need funds to pay contractors to augment in-house personnel to install, commission and maintain systems in an acceptable manner while continuing to meet day-to-day operational requirements.
In the past the installation of fire protection systems has usually been integrated into other more comprehensive building upgrades, such as telecommunications and electrical upgrades, so all of the work in a given space can be done in one scheduled project. This has kept disruption to Members and staff at a minimum. The work has also been done with in-house forces at night or during recess periods, depending on the requirements of office occupants.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
With the changes I have mentioned, and assuming that we can get the support and cooperation necessary to accelerate our program, we project the following time lines in the House office buildings. Enhancements to standardized fire alarms will be activated by the end of fiscal year 1999. Smoke detectors and sprinklers, as well as ADA-compliant alarms, will be activated by the end of fiscal year 2001.
A further reflection of the Architect's priorities on fire protection issues is the establishment in the first capital budget prepared under his direction of a life safety category for project funding requests. Life safety project requests are at the head of each list of appropriations requested.
The Architect's statement for the record also lists the extent to which appropriations in the past have been applied to various fire protection projects. Details of our budget priorities have also been set out in the statement submitted for the record. It is our hope that the increased attention recently paid to this issue will galvanize all offices in the House to help implement plans to make this complex a model life safety environment for all who work in and visit the buildings entrusted to our care.
I am accompanied today by members of our senior management to assist as necessary in answering any questions of the committee on this important and complex subject. They include Michael Turnbull, assistant Architect of the Capitol; Lynne Theiss, executive officer; Stewart Pregnall, budget officer; Robert Miley, superintendent of House office buildings; Amita Poole, superintendent of the Capitol; Charles Tyler, general counsel; Dan Hanlon, director of engineering; and Ken Lauziere, our fire protection engineer.
I am happy to answer questions.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. We will hear now from Anthony O'Neill of the National Fire Protection Association. Mr. O'Neill, thank you for coming.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. O'NEILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to represent the National Fire Protection Association.
As an overview of NFPA, I might mention that the activities of NFPA generally fall into two broad, interrelated areas, technical and educational. The basic technical activity involves development, publication and dissemination of timely consensus safety codes and standards intended to minimize the possibility and effects of fire in all aspects of contemporary living.
NFPA is proud of the role that our codes and standards are playing in the monumental task of upgrading fire and life safety readiness within the Capitol Hill complex. Mr. Lainhart referred to this key role of NFPA in his report of December 18, 1998, and I quote:
''NFPA is the sole national organization which develops and establishes standards for the fire protection community for the protection of individuals and property from the dangers of fire. Consequently, it is the only yardstick by which to measure the condition of fire protection within the House complex.''
It is important to emphasize that NFPA through its broad consensus process, establishes the yardsticks by which fire and life safety should be measured. But NFPA does not actually determine compliance with our codes and standards for any given building or complex. We leave this task to the individual who is responsible for public and employee safety as well as protection of assets. In the case of the Capitol protection of the cultural and historical aspects of this complex. For this complex that responsibility lies with the Architect of the Capitol and ultimately with the Congress itself.
Now, I would like to make some general observations concerning what I call the Herculean challenge before you and before the Architect of the Capitol.
First, establishing compliance with NFPA's life safety code and related standards as the criteria for the Capitol Hill complex is, in our opinion, the right way to go.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Second, upgrading fire safety in existing occupied historical buildings such as the Capitol complex is particularly challenging, expensive and time-consuming.
Third, it has only been since the late 1980s that major fire safety retrofit projects such as the installation of fire sprinkler systems have been funded. Fortunately, fire safety initiatives had already been started by the Architect of the Capitol, and recently funding has been forthcoming from the Congress. And I would add here that this is due, at least in major part, to the perseverance of individuals such as Congressman Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, founder of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus.
Fourth, and probably the most important observation, fire and life safety improvements on Capitol Hill must continue to be given top priority by both the Congress in terms of funding and by the Architect of the Capitol for planning and implementation.
The NFPA life safety code, unlike a building code, addresses fire and life safety in both new and existing buildings. The code is designed to reflect the different life safety challenges of various occupancies.
The life safety code strives for a reasonable level of fire and life safety, and is developed through a consensus process of all affected and interested parties. The life safety code therefore has received widespread acceptance at the Federal, State and local levels for both new and existing structures.
NFPA codes and standards are ideally suited for addressing fire and life safety hazards in the Capitol complex because here you have every type of occupancy imaginable, from dormitories to office buildings to miniature factories or workshops, hazardous materials storage facilities, garages, public assembly, and even an underground rail trolley system. In essence, the Capitol complex is a miniature city with all of the attendant hazards.
In addition the Capitol complex has a need for tight security that affects accessibility to and egress from these large buildings. Security interests dictate that the building perimeters have controlled access, but in a fire situation or other threat, those same access points must be available for emergency egress.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
At the heart of any fire life safety system for the built environment is a combination of early warning smoke alarms, fire alarm evacuation signals, plus a fire sprinkler system. As I understand it, fire sprinkler protection is the foundation for the Architect of the Capitol fire safety program, and this is the right way to go.
In summary, Congress is to be congratulated on taking the necessary steps to upgrade the Capitol Hill complex to the latest state-of-the-art of fire and life safety. It appears that the Architect of the Capitol is approaching this task with the right strategy. It is now a matter of priorities and funding.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you or the subcommittee might have.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. O'Neill. Let me get right into it. I have a ton of questions. I am only going to take five minutes per round because I want to have an opportunity to ask all of you a number of what I think are pertinent questions.
Mr. Lainhart, first of all, just some background information because candidly I think I was here when we created your office, but I think a lot of folks in this institution are not fully cognizant of what you do and what your role and responsibilities are. When was your office created?
Mr. LAINHART. Our office was created with the 102nd Congress by House Resolution 423, and I was appointed as the first Inspector General in November of 1993 in the 103rd Congress.
Mr. FRANKS. Does the Senate have a counterpart to your office?
Mr. LAINHART. No, it does not.
Mr. FRANKS. Are your reports, when you issue them from your office, are they made public as a matter of course?
Mr. LAINHART. Every report that we have issued has been made public. It is on our Internet web page, www.house.gov/IG. In addition, anybody who wants a copy, we will send them a hard-bound copy. The only exception is audits that get into certain aspects that could be compromised, such as security, as in this report where we just released the first finding. We did not release the findings that would identify the building that had the defective systems.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRANKS. I am going to ask you this, but I am also going to ask the Architect and Mr. O'Neill as well. My suspicion is that the buildings on the Senate side may well be challenged by the same kind of issues that you have identified on this side of the Capitol.
We are here today looking at this issue because this House set into motion and created an Office of Inspector General, let you have an opportunity to look at those issues which you felt were within your domain and required our attention. Your report is public and here we are dealing with it, and I think that is an important premise from which this hearing begins. How did this review get started?
Mr. LAINHART. This review was requested in the 1999 appropriations report. Both the Subcommittee on Legislative, Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on House Administration requested it in that report.
Mr. FRANKS. The tone of your report in some instances I found to be a little bit troubling. As you were conducting your interviews with the Architect of the Capitol and needed to secure information from that office, did you meet with any resistance during your inquiry?
Mr. LAINHART. No, we had very good cooperation. We did get some conflicting information which we included in the audit report, such as we were told that a sprinkler system worked and we went to test it late at night one time and there was no water in the system so we couldn't test it.
Mr. FRANKS. Briefly, what is the role of the Capitol Police in fire safety in the Capitol complex? Are they trained to perform necessary procedures during a fire emergency?
Mr. LAINHART. The Capitol Police really are not a fire brigade. Their purpose is to identify the problem if a fire alarm goes off. They have very limited training in how to actually address the fire itself. They may have training in the use of a fire extinguisher and that kind of thing, but there is not adequate training and equipment for them to use. But even more importantly, their role is really to protect and provide security for the buildings, not to provide fire protection, an adjunct to a fire brigade, if you will.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRANKS. You have been given the responsibility to monitor the implementation of the Architect's plan to upgrade fire safety. Do you have on staff the requisite expertise to conduct that monitoring? Do you need to go outside and hire consultants to perform that monitoring function?
Mr. LAINHART. On the original audit, we had our own staff plus a fire engineer consultant, Richard Klinker of Klinker and Associates. We have continued that contract to support our monitoring effort.
Mr. FRANKS. You commended the Architect for developing a plan to address these issues that were raised in your report. Are you confident that the Architect has the resources, both personnel and financial, to implement its plan?
Mr. LAINHART. I definitely believe that the plan is going to need some help to get the actions completed. I do agree with what Herb Franklin indicated, their use of consultants, and additional support in the way of funding to accomplish that.
Mr. FRANKS. The Architect stated in his testimony that the term ''firetrap'' describing the House complex was journalistic hyperbole. Do you agree?
Mr. LAINHART. I would have to agree with him. There are problems that we have identified across the board, but certainly we didn't use that term and wouldn't have used that term. There are deficiencies and they need to be addressed.
Mr. FRANKS. Ms. Norton raised the issue in her statement, but tell us briefly why the Architect has been unable to finish certain fire safety projects once they have been begun.
Mr. LAINHART. Well, it has been a matter of priorities, as Herb indicated. They have tried to group projects such as the telecommunications and electrical work; and as a result of that, it has extended the time period that will be required to put in the fire sprinkler system. I think the attention to the fire sprinkler, fire alarms, etcetera, because of life safety has to be a higher priority and has to take precedence, if you will, to get the fire protection work done and get the telecommunications and electrical work done later.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. Mr. Wise.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I would pass my time to Ms. Norton.
Ms. NORTON. First I would like to ask you, Mr. Franklin, is there any existing relationship with the D.C. Fire Department? Is there any plan as to how a fire would be managed that involves the D.C. Fire Department?
Mr. FRANKLIN. Most of the direct relationships with the D.C. Fire Department are occurring through the Capitol Police with Ken Lauziere. Our fire engineer has a long-standing working relationship with the DCFD. When fire drills are underway, the DCFD are informed and they come to the premises. And as far as I know, they have gone through the buildings so they are acquainted with where valves are and how to get in and out of the buildings.
Ms. NORTON. I would be concerned on whether there is any spelled out plan on paper, because this is a large city which has had a fire department of its own that has had troubles, and unless there is some agreed-upon plan in writing, I do not feel secure that you are depending on a fire department that is hooked sufficiently to your own operations. I would like to know, is there anything in writing? If I go to the D.C. Fire Department after this hearing and ask them about it, what kind of response will I get from them?
Mr. FRANKLIN. Perhaps Mr. Lauziere can expand on my answer.
Mr. LAUZIERE. The D.C. Fire Department does conduct preplanned tours of all of the complexes with the local responding engine companies and truck companies. And in fact the fire department does have written preplanned procedures for all of our structures, and we update those with them as buildings are brought on line with the fire protection systems and as buildings are changed relative to wall configuration, floors and things of that nature.
In fact, as recently as yesterday, I spoke with Engine Company 7's lieutenant dealing with the preplanned tours that we have conducted in the last few days. We do those pretty much every quarter. This is not just with the engine companies in the local area, but we make sure that we get all four of the shifts of personnel so they are familiar with not just the specifics of their own fire fighting arrangement, but in fact in special operations we bring them in before an incident or before some meeting. For inaugurations or State of the Union addresses, we bring the Fire Department in beforehand and pre-position and actually go through emergency procedures beforehand.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. NORTON. Thank you. I will be calling the Fire Chief so he understands what we expect of him.
I was very concerned about the role of the Capitol Police, a force that I feel very close to and that does an excellent job, and protects the complex by going out into the community in the areas close in, so crime does not get as close to this complex. Apparently, in your report, Mr. Lainhart, you indicated that there was overreliance on the Capitol Police. I know that within the last 3 months 16 Capitol Police officers were sent to the hospital, apparently from smoke inhalation, after fires occurring here and there in this complex.
Your report indicates that the Capitol Police do not consider themselves a fire brigade, you don't consider them a fire brigade, and yet the Architect was relying on their on-site presence in a way that would somehow help significantly to protect this complex.
My question is: They are here, and even if they are not a fire brigade, they ought to be able to protect themselves from smoke inhalation and they ought to—as long as it does not detract from their overall duties, they ought to be helpful in notifying about a fire and the rest. But training as a police officer is not training as a fire officer, so I would like to ask first, is there any training going on for police officers so they can in fact be helpful in case of fire in this complex?
Mr. LAINHART. The police officers do get a limited amount of training.
Ms. NORTON. What is that training?
Mr. LAINHART. They are trained to identify different types of fires so they can see if it is a major fire or a minor fire. They get training in the early warning devices within the complex that do exist and the use of fire extinguishers. But that is about it.
Their role, and we talked to about 15 high ranking police officials when we were doing this audit, is to identify the source of the problem and if necessary assist in the evacuation of the building. You indicated very appropriately the example that we used in our report, that there were 16 police taken away as a result of one fire in the O'Neill Building, which I think is indicative of the fact that they have had insufficient training and they don't have the proper equipment, as indicated in our report.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. NORTON. Is your testimony that the training is sufficient or is not sufficient?
Mr. LAINHART. It is insufficient. That is all of the training that they do get.
Ms. NORTON. Is there any plan to do training, Mr. Franklin?
Mr. FRANKLIN. The best person to put that question to would be the Chief of Police. Your question is an important one, and there is a certain misunderstanding as to what our response to this kind of issue has been.
We don't regard the police as a fire brigade. If there is a fire in a wastebasket, they are trained to put that out with a fire extinguisher. They are the first responders in the sense that they are able to determine where the fire is, how serious it is, and usually they are the ones to raise the first alarm if someone else hasn't done that.
We never said that they were a fire brigade. What we said was that they were first responders to do just as you have described, to help people evacuate properly, so that people get away from the direction of the fire.
We have had a very good relationship with the Capitol Police, mostly on the question of dealing with exit doors to make sure—you see, their interests are in security. They don't want people to be able to penetrate these buildings unless they are authorized, and we want to make sure that people can get out of the buildings.
So in the past we have discovered that certain doors were locked even though they would have been appropriate egress doors. We have now identified all of those doors. We are in the process of putting alarms on them so of course if somebody does go out, in 30 seconds an alarm will sound.
But they have worked with us very closely, and at a recent appropriations hearing the Chief was asked about a comment in the report that there had been a lack of coordination, and he said that came as a surprise to him because he said that he felt that we work very well together.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I pass on. I would ask, since the report says that there is insufficient training, I don't think that they need to be trained to be a fire brigade if you do not expect them to be a fire brigade.
I take it that the testimony is that they lack training in any case. If that is the case, I am only asking that a meeting be held with the Chief and your office so that we are satisfied that everyone understands the limits of their responsibilities as well as the benefits of their responsibilities, so there can be no misunderstanding as to how much training is required.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
Mr. Wise.
Mr. WISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a brief follow-up to the issue of the police. The fact that 16 police officers had to be hospitalized or go to the hospital for smoke inhalation speaks volumes about their bravery, but it also cries out for additional training.
And there is another function, and Mr. Franklin alluded to it. Yes, they might call in the alarm and handle a trash can fire, but depending on where this fire breaks out, by virtue of where they are, they are in charge of evacuation for all of the people like myself or tourists who don't have the foggiest notion where to go. They have to be there to help others who are less able to get out and who don't know where the exits are. My hope would be that whatever we need to do, whether it is the Congress appropriating money, whether it is the Capitol Police, but so that we are working to make sure that these officers get the training that they need.
Mr. Franklin, in the area of sprinklers my question is, could you talk about how the Architect's office has handled the Omega sprinkler issue? There has seemingly been pretty high visibility regarding the malfunctioning of the sprinkler system, whether they are state-of-the-art and whether they work at all. In the beginning, how was it that the Architect's office even purchased these?
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRANKLIN. Mr. Lauziere can correct me if I misstate this, but they were purchased under a normal procurement process. They were regarded as state-of-the-art and high-end sprinklers at the time.
Contrary to Mr. Lainhart's report, we never ignored this condition. We have 14,000 Omega sprinklers in the complex. We had begun the survey of where they are located. We have now been able to identify them and there are seven different heads, for example, with different designs. And we have filed with Central Sprinkler under the consent decree a request for replacement of all 14,000 sprinkler heads.
Mr. WISE. Can you give me a rough idea when that purchase process took place?
Mr.LAUZIERE. We actually started purchasing those about 1984 when they came onto the market, and they were actually purchased through a generic type of a purchase order and through the Federal supply schedule of the GSA.
Mr. WISE. So they were all in place or most in place—
Mr. LAUZIERE. They were purchased over many years.
Mr. WISE. —by the time that the revelations began coming out?
Mr. LAUZIERE. That is correct.
Mr. WISE. You said that you requested replacements from the vendor?
Mr. LAUZIERE. The manufacturer.
Mr. WISE. What has the response been?
Mr. FRANKLIN. There is a consent decree that is supposed to govern this process as a result of the lawsuit by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We have to file a claim to be a part of that, and we have no reason to believe that they will not replace those sprinkler heads.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. WISE. Mr. Franklin, as we are looking for all of the shortcomings and where it is that we need to make improvements, I would ask you what you need from the Congress in order to implement the changes that clearly have to be made.
Mr. FRANKLIN. Let me address that in this way, Mr. Wise. The charge that we have been proceeding in a haphazard way, which is a perception of what our past practice has been, which I mentioned in my statement, was to avoid disrupting Members and staff by coming into their space on one occasion to put in sprinklers and smoke detectors and then coming in a year later doing telecommunications upgrades and a year later doing electrical upgrades. We have tried to go in once and do all of these things on a comprehensive basis. These various upgrades in the past have been on sort of different funding cycles. And the result has been that some of the fire protection improvements have not gone in as quickly because they have awaited the design and the funding for all of these other things to go at the same time.
I think we can also ask for the leadership of the House to give us the opportunity, as GSA has, for example, to vacate spaces for a given period of time and have us go in there and do this work and get it done as quickly as possible and then go on to the next space. As you know, space is at a premium. There is no relocation space that people are going to be very anxious to move into, and so we have been working around that condition. Obviously the superintendent can speak in greater detail about this, but they negotiate with each Member and office when the work can be done in the way that is least disruptive, and that takes time.
Mr. WISE. So you are telling me that I am going back to the 7th floor of the Cannon Building for a period of time?
Mr. LAUZIERE. The Ford Building.
Mr. WISE. I will go only so far. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Franklin, thank you again for being here. Let me first take this opportunity to ask you whether you can represent to this subcommittee today, and in turn to the American public, that the Architect of the Capitol has developed a master plan to significantly upgrade fire safety in these facilities.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRANKLIN. I can so represent, Mr. Chairman. It has been a strong commitment, particularly of this incumbent Architect, to do just that. And he is holding everyone's feet to the fire, if I can use that metaphor, to get that plan fully developed. I have given you the outlines of it. A lot of it is going to have to await some funding for fiscal year 2000. But yes, we want to make this entire complex a model for fire protection in historic monumental buildings.
Mr. FRANKS. And the master plan through which that can be achieved has been designed?
Mr. FRANKLIN. It has been designed, but I would want to caution that there are still some details that need to be worked out. We know the direction in which we are going.
Mr. FRANKS. You said something in your verbal testimony that I don't think was in the version of your testimony that I read last night in preparation for the hearing, and it was good news and so I want to showcase it and have you explain it to me. I think I heard you say that we will sprinklerize those areas that currently are not by 2001?
Mr. FRANKLIN. That is correct. Now, that is dependent on getting the kind of cooperation that will enable us to get into these spaces and move aggressively; and that means that we will have to get the House leadership to agree that under certain circumstances where it is necessary for us to get into spaces, we will be able to relocate people and do that work. Now, there are going to be cases where that is impossible. The Capitol is a particularly difficult area for that.
Mr. FRANKS. Let me return to the Omega sprinkler issue for a second. They were bought in 1984?
Mr. FRANKLIN. They were begun to be bought in 1984.
Mr. LAUZIERE. The process was a continuum. We would actually buy heads as necessary for specific projects.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRANKS. You began buying them when?
Mr. LAUZIERE. In 1984.
Mr. FRANKS. And began installing them in 1984?
Mr. LAUZIERE. That is correct.
Mr. FRANKS. The Consumer Product Safety Commission brought a suit in what year?
Mr. LAUZIERE. 1998, this past year.
Mr. FRANKS. It raises a question to me, if we would have installed these back in 1984 and if we would have had a rigorous program of testing this fire safety equipment, wouldn't we have discovered on our own, in the absence of a lawsuit, over that 14-year period there might be a problem?
Mr. LAUZIERE. Not necessarily because the testing criteria for the specific sprinkler head is not the same as the testing for the sprinkler system. The sprinkler head testing is a requirement whereby the head is taken out from the project or from the building, sent to a laboratory and it is actually plunge tested into a heated bath assembly and pressure tested to see what pressure actually exists. That is not a normal test used in a building. It is for the heads, and that falls in after they have been in place for some number of years. It is 15 years for the quick response head and 25 years for a standard response head.
Mr. FRANKS. I don't want to do this, but help me, Mr. O'Neill.
Mr. O'NEILL. If I could help, sprinkler heads over history going back over a hundred years have had an extraordinary high reliability factor, and the sprinkler head itself is designed to fuse and to put water on the fire in its incipient stages.
You don't really know that a type of model sprinkler head will fail until you have actual failures of the heads not opening except for random testing, and that is what happened in the last six or seven years when the sprinkler heads, there were certain numbers of these heads that failed to open. When we talk about testing a sprinkler system, we are not talking about testing each sprinkler head in a normal fashion. You are talking about testing the water supply to those systems, making sure that the water supply is reliable.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Unfortunately, the Omega problem was not actually detected until we had a few failures and then of course CPSC jumped on it and now we are in a massive retrofit phase, and it is not just on the Capitol complex, it is throughout the industry.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. Mr. Franklin, your testimony indicates that in the past there may have been a lack of consistency and planning in carrying out fire safety projects. How do you explain that?
Mr. FRANKLIN. That goes back to my statement in regard to the way in which fire protection projects were awaiting a more comprehensive approach. The upgrades within the buildings, whether one should properly call it inconsistent, I don't know. It had an effect of delaying installation of fire protection until some of these other matters were undertaken. That is because fire protection hadn't been, I think, elevated in the planning process to the same degree that some of the other projects were.
Mr. FRANKS. On that note let me ask you about the life safety division in your office. How many employees are there?
Mr. FRANKLIN. There are seven, with more to come. As I mentioned, there are 26 professionals under contract working with them as well.
Mr. FRANKS. Ms. Norton?
Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would think that as a result of your report, that Members like me who have experienced some loss of confidence in the Architect therefore would look with some satisfaction on your recommendation that the House designate an entity to monitor the AOC's development and implementation of a plan, rather than just think it is going to happen.
Do you have any recommendations regarding what kind of entity, whether it is an existing entity or any other recommendation regarding the entity?
Mr. LAINHART. Well, the Committee on House Administration designated my office to be that entity.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. NORTON. I see.
Mr. LAINHART. I didn't expect that, no.
We will be continually monitoring on a monthly basis. If the Committee wants us to report back on a monthly basis using our consulting fire protection engineer and our staff, we could do that.
Mr. FRANKLIN. We welcome that, Ms. Norton. I should add that the Office of Compliance has been inspecting us for fire safety purposes, too, and I would hope that we could continue to work closely with Mr. Lainhart.
Ms. NORTON. I think everybody will feel better if everybody is in touch and they are reassuring the Congress on this issue.
In a recent issue of Roll Call there is a claim that comes again I think in part from your report that, and let me quote it, ''Two recent inspections reveal that congressional workers, especially those in the Architect of the Capitol's office, face serious fire and safety hazards. Architect Hantman claims to be working to correct the deficiencies, and there is some evidence that he is, but he refuses to meet with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the union representing the workers.''
Here are people who have to work in this situation. I have a question going back to concerns that I have had now for a couple of years. Our own Office of Compliance has identified worker safety issues that concerned—that I am sure would be a concern to Members as well, and they are related to these issues.
The workers have complained openly. They have had press conferences. They have tried to bring to the attention of all concerned that there has been a gradual reduction in the staff of custodians, and I got the figures and was absolutely astounded at what the figures showed, that the people who did the work here in the evenings, particularly in the evenings but also in the day, were quite overwhelmed with work.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
That is to say that the figures were kind of before-and-after figures showing how many people clean the offices, for example, only two years before and how many employees clean the offices now. No contract employees were doing this. The same work there and fewer and fewer employees. Sometimes, judging by the reduction in employees, there would have to be double or triple the amount of work. Apparently this has produced inefficiencies in the Office of the Architect because people are calling in sick, the kind of lowering of morale that occurs when you are doing nasty, dirty work and then there are fewer and fewer of you doing this nasty, dirty work, and yet you are expected to produce the same product doing this nasty, dirty work.
I am going to ask you again, what is being done about the reduction in the custodial staff? And do you have any reason to believe that so huge a reduction could result in a product of the same quality? That is addressed to Mr. Franklin.
Mr. FRANKLIN. Let me address the question of quality, Ms. Norton. We have not been receiving complaints about the quality of custodial work from Members and staff.
Ms. NORTON. No, because the workers have been doing the work.
Mr. FRANKLIN. All I can say is that the quality has not suffered. Now, the question of what area that these workers do in relationship to their public sector counterparts and private sector counterparts is under study. At the present time we do not have reason to believe that they are being asked to do more than their private sector and public sector counterparts.
Ms. NORTON. Why have you not met with the union on this matter? What possible excuse could there be for not meeting with the people who represent these workers so they could be understanding about this so-called study?
Mr. FRANKLIN. There have been many meetings with the union. Mr. Hantman has met several times with the union leadership, as recently as last Monday.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. NORTON. Have you met with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees?
Mr. FRANKLIN. Yes. As recently as last Monday there was a meeting held in order to celebrate the signing of an agreement on the Architect's mobility program and on official time. We have been able to negotiate a number of agreements with the union.
In fact, we have negotiated uniforms for Senate office buildings and Capitol building employees. We have negotiated an agreement on time clocks for Capitol building employees. We have negotiated official time on a number of designated union officials. We have negotiated an agreement on dues deduction, on the Architect's mobility program, and on ground rules for master contract negotiations.
Now, with respect to the health and safety issues, the union had proposed several weeks ago that there be created a joint AOC-union committee on health, safety and environmental issues. Our response to that was positive. In fact, it was so positive that we suggested that we negotiate that provision in advance of the master contract.
When the report came out from Mr. Lainhart and a press release was issued lambasting the office, the union at that time withdrew its position that it was willing to negotiate this joint health and safety committee in advance of the master contract and said no, they would rather wait until the master contract was negotiated. We are still ready, willing and able to negotiate with them on a joint union-AOC committee on health and safety issues even before the master contract is done. For reasons of their own they decided not to do that.
Mr. Hantman, when he took office here, unlike all of his predecessors over 200 years, he made an effort to meet with just about every individual working for this agency, including all of the night workers. On many occasions he has come to meet with night workers, not just bargaining unit members but with everybody even before there was a union. So the frequency with which he will meet with the union will probably be the subject of a collective bargaining agreement.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. NORTON. Let me ask you about the study. I would be the last person to say that we should have more employees per whatever here than they do in the private sector. You say there is a study. This complaint has been going on for two or three years. I would like to know when this study will be complete on how many workers it should take to clean up the offices in the Capitol and the Capitol complex.
Mr. FRANKLIN. Let me answer it in this fashion, Ms. Norton.
The House directed us, I believe in 1995, to privatize the custodial help in the Ford House office building. That has been privatized. We took all of the in-house staff that was working in Ford and reassigned them to the other buildings on the House side.
I do not regard that as a reduction in force, although basically additional employees were reassigned to these other buildings and—
Ms. NORTON. Are you denying that there are fewer people collecting trash and cleaning up buildings here in Rayburn and in Cannon than there were two years ago?
Mr. MILEY. No, there indeed have been fewer people cleaning those offices. However, again we are trying to increase workers' time through attrition for the simple reason that all of the studies that we have conducted so far have found that we are not comparable with other government agencies.
Ms. NORTON. Could you submit to this committee the study so we can lay this issue to rest? I certainly would not require that we have more employees here than they have anywhere else, but the effect on employees of having such a reduction, perhaps without knowing that they were, as you tell me now, that they were overstaffed, is to say to their morale that they are in fact doing more work than they should do.
The intelligent way to approach this is to say, ''Look, fellows and ladies, you were overstaffed. Here are the studies. This is what they do in a comparable office building downtown. We are going to work this out and be done with it.'' I would like to have the study submitted for the record to this committee, if you would.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRANKLIN. We will be glad to.
[The information follows]
[Insert here.]
Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Wise?
Mr. WISE. I would like to turn to personal offices and reveal my own ignorance, and I suspect that this is part of the problem. In the individual offices such as mine, is there a fire extinguisher?
Mr. FRANKLIN. I don't believe that there is, no.
Mr. WISE. Is that by design?
Ms. NORTON. They want to burn you up.
Mr. WISE. Does anyone want to comment on that further? I thought we had always gotten along—
Mr. LAUZIERE. It is by design, so that an employee or visitor who happens to discover a fire would then be forced to go to a safe area of egress to get a fire extinguisher and if they decide that the fire is too big, they are now in a path to get out of the building. So by making sure that extinguishers are in public accessible areas out in the corridors, they are available for everyone to use, and they are in a position where the employees are now out of an office area. They know that they got out of this area and they are forced to get into a safe area.
Mr. WISE. So there are extinguishers in the hallways?
Mr.LAUZIERE. Yes. And they were originally placed during construction of the building and have been upgraded to the standard for fire extinguisher placement.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. WISE. Have the committee staff or support personnel, wherever they work, have they been educated as to this?
Mr. LAUZIERE. From a fire protection engineer side of it, I am not aware that they have, other than efforts done by the Congressional Fire Caucus to have an annual fire extinguisher familiarization training program.
Mr. WISE. Let me make a suggestion to all of us, and I guess I am asking who it is that implements this. We had a toaster with a bad piece of toast and bad wiring or something catch fire a couple of weeks ago and there were about four of us that just stood around there looking dumbly at it, and I am looking for baking soda which is pretty hard to find in a House office building. Eventually our office director sitting—there she is—she goes past four people, again, and pulled the plug out and that took care of that immediate problem. The place was beginning to fill with smoke. For something that minor, I was about one minute away from saying that you have to clear it out. As people vacate the office, then this thing gets worst.
Perhaps all of us need some training and office-by-office orientation. I know that it is not easy because 435 House offices, skip the committee staffs for a second, each one is its own fiefdom, each one its own little principality, and so that makes it difficult. But I really do think that is something that would be crucial, an orientation as to what to do, and perhaps the Members need to take responsibility to make sure that our staffs participate in that. I would suggest that it be done in the office as opposed to having some sort of general session in Rayburn or Longworth or whatever.
It also seems to me, in the House office buildings at least, every office has its own personality. Some of them are older and some have different entrances and exits. I just think it should be done office-by-office. And also I suggest that if it has not been done for Members' offices, it has not been done for committee staff and also support personnel. I think we are all learning from this.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And Mr. Franklin, I am suggesting that while the meeting focuses on you and the Architect's office and the report that has been issued, the fact is that we all bear responsibility for it. Mr. O'Neill?
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Wise, if I might, first of all fire extinguisher training in my view is a necessity for all of the employees that work at the Capitol complex, and I would certainly urge you to do that. I would also pledge the support of the Congressional Fire Services Institute. Their director, Mr. Webb, is here to help facilitate that type of fire extinguisher training.
Having said that, the fire record has many instances when, and we collect quite a bit of data, in which well-meaning individuals have attempted to extinguish fires and then have been trapped, caught in trying to extinguish those fires where the fire has gotten beyond them. And that is why the practice of making sure that individuals are trained but also the fire extinguishers, as has been indicated, are outside of the area where the actual offices are located, so that individuals have the first opportunity to escape rather than trying to get themselves into a situation that gets beyond their control and they get trapped.
Mr. WISE. We couldn't even get a small box of Arm & Hammer?
Mr. O'NEILL. No, and there have been a lot of Rube Goldberg inventions of that type, and that is a false sense of security in trying to extinguish a fire. Fires grow exponentially, very rapidly, and they can get well beyond the capability of an individual trying to extinguish the fire.
Mr. FRANKLIN. I have an answer that you may not want to hear, but it is a preventive answer. We wrote a year ago to the House Oversight Committee because of a fire in the O'Neill Building because a page had a defective fan, and we suggested that there should be established a regular and recurring inspection program for electric appliances, including personally owned units, to ensure that all safety features are intact, operational, and not compromised by poor housekeeping, age or damage. So that would have maybe caught your toaster before you had the problem. It seems to me really important that these small appliances, whether they are heaters or toasters, be looked at periodically to make sure that they are not going to cause a fire.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. WISE. I appreciate that, and I also want to express my appreciation for the Fire Services Institute and the caucus, and maybe this is the best way to set this up, through them. I would like to work with someone regarding getting our offices some kind of orientation or basic instruction.
Thank you.
Mr. FRANKS. Mr. O'Neill, thank you for joining us. A couple of questions. How is the NFPA life safety code different than building code, and why is it particularly well suited for a review of the Capitol complex?
Mr. O'NEILL. The life safety code, unlike a building code, covers and addresses both new and existing facilities, these being existing facilities. A building code typically operates in the mode of getting the building built, rendering a certificate of occupancy so that the building can then be occupied and used for its original purposes.
Beyond that the building code, unless there is a very serious change of occupancy or problem, the building official does not have any legal responsibility and typical jurisdiction to go back in and require that facility to be upgraded. The life safety code establishes a level of reasonable safety for existing buildings, and that is the basis upon which, as I understand it, the Architect of the Capitol is reallocating fire protection for the complex here on Capitol Hill.
Mr. FRANKS. Let me ask you, as the third party expert on this panel, generally speaking, how would you characterize the deficiencies that were underscored in the Inspector General's report? How serious are they?
Mr. O'NEILL. First of all I must preface everything that I say, that I have not personally inspected nor have any of our staff been involved in personally inspecting the facilities. Having said that—and I will also say that in my opinion the Architect of the Capitol's retrofit program is the right way to go, and I would just urge priorities, that it be given priorities both in funding and in planning so we can get the job done once and for all.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Having looked at the IG's report listing all of the alleged deficiencies, yes, I would say that there are problems that need to be addressed, and they need to be monitored so that we can reduce the number of those deficiencies down to an absolute minimum as we go forward. That will be a lot easier, in my view, once the complete retrofit program is completed and you have all of the facilities here up to the standards.
But I think, as has been indicated, you are in a catch-up football mode here. You are in a situation where for over a hundred years the facilities have existed the way that they have. You have all of the problems with existing occupancy, the ability to move people around, the ability to work around, architecturally design and enhance facilities. You have all those challenges that are before the Architect, and it is not unusual to see the types of deficiencies that have been listed in the IG's report but I would certainly agree with you that they need to be minimized.
Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Franklin, we have read in your testimony and from the Inspector General that monies that had been targeted toward the Rayburn sprinkler system were reprogrammed to the Longworth cafeteria. Can you assure us that we will see no new reprogramming of monies that had been targeted to fire safety being allocated to another function?
Mr. FRANKLIN. I think I can give you that assurance without question, but the example that you cite is a particularly illustrative and illuminating one. The 1998 reprogramming for the Longworth cafeteria was reprogramming for fire protection devices.
Mr. FRANKS. Exclusively?
Mr. FRANKLIN. I think almost—90 percent. Yes, 90 percent.
Mr. LAUZIERE. That was construction management and construction of the sprinkler and fire alarm protection and fire detection in the cafeteria.
Mr. FRANKLIN. The CAO wanted that job done as quickly as possible, and we said we would not do that job unless we reprogram money to put fire protection into that space.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRANKS. Is that system now operational?
Mr. FRANKLIN. Yes.
Mr. FRANKS. Okay. I don't know the terminology here, but what I am hearing is that the reprogram money directed at the Longworth cafeteria, 90 percent of it went to upgrade—
Mr. LAUZIERE. Went for fire protection purposes.
Mr. FRANKLIN. We pointed that out, by the way, to the Inspector General in the draft.
Mr. FRANKS. Ms. Norton?
Ms. NORTON. Thank you. Mr. Lainhart, you seem to want to comment on that matter yourself, the information the chairman just asked about.
Mr. LAINHART. The information provided to us does not correspond to the testimony that was just given. The documentation provided to us, is clearly laid out in our audit report.
Ms. NORTON. I want to follow-up on the chairman's question of reprogramming because I would like to know the nature of our authority to reprogram. I understand and am entirely sympathetic, given the flexibility needed to manage a large organization with some reprogramming authority, but do you have absolute authority to reprogram? Do you have to report to anyone before you reprogram? Do you have to submit anything in order to reprogram?
Mr. FRANKLIN. We do not have that authority, and perhaps Mr. Pregnall, our budget officer, can give you the specifics.
Mr. PREGNALL. To reprogram funds, we normally write the Committee on Appropriations. For joint activities such as in the Capitol building, we would seek approval from the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Ms. NORTON. Before reprogramming?
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PREGNALL. Absolutely.
Ms. NORTON. It would be interesting to see what the submission to the House was.
Mr. PREGNALL. We can provide the letters.
Ms. NORTON. Can you submit them when the reprogramming was done?
Mr. PREGNALL. Yes.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. O'Neill, I appreciate your testimony, and I want to reveal that I have a very soft spot for fire fighters because my grandfather entered the D.C. Fire Department in 1902, and it is one of the proudest parts of my own family. People don't understand that we have more deaths from fire fighting than we do for cops on the street.
Last year I sponsored a bill that would allow initially a police officer who had—who had died to have his pension tax-free, when I discovered that an officer who was on disability had that tax-free, and we were able to get that passed through the House. And then somebody pulled my coattails and said fire fighters ought to be added to that, and I was very pleased that they added fire fighters to it.
There is a part of your testimony that I would like to commend to Mr. Franklin. He said that he would be meeting with the police chief of the Capitol Police. It is on page 3, security versus fire safety, and I had expressed a concern about the security problems.
We may be sending conflicting signals, and I want to be sure that we don't do that. On page 3 it says, ''Security interests dictate that the building perimeters have controlled access, but in fire situations or other threats the same access points must be available for emergency egress.''
Particularly when you are dealing with thousands of people that are here, it seems to me that there needs to be very close coordination, very precise understanding of how these two missions meld, and so I would ask that given the security concerns that we now have on the Hill, that these two matters be side by side reviewed.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Franklin, I am a former Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and confess to absolute embarrassment when the House in which I serve, your office, was sued under the Equal Pay Act. I believe, without fear of contradiction, a prima facie case was made because the men were paid a dollar more than the women. That suit has got to be two years old now. Almost any private employer would be out of that suit one way or the other. I don't know in detail what has been found, but certainly a prima facie case was made out. I want to know where the Architect is on a suit that is embarrassing to this House.
When the President came here for his State of the Union message the other side didn't get up a lot, but it got right up with us when the President talked about equal pay, and I don't want to be sitting another year in this House with this suit outstanding. Either you ought to settle it or you ought to ask that it be heard quickly so that it can be over. I want to know in detail where you are on the equal pay suit filed by female custodians against the Architect of the Capitol.
Mr. FRANKLIN. Ms. Norton, I am happy to say that the suit is in mediation and there has been an exchange of proposals on both side.
I am a recovered lawyer. But I am still an officer of the court, and as you know, mediation proposals cannot be discussed outside the confines of the mediationst. I am not at liberty to tell you—
Ms. NORTON. When were the proposals submitted?
Mr. FRANKLIN. This has been ongoing for several months.
Ms. NORTON. When were the proposals from each side submitted?
Mr. FRANKLIN. I will have to get that information as to specific dates.
Ms. NORTON. I wish you would get that information to my office in particular. All I am asking, I recognize how difficult it is to settle a suit. I am very pleased to see that you have gotten something on paper. I would like to know when those were submitted, and I intend to follow this suit just to make sure that it continues.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. FRANKLIN. I share your impatience with the process, but it is a process that is in the mills of the court, and for some reason or other it has taken much longer than anyone had anticipated. I suspect that the plaintiffs, which are a large number of people, are a little unwieldy for purposes of getting mediation proposals agreed to, and sometimes it has been a little slow in coming back to us. But I assure you that this is under active mediation. I spoke with our counsel yesterday about this.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you.
I have a whole host of questions, and I know some Members would like to submit questions to the witnesses from today's hearing, so I would ask unanimous consent that Members be given five legislative days to submit testimony and to provide questions to the witnesses at today's hearing. We would appreciate your cooperation in address those as quickly as possible.
On that note I thank you very much for appearing. It has been very illuminating.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Insert here.]